FOREST AND STREAM 
1001 
THE REAL CONSERVATION OF TROUT 
AN ARGUMENT ADDRE ; SED TO STATE AUTHORITIES AND ALL 
INTERESTED IN THE PRESERVATION OF OUR BEST GAME FISH 
By Charles Zibeon Southard, Author of “Trout Fishing in America,” Etc. 
T HE following suggestions for the proper 
conservation of trout are offered for seri¬ 
ous consideration to certain states in the 
northeastern section of the United States, namely, 
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu¬ 
setts, Connecticut, Rhode sland, New York, New 
Jersey and Pennsylvania. It does not require 
any great amount of acumen, nor study of the 
•existing laws governing the taking and killing 
of trout in most of these states, to realize that 
some concerted action along the lines of real 
■conservation is absolutely necessary, and that, in 
as short a time as possible. 
Speaking of the states mentioned, as a whole, 
it is to be regretted that the trout inhabitants of 
many of the fishable waters have been greatly 
depleted and in not a few cases practically exter¬ 
minated. That this situation was inevitable, un- 
-der the conditions existing for many years, 
should have been almost a foregone conclusion 
and recognized alike by the anglers and the au¬ 
thorities of the different states. While the situa¬ 
tion as we find it to-day is not all due to the 
state authorities nor yet all due to the anglers, 
nevertheless, in a great measure, the anglers 
themselves are directly responsible for the deple¬ 
tion of this species of game fish The anglers of 
yesterday needlessly and wantonly killed many 
trout; the anglers of to-day kill many more than 
they should; and the anglers of to-morrow, if 
they wish to preserve the sport and species, 
should kill but few. 
What we require to-day is that new and wise 
laws be enacted which not only will protect the 
trout and increase their propagation, but will 
enable, within reasonable limits, anglers to enjoy 
the sport of trout fishing and at the same time 
provide for the continuance of the sport in the 
years to come. A fair and thorough considera¬ 
tion of this subject has been delayed so long 
that now it has become imperative that something 
should be done to prevent a bad situation from 
becoming worse if not incurable. What is past 
and gone is beyond recall, but the experience 
gained and the lessons taught from past mistakes 
ought to enable better results to be accomplished 
in the future. While it is to be expected that all 
anglers will not approve nor like some of the 
suggestions offered, yet changes (legal or other¬ 
wise) adjust themselves after a little and few 
complaints are heard. Indeed, it is doubtful if 
twenty-five per cent, of the trout angling fra¬ 
ternity will offer dissenting voices after the situ¬ 
ation is thoroughly understood. 
As the trout fishing laws stand to-day in the 
various states mentioned they are far from satis¬ 
factory as a whole from nearly every standpoint. 
Each one of these states has different laws gov¬ 
erning the taking and killing of trout, a fact 
which is most unfortunate because their interests 
are or should be the same; then again the condi¬ 
tions do not warrant such a divergence and the 
laws do not accomplish what is desired by all— 
intelligent and real conservation Time and ex¬ 
perience, almost always, determine what is best 
to do in most things and the question of con¬ 
servation of trout, as well as other game fish, 
and the laws governing their taking and killing 
are no exception to the general rule. For that 
reason, when considering this question, it is well 
to determine wherein the present laws are faulty 
and insufficient to meet the present day condi¬ 
tions. Conservation amounts to nothing unless 
it conserves, and real conservation can only be 
brought about by the combined efforts of all the 
interested parties giving the subject thorough and 
proper attention along practical as well as scien¬ 
tific lines and without prejudice, to the end that 
“The greatest good for the greatest number” will 
be accomplished most effectually. 
It is essential in order to achieve the best re¬ 
sults that the different states should work along 
the same lines and enact as far as possible the 
same general laws for the protection and taking 
of trout. 
The laws governing the taking and killing of 
trout (meaning thereby, brook trout, brown trout, 
rainbow trout, steelhead trout, and red throat 
or cut-throat trout) in the states at the present 
time, except in special instances, cover the fol¬ 
lowing points: 
The open season. 
The limit for length. 
The limit for number and the limit for weight. 
License or no license. 
The open season varies in all of the nine states, 
The limit for length is the same in eight states 
(6 inches). 
The limit for New Hampshire varies (5, 7 and 
10 inches). 
The limit of trout that can be taken and killed. 
Three states have no limit of any kind. 
Three states have limit as to number. 
Two states have a limit as to weight only. 
One state has limit as to number $nd weight. 
