June sg, xgox.| i 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
607 
return to the river any shad taken in their nets. The 
$20 partly recompense the captain of the crew for the de- 
lay in overhauling his fish and for the extra hauls which 
may be demanded. The State does not barrel the shad 
or -do anything else with them, for they belong to the 
netters and probably go where they would in any event, 
whether there was a hatcher}^ or not, to market. 
The eggs rescued from fish destined for market are 
taken to the hatchery and hatched. If there had been 
no market fishermen to net the shad, and they _ had 
spawned naturally, perhaps one or two per cent of the 
eggs would have hatched, but in the hatchery jars eighty 
to ninety per cent are hatched, and when the yolk sac 
is nearly absorbed, and the fish are ready to begin the 
battle for life that all fish have to begin at some time or 
another, they are planted in the river in just such places as 
the parent shad would have selected for natural hatching 
had they been consulted. 
Should any one get the idea from the above mterview 
that the State gets any large numbers of spawning shad 
bv the arrangement I have mentioned. T will give the 
exact figures. So far this year the men at the aCtskill 
hatcherv have secured i88 spawning fish. The largest 
number on one dav was 25, the first day; the next day 
24, and the next day 5- The lowest number in one day 
was 2, and except the first and second days the highest 
number, was 15. From the 188 shad the men have taken 
4,940,000 eggs which would have been, lost by the fish 
going to market if they had not been rescued and hatched 
at the expense of the State. ' . ^ 
The Real Reason. 
If Mr. Conine does not know why shad became scarce 
in the river— for they are not now, his interview to the 
contrary notwithstanding— I will tell him. The shad 
fishermen of the Hudson netted the river for market, 
taking evervthing possible out and putting nothmg back 
until a State Fish Commission was creaJted to remedy 
the injury to the fishing caused by their shortsightedness. 
When the Commissioners. ex-Gov. Seymour, Hon. Rob- 
ert B Roosevelt, and Seth Green, made an examination 
of the river thev' reported to the Legislature that the . 
entire shad crop of the Hudson was worth $7,000. Then 
the shad hatcheries began their deadly work, of which 
Mr Conine complained, and when, m 1895, a census 
was made of the shad taken that year in the Hudson, it 
was found to be worth at the net $184,897.60, and shad 
had fallen in price from 75 cents to 20 cents for roe shad 
and 10 cents for bucks. Over .4,000,000 pounds of shad 
were taken from the Hudson in that year, as the result 
of maintaining shad hatcheries. 
Some Actual Facts. 
Recently I had occasion to obtain from the U. S. Fish 
Commission some figures to be used m a paper to be 
read before a society of natural sciences, and some ot 
those figures fit in here, and I quote f roni a letter I re- 
ceived from Mr. W. de C. Ravenel: "The only fishery 
concerning which we have accurate data upon which 
can be based our estimate of results attributable to tish- 
culture is the shad fishery. In 1880 the catcli of shad was 
■ 164 152, and its value was $995790. The following 
fikure^ show the catch of shad each year, its incerase over 
the catch of 1880, and the annual value of the increase: 
No of shad Increase over Value of 
caught. 1880. increase. 
1887 8,252,326 3.108,174 $395,642 
1888 M,2 10,453 5,046,301 676,402 
1889 12,324,106 7,159,954 782,496 
1890 12,827,525 I'^Hl^ S^'^^ 
1896 13,124,013 i'°^9,B6i 660,050 
1898 13,927,730 8,823,578 466,087 
"The most noticeable feature of this comparison is that 
the price of shad has decreased to the consumer as the 
catch has increased (from 19 to 10 cents each) and the 
returns to the fishermen even at the reduced price are 
much greater than in 1880." . 
The Hudson River has not been a self-sustaining shad 
stream since it was depleted by the shad netters previous 
to the era of artificial propagation, and there has been 
a constant war against the shad men to compel them by 
law to take up their nets during a portion of each week 
to permit some breeding shad to ascend the river and 
spawn, and they have resisted every effort in this direction 
which was solely to preserve the shad for the future as 
well as for the present day. If the Hudson had been de- 
pendent alone upon the increase from the shad of the 
river there would be fewer shad in the river now, but 
the United States Fish Commission has made generous 
contributions of shad fry from the Delaware and Sus- 
quehanna rivers annually for planting in the Hudson, and 
thus the stock has been not only kept up, but increased. 
