Aug. ii, 1906.] FOREST AND STREAM. 
About Birds and Fish. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In common with hundreds of your readers, I 
have been much interested by recent letters in 
your columns anent the alleged return of the 
passenger pigeon to its old haunts. The state¬ 
ments of Mr. Burroughs, in your issue of July 14, 
are so clear and definite, and he is so competent 
and careful an observer, that I was somewhat 
surprised that they are considered doubtful by 
Mr. W. B. Mershon, another competent investi¬ 
gator whose pen now too seldom graces your 
columns. That Mr. Burroughs, or the man he 
mentions, could mistake a flight of curlews, 
plovers or Carolina doves for a flock of passen¬ 
ger pigeons, is to me incredible. I could as 
readily believe that an angler of Mr. Mershon’s 
large experience could be mistaken when he 
states that he saw, during his last outing on the 
Grand Cascapedia, a salmon feeding on flies or 
water bugs; or that I was mistaken when I saw, 
a few years ago, a bunch of six passenger pigeons 
pass within a thousand yards of where I stood. 
As there are neither curlews, plovers nor Caro¬ 
lina doves in this part of New Brunswick, I could 
not have mistaken them for wild pigeons. I 
hope Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Mershon will con¬ 
tinue their investigations and let your numerous 
readers know the results. 
Mr. Mershon’s interesting letter revives the old 
question which is the reproach of naturalists. 
After all that has been written on the life history 
of Salmo salar, in Europe and America, it is 
surely a reproach to ichthyologists that so simple 
a question _ as this species of the genus Salmo 
living half its life without eating, is yet undecided 
by savants. That the fish which Mr. Mershon 
saw and caught was feeding, is proved by the 
fact that six flies were found in its alimentary 
canal and intestines. Plain, unlettered, common- 
sense people would conclude that this fact—one 
only of thousands observed and of hundreds 
recorded—settled the matter; but it seems that so 
distinguished a scientist as Dr. Weir Mitchell, to 
whom the insects, preserved in alcohol, were 
submitted by Mr. Mershon, gives the result of 
his examination in these words: “Food is often 
found in the salmon, which they probably bring 
in from the sea, or possibly take after reaching 
fresh water; but it is never digested after the 
fish reaches fresh water. There is no question 
about a salmon’s digestive apparatus becoming 
useless after coming into fresh water.” [The 
italics are mine.] 
With all due deference to Dr. Mitchell, I 
would respectfully ask him on what data or by 
what reasoning he arrived at the conclusion I 
have underlined. Surely it is in direct con¬ 
flict with the facts submitted by Mr. Mershon, 
and with the thousands of instances in which 
salmon have been caught with bait in Scotch, 
English and Irish rivers, as well as in those 
of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of America. 
Until Dr. Mitchell gives us some more substan¬ 
tial reason, that his mere ipse dixit , observers 
like Mr. Mershon, Charles Hallock and the 
writer must think his general conclusion is 
founded on too limited an induction. The ex¬ 
quisite humor and sarcasm with which Mr. 
Mershon concludes his interesting letter show 
what he thinks of Dr. Mitchell’s fad. Will not 
your well-informed correspondents, Dr. Morris 
and Mr. Chambers, tell us what they know about 
this matter? 
In frequent conversations with the late Prof. 
Spencer F. Baird, the writer has reason to think 
that the facts he presented, led that great scien¬ 
tist to revise his opinion. Could he have known 
the facts related by Mr. Mershon, I am per¬ 
suaded that he would have reformed it altogether. 
Sussex, N. B., Aug. 1 . The Old Angler. 
American Fisheries Society. 
Forty-nine delegates representing thirteen 
States gathered at the thirty-fifth annual meet¬ 
ing of the American Fisheries Society at Grand 
Rapids last week. New York State was repre¬ 
sented by Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, the State fisli- 
eulturist, and Mr. John D. Whish, the secretary 
of the Forest, Fish and Game Commission. The 
sessions were exceedingly practical and closely 
attended by the members, in spite of the many 
invitations extended by the committee of citizens. 
The meetings were held in the rooms of the 
Board of Trade, where Mayor S. F. Ellis wel¬ 
comed the Society most cordially and gave the 
members the freedom of the city at noon on 
July 24. President Joslyn, who responded to the 
welcome, called the attention of the Society to 
the fact that Blaine once called Grand Rapids 
“the largest city of its size in the country.” Mr. 
AN ADIRONDACK WOODS FAIRY. 
W. R. Shelby, speaking for the Consolidated 
Sportsmen’s Association, greeted the delegates 
as fellow fishermen. 
