FOREST AND STREAM. 



[Jan. 21, 1894. 



Mountain Trout Waters. 



Mk. H. L. Story, formerly of Story & Camp, organ 

 builders of Chicago, but now a resident of San Diego, 

 Cal., where he raises fruit, has been a subscriber to For- 

 est and Stream for twenty years. Last fall he visited 

 Macdonald Lake, in northwestern Montana, whither he 

 was attracted by Mr. Charles Hallock's letters to this 

 paper. He made camp with Frank Geduhn at the foot of 

 the lake, of which Macdonald Creek is the outlet. A pri- 

 vate letter from the camp says of his experience: 



"Trout fishing in Macdonald Creek was excellent. He 

 would catch from 20 to 40 while going down to Flathead 

 River. At the head of the river he caught numerous 2 

 and 3rpound mountain trout and large landlocked salmon 

 or Dolly Varden trout. From there he went over the 

 range to Camas Lake, where he got satisfied to his heart's 

 content, especially fishing at night. At the head of that 

 lake is great sport. As soon as the fly touches the water 

 one has a fish. 



"Later we went to explore the Upper Camas Lake, to 

 which I bad never been before. We found it the prettiest 

 of the lot; the most picturesque mountains surround it; 

 two creeks tumbling down their sides in snowy cascades 

 empty into it. At the head of it is partly open country, 

 where we saw, reaching nearly to the water's edge, a huge 

 snowdrift like a young glacier; but the lake was literally 

 alive with large mountain trout. Mr, Story said, 'I never 

 imagined there was such a spendid place in the United 

 States.' 



"There is a glacier northeast of Macdonald Lake and a 

 large lake at the foot of it. Two prospectors saw it this 

 summer from a mountain further north." F. G. 



tffjishqiiUttre and «$i$h $j[ratei[tion. 

 THE COAST FISHERY CONFERENCE. 



Proceedings of Conference Held to Consider 

 the Subject of the Exhaustion of 

 Coast Line Food Fishes. 



OFFICIAL REPORT BY SECRETARY E. P. DOYLE. 

 (Continued from Page 55.) 



Mr. Atkins Hughes, of Massachusetts, said: 



I represent part of the pounds in Cape Cod Bay. I was the 

 first one to put a deep water pound in there in 1891. At that 

 time very few fishermen ran into Boston in the summer 

 time, for the reason that no bait could be obtained. The 

 next year we put in two pounds and they have increased now 

 to about forty pounds. Our principal business is catching 

 bait for these fishermen; there are about forty pounds en 

 gaged in it, and the number of vessels has increased from 

 probably three or four to half a hundred. They are depend- 

 ing fully on these pounds for their bait. Only yesterday 

 when I was in Boston, there was a large fleet of vessels wait- 

 ing for bait. I received a telegram from my captain stating 

 they had 300 barrels of bait in the weirs. I went down and I 

 got an order for 200 barrels of that bait to come to Boston to 

 supply those vessels. If the pounds had nob been there, I 

 don't know where they could have got their bait. After 

 these pounds are taken up, for about a month those vessels 

 will be actually without bait. This year we have taken steps 

 to provide for that time when they are without bait, by 

 putting up freezers, which cost about $15,000. 



To show that fishing could not be carried on in Boston 

 without these pounds, if there should be a scarcity of bait 

 in these weirs, you will see sixty vessels collected for bait, 

 and during that time you will see the price of fish advance 

 in the Boston markets; or if the time happens when there 

 are three or four days that we cannot get fish, it increases 

 the prices in the Boston market. So I say for that reason 

 the trap should not be interfered with. 



Another reason, which is a local one, however, is that in 

 the town in which I belong it is the only industry they have, 

 Every person in the town is interested directly or indirectly 

 in these weirs. It is the only means they have of getting a 

 living; and I say, as I have said before, that the moment you 

 do away with these pounds in Cape Cod Bay and around there, 

 you will do away with our means of support. 



Q, What else did they catch except herring for a bait? 



Mr. Hughes— Squid. The net is an inch and five eighths 

 mesh. 



