THE WHITEFISH PRODUCTION OF THE GREAT LAKES. 691 
These are my reasons for supporting and believing the papers of this morning as 
enunciating the true doctrine of increasing the food-fish supply. [Applause.] 
Mr. SEYMouR Bower (Michigan). Mr. President and gentlemen, I had not intended 
to take any part in this discussion. I will say, however, that for many years I have 
been in hearty accord with the views regarding whitefish propagation as expressed in 
the papers just read. In fact, I think Mr. Clark, Mr. Stranahan, and others here will 
bear me out in saying that I was one of the pioneers in advancing those views. To me 
this proposition seems so simple as to be hardly worth a moment’s consideration if we 
are right as to the value of what is known as artificial propagation. As evidence of its 
value I can state that the catch of whitefish in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes is 
steadily increasing, has been for a number of years, and is now very nearly double what 
it was ten years ago. To be more exact, in the latter part of the nineties the annual 
catch was a little over 3,000,000 pounds on an average, while in 1906, the last year for 
which we have complete statistics, the catch was over 5,000,000 pounds. The figures 
for 1907 and 1908 are not compiled, but our agent who is now in the field is of the opinion 
that both years will show a still further increase. 
There is just one thought in connection with this matter which I desire to present. 
There are two great divisions in the forces of nature, which we might term destructive and 
constructive. The existence and development of all forms of life are possible only 
through the destruction of some other form, either animal or vegetable Now, as fish 
spawn in nature, the ova are subject not only to the constructive forces of their environ- 
ment, but also to many destructive ones; but when transferred from that environment 
to an artificial or protected one, they are separated from these destructive forces and 
are then subject only to those that are constructive, with the result that production is 
increased many fold. If that proposition is true, and we have most convincing evi- 
dence that it is, the situation is greatly simplified. We should apply this principle 
wherever practicable; should take advantage of every opportunity to prevent the ova 
of the better class of food fishes from being thrown into contact with the destructive 
forces of nature. This is the vital point or principle in fish culture. 
The PRESIDENT. Professor Birge, have you something to say in this matter? We 
would like to know your views. 
Prof. E. A. Brrce. I have no right to speak with any authority on this subject. I 
have been in agreement with the views expressed in the papers which were read this 
morning, but I have no such personal knowledge of whitefish culture or the whitefish 
industry as those gentlemen who have spoken on the subject. 
Mr. W. T. THompson (Colorado). I would like to say a few words along the line 
of thought advanced by Professor Evermann. I believe I can bring evidence from 
Colorado which will place the result attained by hatchery methods beyond question. 
Mr. Titcomb stated in his lecture this morning that larger collections of eggs from wild 
brook trout could be made in Colorado than in any other section. I wish to call your 
attention to the fact that this species is not indigenous to our state, but was first intro- 
duced about twenty-five years ago. No trout were found in the state at that time 
except the native species, chief among which was the blackspotted trout (Salmo 
clarkit). 
The brook trout was first introduced, in small numbers, about 1882 or 1883. Some 
two years later the introduction of the rainbow trout was commenced in a very limited 
way. Coloradoans had been accustomed to the native trout for years; the waters 
were thickly populated with them when the white man first arrived. Naturally, they 
thought they would always have them without effort on their part, consequently there 
was no demand on the hatcheries for them; hence, we produced none. The adult fish 
were allowed to deposit their spawn naturally, ‘‘according to the dictates of their con- 
science,’ as we might say. I might add that the spawning beds were not polluted to 
any extent and were and are still accessible. 
