18 FISHES OF THE CONNECTICUT LAKES. 
powder are not unknown to many northern waters to-day, where the 
highly esteemed trout, laker, and whitefish abide. It is not a case of 
sport with those who employ such means to take fish, but a matter of 
food, and often, too, to those greatly in need of food. These are a 
few of the factors operating toward the disappearance of native food 
and game fishes. 
Sometimes the reason that introduced fish are never again observed 
is that the waters are unsuited to them. The water may be too cold 
or too warm; there may be too many enemies; they may have been 
all devoured by predaceous fishes that have invaded the waters. In 
fact it is no unknown occurrence in planting fry to turn them almost 
into the mouths of chubs and cusk. This sometimes occurs from 
carelessness, but more often from ignorance of the habits and needs 
of the young fish. Another reason that introduced fish have not 
been recorded from waters into which they have been planted is that 
they often resemble native forms so closely that they have not been 
recognized when caught, or perhaps they have never been caught, 
not having been fished for at the proper season of the year and in the 
right way. Still another reason is that in a large body of water a 
few survivors of a comparatively few introduced young may escape 
detection for a long time. All of these things may apply in greater 
or less degree to the Connecticut Lakes. 
Inhabitants of the neighboring country have but a vague idea 
regarding the nature or appearance of introduced fishes. They are 
not familiar with the fact that the “ Mackinaw trout” is identical 
with the “laker” or “lunge” native to the lakes; of course the 
“ Mackinaw trout ” is never caught, only “ lunge,” unless it should be 
in the manner instanced by a resident of this country who having 
secured 3 fish strange to him thought he had the “ Mackinaw trout ” 
because they were different in appearance from anything he had ever 
seen or read of. His description revealed that he had males of the 
landlocked salmon. Another instance is of some “ trout ” caught by a 
sportsman at Metallak Lodge in a neighboring brook. Persons who 
had seen young landlocked salmon maintained that the fish were 
such. They were in fact young “ brown trout” (Salmo fario). It 
is not to be wondered at, however, that they were mistaken for salmon, 
for the resemblance is very close. 
It remains, then, to be said that in our opinion, if it is desired to 
stock the Connecticut Lakes or any one of them with such species as 
have been introduced, the result can not be accomplished by an occa- 
sional plant of a few thousand fry or fingerlings. Many thousand 
fry or young should be planted every year for several years. Again, 
the fish should be placed in waters where they will be least likely to 
be reached by those fishes that would surely devour them, i. e., chub, 
eels, cusk, etc., and even their own kind if present are not averse to 
