THE GERMAN CARP IN THE UNITED STATES. 585 
ually began to be included as becoming common. But in many local- 
ities in recent years there has been an alarming decrease in the number 
of waterfowl, game fishes, and in many cases commercial fishes as 
well, and gradually the blame for much of this has been shifted upon 
the carp, which in the meantime has become the most abundant fish in 
some localities. Whether the blame was rightfully placed or not, 
remains to be seen. The game and food fishes seemed to be decreas- 
ing, the carp were undoubtedly increasing, and to many minds the 
inference was plain. It is a curious fact that those who are most con- 
cerned in the decrease of the fish and game are often the last to see 
that they themselves might ina measure be the cause. They are look- 
ing elsewhere for the explanation, and when a possibie factor presents 
itself it is at once seized upon and made to bear the brunt of the whole 
charge. This is the point that I wish to emphasize here—that most 
of the statements that have been made as to the damage done by carp 
have been based upon very insufficient evidence; if founded upon 
direct observations at all, they were observations that, if not inaccu- 
rate, were at least inadequate. At best the evidence has been circum- 
stantial, while on the other hand the defense has been either simply 
negative, or in places the attempt has been made to vindicate the carp 
on the grounds of its usefulness. 
The denunciations of the carp have been so numerous, and in many 
respects so similar, that only a few quotations need be given to show 
their tenor. The specific charges based on direct evidence, so far as 
I have been able to find them, will be dealt with in more detail. What 
I shall attempt to do is to sift the evidence in as careful and impartial 
a manner as possible, adding to it what I have myself been -able to 
learn in the prosecution of my studies on the subject. The best 
recommendation I can bring forward for myself as a juror in the case 
is that I approached the subject with little knowledge of the particular 
question, and, consequently, ‘‘ unprejudiced and without previously 
formed opinions.” 
Tt should be borne in mind that direct observations bearing on the 
various phases of the question as to the damage done by a fish like the 
carp are very difficult to make, and are in most cases largely matters 
of chance, while at the least they require a great amount of time. Take 
for example the relation of the carp to the black bass. The question 
is often asked, ‘‘ Will a carp drive a black bass from its nest and 
devour the spawn?” Ifa person by chance happens to see the thing 
done, and is certain that he has interpreted his observations aright, 
there is the proof of the matter, and so it is settled. On the other 
hand, one might watch a bass nest for a long period—say, many hours 
each day—and never see a carp come near it, but one would still have 
no proof that it might not do so—his evidence would be only negative. 
To be sure, the longer the observation was continued the greater would 
