89 
‘This, for ninety days, would equal 12.66 pounds per — 
‘day, which at .04 cents per pound would cost a trifle over 
.50% cents per day, or $184.00 per year for the 16,000 
fish. 
Divide this and it gives $11.55 per 1,000 fish. 
Add to this the transportation. One man can take 
care of ten cans of fry for twenty-four hours, and each 
can will carry 5,000 fry or 30 to 50 yearlings, according 
to size. 
Say, for instance, that you have 1,000,000 trout fry to 
plant. This will require one man for twenty days if he 
can take them in lots of 50,000, in ten cans of ten gallons 
capacity, each. Without counting railway fares his daily 
expenses, say $3.00, and his pay, say $2.00, would equal 
about $100.00 for the whole. Now keep this fry for one 
year and if you have good luck you may have 600,000 
to plant. From thirty to fifty of these is all that can be 
-carried in a can, and ten cans is as many as a man should 
be asked to care for on a trip of twelve to twenty-four 
hours, or 500 at one time, at the largest figure. This 
would require twelve men for one hundred days, and again 
throwing out railway transportation, would cost at the 
low average of $4.00 per day. per man, for wages and 
expenses, the sum of $4,800.00 and I defy any man to 
prove that the results of feeding trout to be yearlings, and 
then planting them, would bein any sort of proportion to 
the expense of food and transportation, which, added 
together would make a grand total that would be appall- 
ing to States with small appropriations. 
Let us say that one yearling is worth ten fry, which 
has not been proven, and then compare the expense! 
Let us plant fry in sufficient numbers to allow for all 
losses and not waste our means on planting yearlings, a 
new notion which has been loudly heralded as a grand 
‘success but which cannot be proven to be so. 
It has somewhere been stated that the U. S. Fish Com- 
mission had stocked some far Western Stream with trout 
