94 
live there just as well? If fry will not live in that stream, 
that are artificially hatched, why should they live when 
they are the offspring of those yearling fish ? 
They are claiming a great deal of success in planting 
yearlings, although it has not been a great many years 
yet since that theory was sprung upon us. At our last 
meeting, when I read my paper, there was considerable 
discussion upon it, and four or five gentlemen took ground 
against me, stating there was no need of planting fry, for 
instance, Mr. Roland Redmond. He said one thing in 
favor of the yearlings was that you didn’t have to trans- 
port them; all you had to do was to open the gate and let 
them swim out. But suppose we take the State of New 
York, which has considerable territory, and suppose we 
attempt to raise our fry to a yearling age—and Mr. Page 
has skipped the transportation question entirely—and we 
send off men one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles 
with fish, fifty trout in each can. If we send them with 
yearlings, it will depend upon the size of your yearlings 
whether there are twenty or thirty or more in a can, and 
they could only take at most three hundred of those year- 
ling fish; and it would cost about all the money the New 
York Fish Commission has got to transport her trout if 
they raised them to be yearlings. 
Here is a letter that was written to me last summer that 
bears upon this subject. It is from Raymond EK. Wilson, 
Secretary of the Board of Fish Commissioners of the State 
of California. I had had some correspondence with him 
before upoa the same subject, and this is his letter: 
BoarpD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS FOR THE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 
San FrAnNcisco, CAu., July 28, 1892. 
Mr. FreD MATHER, 
Oold Spring Harbor, Suffolk Co., New York: 
My Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge yours of the 22d inst., and thank 
you for the same. 
Iam aware of the fact that the United States Fish Commission are advo- 