From 1882 to 1901, both inclusive, the shad m the river 
have furnished eggs which have produced in the 
hatchery maintained by the State of New York 
52,057,100 fry to be returned to the river. Dur- 
ing the same period the United States Fish Commis- 
sion has contributed to the Hudson from other streams 
108,444,000 shad frv. or more than twice as many as the 
river itself was able to provide, the total of 160,501,000 
shad fry being the result of artificial shad culture in the 
hatcheries, and all of the egs which produced this great 
number of fry would have been lost had they not been 
rescued by the State and National Fish Commissions. 
Mr Conine says in conclusion, and as a final argument, 
that in the State of Vermont the fisli hatcheries are 
maintained for less than $7,000 a year, and that in New 
York State $100,000 will not pay the expenses. In this he 
is as wide of the facts as he is in giving the habits of 
the shad. Vermont has one hatchery devoted to the 
propagation of trout and salmon. I am not sure, but I 
think no other fish are hatched in it, and the output from 
the hatchery does not concern this_ note. New York 
has eight permanent hatcheries, and if each had what is 
alleged to be the sum expended on the Vermont hatchery 
New York should expend $56,000 on the eight hatcheries. 
In addition to the eight hatcheries, there is the shad 
hatchery maintained during the shad season and a masca- 
longe hatchery maintained only during the mascalonge 
season: two whitefish egg-collecting stations maintained 
only through the season for talcing whitefish eggs. For 
the fiscal year ending Sept, 30. 1900, the total disburse- 
hatcheries and hatching stations, collection of eggs and 
the distribution of fish and fish fry, amounted to $52,772.66, 
It will be noticed that the disbursements include 
hatcheries and hatching stations — that is, the eight per- 
manent hatcheries which are in operation all the year, the 
shad station on the Hudson, the mascalonge station on 
Chautauqua Lake, the whitefish stations on Hemlock and 
Canandaigua lakes, the collection of lake trout eggs in 
Lakes Michigan and Superior, the collection of wild brook 
and lake trout eggs in the waters of the State, the collec- 
tion of lobster, smelt and tomcod eggs in the Sound and 
bays 'and streams of Long Island, the equipment and re- 
pairs of the State fish car, the expenses incurred in bring- 
ing the contributions of the United States into New York 
and in planting them by means of cars or messengers of 
the U. S. Fish Commission. For this outlay the State 
waters receive every year in the neighborhood of 200,000,- 
000 fish, and it is generally conceded to be a good 
business investment for the State. 
The declaration made by Mr. Conine in the last sentence 
of his interview I do not pretend to understand, and I 
doubt if he does. He says : "In New York State $TOO,ooo 
will not pay the expenses, and a number have made them- 
selves wealthy in the business." Which business? I 
really do not know how he wishes to be understood. If he 
means the men who hatch fish at the per diem of 
$1.50 to $2, he must be in error or the men would not 
continue to work in all temperatures of water and in all 
weathers at this rate, for it is not a job that the wealthy 
would eling to for any length of time, and I am forced 
to conclude that he must have thought that he was being 
interviewed upon some other subject than shad culture; 
but if he will persist in engaging in matters relating to 
shad, I would suggest that he take a partner by the name 
of Wm. Duncan, that I find mentioned in the Philadel- 
phia Record under the head line : 
"seriously bitten by a shad. 
"Wilmington, Del., June 3. — William Duncan, aged 
twenty-six years, a Delaware River fisherman, was bitten 
by a shad and is now in the Delaware Hospital here, 
suflFering severely. While hauling in his net ten days 
ago one of the fish, which was particularly vicious, seized 
his hand in its mouth and inflicted a painful injury. The 
fish had fine teeth, which cut the flesh. The wound was 
regarded as trivial, but in a few daj's the hand began 
to swell. Now it is inflamed and swollen much larger 
than the usual size, and serious results are feared. The 
injury is infected with a poisonous matter, and the out- 
come may be blood poisoning." 
As the shad has no teeth, not even vicious shad, the 
firm might be Conine & Duncan; then if they could 
find the man who crossed the shad with the jellyfish, they 
could add "& Company," by taking him into the firm, and 
the only plant required would be a credulous reporter on 
the staff of the daily or weekly press, with a department 
devoted to fisheries. 
The Other Side of the Shield. 