Q. So they take the young fry of all kinds that are valueless 

 for food ? 



Mr. HUGHES— They take all kinds of fish that come along. 

 I wish to make a further statement in regard to these weirs. 

 They are taking some edible fish which could not be caught 

 in any other way. Of the albicore or tunny fish we formerly 

 could not sell more than a pound or two a week. This last 

 season we shipped every one we caught to the New York, 

 markets. They will average from 50 to 751 hs. a day, and I 

 have seen 2,0001bs. taken in a day. At that time we could 

 not make use of them, but now we can sell them. Without 

 these pounds you could not catch those fish. There is an- 

 other fish that is becoming edible, that is the whiting. They 

 are a very fine fish, and we ship more or less to the New York 

 market. The consumption is increasing every year, and in 

 time there will, no doubt, be a large market for those fish. 

 I say for this reason the pound should not be interfered 

 with. 



The following paper was presented by J. M, K. South wick, 

 being an extract from the Annual Report of the Rhode 

 Island Commissioners of Fisheries for 1892: 



The Menhaden Fishery. 



The present season has been worse than the last, which was 

 exceptionally a poor season for these fish. These two past 

 years have proved a serious setback to this important fishery 

 of our State. The menhaden fishery may be said to have 

 commenced with the invention of the purse net, about forty- 

 five years ago, and has developed into an important industry. 

 In the statistics furnished by the United States Commission 

 we find as follows: 



"Rhode Island is now more interested in this branch than 

 any other New England State, and the industry ranks among 

 the most prominent enterprises of the State. The capital 

 invested in 1880 was §152,925: 573 persons were employed and 

 177,133,333 fish were handled, for which $265 700 was paid. 

 The manufactured product, consisting of different grades of 

 oil and various kinds of fertilizers, were worth -$427,757, an 

 increase of $217,208 over 18S7 and $93,070 over 1888." 



The failure of this fishery the past two years was in part 

 to be attributed to the restrictive legislation of other States. 



The menhaden are a wandering ocean fish, and according 

 to the best authority we have, spawn upon the oceau, wander 

 along i he coast, from Newfoundland to Florida* sometimes 

 appearing at one place, sometimes at another in large num- 

 bers. To pursue them successfully it becomes necessary to j 

 follow them wherever they are to be found. The antagonism 

 existing in some localities between the practical fishermen 

 and he who fishes for sport or recreation is unwise, and we 



believe it often leads to great injustice. We believe in foster- 

 ing both interests. The one is an industrial interest that 

 produces much that is necessary to lifeand affords the means 

 of livelihood to those engaged in it. The other, a healthy 

 change and relaxation to the merchant, the student or the 

 professional man seeking relief from over application to their 

 several duties, or any one else who chooses to avail of it, and 

 we believe it right for the State to provide for and preserve 

 this privilege by all fair means, and within reasonable limits, 

 with the same care it would a public park, and very much to 

 the same end. 



Hibernation. 



A boat sunk between Fort Adams and the torpedo station 

 about twenty months ago was raised Feb. 12 and found to 

 contain quite a colony of fish and some small lobsters. The 

 boat had a large quantity of mud in her that had settled so 

 firmly together that it quite stopped the hole made in her, 

 and also the holes in the well, so that both the boat and her 

 well were bailed free of water and the boat floated to the 

 shore at the city dock. The owner thinks thatthere were 

 half a bushel of Gunners and tautog found in her, all in the 

 mud, and w T e are told that some of them were so embedded 

 in the mud as to leave an imprint of their form. 



The Fluctuations in the Number of Fish and 

 the Natural Cause of their Depletion. 



The fluctuations from year to year and for indefinite 

 periods have been noted all along throughout the whole his- 

 tory of them. Often a great diminution without known 

 cause has occurred and also immense numbers appear with 

 out any known reason; such has ever been the case with 

 fishes. These fluctuations were as clearly observed in the 

 middle ages as now, the increase and diminution then 

 caused the rise and fall of towns; their settlement and opu- 

 lence, as well as their decay and poverty, have been due to 

 the increase or diminution of the fishes. In later times the 

 changes have been no less obvious and important. 