Two states (Vermont and New Jersey) exact 
a license fee; the others do not. 
The present day conditions of the trout supply 
and trouting waters in the section already men¬ 
tioned are due to one or more of four primary 
causes, namely: 
1st. The indiscriminate cutting away of the for¬ 
ests, the trees, shrubbery and foliage along the 
water courses from the smallest brook or stream 
to the larger waters. The inevitable result has 
followed; the character of the streams has 
changed; the volume of water flowing is les¬ 
sened owing to greater evaporation, so much so 
that to-day in many instances streams that only 
a few years ago had many trout inhabitants con¬ 
tain but a “paltry few” and these have ceased to 
propagate owing to the changed conditions. 
2nd. The pollution of the streams and water¬ 
ways from factories along their banks which dis¬ 
charge various kinds of refuse, acids and other 
poisons.that are not simply injurious to trout life, 
but positively annihilating. 
3rd. The laws governing the taking and kill¬ 
ing of trout that have been in force for several 
years and offering but little and in many cases 
no real protection for the trout. 
4th. The anglers themselves, who in many 
cases, but not all, have paid but little attention to 
“fish laws” and whose sole desire has seemed to 
be to kill as many trout as possible without any 
regard as to whether or not they were eaten, fed 
to the hogs and hens or used as fertilizer. 
The time has arrived when new trout fishing 
laws should be framed and enacted that will 
bring about real protection for both the fish and 
the anglers and result in true conservation. 
Suggestions as to Features That the Laws 
Should Cover. 
1st. Every resident and non-resident angler in 
each state should pay a reasonable license fee 
^ G 2n(h' All states whose interests are practically 
the same should enact similar trout laws. 
3rd The limit of trout that may be caught and 
killed' in one day by one angler should be very 
greatly reduced and the limit determined inde¬ 
pendently for each method of angling. 
4th The same “open season should be estab¬ 
lished for all states in a given section when their 
interests are alike. ^ . , , 
3th. The minimum length of trout that may be 
caught and killed should be different for the 
different methods used in capturing them. 
6th. Special laws should be made to cover un¬ 
usual conditions existing in the different states. 
7th. Each state should be divided into districts 
in which, during the “open season,” a sufficient 
number of fish wardens should be employed to 
see that the fishing laws are not violated. . 
8th The fines and penalties for violating the 
fishing laws should be such that anglers would 
respect the laws and help to have them lived up 
to by all fishermen. ,, , , 
9th. The hours for trout fishing should be from 
one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. 
Night fishing should be prohibited. 
As the situation stands to-day Vermont and 
New Jersey exact license fees for fishing, and 
Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania 
require no license fees, except that in New. York 
non-residents have to pay a fee to fish in the 
Niagara River. 
Every sportsman should be . not only willing 
but anxious to do his share in protecting and 
supporting the sport in which he is particularly 
interested. There is no logical reason why every 
angler should not pay a license fee yearly for 
the privilege of enjoying a sport which the states 
ought to protect and maintain at or above par. 
To properly protect and maintain the sport of 
inland fishing costs considerable money; the per¬ 
sons, therefore, who are especially benefited 
should (and rightly so) contribute their share 
toward the expense. 
If trout fishing is to be continued and trout, 
not to mention other species of game fish, are 
to be properly protected and propagated, the time 
has arrived when more money should be spent 
for this purpose, and it is up to the anglers them¬ 
selves to help the different states solve the prob¬ 
lem of what should be done in order that the best 
results may be obtained without any further de¬ 
lay. 
More hatcheries are necessary so that greater 
and better stocking of the trout waters can be 
had, and the division of each state into districts 
with better and more fish wardens to see that 
the laws are obeyed in every particular, is also 
just as necessary. These are two important rea¬ 
sons why more money should be spent and why 
the favored ones, the anglers, should do every¬ 
thing in their power to aid and abet the respec¬ 
tive states in a financial way. 
The license fee decided upon both for residents 
and non-residents should be of sufficient size, 
without being burdensome, to bring a substantial 
return to the state. Taking everything into ac¬ 
count, i. e., what the state can accomplish in pro¬ 
tecting its fish inhabitants and the benefits that 
will accrue to the anglers, it would seem that a 
license fee of $1.00 per year for residents and 
$2.00 per year for non-residents, and in addition 
thereto the sum of 10 cents for a license coin, 
thus making a total yearly fee for resident an¬ 
glers of $1.10 and for non-resident anglers of 
