FisJi Culture in luland Waters 209 



fish may have been. For example, in 1850, an average night's catch 

 to a skiff was, say, 20 salmon. It was stated that there were 50 or 60 

 fishermen on the river at that time. It is not known whether they 

 were individual operators, not counting assistants, or whether they 

 represent the total number of men concerned. Inasmuch as two men 

 operated a skiff, let it be assumed that there were 25 boa,ts fishing. 

 This appears reasonable as one man said he had seen 20 boats operat- 

 ing at one time. Then assuming that the average was maintained for 

 10 nights only, the total catch would have been ,5,000 fish. 



Now it was stated that 10 years later (i860) 2 men in a skiff would 

 get 30 salmon in a night; and that 9 men between Selkirk and 

 Pulaski made a partial living by salmon fishing. It is possible that 

 there were 9 independent operators, each representing a skiff, so 

 their catch each night would amount to 270 fish, and in 10 nights to 

 2,700 fish. This is more than half the amount taken in the previous 

 instance, which might be accounted for by the increased average 

 per skiff due to the decrease in number of fishermen. 



The foregoing figures prove nothing more than the fact that the 

 quantity of fish caught was in proportion to the number of men fish- 

 ing. The more fishermen there were, the fewer fish to a skiff were 

 caught ; and, therefore, the presumptive evidence that the number of 

 salmon present in those respective seasons could not have greatly 

 exceeded the number caught. In the first instance possibly, but not 

 probably, the total quantity caught was double the quantity com- 

 puted, so it might be said that possibly the season's run was some- 

 what more than 10,000 fish, inasmuch as some must have escaped 

 capture and bred somewhere to provide the runs of subsequent sea- 

 sons. It would hardly seem probable that 10,000 fish were caught 

 in any one season, unless there was a waste of fish. There was evi- 

 dently a comparatively rapid decline. The market was limited and 

 that the quanity of fish was less than the demand is indicated by the 

 price per pound received, which was 12.5 to 20 cents in 1855, ^^^ ^5 

 to 20 cents in i860. In this connection it is interesting to note that 

 in the very early history of the locality, salmon were bartered in the 

 neighborhood, one pound and sometimes two pounds of salmon being 

 exchanged for one pound of pork. In 1812, it is said, salmon 

 brought 2 cents a pound; in 1820 the price was from 4 to 6 cents; 

 in 1840, from 5 to 6 cents; in 1855, from 12.5 to 20 cents; in i860, 

 in Syracuse and Utica, 15 to 25 cents per pound. 



In this country the salmon was always a food fish and apparently 

 seldom, if ever, caught by angling methods. But from very early 

 days the brook trout was a game fish as well as a food fish, and was 

 sought by anglers, both young and old. 



The older of us can remember the stories told by our grandfathers 

 concerning the abundance of trout in the streams and lakes, and how 

 they used to make periodical trips each fall to certain waters to catch 

 trout, which were salted for winter use, or how they caught them 

 through the ice in winter. A single story will serve as an illustra- 

 tion. One man (Rich, '83), all his life familiar with the Rangeley 



