l8 CATCHING THE WILY SEA-TROUT 



incidents can be accepted as evidence that salmon feed 

 in the river I cannot say. 



To carry my investigations a stage further I have 

 examined the contents of the stomachs of brown trout, 

 salmon and sea-trout respectively. The results regarding 

 the brown trout are most conclusive as its stomach is 

 usually packed with all kinds of fare, together with a 

 strange assortment of grit and shells, but the maw of 

 the salmon contains nothing but a slimy substance. 

 In the stomach of the sea-trout, be the fish fresh-run or 

 stale, I have observed a slight similar slimy composition 

 and consequently I suggest that sea-trout do not feed 

 up-river in the same way as do brown trout. 



Further, on opening a fresh-run sea-trout I have 

 noticed that there is a quantity of fat inside, but a stale 

 fish, one that has been some time in the river, is always 

 minus this fat. The deduction that I draw from these 

 facts is the sea-trout whilst up-river lives on its own fat. 



To satisfy myself by independent testimony I put the 

 question to an aged poacher who, since his boyhood, had 

 worked illicitly a certain river, and in those early days 

 he had done so under the expert guidance of his father, 

 another notable poacher. I repeat his views for what 

 they are worth as they are somewhat interesting. His 

 definite opinion is that salmon and sea-trout do not feed 

 in the usually accepted sense of the meaning, but that 

 both species take into their mouths acceptable delicacies, 

 suck all the nutriment and then eject the unwanted 

 remnants. 



The old chap based his belief on the ground that a 

 kelt, if it remained in the river for a lengthy time after 

 spawning, improved in condition and weight. He con- 

 cluded his argument with the contention that no fish 

 could accomplish that by living on water alone. 



This novel exposition certainly deserves more than 



