THE PIKES: DISTEIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 



41 



Statistics are also available for North Carolina for the foregoing 

 years, excepting those for 1904 and 1901, the latter being replaced 

 by those of 1902. Also, Virginia and Georgia record small catches 

 for 1901 and 1902, respectively. There may be some doubt regard- 

 ing the pike of Virginia and North CaroHna, as they possibly may 

 comprise some pike perch. 



In the first table a decrease is shown in the catch in each State, 

 New Jersey completely disappearing. In the Southern States the 

 quantity caught appears to have increased considerably. North 

 CaroHna gained 46,588 pounds, or over 148 per cent, in the 21 years 

 from 1887, but feU off slightly in price per pound to fishermen. 



The foregoing figures, taken with what is known about the pickerel, 

 suggest that it does not breed and grow fast enough to furnish a 

 permanent supply for any extensive or intensive fishery. The first 

 table shows almost progressive decreases in three Middle States in 

 proximity to large markets. While in the South an increase is shown, 

 it is probably ascribable to more extensive and perhaps more inten- 

 sive fishing in later years. It is safe to predict that unless the fishing 

 is regulated a canvass of the fisheries a few years hence will show a 

 decrease. 



MuskeUunge.— Owing to its restricted distribution and its impor- 

 tance as a game fish, this fish has never attained to any very con- 

 siderable commercial fishery. The report of the United States 

 Census of 1908 gives 25,000 pounds, valued at SI, 700, for the Great 

 Lakes division. Michigan furnished 4,000 pounds, New York 19,000 

 pounds, Wisconsin 1,900 pounds, and Ohio less than 100 pounds. 

 In 1902 New York alone yielded 92,650 pounds, valued at $13,890, 

 of which 85,400 pounds were taken in Lake Chautauqua. In New 

 York these foregoing figures show a falling off of 67,650 pounds in 

 six years. 



The question is: Are the pike fisheries worthy of protection and 

 conservation ? According to the writer's view, they merit protection 

 as a conservative measure for other so-caUed "better" fishes and as 

 an economic provision. Consideration of the question wiU show that 

 such a reason is not so paradoxical as it seems at first sight. The 

 ever-increasing demand by a growing population hastens the decrease 