Since reading the interview I have quoted above. I have 
heard from Capt. John Pindar, of Catskill, and as he 
has made his living for many years — I think all his life-— 
as a shad fisherman, and is still in the business, it is fair 
to assume that he knows something about it. Capt. Pin- 
dar says : "My attention having been called to certain 
statements alleged to have been made by Jacob Conine in 
an interview, I desire to say that Mr. Conine's premises 
are false, and his conclusions are mistaken. So far this 
has been the best shad season in ten years, and last 
year on the lower Hudson was the best shad year in 
twenty years." Capt. Pindar contends that the fish that 
are growing scarce in the Hudson are those which are 
not cultivated artifically, like the sturgeon and bullheads. 
He underlines this statement: "If it had not been for the 
shad hatcheries there^ would not be a shad in the Hudson 
to-day." I once heard a shad fisherman declare before a 
legislative committee that the run of shad in the Hudson 
depended solely upon whether or not the fish came into the 
river from the sea, and the hatching operations had 
nothing to do with it. Capt. Pindar is not that kind of 
a fisherman, for he knows what he is talking about when 
he talks about shad fishing and the habits of shad. 
A. N. Cheney. 
lake to the skeptical Bassford, arid was no\y in shape to 
make his word good. 
And here is where the devil got uppermost in Bassford. 
He had a loaded cigar in his pocket, and thinking of the 
ruction it would raise if scientifically smoked by that 
husky, long-limbed Hibernian, he forthwith handed it to 
him. It was duly lighted, and some moments elapsing 
before Byod took up the reins to drive to the banks of 
the lake, the cigar meanwhile got in its work, blowing into 
fragments and filling the settler's eyes and face with 
tobacco dust, powder and ashes. 
Pen, pencil or cold type cannot sufficiently convey to 
the reader the luird situation that followed. When Boyd 
and Bassford were safely down the back track a mile or 
so nearer home than before the explosion, Boyd turned 
around to Bassford and remarked that "some day his 
durned fooling would be apt to get him into serious 
trouble." That particular fishing trip can be literally said 
to have gone up in smoke. 
CliARLES CrISTADORO. 
The Settler and the Loaded Cigar. 
We have a man out this way named Bassford, fond 
of a rod and a gun, but yet more fond of fun along the 
lines of practiacl joking than any man I know of. 
He and a party named Boyd went fishing. They were 
to fish a secluded lake teeming with small-mouthed bass 
of gigantic size twenty miles away in the woods and 
unknown as a fishing spot to the outside world. 
Taking a team and swinging a boat to the axles of the 
wagon, they started off for a long drive through the 
woods. Boyd had fished the lake before and knew the 
way, and all went well until nearing the end of their 
journey they came chock-a-block against a barbed-w'ire 
fence shutting off the road and extending off into the 
woods. It was evident that a homestead settler had 
taken up the land around the lake and was fencing things 
in to make it easier for him to find his cattle at ngihtfall. 
A council of war was held, and it was decided to go 
through or over the wires, which, after some work, was 
finally accomplished, the fence wires benefiting nothing 
from the operation. 
Ten rods along the road and they came to a clearing 
with the settler's shanty in view. The door swung on its 
hinges and out rushed a tall, raw-boned individual, who 
grabbed up a hoe and made straight for the wagon, swear- 
ing as only a mad Irishman can swear when occaison 
demands it. Here was a pretty how de do! Boj^d. in a 
moment, saw that unless they could lick the settler it 
meant no fishing that trip. 
Following the usual preliminaries in the way of argu- 
ments, recriimnations and general profanity, things getting 
warmer every moment, Boyd, after fumbling among his 
dunnage, yanked out a bottle of whisky and without 
further ado proffered it to the settler. Hostilities ceased 
at once, l^issford and Boyd were given the freedom of 
the farffl the lake, and wir-e fences vvfere forthwith 
forgott-^^^, What will whisky not do sometimes? 
Food of Sea Lions. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
Referring to C. Hart Merriam's article ill your 
issue of May 25 on the "Food of Sea Lions," permit me 
to submit a few comments upon his position and argu- 
ments, for I have been an interested reader of the cor- 
respondence between our State Fish Commission and 
the eastern authorities, as published in the last report 
of the Fish Commission. I am free to admit that up to 
the time of reading Dr. Merriam's article I did not 
believe that there were two sides to the question of the 
sea lions destroying fish; and while Dr. Merriam has 
called attention to a very interesting piece of evidence. I 
think he places too much stress upon one fact, whilc 
ignoring, in rather a free and unfair way, evidence which 
the Fish Commission of California had already published 
and of which he must have had knowledge, and of which 
he knew most of the readers of Science were in igno- 
rance. He says in his article, "The local fishermen, the 
State Fish Commission and others assert without qualifi- 
cation that sea lions feed extensively upon salmon." 