The influences that produce these changes upon our coast 

 is of especial interest to us. Unquestionably the great 

 factor in producing the change in numbers is among the 

 fishes, the larger, or best armed, destroying the smaller or 

 weaker. But thee most reduced with us are those that cast 

 their spawn in the fresh upper water of our streams. Some 

 of these have been so long a,bsent, or their numbers so 

 reduced, that we hardly realize that they once existed in 

 '/reat abundance in our waters. Of these the most impor- 

 tant are the salmon, shad, herring aud bass. While the 

 ififlttejace of natural causes is sufficient to produce this 

 change, the generally accepted theory is that the depletion 

 is caused by the obstruction to streams, pollution of the 

 water and such as arise from the development of the coun- 

 try. We incline to the belief that this is the primary cause 

 of the depletion of the anadromous fishes. 



The appearance in ever varying numbers of the fishes that 

 visit our coast every season affords room for much study and 

 no end of speculative theory. Their history while absent is 

 one of the unrevealed mysteries of nature. They are gov- 

 erned by natural laws that baffle all efforts at investigation. 

 Still it is a subject of great interest to the student of natural 

 history and to the political economist. 



The fluctuation in their number is phenomenal, often com- 

 ing in abundance when few are expected, and few when 

 large numbers are looked for, for instance, the appearance of 

 scup in our waters in 1872. Prof. Baird said in 1877: "I was 

 quite satisfied in my own mind that unless something of this 

 kiud was done, very serious results would happen. Very 

 much to my disgust, I must admit, the next year, even with 

 all the abundance of these engines, the young scup came in 

 quantities so great as to exceed anything the oldest fisherman 

 remembered. Since then scup has been very much more 

 abundant than it was when I wrote my book and report." 



Another instance occurred in the menhaden fishery of 1889 

 (referred to in our report for that year), few being expected, 

 but overwhelming numbers appeared, exceeding that of any- 

 thing known in former years. So it must ever be until we 

 know more of them. Change is the immutable law of their 

 existence. 



Some of the Destructive Agencies That Are 

 Always at Work to Decimate 

 Their Numbers. 



First of these is the enormous destruction of the spawn by 

 other fish and by storm. The terrible havoc made by other 

 fish upon the young, and the merciless destruction that con- 

 tinues all through their fish life, by other fish, birds and ani- 

 mals, and to this maybe added their own cannibal propensity 

 that does not stop to discriminate between their own rela- 

 tives and others, and to these causes may be added diseases, 

 heat or cold, parasites, convulsions of nature, and the num- 

 berless vicissitudes of fisfi life, known and unknown, observed 

 or not observed by investigators. Sometimes whole colonies 

 are destroyed by unknown causes, as was the case with the 

 tilefish that were discovered by Prof. Baird in such large 

 numbers, and seemed to be annihilated at one stroke. 



Having considered the natural causes that affect all fish, 

 and referred to some of the indirect influences of man upon 

 the fresh-water spawning fish, we will now inquire into the 

 direct act of man, the capture of ocean fish in large quan- 

 tities as is now possible by the use of improved methods. 



What is the effect upon the fisheries? 



Who can answer? 



We had thought to leave this question, but inasmuch as 

 our State has especial interest in the solution of this ques- 

 tion, as our largest fishing interest is directly and vitally 

 affected by its determination; we feel that we should not be 

 doing our duty by evading it, lest we might, like too many 

 others, "step in where angels dare not tread." 



We will first see what others have to say about it. The 

 English Commission under Prof. Huxley examined a vast 

 number of witnesses, received answers to nearly 62,000 ques- 

 tions and visited nearly all the fishing localities of Great 

 Britain and Ireland, many of which had been fished over for 

 many centuries, and though in addition to our modes of fish- 

 ing by weirs, nets and seines, the beam trawl is there used, 

 which is far more destructive to fish and their spawn and 

 young than any other mode of fishing by us, that commission 

 came to the unanimous conclusion that there was no danger 

 to the sea fisheries, either in the open sea, or in bays and 

 arms of the sea from over-fishing. The points indicated are 

 the following: "That no amount or kind of fishing can 

 diminish the schooling or wandering fishes of the high sea, 

 such as the herring, mackerel and menhaden." 



