108 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
once to Ottumwa and Eldon to ascertain the facts more directly. Nineteen persons 
in all were interviewed, and the information gained served to throw rather more 
light upon human psychology than upon the actual effects of the dam. (See also, 
Coker, 1914, p. 24.) At Ottumwa, of nine persons engaged in fishing, eight said 
positively that there were no more fish than ordinarily, while one thought that there 
were more “Government shad” every year; five asserted that fishing was worse than 
usual; three of these fishermen said the dam was bound to have an effect, although 
it could not be seen. Of two persons who never fished, one had “heard” that there 
were more and one thought there “must” be more. 8 
At Eldon three fishermen reported the fishing poorer than last year, but one said 
there were more fish, although they did not catch more; two dealers said fish were 
distinctly less plentiful than last year; two nonfishermen said fish were more plenti- 
ful. Another person from Keosauqua said there were few fish this year at that place. 
Several persons at both places visited spoke of there being in evidence an unusual 
number of very small carp and channel catfish, not compensating, however, for the 
usually greater abundance of fish of commercial size. It was noteworthy that many 
of the fishermen suggested explanations for the unusual scarcity of commercial fish, 
attributing the cause to pollution or to gars. 
It is certain that the rumors that led to the inquiries were based not upon facts 
but altogether upon expectation, and that the expectations were not realized in 1913. 
The expectation evidently was founded upon the common impression that there is a 
mass migration of fish in general up the stream courses, and that if this mass move- 
ment is checked in one stream it must be deflected into the nearest available tribu- 
tary. Certainly the information gained does not offer substantiation for such an 
impression. 
In July, 1916, Mr. Stringham spent two days at Ottumwa, Iowa, and found 
that there had been no remarkable abundance of fish in recent years; a few carp were 
then being caught on set lines, and it was said that catfish were taken occasionally. 
One or two fishermen believed that the Keokuk Dam diverted fish up the Des 
Moines River, but that they did not get above Bonaparte, Iowa, because of wastes 
from a gas plant at Ottumwa. One day was spent at Bonaparte, and careful in- 
quiries were made of the one man who depended largely on fishing for a livelihood 
and the three others who did considerable fishing. They testified that the gar was 
the only fish taken in unusual numbers and that fishing was better when there had 
been a dam at the location. The dam referred to was washed out about 1903 
(Lincoln, 1904, p. 11), 10 years before the completion of the Keokuk Dam. How- 
ever, it was definitely learned at Keokuk in October, 1915, that commercial fisher- 
men from that place were then making some large catches of spotted catfish on the 
lower Des Moines River. Inquiry of three of the older fishermen showed that the 
Des Moines had long been a good place to catch this species, particularly in autumn, 
and the literature shows that the fish was very common many years before the 
Keokuk Dam was built. (Jordan and Meek, 1885, p. 2; Call, 1892, p. 45.) It is pos- 
sible that the runs of spotted cat in the Des Moines River in 1913 and 1915 may 
have been increased by fish from the Mississippi, which, but for having encountered 
an obstruction at Keokuk, would have continued up the main stream; but there is 
no evidence to that effect. 
8 A Mr. Bryant at Ottumwa told of the capture of a single specimen of paddlefish in the Des Moines River at Ottumwa in 1911 
(before the dam was built). The fish was unknown locally. There is, I believe, no other record of the capture of this species in 
that river. 
