U9 
if it is very expensive, as in the case of Mr. Mather, then 
I should plant the fry by all means. 
There is another important consideration which, to 
my notion, has more to do with it than the other. That 
is the character of the stream in which you plant your 
fish. The success in Wisconsin has been very great, as 
has been stated in the paper which was read. I have 
been familiar with that. I got the first bill passed which 
established a commission in the State of Wisconsin, 
some fifteen or sixteen years ago. The streams in Wis- 
consin are much larger and deeper and better streams to 
plant fry in than are the streams in New York and Penn- 
sylvania or any of the New England States, which are 
small, babbling, shallow brooks, abounding with all sorts 
of little fish, enemies of the fry. But you put the fry in 
these Wisconsin streams or in the Michigan streams and 
the water is deeper and they have a great deal better 
chance ; they do not have nearly as many enemies as they 
do in the streams of New York, Pennsylvania and New 
England. And in those streams I am inclined to think 
that a yearling trout is a better fish to put in than the 
fry. Of course you have got to be governed in your 
location by the expense; that is another element. Where 
your yearling trout costs ten cents, as in the case of Mr. 
Mather, there is no question about it, the fry is the 
cheapest, and you will get better results from it. But if 
you can feed the fry on natural food and it does not cost 
you anything up to a yearling, then the yearling is the 
better fish to plant. My yearlings do not cost me any- 
thing. I give them absolutely no attention whatever, 
in these natural ponds that I speak of, and where you 
can construct those natural ponds—and there are very 
few places I think where you cannot—I think even 
where Mr. Mather is he can construct a dozen or so. 
Mr. Wuitraker—Are those private ponds or feed 
pond for other streams? 
Mr. FairsanKs—No, they are private ponds. But I 