The same conclusions were arrived at in regard to the 

 great herring fishery of the North Sea, in fact, wnile the in- 

 vestigation was being made (if we remember right), an im- 

 mense quantity of their spawn became detached from the 

 bottom by a storm, and were driven upon the shore, where 

 it was fed to hogs or carted off for manure, showing that 

 natural causes were at w r ork that were quite sufficient to pro- 

 duce, and did produce, great changes, compared to which 

 the catch by man was not to be considered. 



The late Prof. Baird estimates the daily destruction of 

 other fish upon our coast at 10,000,000,000, or 2,500,000,0001bs. 

 by bluefish alone, and says that their food consists of men- 

 haden, mackerel, herring, scup and other species. 

 Does this slaughter go nn all the year? 

 He also gives us an estimate of the number of menhaden 

 devoured on the coast of New England at three thousand 

 million millions (3,000,000,000,000,000) in the summer months. 

 Does this continue when they are absent from our coast? 

 He further says "that this calculation might be pursued to 

 any extent, but* I have presented enough to show that the 

 question of human agencies in the way of affecting or influ- 



encing the great ocean fisheries is scarcely worth consider- 

 ing." 



Who is there that knows more about this subject? 

 Whom shall we consult? 



If no better is offered we shall still quote from him: "If it 

 were in any way our duty to take measures for the preven- 

 tion of the destruction of life in the sea, and of maintaining 

 the field of fish generally at its largest figure, we could accom- 

 plish it in no better way than by increasing the extent and 

 magnitude of certain of our fisheries. 



"Thus I have shown that there may be a saving of herring 

 by the capture of the cod and ling on the British coast. For 

 every bluefish captured in the waters of the United States 

 many hundreds of other fish are left to enjoy their life, per- 

 haps, however, in their turn to be the means of increasing 

 destrttctiveness in another series of animals. 



"The capture of whales gives a respite to the schools of 

 mackerel and menhaden, while the destruction of the herring 

 and menhaden relieves, though in an infinitesimal degree, the 

 drain upon the crustaceans and the smaller fish." 



We repeat the question, What is the effect of the taking of 

 fish in quantities now possible by human methods? 



We have in the foregoing presented the conclusions of three 

 different Commissions composed of eminent scientists, who 

 made as thorough investigations as it were possible, and all 

 agree in their conclusions 



We were sure from past experience, there are hundreds 

 ready to "step in" and say there can be no question about it. 

 But we will ask them to pause while we consider the question 

 further, and ask them the questions that we think have an 

 important bearing upon the question before us. The deple- 

 tion of fish in our waters are chiefly salmon, shad, herring 

 aud bass, and as these are all fresh-water spawners and some 

 of them have left our waters long before the adoption of 

 modern appliances, none of them have been taken in 

 large quantities by them. This fact may have some signifi- 

 cance as to these fish; hut we are not now considering them 

 at all 



We propose to apply all we have to say here to the ocean 

 fishes, those taken by methods considered most destructive 

 to us. 



These are the scup, menhaden, and the bluefish, two of 

 these we kuow to have been rare in our waters, the scup in 

 179-1, and the bluefish in 1822. 



What caused the depletion of the scup in the last century? 

 Or the bluefish in the early part of this century? 



In 1870 it was thought that scup were being exterminated, 

 since which there has been an uninterrupted fishing for them 

 by improved and continually increased numbers of traps and 

 the catch of the last year far exceeds any former year. How 

 is this possible; were they being decimated ? 



How were it possible to t»ke such exceeding large numbers 

 of menhaden in 1889 and" 1890, if their numbers had been so 

 decimated by previous years fishing? 



Will some one - wise in such matters tell us where these fish 

 are when absent from our waters? 



How old they get to be? 



Are they subject to vicissitudes when absent? 



What nature? 



What becomes of all the old fish? 



