The Failure of our Shad Fisheries. 
For many years it has been impossible for the 
Federal fishery authorities to “point with pride” 
to the condition of the shad fisheries, as an ex¬ 
ample of the beneficent effects of artificial propa¬ 
gation. Since the inauguration of shad culture on 
an extensive scale about twenty-five years ago, 
the trend of the shad fisheries has been steadily 
upward until the last few years, notwithstanding 
the fishing was conducted under conditions more 
and more unfavorable to the conservation of the 
supply. When it was seen that the efforts to 
operate the hatcheries to their full capacity was 
becoming more difficult and expensive each 
season, the note of alarm was sounded, and it was 
pointed out that unless the States took adequate 
action, the early failure of the shad fisheries was 
a necessary and inevitable result of the curtailment 
of spawning. 
The following pertinent references to this sub¬ 
ject may be found in the report of the U. S. 
Fish Commissioner for 1905: 
Conditions affecting important branches of the 
work in certain States are such as to occasion 
solicitude for the welfare of the fisheries because 
of the failure of the States to appreciate the ne¬ 
cessity of insuring the survival of a certain pro¬ 
portion of the run of fish until the eggs are de¬ 
posited naturally or taken by the fish-culturist. 
The intelligent adaptation of artificial propaga¬ 
tion to particular fisheries will insure the per¬ 
petuation of the species and permit the greatest 
freedom in the fishery, but artificial propagation 
unaided can not maintain fisheries that are con¬ 
ducted with such vigor and energy that the per¬ 
centage of fish which reach the spawning grounds 
is each year growing smaller. The Bureau can 
not contemplate without concern the trend of the 
shad fisheries of Chesapeake Bay, the salmon fish¬ 
eries of Oregon, Washington and Alaska, and the 
whitefish fisheries of the Great Lakes, and be¬ 
lieves that the situation demands the prompt 
attention of the various States concerned. The 
failure of these important fisheries may not be 
imminent, but that it is certain, if the present 
conditions are permitted to continue, no unbiased 
and well-informed person can doubt. 
* * * * * 
An almost unprecedentedly small run of shad 
in the tributaries of Chesapeake Bay and in other 
waters where the Bureau has hatcheries resulted 
in one of the poorest seasons in the history of 
shad culture. The spring was unusually favor¬ 
able for all kinds of net fishing in the bays and 
estuaries, and consequently a very large propor¬ 
tion of the run was caught before the fish reached 
the spawning grounds. It is reported that the 
catch of shad in the Potomac River in 1905 was 
the smallest ever known. Unless the number of 
shad nets that may be set in and below the 
mouths of streams is limited and the survival of 
a fair proportion of the spawning fish is insured, 
the efforts of the Bureau to maintain this impor¬ 
tant fishery may not be successful. 
He * * * 
For several years the very valuable shad fishery 
of North Carolina has been declining, and in con¬ 
sequence of the scarcity of ripe fish the Bureau’s 
shad hatching operations in that State have been 
much interfered with. The decline is generally 
ascribed to the capture of an increasingly and in¬ 
ordinately large percentage of the run of spawn¬ 
ing fish in salt water, owing to the setting of 
numerous fixed and movable devices in such a 
way as to intercept the schools. The seriousness 
of the situation was fully appreciated by the State 
Legislature, and measures for the protection of 
the shad were considered at the last session. The 
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau, having 
made an investigation of the condition and needs 
of the fishery, appeared before the legislature by 
invitation and gave the results of his observations 
and made suggestions for improving the fishery. 
Shortly afterwards the legislature enacted special 
laws along the lines advocated by the Bureau 
which it is expected will prove effective. 
The shad season of 1906 was probably the 
poorest ever known, as regards the run of fish in 
the rivers, and, as a consequence, the work of ar¬ 
tificial propagation was a dismal failure all along 
the line. The extent of the operations of the 
shad hatcheries is a very good criterion of the 
condition of the fisheries, for on every stream 
where hatching is done the most active and sys¬ 
tematic efforts are made to collect all available 
eggs. The following results of shad cultivation 
in 1906 are therefore very suggestive: 
On the Potomac, where within four years 
nearly 100,000,000 eggs have been obtained during 
a period of six or seven weeks, much more per¬ 
sistent endeavors yielded only 12,700,000 eggs in 
1906; and one seine, which in 1896 caught 194,000 
shad, this year obtained less than 2,000. 
On the Susquehanna, where ten years ago over 
200,000,000 shad eggs were collected from the 
fishermen’s boats, it was possible to' secure this 
season only 8,500,000. 
On the Delaware, long the leading shad stream, 
where within a few years more than 100,000,000 
eggs had been taken in one season from fish 
destined for the markets, the entire egg produc¬ 
tion in 1906, notwithstanding the most active 
■efforts of the Bureau of Fisheries at all the im¬ 
portant fishing centers, was less than 250,000. 
