316 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
If Bishop referred to the large form of smelt he was quite correct in regarding 
it as something of a fish eater, in which respect it may be considered as relatively 
voracious, as already indicated by some instances mentioned in this paper in con- 
nection with the food of smelts ; but under no natural conditions are they a menace 
to young trout and salmon, for the young of the latter two species do not occur in 
the deep-water resort of the smelt, and the smelt is not seeking food when it ascends 
streams to spawn, where young trout and salmon occur. 
Nordqvist (1910) states that the fishermen at Lake Oppmanna, in southern 
Sweden, assert that the smelt destroy pike-perch fry in great quantities. 
From what is known of the food and feeding habits of the smelt, under any cir- 
cumstances only the large form could be regarded as to any extent dangerous to 
trout or salmon. A 14 or 15 inch smelt is quite a formidable fish of prey so far as 
dental equipment and capacity are concerned, but such smelts are not of common 
occurrence. With a few exceptions the smelts of natural, landlocked, salmon waters 
in Maine are comparatively small. One of these exceptions is Sebago Lake. There 
is no evidence that any scarcity of salmon in that lake can to any extent be attributed 
to the smelt. 
There is no evidence that salmon ever eat the adults of the large form, although 
it probably does not discriminate between the young of the large and small forms. 
Therefore, in the introduction of smelts solely for salmon or trout food it would be 
advisable to select the small form; for, unless the small form, under favorable condi- 
tions, attains the size of the other, two services thereby would be rendered — (1) provi- 
sion of food of suitable size at all times for the trout and salmon, and (2) avoidance of 
any possible danger from a potentially predatory large smelt. 
It is known that in Lake Champlain salmon once existed in considerable num- 
bers, and there can be no doubt but that the smelt (large smelt at that) was a 
contemporary inhabitant of the same lake; but there is no evidence that the smelt 
was in any way concerned in the extinction of Lake Champlain salmon or that it was 
a contributory cause of the scarcity of lake trout. 
For the reason that there are still those who regard the smelt in inland waters 
with disfavor on account of some imaginary harmful trait or other, as depicted by 
bishop, this article has been given the prominence it has received here, although it is 
something over a quarter of a century old. An example of another common objec- 
tion to the smelt is found in some extracts from a letter received by John W. Titcomb 
then fish commissioner of Vermont, and published in Forest and Stream of June 27, 
1896, as follows: 
May 8th I reached Sunapee Lake and thought I would try the fish for a few days before writ- 
ing to you, as I intended doing. * * * . The poor fishing was laid to the smelt, as they had 
come in shore and run up the stream and then gone back to deeper water, and are followed wherever 
they go by the salmon and trout. Now it is a question in my mind whether smelt are or are not an 
advantage, and from what I learn at Sunapee, and I have been there now a number of times, I am 
about convinced that they are a disadvantage in more ways than one. 
They no doubt spoil fly-fishing, as the trout and salmon are forever after the smelt, and after 
the first week or so after the ice leaves it is almost impossible to catch the smelt for bait, and even 
if they are caught they cannot be kept alive more than a few minutes, and consequently it is about 
mpossible to obtain bait, and even if it could be got it is of very little use when dead. Of course 
