38 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



[March, 



THE FISH QUESTION. 



The following address, by Peter Frally, 

 Esq., of Columbia, Pa., to the Fish Com- 

 mittee of the Legislature, whether dictated 

 merely by local interest or by principles of 

 public economy, seems to reflect so much that 

 is in harmony with the general experience in 

 the matter of State improvements, ameliorat- 

 ing; enterprises, domestic progress and the 

 habits of the shad, that we give it an inser- 

 tion in our journal as a matter of convenient 

 future references to those among our readers 

 who may be interested in questions involved. 



We can distinctly recall the halcyon days of 

 shad-fishing along the middle Susquehana, 

 when the great hauls of 1,500 to 3,000 were 

 made, but these were few and far between, 

 and even then — sixty years ago — there were 

 also made many doleful complaints against 

 the gill-nets, south of Mason and Dixon's 

 line. We concur in the opinion that shad will 

 never be in the abundance they once were, 

 even if all obstructions were removed. 



Gentlemen : The reason urged for the removal 

 of the Columbia dam is that it is an insurmountable 

 bar to the ascent of shad and other fishes to their 

 natural spawning grounds, the head waters of the 

 river, and because of this bar or obstruction shad are 

 becoming more and more scarce, and if the dam was 

 removed the abundance of former years would be 

 soon restored. It is claimed by those engineering 

 the appropriation bill, "that a dam will not be 

 needed, and that a mere wing-dam only will he re- 

 quired, thus allowing a large space of the natural 

 channel of the river as a free ascent to fish." 



Upon this point I will quote Mr. J. C. Sharpless 

 (an eminent and well-known civil engineer, who was 

 employed by the "joint special committee on the 

 operations of the fish department," to make a sur- 

 vey of the route and estimate the cost of said re- 

 moval.) Mr. Sharpless, after a careful[instrumental 

 survey, reports to the committee as follows ; 



"The rocks in the river bed are so numeous that 

 the construction of a channel, through which boats 

 could cross the river in safety, may be regarded as 

 almost, if not quite, impracticable. It would in- 

 volve heavy cost, and there would be great danger 

 of accidents to boats, unless great care were exer- 

 cised. I am unable to see how boats could make the 

 passage across in safety in any other way than by 

 the construction of a dam, reaching the entire dis- 

 tance across. A wing-dam has been suggested ; but, 

 in my judgment, when the river is low and the cur- 

 rent slow, it would not be eflfectual. When the river 

 is high, and the current rapid, it might check its 

 passage and raise the surface of the water to some 

 extent, but at such time it would not be needed. I 

 have, consequently, made an estimate for a dam, 

 four feet above low water." 



Tou will perceive at once that the real question at 

 issue is not the removal of the dam from Columbia 

 as an obstrucHoii to the ascent of shad, but the re- 

 location of the same construction at Chiques, a point 

 about two and one-half miles above ; not to increase 

 the supply of fish, but in reality to increase the busi- 

 ness of an enterpri^e about uearing completion, hav- 

 ing its principal base of operations at Chiques, and, 

 possibly, to enrich a few speculators in land. 



It is true that Mr. Sharpless reports that the dam 

 at Chiques need be but four feet higher than low 

 water mark. The Columbia dam is about five and 

 one-half feet higher than low water mai-k, but all 

 our fishermen will tell you that a dam four feet above 

 low water mark is just as eB'ectual a barrier to the 

 ascent of shad as if it was five and one-half feet 

 high. So that the only advantage then in increasing 

 the shad supply would be the distance from the Co- 

 lumbia dam to that of the Chiques for spawning 

 grounds. The bill, under which you are hearing this 

 committee, asks an appropriation of $.300,000 only, 

 when we have reason to believe that to complete all 

 the work necessary it will cost at least a solid mil- 

 lion for the removal of this one dam alone. Mr. 

 Sharpless, the engineer herebefore named, estimated 

 the cost as follows : 



For constructing cacal and guard lock $205,124 37 



For dam with sckule and feeder 58,727 54 



For outlet and outlet lock 22,238 81 



Contingencies 28,609 07 



$314,699 79 

 It must not be forgotten that Mr. Sharpless was 

 employed by a Committee whose object was to show 

 as small a cost as possible, and that he had instruc- 

 tions to that effect is apparent from the last para- 

 graph of his " report " to the committee, as follows : 

 "The cost of this work will probably exceed the 

 expectations of your committee. A careful exami- 

 nation, in detail, has shown it to be more than I 

 anticipated. I have taken care not to exceed reason- 

 able limits in the prices of material and work, and I 

 do not think it could be done for less than is here 

 shown." 



We have no means of testing the accuracy of Mr. 

