582 BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



derer and, as a rule, lies in wait rather than searches for its prey. Usually it is the 

 younger fish that make their way upstreams into other waters. It does not thrive in 

 deep, cold lakes. 



Many regard the pickerel as a worthy game fish, and as a food fish it is held in esteem 

 by many and disliked by a few. 



Some of the inhabitants of Umbagog's shores relate that their fathers remembered 

 when trout abounded in Umbagog Lake, and that if vengeance on the trout as revenge 

 for legal wrongs was the motive that placed the pickerel in the lake the object of its intro- 

 duction was woefully successful, for the trout practically disappeared and the pickerel 

 became abundant. J. G. Rich, in American Angler, April 14, 1883, wrote: 



For the last 12 years the trout have been fast diminishing, until now only occasionally a large one 

 is to be got, and no small ones seem to be in the lake. I think in 1850 Umbagog was as well filled with 

 trout as any other lake. It certainly yielded great sport to all who came from cities and elsewhere to 

 fish. The last trout I caught from this lake was at Sturtevants Brook, two years ago, and it weighed 3 

 pounds. At the same time and place I took a large string of pickerel. 



Thus, it is with Umbagog Lake as with most other lakes and ponds that once con- 

 tained trout and now are pickerel waters, it is claimed that the pickerel have destroyed 

 the trout. 



The same writer in the same paper of February 6, 1886, said: "Two men went from 

 Bethel last week to Umbagog Lake — the lower or most southern lake of the Rangeleys — 

 25 miles distant, and caught 100 pounds of pickerel in two days." 



Umbagog Lake, as has already been stated, is not ideally suited to trout. It is 

 very generally shoal and consequently much warmer during the summer months than 

 waters in which trout thrive best. There are only two restricted localities, or deep holes, 

 to which trout can resort in the warm season in this lake. These deep holes have been 

 known for many years to some of the inhabitants of the region, who availed themselves 

 of the advantage afforded by this knowledge. There has been no time since pickerel 

 were introduced that some trout could not be obtained from these holes, but owing to 

 their restricted limits it has always been comparatively easy to fish them out, and this 

 has been done repeatedly. 



The usual habitat of pickerel is widely difi'erent from that of trout, although there 

 are individual exceptions. Other fishes, especially suckers and cyprinids, find proper 

 conditions in the same localities that are the favorite abode of pickerel. Notwith- 

 standing this fact and that these fishes are comparatively easy prey, their numbers do 

 not seem to have been diminished. As previously mentioned, there are still some trout 

 in Umbagog Lake. Salmon and whitefish have increased in numbers. Pickerel are 

 fully as destructive to these fishes as to trout. The natural inference, then, is that 

 pickerel have not been the cause of the scarcity of trout in the lake. 



In 1882 C. T. Richardson, under date of July 27, in Forest and Stream of August 5, 

 stated that two men caught in Umbagog Lake, in less than 6 hours, 51 trout weighing 

 103 pounds. 



On the other hand, there is a general complaint that pickerel have, in late years, 

 become comparatively scarce and do not attain the general large size that they once did. 

 Constant increase of maintenance of numbers is possible only when adverse conditions 

 are less or exactly equal to the favorable conditions. Maximum size is attained by 

 any fish only when it is provided with sufficient food, room in which to grow, and meets 



