RANGELEY LAKES, MAINE: FISHES, ANGLING, AND FISH CULTURE. 537 



Forest and Stream, August 6, 1898, contained a communication from a Rangeley 

 Lakes correspondent, in which it was stated that a blueback was reported to have been 

 taken by trolling. 



Food value. — Referring to a special exemption of the blueback from protection by 

 the law applying to other trout, a correspondent of Forest and Stream, November 26, 1874, 

 expressed the opinion that it was proper and wise, as it enabled the settlers in that sec- 

 tion to supply themselves with quantities of superior fish food that, smoked and salted, 

 added very materially to their limited bill of fare. 



Forest and Stream, November 15, 1877, indicated in the following statement that 

 this fish was to some extent marketed : "The first of the Rangeley bluebacks have come 

 to the market from Maine and will be as usual at E. G. Blackford's stall in Fulton 

 Market." 



According to Mr. Rich, the settlers prepared those caught on the spawning beds in 

 the fall for their use as food in the following winter and summer. Some were cured by 

 salting, others by drying, and still others by smoking. Some dressed them, others cured 

 them whole. Mr. Rich wrote: "It is proverbial of certain families that they lived on 

 bluebacks and crossbills," and that the crossbill, a small bird, was cured whole. 



Regarding its gustable qualities, opinions seem to have differed, as indicated by those 

 expressed by the various individuals previously referred to in this paper. However, the 

 pro and con opinions may each have been based upon different conditions. The first 

 run of fish prior to spawning would be in much better shape than some time after spawn- 

 ing and before they had recuperated. This may be said respecting any fish. 



Girard pronounced the blueback highly flavored and more delicate than the brook 

 trouts in Europe and America and said it resembled S. umhla of the Swiss lakes in pecu- 

 liarity, habits, and delicacy. 



Mr. Merrillfound them a nice pan fish, "juicy, tender, and delicate," but he preferred 

 the brook trout. 



The Maine fish commissioners, in their report for 1874, stated that they had eaten only 

 fish taken on the spawning beds and to them it was not palatable but was as much so as 

 the brook trout under the same circumtances. On the other hand, in the report for 1875, 

 the statement is made that it was an excellent table fish, "most persons deeming it equal 

 in flavor to the brook trout," and, again, the report for 1878 said that it was much 

 esteemed as a fine pan fish. 



A correspondent of Forest and Stream, December 15, 1887, wrote that although 

 males were selected the flavor was not generally pleasing. Mr. Whitney (Forest and 

 Stream, Nov. 24, 1900) said that for food purposes it was inferior to the brook trout and 

 to his taste it was soft and muddy. 



Early descriptions. — Girard (loc. cit.) described the blueback as follows : 



It is from 8 to 10 inches in total length. The body is subfusiform, slender, and the most graceful of the 

 trout family. The head is proportionately small, conical, coregonoid in shape. The mouth is smaller 

 than in S.fontinalis. Differences are likewise observed in the structure of the opercular apparatus. The 

 fins have the same relative positions as in the brook trout but are proportionately more developed, with 

 the exception of the adipose, which is considerably smaller; their shape is alike, except that of the 

 caudal, the crescentic margin of which is undulated instead of being rectilinear. The scales are some- 

 what larger, although they present the same general appearance as those of the brook trout. The latera.' 

 line is similar in both of these species. A bluish tint extends all along the back from the head to the 

 tail, so that when seen from above the fish appears entirely blue; hence, the name "blueback" given to 