It is rather significant that more than half the 
number of shad eggs artificially hatched in 1906 
were at the station in North Carolina, heretofore 
the least productive Slate, but where legislation 
to protect the shad and ensure a run to the 
spawning grounds has recently been enacted. 
The Commissioner of Fisheries makes this plea 
for the protection of food fishes in his official 
report for 1905: 
Several cases have recently arisen suggestive 
of the benefits that might accrue to the fishing 
industry if the general government exercised 
jurisdiction. These cases also show how the fish- 
cultural work of the Bureau of Fisheries and of 
the State fish commissions may. be counteracted 
and perhaps rendered entirely nugatory, and how 
valuable station property may be rendered worth¬ 
less, through failure of the States to afford proper 
protection to the fishes. 
Attention may be drawn particularly to the 
salmon fisheries of the Pacific States. These fish¬ 
eries are so extensive and exhausting, and the 
property interests involved are so valuable, that 
every precaution should be taken to insure the 
unimpaired perpetuation of the various species of 
salmon, as has been done in California. It would 
appear, however, that elsewhere the trend of 
public sentiment is in the direction of the greatest 
freedom of fishery, with little or no regard for 
even the near future. This is shown by the cur¬ 
tailing of already too short closed seasons on the 
Columbia and other rivers, by the erection of im¬ 
passable dams in streams that salmon are wont to 
ascend to spawn, and by the unrestricted opera¬ 
tion of fishing devices in localities where they 
are known to be unnecessarily destructive. A 
pernicious' example of the last-named condition 
is' the multiplication of pound nets and gill nets 
about the mouth of the Skagit River on Puget 
Sound, notwithstanding the well-known facts that 
it is the only stream in that region in which there 
is a noteworthy run of blueback or sock-eye 
salmon for Spawning purposes, and that the only 
hatchery operated chiefly for this species is 
located on Baker Lake, at the head of that stream. 
The present indications are that the Baker Lake 
hatchery may shortly have to be abandoned, be¬ 
cause the run of fish will have been annihilated. 
The attitude of indifference on the part of par¬ 
ticular States to the preservation of valuable 
natural resources like the fresh-water and anad- 
romous fishes and the lack of appreciation of the 
beneficent work carried on by the government 
through the Bureau of Fisheries demand serious 
attention. It is respectfully recommended that 
consideration be accorded the proposition to dis¬ 
continue all government fishery work in those 
States that exhibit no healthy sentiment in favor 
of the preservation of their supply of food and 
game fishes, Congress being asked to grant such 
authority, if necessary. 
Carp and Black Bass. 
Mr. Clemens, Mich. — Editor Forest Mid- 
Stream : At a gathering of several local fisher¬ 
men, readers of Forest and Stream, it was de¬ 
cided to mail you the inclosed report from the 
Detroit News, every word of which we know 
to be the truth from observation. 
Ray Fellows. 
Charles P. Salen, of Cleveland, O., clerk of 
the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga coun¬ 
ty, who has fished for bass in Lake St. Clair 
during the spring season for many years, and 
who has a true sportsman’s interest in the pre¬ 
servation of the game fish in that region, writes 
the News to call attention to what he regards 
as the perpetration of a great fraud in the name 
of fish protection. Mr. Salen was in Michigan 
recently, and spent considerable time on the west 
shore of the lake, watching the operations of 
the carp fishermen, of whom he claims that two, 
one from Detroit and one from Mt. Clemens, 
have a monopoly of the business. His letter 
speaks very clearly for itself and is as follows: 
“Some years ago when the German carp 
drifted from the ponds of the farmers into the 
streams and lakes, tore up the roots of water 
vegetation and made the water turbid, the cry . 
was raised that it meant the annihilation of 
native fish, especially those which' struck the 
bait of the game fisherman. The question then 
arose as to how to meet the invasion of our 
waters by this pest, and somebody in Michigan, 
whose identity it is difficult to trace, suggested 
that the carp be seined out of Lake St. Clair. 
The Legislature passed the act and the fish 
and game commission issued the licenses under 
which the carp fishermen are sweeping the west 
shore of this ancient home of the game fish. 
“Three years ago, before the slaughter of the 
seine began, bass fishing had reached its hight 
in the region of the Clinton River. Since then 
it has gradually diminished until now it is al¬ 
most a memory. Instead of decimating the 
carp, the seining has multiplied them. Instead 
of acting as a protection to the native fish, it 
has destroyed them or driven them from the 
waters of the west shore. 
“The belief that carp were a detriment to the 
growth of game fish has long since been ex¬ 
ploded. The fact that bass fishing became so 
excellent three years ago, after the carp had 
