CYPRINUS THE CARP 109 



175,000 to 507,000 lb between 1894 and 1.899, falling off some- 

 what in 1903; and that suckers, although falling off from 155,000 

 to 67,000 lb between 1894 and 1899, rose again to 199,000 lb in 

 1903. The sole important commercial species that have fallen 

 off steadily since 1894 are buffalo and drum, the first declining from 

 3£ million pounds to about half that amount in 1903 ; and drum 

 from 348,000 to less than 100,000 lb in the year last mentioned. 

 If these records show anything at all it would seem to be that the 

 competition of the carp as spawn-eater and water-soiler has not 

 seriously affected many of our Illinois River species. It is by no 

 means improbable that causes entirely apart ;from depredations and 

 competition of carp may have had a large influence in producing 

 the recent decrease of buffalo and drum. Among such causes may 

 be mentioned increased contamination of waters from municipal and 

 industrial sources ; the obliteration, by drainage and diking, of back- 

 waters used as spawning grounds ; and the increased rapidity of run- 

 off from the prairie and upland, as a result ©f tiling and the cutting 

 of the forests, affecting the extent and duration of the spawning 

 havens afforded by both swampy areas and small streams. To 

 these causes is to be assigned the decrease and approximate disap- 

 pearance of such minor species as pickerel and lake sturgeon, which 

 were never very abundant in the rivers in question, and which began 

 to fall off in numbers long before the carp entered the field. 



It is not denied that carp will eat fish spawn ; but it has not yet 

 been shown that they seek out spawn for the purpose of consum- 

 ing it. Black bass, crappie, and sunfish are doubtless able to de- 

 fend their nests against carp in any case. Certainly the devouring 

 of spawn has not affected the multiplication, as shown by the out- 

 put, of any of these three species, or of suckers or catfishes. That 

 even a favorable effect of the multiplication of the carp is not im- 

 possible is evident when it is remembered that the myriads of young 

 carp offer an almost inexhaustible supply of food to the growing bass, 

 crappies, and sunfish. The drum and buffalo, which have de- 

 creased, are in their food habits more directly in competition with 

 the carp — being chiefly bottom feeders, utilizing mollusks, crusta- 

 ceans, and insect larvae. 



Of the third charge little can be said. While it is admit- 

 ted by all competent to judge that carp do uproot vegetation in 

 iarge quantities, no means are at hand for comparing the effect of 

 this destruction on the decrease of water-birds with the effects of the 

 operations of the hunters themselves. Since 1900 the problem has 



