18 FISHES OF THE CONNECTICUT LAKES. 



powder are not unknown to many northern Avaters to-daj^ where the 

 highly esteemed trout, laker, and whitefish abide. It is not a case of 

 sport Avith those who employ such means to take fish, but a matter of 

 food, and often, too, to those greatly in need of food. These are a 

 few of the factors operating toward the disappearance of native food 

 and game fishes. 



Sometimes the reason that introduced fish are never again observed 

 is that the waters are unsuited to them. The water may be too cold 

 or too warm; there may be too many enemies; they may have been 

 all devoured by predaceous fishes that have invaded the waters. In 

 fact it is no unknown occurrence in planting fry to turn them almost 

 into the mouths of chubs and cusk. This sometimes occurs from 

 carelessness, but more often from ignorance of the habits and needs 

 of the young fish. Another reason that introduced fish have not 

 been recorded from waters into which they have been planted is that 

 they often resemble native forms so closely that they have not been 

 recognized when caught, or perhaps they have never been caught^ 

 not having been fished for at the projjer season of the year and in the 

 right way. Still another reason is that in a large body of water a 

 few survivors of a comparatively few introduced young may escape 

 detection for a long time. All of these things may apply in greater 

 or less degree to the Connecticut Lakes. 



Inhabitants of the neighboring country have but a vague idea 

 regarding the nature or appearance of introduced fishes. They are 

 not familiar with the fact that the " Mackinaw trout '' is identical 

 with the '' laker '' or " lunge " native to the lakes ; of course the 

 " Mackinaw trout " is never caught, onh^ " lunge," unless it should be 

 in the manner instanced by a resident of this country who having 

 secured 3 fish strange to him thought he had the " Mackinaw trout " 

 because they w^ere different in appearance from anything he had ever 

 seen or read of. His description revealed that he had males of the 

 landlocked salmon. Another instance is of some " trout " caught by a 

 sportsman at Metallak Lodge in a neighboring brook. Persons who 

 had seen young landlocked salmon maintained that the fish were 

 such. They were in fact 3^oung '"• brown trout" (Salmo fario). It 

 is not to be wondered at, however, that they were mistaken for salmon, 

 for the resemblance is very close. 



It remains, then, to be said that in our opinion, if it is desired to 

 stock the Connecticut Lakes or any one of them with such species as 

 have been introduced, the result can not be accomplished by an occa- 

 sional plant of a few thousand fry or fingerlings. Many thousand 

 fry or young should be planted everj?^ year for several years. Again,^ 

 the fish should be placed in waters where they will be least likely to 

 be reached by those fishes that would surely devour them, i. e., chub, 

 eels, cusk, etc., and even their own kind if present are not averse to 



