314 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
destroying trout, when the birds were actually feeding upon suckers; and the sucker 
is condemned by the same judge for alleged destruction of trout eggs. 
The same sort of situations extend through the whole field of so-called "enemies.” 
The term "enemy,” then, is an unfortunate misnomer when the balance has not 
been upset in favor of an alleged enemy. Under such circumstance the animal 
may actually become not only a menace but a destructive agent. However, the 
extermination of this, in the majority of cases, is not so likely to remedy the 
situation as it is to render some other factor more detrimental. Efforts directed 
toward control should be constructive rather than destructive. The aim should be 
to restore the balance as nearly as possible by renewal of the lost parts of the mech- 
anism rather than by the removal of any more parts. While, as has been stated, 
some of the most highly esteemed game fishes are pronounced smelt eaters, they are 
not regarded as enemies by the sportsman. In fact, many anglers regard the 
smelt as undesirable and obstructive to angling. This question is discussed on 
subsequent pages. 
HARMFULNESS OF SMELT 
There is an occasional individual who rather inconsistently pronounces the 
smelt to be an enemy of certain game fishes. More than a quarter of a century ago 
Bainbridge Bishop (1897) entered a protest against the introduction of smelts into 
trout and salmon waters. By means of a long argument entitled "Are smelts a 
menace?” he evidently believed that he had proved his case. But while his objec- 
tions to the indiscriminate distribution of fishes into waters not previously containing 
them is sound, his argument against the smelt is based upon false premises and is 
fallacious and misleading. The fault in his article was apparently attributable 
to his lack of knowledge concerning the habits of some of the fish discussed and 
concerning the smelt in particular. The article contains so much of interest and 
value that it is quoted here at length and is followed by comments on certain incon- 
sistent and incorrect statements. 
I see that the Fish Comissioners congratulate themselves that it took them only six years to 
fully stock two of the most beautiful trout and landlocked salmon lakes in New England, and that 
the lake trout there caught are larger and fatter than common. Just so; the adult trout fatten 
on the smelt and the smelt can fatten on the young trout and landlocked salmon; so the wheel 
goes round. The smelt being 1,000 to one in the majority, any novice can figure out what the 
result will be. 
Let the Fish Commissioners be assured of one thing — they have effectually stopped the breed- 
ing and increase of trout and landlocked salmon in these lakes for all time to come. As an object 
lesson, look at Lake Champlain from Westport to Cumberland Head. It is an ideal lake trout 
water in every respect. For the last fifty years there has been once in a while a fine lake trout 
caught, but like angels’ visits they are few and far between. Why do they not increase and become 
plenty? For answer I would say it was this: smelt have free access to this lake from the sea, and 
have partially or practically become landlocked, that is, they can be found at all times of the year 
in all the deeper parts of the lake and in the identical depth of water that would naturally be 
inhabited by the young and adult trout. 
The planting of lake trout and landlocked salmon in Champlain, with the idea that they would 
breed and increase, is fallacious in the extreme. It will only result in a waste of time and money. 
Although if landlocked salmon could be made to breed in the streams running into Champlain, 
that is above where the smelt go, and would stay there till they grew of a size that the smelt could 
not destroy, we might be hopeful of a favorable result. 
