132 
FISHCULTURE IN MICHIGAN. 
BY, WHO POST. 
In this year,of reminiscences, it may not be amiss to 
briefly review the work done in fishculture in Michigan. 
The record of this work is found in ten biennial reports of 
the State Fish Commission. This record, presumably like 
that of other States, shows some blunders, frequent mis- 
takes, and many sad disappointments ; but by persistence, 
energy and pluck, the blunders were overcome and the 
mistakes corrected, and the disappointments were borne 
with that Christian resignation which is a characteristic of 
the craft. As an illustration of this spirit of resignation, 
a quotation from the Second Report is in point. It says: 
‘*Now what is our lake and river farmer to do about it, 
when accident and insuperable force so confront him? 
What can he do more than did the honest Dutchman who, 
when he broke his leg, thanked the good Lord that it was 
not his neck. Few mortals, if any, can create circum- 
stances, and the fishculturist’s work, like all other human 
work, must take its chances.”’ 
The outcome has been a steady and continuous progress, 
resulting in a fair degree of success. 
The Board of Fish Commissioners of the State was 
established by an act of the Legislature approved April 9, 
1873. At this time seventeen other States had embarked 
upon the work. 
The first Board of Michigan consisted of the Governor 
and the two appointed members, who were to hold office 
until the expiration of the next regular session of the Leg- 
islature. Their duty was stated to be “‘ to select a suitable 
location for a State fish breeding establishment for the ar- 
tificial propagation and cultivation of whitefish and such 
other kinds of the better class of food fishes as they may 
direct, upon the best terms possible.’? They were required 
to appoint a Superintendent of Fisheries of the State, and 
