172 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
fish, that we can not readily dismiss the possibility that eels find their way beyond the 
dam, both in upward and downward migration. However, when we consider the 
physical condition of the dam at Keokuk (Coker, 1929) the very nicety and complete- 
ness of its construction, it becomes evident that there is no possible passageway 
upward except the lock, and that few can pass through this. Not one eel was taken 
in the trammel net operated on the lock gate, nor was one reported from the catches 
on the gate itself. 
In the Mississippi River and its tributaries above the dam the eels that were there 
before the dam was constructed and the few that may pass through the lock may five 
and come to maturity, but without a better passageway than now exists there can 
not be an important eel population in that region. If, however, we examine the 
statistics of commercial fisheries we find that the eel has never been of commercial 
importance in the upper waters of the Mississippi. (Table 3.) 
Table 3. — Catch of eels, in pounds, in States hordering the Mississippi River in 1899, 1908, and 1922 1 
State 
1899 
1908 
1922 
State 
1899 
1908 
1922 
900 
800 
540 
Arkansas 
3, 702 
3, 900 
14, 180 
3, 930 
1, 670 
0 
1, 745 
10, 943 
29, 263 
6, 456 
1,600 
5, 400 
31, 000 
17, 000 
313 
Kentucky 
300 
0 
0 
Tennessee 
3, 100 
0 
578 
10, 500 
3, 000 
Mississippi . . . 
0 
Louisiana 
0 
0 
1 Data for 1899 from Townsend (1902); for 1908 from U. S. Bureau of the Census (1911); for 1922 from Sette (1925). 
It is evident from these figures that the yield of eels in past years has been greatest 
neither in the extreme lower portion of the Mississippi River nor in the upper portion 
but in the middle section where the river flows between Illinois and Iowa, Missouri, 
and Tennessee. The catches in Minnesota and Wisconsin have never been signifi- 
cant. We are only surprised that 10 and even 15 years after the construction of the 
dam eels should be taken at all in the extreme Northern States. However, it is 
understood that eels may remain in fresh water for as much as 18 years. It must be 
understood that there is no special eel fishery with appropriate apparatus, and, 
therefore, that even a small catch suggests that eels are not uncommon. 
In 1926 the author inquired regarding eels of fishermen at various points on the 
river from Lake City, Minn., to Canton, Mo. At all places it was reported that eels 
are still captured occasionally — two or three a year, perhaps. Only one fisherman 
above Keokuk spoke of seeing small eels in recent years. Eels taken in the lake and 
above are usually 3 pounds or more in weight, up to 7 pounds. 
On the other hand, below the dam, at Keokuk, small eels are reported as taken 
commonly. Market reports were that many were too small to buy. The smallest 
seen by the author was at Canton, Mo. ; it weighed 9 ounces in the rough. Luther 
McAdams, a careful observer, said that in the fall of 1925 he observed and caught large 
numbers of eels about the size of a lead pencil. They were on the apron of the dam 
below a closed spillway and were trying to follow up a small stream that came from 
a leak in the gate above. They would work up the face of the spillway 3 or 4 feet and 
fall back again. He gathered about a half bushel of them. William Stanton, a fish 
dealer, said that a diver had reported to him the presence of enormous numbers of 
small eels in the lower part of the drift chamber below a turbine. If such aggregation 
