90 
_ fry for years and no good results followed; a year or two 
ago some yearlings were put in and lo! the stream now 
affords good fishing! If fry cannot live in this stream 
we might ask how thestock is to be kept up? By plant- 
ing yearlings each year when their progeny cannot live ? 
Surely such a stream is not a good stream for trout and 
should be abandoned. 
That those who have streams to be stocked will clamor 
for yearlings instead of fry is to be expected. They 
would like two-year-olds also, and if we would give them 
our old three-pounders they would be very happy ; but, 
they should apply for their two-year-olds just two years. 
before they need them, and give us twelve months to 
produce yearlings on natural food in their own streams. 
without expense to the state. 
When we count the cost of food, attendance and plant-- 
ing, with incidentals, such as ice, extra help, etc., it will 
be found that a yearling trout will have cost from six to: 
ten cents more than it would if planted as a ‘‘baby” the 
year before. Of course the item of transportation is one 
that cannot be accurately figured for obvious reasons. 
A man may be gone from half a day to three days with 
ten cans of fish, costing from two to fifteen dollars for his. 
labor and hotel bills, exclusive of railway fares, and the 
planting of yearlings cannot, it seems to me, begin to. 
compensate for the great cost of rearing and planting 
them. The assertion has been made that it is the best. 
method, and this has been repeated and reiterated until 
many people believe it. There are but few men in the 
country whose practical experience renders them compe-. 
tent to speak on this question, and I am assured that an 
overwhelming majority of them are in favor of planting: 
fry. 
y N. Y. FisHERY CommIssION, 
Cotp Sprinc Harszor, New York, May, 1892. 
I append the records, mentioned, as received from the: 
man who fed the fish. 
