-should be drawn to these fish, it may probably be well to strike them out. 

 There are quite a number of varieties of pike, and the blue pike, I take it, is a 

 variety of the wall-eye. Probably the fifth fish in importance of the great lakes 

 ■are the wall-eyed pike, the order being whitefish, salmon trout, herring, sturgeon, 

 and wall-eyed pike. As a factor of cheap food for the people, I take it that it is 

 within the province of a body of this kind to enforce the preservation of maiket- 

 able fish, and in my opinion the wall-eyed pike is such a fish. If it is a good 

 argument that carnivoious fish should not be protected, that argument would 

 apply to the bluefish of the ocean, one of the finest table fishes there is. It would 

 seem that there is no just reason for striking out the blue pike for that reason 

 alone. 



Dr. Smith: Owing to the scarcity of whitefish and salmon trout, statistical 

 tables I have recently worked show that the wall-eyed pike and its variety the 

 blue pike, constitute more than one-third of all the commercial fish in Lake 

 Ontario, and more than two-fifths of the value of all the fish taken in that lake. 

 Until the whitefish and salmon trout increase in sufficient numbers, I think the 

 pike should be protected. 



Dr. MacCallum : If he is killed to the extent of one-third of the total catch, 

 I should think he gets his deserts. 



Secretary Stewart : Should any other fish be added to that ? 



Mr. Skinner: Regarding the remarks made on the wall-eyed pike, I would 

 point out that in Canada what we know as pickerel is known as pike. 



Secretary Stewart : This is a strong resolution, because it says " the taking 

 ■or having in their possession," so we would be able to reach the dealers. 



The Chairman : The only amendment is that of Mr. Stewart, in which, after 

 the word " States " he adds the words " and Provinces." The secretary will 

 underline that amendment, their being no objection to it. 



The resolution was adopted. 



Secretary Stewart : The second resolution was by Mr. Hoyt-Post, of the 

 Michigan Fish and Game Commission, and reads as follows : 



"Resolved, that it be recommended to the Congress of the United States, the 

 importance of authorizing and directing to be made, through the United States 

 Fish Commission, a full and careful biological survey of the great lakes, with a 

 view of determining the character and plentifulness of the food, and the habits 

 and migration of commercial fish." 



Mr. Whitaker: The United States Commission has been accustomed in 

 the past to cover nearly the same ground that is covered by our state Commis- 

 sion in regard to collecting statistics, and this work is fairly well done now. But 

 to make this a practical resolution I would suggest with reference to the w^ork 

 that can be done, an addition to the rosi)lution. You are aware that in the year 

 preceding the Chicago fire, Mr. James W. Milner made a careful and satisfactory 

 examination of these points, including the number of men employed, the annual 

 •catch, the history of the decadence of the fisheries, the question of the number of 

 nets, the number of pounds of fish caught, and all those kindred ques- 

 tions essential to an understandinof of the fisheries of the o-reat lakes. Unfortu- 

 nately much of his material, I think all of it, was sent to Chicago, and during 

 the holocaust there it was destroyed, and never since that time has this data been 

 secured and furnished. Yet you are aware that there is a great deal of valuable 

 information contained in the regular Fish Commission reports of the United 

 ■States on this subject. We have in our work in Michigan attempted as nearly 