 Sharpless' estimate for canal, five feet lock and 



guard lock, but from the known nature of the ex- 

 cavations necessary, being largely of rock in the 

 river, and his failure to include laud damages for 

 right of way, we consider it as much too low as any 

 other item. Again, take the estimate for dam, chute 

 and feeder, ^.58,727. 54 ; all that is necessary to prove 

 the fallacy of this estimate is the statement made to 

 this delegation by the Superintendent of the Reading 

 and Columbia Railroad, that "the last time the 

 Columbia dam was repaired it cost the sum of nearly 

 ?1.50,000." Remember this was for repairs merely. 

 If it cost that much for repairs only, you can form 

 some idea of the vastly greater sum it would cost to 

 build an entirely new dam at a point in the river 

 where the current has twice the rapidity of that at 

 Columbia. Again, take the estimate for outlet lock 

 and outlet, the sum of 822,328.81. Fortunately we 

 have the means at hand to show the difference be- 

 tween the estimated and real cost of this item, the 

 Pennsylvania Canal Company having lately com- 

 pleted an outlet and outlet lock in Columbia. This 

 lock being located almost immediately at their canal 

 did not require one-half the excavations which will 

 be required at Chiques because of the increased dis- 

 tance of the outlet lock from the canal and the more 

 extensive rock excavation necessary, and yet the 

 outlet at Columbia with its necessary equipments 

 cost (since the panic and during low prices of mate- 

 rial and labor) the sum of eighty thousand dollars. 

 The proposed outlet and outlet lock at Chiques are 

 to take the place of these at Columbia, and must be 

 in all particulars, their equals, and for re.asons stated 

 will probably cost more money, say four times as 

 much as Mr. Sharpless' estimate, or $88,954.24. If 

 we test all of his estimates by the same rule, which 

 we claim as fair and reasonable, and multiply by 

 four we have the grand total of cost reaching the 

 enormous sum of $1,2.58,799.16, without counting 

 the cost of the Reading and Columbia coal scbutes 

 say $125,000 more. No doubt, gentlemen, j'ou have 

 had' some experience of estimates made for legisla- 

 tive purposes by disinterested and public-spirited 

 lobbyists, and need not be told that between the 

 estimated cost and the actual cost there is a great 

 gulf to be filled. Here you have an instance in point 

 now before this Legislature, in the case of the " Nor- 

 ristown Hospital for the Insane :" 



" Originally it was estimated that the whole cost 

 of the structure would not exceed |600,000. That 

 amount has been appropriated and expended, and 

 the Legislature is now asked for a further appropria- 

 tion of "1170,000, in order to make ready for the occu- 

 pation of patients a portion of the incomplete struc- 

 ture, which is not yet half completed." 



The object in asking for $300,000 only is merely to 

 get the public purse opened — when "once opened 

 then — God help the people. 



I will now leave this branch of the subject and 

 proceed to say something in regard to fish-ways. 

 We venture to suggest that proper elTorts have not 

 yet been made to secure sufiicient fish-ways in the 

 Columbia dam. While the Legislature and Fish 

 Commissioners deserve credit for their eflforts so far, 

 the failure to succeed satisfactorily is no reason why 

 the effort should be abandoned. It is well under- 

 stood by those at Columbia who have given the sub- 

 ject any study, why the fish-ways already built are 

 not as successful as could be wished. In the last 

 and only important fish-way built, the bottom of the 

 "way" at its debouchment is about four feet above 

 the bottom of the river, which by our experienced 

 fishermen is regarded as fatal to its success, besides 

 which, the bottom of the way being very smooth, 

 having been sheathed with sawed timber and the 

 grade being very steep, nearly 3 feet (2 91-100) to 

 the 100 feet, the water rushes through with rapidly 

 accelerating momentum, and enters the river below 

 with an irresistible plunge. That shad gather at the 

 edge of this fish-way and try to ascend but fail is 

 evident from the fact that as many as fifty have been 

 taken in a common dip net (say eight feet square) 

 in a single night, and during the season this one net 

 is supposed to have tiiken not less than two thousand 

 of these persevering, but baflled shad. Shad in 

 ascending very swift water, shallow like all of it is 

 immediately below the dam, swim as near the bot- 

 tom as possible, nature having taught them that the 

 nearer the bottom the less the resistance. It is a 

 singular fact that when passing up rapids, such as 

 we find in our rafting scbute, where it has been seen 

 in hundreds of instances, shad throw themselves on 

 their sides and drive through with great velocity in 

 that position, as near the bottom as possible. The 

 fact that a shad will not leave the bottom more than 

 a few inches to commence the ascent of shallow 

 rapids is one of the best authenticated facts con- 

 nected with its history, hence the failure of the last 

 fish-way. If this delegation was before the Fish 

 Committee, plans could be given them of successful 

 fish-ways based upon natural principles and well 

 tested by long and successful experiments at Colum- 

 bia. It is a misfortune to the cause of fish culture 

 that the people of Columbia, where the subject is so 

 much at heart, have been almost totally ignored by 

 the Fish Commissioners, seeming to regard us as 

 enemies rather than friends of the cause. 