With such immense numbers the natural mortality must 

 be very large. Why do we not see some trace of them? 

 Do predaceous fish live on others when absent from us? 

 Do menhaden live on the spawn of other fish? 

 Do mackerel devour the spawn of lobsters? 

 Do menhaden? 



If so, what effect does it have upon the stock in the waters? 



Do small fish or crustaceans affect the number of large 

 ones by destroying their spawn? 



If bluefish destroy menhaden, mackerel, herring and scup, 

 may not these fish compensate by devouring the spawn or 

 young of the bluefish, and in that way retaliate upon their 

 enemies? 



If any one can answer these questions/them would we vote 

 wise enough to have a hand in the government of the fishes. 



God alone rules the universe and to his infinite wisdom we 

 must leave this until we have learned at least something 

 more than we yet know; then it will be quite time to try to 

 assist him in the government of the fishes of the sea. 



We think that there will be found here some difficulty in 

 governing the fisheries suggested, just what to foster and 

 protect, and which to destroy in order to preserve the most 

 desirable and have a favorable result. 



Who is there wise enough to know how to do this? 



Who is there that can say that any plan to govern is more 

 than an experiment and if apparent success comes he is by 

 • no means sure it is through any means he has applied? 



High Prices do not Indicate Scarcity of Fish. 



PROF. Baird in Report for 1886, page 23: 



"One supposed evidence in our increasing scarcity of fish 

 is the increase in price at such stations. This is, however, 

 a fallacious argument, as the market is regulated by the 

 rates obtainable in the centers of supply rather than else- 

 where, and the local prices necessarily must correspond." 



This does not entirely account for the advance in prices over 

 former years, when there was no such thing as a fish market 

 and the fisherman sold direct to the consumer from his boat 

 landing or from a wheelbarrow at the street corner. 



Now all is changed. The fisherman ships direct to the 

 wholesale dealer, or to the retailer, who have large markets 

 and heavy rents, quantities of ice, and help to clean and 

 teams to deliver, besides long book accounts and losses. 

 The retailer fixes his prices and makes his margin to cover 

 all t hese contingencies, and most of the fluctuations of the 

 wholesale market, and maintains a quiet, uniform price not 

 much affected by the degree of plenty or scarcity of fish. 



The second convention of the Fish Commissioners of the 

 New England States occurred in Boston Nov. 16, 1892. These 

 meetings offered the means of interchange of views of repre- 

 sentatives of the different States that cannot fail to be of 

 profit to all. The subjects discussed chiefly were relating to 

 the protection of fish and game. A proposition was favored 

 limiting the size that a lobster could be taken at to lO^in. 

 We believe that a uniform rule is generally desired by the 

 fishermen, and to some extent it may help the fisheries. But 

 we feel sure that in order to be effective it should include 

 those States that furnish a market for the great bulk of the 

 product. 



The lobster business has grown to be of much importance, 

 they furnish a delicious and healthy food, and the taking 

 of them is the means of livelihood of a large class, Experi- 

 ments are being made to propagate them, and it is with deep 

 interest we watch for favorable development in this line. We 

 trust that some day we may do something in the way of 

 increasing their numbers in the waters of this State. The 

 Fish Commissioner of Newfoundland has under his direction 

 hatched and planted in 1892, 426,285,000 lobsters. 



Mr. George N. Bliss, of Rhode Island: I came here at the 

 request of two other members of the Fish Commission, as 

 one member is present to represent the State of Rhode 

 Island. Rhode Island is a small State, but is largely com- 

 posed of water. It exists only for the purpose of forming 

 Narragausett Bay and the waters next adjacent to the city 

 of Newport, and every man in that State is interested in the 

 fish industry. There are a great many questions of fact here 

 which are disputed. Things are stated to be a fact by one 

 gentleman, and said to be a deliberate lie by another. There 

 should be some fair chance for a jury to hear all the evidence 

 aud give a verdict. But, perhaps, if all these papers are 

 printed and all these statements are put in type, we may 

 possibly be able to get some information out of the mass. 



I am a fisherman for pleasure. I have been a fisherman alt 



