FISHES AND FlSlllNMi IN SUNAPEE LAKE. 35 



that the chmook does devour maii}^ white trout; especially, as has 

 been pointed out in another place, the disappearance of trout in some 

 waters and the disappearance of the bluebacks from Rangeley Lakes 

 can be laid at the door of (he landlocked salmon. 



In Sunapee Lake the ])rincipal food doubtless is the smelt, which 

 probably even in deep water swims in schools, and on tlvit account is 

 particularly liable to the attacks of cliinooks, wliich, from a foregoing 

 discussion of the chhiook's feetling habits in its original waters, 

 subsists mainly upon such fishes as swim hi schools. It is not 

 impossible, however, that the white trout ma}- also occur in schools. 

 If so, the trout is surely in danger, and even if the trout are only 

 mingling with and feedmg upon smelts they are liable to be snapped 

 up by chinooks also feeding upon smelts. "VMiile the unknown 

 factors entering mto the calculation are so many as to make the 

 figures of little or no value, the following computation will serve to 

 indicate the tremendous possibilities: 



Let each sahnon eat one trout each day for 180 days or practically 

 half a year. Then each salmon devours in that length of time 180 

 trout; 500 salmon would destro}' 90,000 trout in that length of time. 

 At this rate it would take only slightly over 2^ years to destroy a 

 number equal to the largest plant of white trout made by the Bureau 

 of Fisheries, less than 6 months to destroy a number equal to the 

 plant of 1911, and only a little less than 23 years to eat up a number 

 equal to all that have been planted hj the State and Federal fish 

 commissions in 15 years — something over 2,000,000. (Sec table.) 



The white trout among the Salmonidse is of unsurpassed beauty, 

 unexcelled delectabihty for the table, and a most satisfactory game 

 fish, occurring in but a ver}^ few known localities in the United 

 States, and diminishing or already extinct m some of them. Here 

 the stock could be maintained, as shown, by the successful fish- 

 cultural operations and a brief respite from salmon. It would be a 

 reproach to exterminate the fish. Will it pay to take the chances 

 and continue to introduce those voracious species, especially the 

 chuiook, wliich is otherwise such an uncertain quantity ? 



The discussion of the chinook in the foregoing ])ages relates to 

 conditions up to and including 1911. The large catches of tliis species 

 in 1912 and 1913 in no way detract from the arguments made in that 

 discussion. The majonty of those caught were evidently of compara- 

 tively recent j)lants. In a letter to the present writer, Mr. George II. 

 Graham stated that he had kept a fairly good record of the fish taken 

 in 1912 and considered 1,800 a conservative estimate, and that they 

 ran from 2^ to 6 pounds each. A few of 10 and 11 pounds were 

 also reported. In the same letter Mr. Graham ^v^ote that white 

 trout were caught "about as usual," plenty of tliom, bu^ not many 

 large ones. 