From tliis one learns that the witnesses against the sea 
lions are first, the fishermen; second, the State Fish 
Commission, and finally "and others." 
ISow who are the principal witnesses against the sea 
lions and what are their qualifications, that they are to 
be dismissed in this sweeping was as "and others?" I 
do not recall its use by any man of standing as applied 
to such distinguished scientific gentlemen as Dr. David 
Starr Jordan and Dr. Charles H. Gilbert, of Stanford 
University, and Dr. Harkness, of. the California Acad- 
emy of Science, yet Dr. Merriam must have been famil- 
iar with the fact that the California Commission con- 
ferred with them, and had their indorsement, before they 
requested the right to kill on reservations. Dr. David 
Starr Jordan wrote in 1899: "In the case of the small." 
black, barking sea lion (salophus) there can be no ques- 
tion. It enters the rivers and takes fish from the nets 
and is probably very destructive," and later "that the 
brown sea lion (salophus) was a terror and a robber who 
deserved no support." Dr. Merriam must also have 
been familiar with the fact that Dr. Charles H. Gilbert 
had written, "My knowledge of the fish eating propensi- 
ties of the California sea lion dates from 1880, when I 
assisted Dr. Jordan to take the census of the fisheries 
of the Pacific Coast, I then had a fairly extensive expe- 
rience upon the fishing grounds, in company with fisher- 
men. and I became convinced from my own observations 
and from conversations with these men, that the sea lion 
is enormously destructive of fish and fishing gear. I 
have seen these animals patrolling the gill nets; I have 
seen them eating fish. I am in favor of the reduction 
in the size of the herds of the sea lions on the California 
coast, and believe that such reduction will materially 
increase the fish supply in these waters." In the face of 
this evidence was Dr. Merriam justified in speaking of 
Dr. Jordan and Dr. Gilbert as "and others"? 
In concluding his article. Dr. Merriam makes this 
remarkable statement: "It is not claimed that sea Hons 
in their native element never eat fish, at the same time 
the only actual evidence we have on the subject fails 
utterlv to substantiate the allegations of the fishermen." 
In view of the quotations already made from Dr. Jordan 
and Dr. Gilbert, I submit that they appear to me to be 
actual evidence and are not to be dismissed as failing 
"utterly to substantiate," for here on the coast we have 
learned to give full weight and consideration to the state- 
ments of the distinguished President of Stanford Uni- 
versity and his able assistant. Dr. Gilbert. Here they 
are believed to be careful and learned scientists, espe- 
cially versed in aquatic life, and we do not, when we find 
them arrayed upon any side of a controversy, speak of 
them as "and others." Out here we are more familiar 
with their names than with the name of C. Hart Merriam. 
for they have become Californians in the best meaning 
of the term, and we resent their being written of as 
"others" and their statements dismissed as "failing 
utterly to substantiate." 
And finally Dr, Merriam states, "And is it not signifi- 
cant that in former years, when sea lions were much 
more plentiful than now, salmon also were more abun- 
dant? If the fishermen will look into their own habits 
and customs during the past twenty-five years, it is be- 
lieved that the cause of the decrease of the salmon will 
not be difficult to find, and this without changing the 
decrease to the inoffensive sea lion." I cannot find that 
the State Commission has ever claimed that the decrease 
in salmon is due alone to the sea lion. Who believes 
that to be the case? "Before the Gringo came," who 
cared what damage the sea lions did to the fishes, or who 
knows how many of either there were in the waters? 
With the comin.g of the white man his demands changed 
the equation. Fishing for salmon began and has con- 
tinued. The killing of sea lions for their hides, oils and 
whiskers was carried on for a time, the adult males only 
being killed. The carcass is now of no value and the 
hunters went out of business some years ago, since which 
time the herd, so far as any one knows, is as large as 
it ever was. What "actual evidence" has Dr. Mer-riam 
to substantiate his. statement that "in former year§^ 