Business began briskly after the short pre¬ 
liminary greetings. The standing committees 
for the session were announced and Mr. Mee¬ 
han, of Massachusetts, detailed the progress 
made in protective laws during the year. As an 
evidence of its esteem the Society commis¬ 
sioned Mr. Henry F. Depue, of New York, who 
is going abroad for several years, to be its repre¬ 
sentative in all foreign countries through which 
he may pass. 
Prof. Jacob Reighard, of Michigan University, 
opened the formal programme with a highly im¬ 
portant paper on “The Identification for Legal 
Purposes of Mutilated or Dressed Specimens of 
Whitefish or Herring from the Great Lakes.” 
His researches were called forth by the seizure 
of a very large quantity of what were declared 
to be undersized whitefish by the game pro¬ 
tector, but which the fishermen insisted were 
not whitefish at all. As the fish had been split 
and salted and the heads removed there was a 
hard problem presented, but science solved it by 
the microscopic examination of the scales. The 
paper was illustrated by drawings, and seemed to 
solve a vexed problem, but the speaker said 
his experiments ought to be carried much further 
in order to make the plan of definite value. The 
game wardens, however, seemed to think that 
they had in the method offered a sure way to 
catch the smarter class of offenders. 
In discussing the paper, Dr. Bean urged that 
the members try to get the scientific name of 
the fish to be protected written into the law that 
is passed for the purpose of protection. He cited 
the case which has very recently arisen in New 
York State, where the fishermen deny that blue 
pike is protected by the law that forbids the 
netting of pike-perch, although the understand¬ 
ing when the bill was passed was that the entire 
pike-perch family was to be protected. 
A plea for “Protection as an Aid to Propaga¬ 
tion” was next made in an able paper by Mr. S. 
F. Fullerton, of St. Paul, Minn. He called at¬ 
tention to the steady decline of the Great Lake 
fisheries and the utter failure of the best efforts 
of fishculturists to bring them up to their former 
level. Both the U. S. Commission and the Com¬ 
missions of the States bordering on the lakes 
have poured millions of fish from their hatch¬ 
eries into the lakes, but whitefish and lake trout 
have steadily fallen off in numbers. His con¬ 
clusion was that the trouble is due to the failure 
of the States bordering on these lakes to prop¬ 
erly protect the waters. He asserted that hun¬ 
dreds of lake trout recently seized weighed less 
than one pound. The remedy he proposed was 
more care in planting the fry, an uniform close 
season for the Great Lakes, more care in licens¬ 
ing the market fishermen, strict examination of 
the catch and absolutely no fishing on spawning 
grounds. He did not believe these fisheries 
would ever be restored unless the States ceded 
control of the lakes to the Federal Government, 
and a suitable treaty is made with Canada. 
This paper stirred up the members at once. 
Mr. Titcomb added to it by calling attention to 
the failure of the shad fisheries, which he de¬ 
clared was due primarily to overfishing. 
Mr. Frank N. Clark, of the Northville Sta¬ 
tion of the U. S. Commission, favored Federal 
control, but denied that the Great Lakes fish¬ 
eries were at the point of extinction. He argued 
that an examination of the statistics of the fish¬ 
eries for a number of years would show that the 
trout and whitefish were at least holding their 
own. “Stopping the catching of undersized fish 
and the pollution of the water is all that is 
necessary,” he asserted, adding that the pollu¬ 
tion of the Great Lakes was such that the spawn¬ 
ing grounds were not nearly as much in extent 
as thirty years ago, and were becoming less 
yearly. Mr. Meehan, of Pennsylvania, also dis¬ 
agreed and asserted that the statements were 
not true of Lake Erie, where whitefish and blue 
pike are increasing. Nevertheless, he favored 
Federal control. Mr. Nevin, of Wisconsin, ad¬ 
vanced the theory that the fish are in the lakes 
as of yore, but are “getting wise” to the nets 
and avoid them. 
Mr. Boardman, of Rhode Island, asked the 
scientific men present how much pollution of 
the water they thought fish could stand. Prof. 
Atkins, of Maine, replied that much depends on 
the kind of pollution, and also on the kind of 
fish. Carp seem to thrive on it in Germany. 
(Laughter and cries of, “Yes, carp, but what 
else?”) Prof. Atkins urged a thorough investi¬ 
gation of the whole matter of water pollution. 
Mr. Titcomb called attention to the deadly re¬ 
sults of the oil tank steamers dumping their 
water ballast into the Delaware River in viola¬ 
tion of the law. Whole schools of young shad 
are killed in this way. Mr. Clark asserted that 
