THE GEEMAN CARP IN THE UNITED STATES. 585 



iially began to be inckided as becoming conimon. But in many local- 

 ities in recent years there has been an alarming decrease in the number 

 of waterfowl, game fishes, and in many cases commercial fishes as 

 well, and gradually the ))lame for much of this has been shifted upon 

 the carp, which in the meantime has become the most abundant fish in 

 some localities. Whether the blame was rightfully placed or not, 

 remains to be seen. The game and food fishes seemed to be decreas- 

 ing, the carp were undoubtedly increasing, and to many minds the 

 inference was plain. It is a curious fact that those who are most con- 

 cerned in the decrease of the fish and game are often the last to see 

 that thay themselves might in a measure be the cause. They are look- 

 ing elsewhere for the explanation, and when a possible factor presents 

 itself it is at once seized upon and made to bear the brunt of the whole 

 charge. This is the point that I wish to emphasize here — that most 

 of the statements that have been made as to the damage done by carp 

 have been based upon very insufficient evidence; if founded upon 

 direct observations at all, they were observations that, if not inaccu- 

 rate, were at least inadequate. At best the evidence has been circum- 

 stantial, while on the other hand the defense has been either simply 

 negative, or in places the attempt has been made to vindicate the carp 

 on the grounds of its usefulness. 



The denunciations of the carp have been so numerous, and in many 

 respects so similar, that only a few quotations need be given to show 

 their tenor. The specific charges based on direct evidence, so far as 

 I have been able to find them, will be dealt with in more detail. What 

 I shall attempt to do is to sift the evidence in as careful and impartial 

 a manner as possible, adding to it what 1 have myself been able to 

 learn in the prosecution of ray studies on the subject. The best 

 recommendation I can bring forward for myself as a juror in the case 

 is that I approached the subject with little knowledge of the particular 

 question, and, consequently, "unprejudiced and without previously 

 formed opinions.'' 



It should be borne in mind that direct observations bearing on the 

 various phases of the question as to the damage done by a fish like the 

 carp are very difficult to make, and are in most cases largely matters 

 of chance, while at the least they require a great amount of time. Take 

 for example the relation of the carp to the black bass. The question 

 is often asked, " Will a carp drive a black bass from its nest and 

 devour the spawn?" If a person by chance happens to see the thing- 

 done, and is certain that he has interpreted his observations aright, 

 there is the proof of the matter, and so it is settled. On the other 

 hand, one might watch a bass nest for a long period — say, many hours 

 each day — and never see a carp come near it, but one would still have 

 no proof that it might not do so— his evidence would be only negative. 

 To be sure, the longer the observation was continued the greater would 



