THE GERMAN CARP IN THE UNITED STATES. 



By Leon J. Cole. 



INTRODUCTION. 



For a nunibei: of years there appears to have been in many sections 

 of this countr}^ an increasing popular prejudice against the German 

 carp. These iish were distributed ver}^ generally throughout the 

 United States something over twenty years ago, with the idea that 

 they would be extensively raised in ponds and so provide a supple- 

 mentary income from small inland waters which were unsuitable for 

 other fishes, or from land upon which artificial ponds could be jcon- 

 structed. It was inevitable that many of the fish should escape into 

 the natural waters of the country; and within a few 3^ears man}^ of 

 our rivers and lakes were teeming with carp, for which, at that time, 

 there was little or no market. ^Vith persons who had been able to 

 obtain in abundance many species of our finer native fishes, the coarser 

 flesh of the carp found little favor, and, under the circumstances, it 

 was perhaps but natural that prejudice should arise, especially because 

 the carp was supposed to be injuring the existing fisheries. In some 

 cases the adverse opinions were founded upon facts and a knowledge 

 of the habits of the fish; more often they were the repeated hearsay 

 bbrn of suppositions and complete ignorance of the subject or of 

 misinterpreted observations. The newspapers also took the matter 

 up, and the carp was decried on all sides without stint. 



In the summer of 1901, in order to obtain evidence upon the matter, 

 the writer was appointed by the United States Bureau of Fisheries 

 (then the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries) to make 

 an investigation of the habits of the carp and to gather an}^ available 

 information relative to its usefulness or obnoxiousness. The work 

 was done in connection with the general biological investigation of 

 the Great Lakes under the general direction of Prof. Jacob Reighard, 

 of the University of Michigan. Professor Reighard was not in active 

 charge of the work, however, in 1901, Prof. H. S. Jennings, then also 

 at the University of Michigan, acting as director during that season. 

 I take pleasure in thaidcing both Professor Reighard and Professor 

 Jennings for their interest in the investigation and for their readi- 

 ness at all times to do everything in their power to further the work. 



525 



