36 
just as well that all attacks should be met by amicable 
and reasonable argument, as constant and persistent as 
the unsupported statements of its opponents. Once 
convince the people of its economic value of any phase 
of fishculture, and they will see to it that the legislators 
support it. Any dependence on partizan advantage, the 
support of a particular class of the population, or resort 
to ‘star chamber” methods in fishculture, will eventu- 
ally result in disaster to the cause. 
The most potent arguments against trout culture at the 
public expense, and especially as applied to the general 
gcovernment, are: 
First, That a few localities only are benefitted by 
attracting anglers thereto, and that the work should be 
carried on by the sections benefitted. 
Second, That the areas available for the purpose are 
rapidly diminishing by reason of the denudation of the 
land, thus destroying the great natural storage reservoirs 
and producing an alternation of droughts and floods, 
causing the destruction of the natural food supply, and 
raising the temperature of the water, and that nothing 
permanent can be accomplished and therefore the results 
are not, and cannot be, commensurate with the out- 
lay. 
These arguments, of course, have no weight with the 
angler; but public fishculture can be permanently estab- 
lished and maintained only upon economic consider- 
ations, and nothing is to be gained by evasion. It is 
therefore proper in the best interests of fishculture to 
refer to them, and to see if there is not a valid answer to 
them. 
The advantages of healthful recreation to thousands 
of our best and greatest citizens might be advanced, but 
it is not sufficiently strong as an argument in the premises. 
There is, however, no doubt of the fact that a much greater 
interest and sympathy is awakened in the interest of fish- 
cululture generally through the more universally under- 
