1910;] Suggestions for a Better Treaty 



for each species. Again, we would deal only with staple 

 staple species salmon and sturgeon in Puget spfctes 

 Sound, wall-eye and sturgeon in the Lake of the 

 Woods, whitefish, lake trout, and sturgeon in the 

 Great Lakes, wall-eye in Lake Champlain, salmon 

 and lobster in Maine waters. Neither the herring in 

 the sea nor any species of the so-called lake herring 

 need special protection. 



A shorte'r category, with no reference to United 

 States marshals, would have met with less opposition, 

 but the special efforts with the fish commission and 

 legislature of each individual state would have been 

 a time-consuming and laborious endeavor. Yet this 

 we did undertake so far as the commissions were con- 

 cerned, and would have carried the method much 

 further except for the limitation of time and our reli- 

 ance on the Hoyt decision. 



Finally, except for our instructions to cover all important 

 boundary waters, the treaty might have dealt only locallties 

 with Lake Erie and Puget Sound. The fisheries of 

 Lake Ontario are mainly Canadian; those of Maine 

 and Lake of the Woods could have been entrusted 

 to local authorities. 



My work as an expert being completed, I had no 

 further obligations in the matter. I therefore turned 

 over all records and documents to the Department of 

 State. "Jordan and Evermann," however, were 

 allowed by the Secretary to publish descriptions of 

 the important food fish of boundary waters, the 

 opportunity for their scientific study having been 

 unprecedented. Our memoir was printed in Febru- Saimonoid 

 ary, 1911, under the title, "A Review of the Salmon- fifkesof 

 oid Fishes of the Great Lakes, with Notes on the Lakes 

 Whitefishes of Other Regions." In it we gave full 



C 277 ] 