But, gentlemen, we can never hope, even if all the 

 dams which now obstruct our rivers were removed, 



to restore anvthing like the former abundance of 

 shad. Bear in mind that the Columbia dam was 

 built nearly forty years ago, and consider the won- 

 derful advance of population and the improved and 

 multiplied appliances now used to catch shad. To 

 supply that population consider the wonderfully in- 

 creased means of rapid transportation by which fresh 

 shad are not only carried into the interior, but even to 

 San Francisco in their fresh condition, and the fresh 

 salmon of the Pacific sent us in return. The vast 

 demand, stimulated by these causes and the intro- 

 duction of so much machinery into nearly all the oc- 

 cupations of man, has forced very many additional 

 thousands into finding a precarious subsistance by 

 fishing, so that from the time shad enter the Albe- 

 marle Sound, on the coast of the Carolinas, until 

 they reach their spawning grounds in our rivers, 

 the devices man can invent are employed for their 

 capture, so that few indeed can ever be expected 

 reach very far above tide water ; on this subject hear 

 what the Fish Commissioners say in their report for 

 the year 1878 : 



" But what have we below our dam ? There is the 

 estuary of the Susquehanna, from Port Deposit to 

 Havre de Grace, only four miles long. This is swept 

 by gill-nets for the whole distance, and it is a wonder 

 any fish at all can pass them. Then we have, say, 

 forty miles of shore seined at every mile, perhaps at 

 every quarter of a mile, by men whose only living is 

 what can be wrested from the river." 



Every year millions of shad are hatched in the 

 river below the dam, as well as above it, and find 

 their way to the sea, and yet how few ever return. It 

 may surprise you to hear that during last spring's 

 fishing between our dam and Turkey Hill, a distance 

 of three miles, the highest estimate of the number 

 caught does not reach 30,000, and last spring's catch 

 was a fair average. 



If it is our river dams only which are destroying 

 the supply of shad how are we to account for the 

 rapid decrease of all Anadromous fishes. There is 

 the herring, which never reached up as far as our dam , 

 and does its spawning in or near fresh tidewater ; 

 with all its wonderful fecundity they are rapidly de- 

 creasing in number. So also with rockfish, perch, 

 mullets, carp, catfish and eels. These all cast their 

 spawn in or near tidewater and yet anglers and pro- 

 fessional fishermen will tell you their decrease is 

 steady and rapid. Without intending to exhaust the 

 subject I now close to give place to other members of 

 our delegation. 



itil 

 all J 



eir I 



I?1 



Queries and Answers. 



THE HAND-MAID MOTH. 

 iDfitftiia Ministra,) 



CL.iRK's Gkeen, Pa., Ist mo. 30th, 1879. 

 Fkisnd Rathvon : In my younff orchard, of fifty 

 acres, there appeared in 1873 a worm or caterpillar, 

 about July 25th — a voracious feeder upon apple and 

 cherry leaves, (sweet cherries only,) feeding singly, 

 but at evening gathering in a cluster to repose on a 

 twig, and when alarmed each one erecting both ex- 

 tremities of the body— growing very rapidly, and 

 finally reaching a length of two and a half inches, 

 when they become slightly furred, cease to congre- 

 gate, and disappear after a very few days of indi- 

 vidual rambling about the tree. They moult in clus- 

 ters, and resemble the worms infesting the pig-nut 

 hickory, except not so downy. A second brood ap- 



pears about the 1st of September, equally ■ 

 They spread slowly from the first locality. Is it the 

 Canker Worm ? A word from you on this subject 

 will be a favor. — S. Stevenson. 



We will answer your last queery first, by 

 assuring you that it is not a " canker worm." 

 The canker worm is a " Looper," a " Geome- 

 ter," or, as some say, a "Measurer," and 

 could not possibly erect the extremities of the 

 body, having its feet at the extremeties and 

 none in the middle by which it could hold fast 

 to any object. 



The eaterpillars you describe (called by way 

 of distinction the "yellow-necked apple tree 

 caterpillar") are the larva; of the "hand-maid 

 moth," a variety of the Datana tninistra, ot 

 Walker. There are many species of the 

 genus Batana, and at least three varieties of 

 the species Ministra. One infests the sumac, 

 one the apple, and one the black walnut, and 

 very probably the last named is also the one 

 that infests the pig-nut hickory, at least we 

 have found the same caterpillar on both the 

 black walnut and the cultivated English wal- 

 nut in this city in large numbers. After they 

 have completed their larval development they 

 come down from the trees and pupate under 

 the soil ; the first brood not very deeply, 

 sometimes among the rubbish at the base of 

 the trees, but the second brood much deeper, 

 for these will remain there in the pupa state 

 until the following spring in time for the first 



