THE GERMAN CARP IN THE UNITED STATES. 599 



speaks of the complaints of the fishermen that carp are destroying the 

 bass fishing on the St. Clair Flats, and then adds (p. 118): 



But notwithstanding their chiims the bass fishing on St. Clair Flats has been 

 better during the last three years than at any time during fifteen years previous, 

 and we have not planted any bass either. I can not account for it in any other 

 way except that the environments of the carp and black bass are absolutely different. 

 Black bass likes a clean, pure, sandy bottom, and the carp lives on a muddy, weedy 

 bottom. I believe that the carp is a good thing in many waters where black bass 

 thrive. I believe that the bass fishing at the flats has increased by reason of the 

 food that young carp make for the bass, though he was not planted there. 



Dr. S. P. Bartlett, of Illinois, who has always been a strong partisan 

 for the carp, says (Transactions American Fisheries Society, 1901, 

 p. 120): 



When we take into consideration the fact that is so well known of the voracious 

 habits of the black bass, it shows an all-wise provision of nature to supply a very 

 large quantity of coarse fish to feed the other fishes, and I believe as firmly as I am 

 standing here that if the carp had not been introduced in the state of Illinois, the 

 buffalo having become almost extinct in our waters although it was once the great 

 commercial fish that the bass would have been gradually taken out entirely from the 

 list. As it is now, I want to repeat the statement that we have more black bass 

 than ever, and our carp certainly have increased in a greater ratio than ever before. 



This statement, so contrary to what is so often maintained of the 

 bass at the Flats, seems the more plausible when we read in the Report 

 of the Michigan Fish Commission for 1885 (p. 11) the statement that 

 the decline of black bass in Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River was 

 mentioned in the early eighties, and was said to be due partly to their 

 being taken in nets, contrary to law, and partly because they were not 

 protected. At this time the}^ certainl}^ could not have been influenced 

 by carp. 



Still more evidence along the same line is brought forward by 

 Townsend (1901). After giving figures showing the increase in the 

 catch of carp in the Great Lakes region and the Ohio and Illinois 

 basin, he continues (p. 178): 



These figures show an increase in the quantity of carp derived from the above- 

 named waters amounting to nearly nine times the quantity yielded six years ago. 

 During the same period the total fishery products of Lake Erie increased more than 

 15,000,000 pounds and those of the Illinois River more than 5,000,000 pounds. 

 There are, therefore, no indications that the presence of the carp has produced any 

 injurious effect on the native species associated with it, but, on the contrary, its 

 presence may have a salutary effect, the young of the carp doubtless being food for 

 black bass and other species. It is certain that the black bass has increased in the 

 Illinois River along with the carp, the yield of black bass in 1899 being greater than 

 ever before, amounting to over 70,000 pounds. 



Regarding the relation of carp to some of the other fish I have only 

 a few observations of interest. It seems a noteworthy fact, however, 

 that I have found the dog-fish {Ami a calva) on its nest, and appar- 

 ently unmolested, right in the midst of a portion of the marsh which 



