


on the surface of the water, making a 
white foam with the extreme effort of 
his last battle for freedom. I expected 
him to sound the depths after this, in 
the way the brook trout has, but this 
fellow had different ideas. 
Rushing toward me he_ suddenly 
turned about twenty feet from the raft 
and then started going in a circle, com- 
pletely encircling the raft. He made 
time so rapidly that he fairly made me 
dizzy. Five times the old war horse 
made this circle, then made seven or 
eight corkscrews, ending with another 
display of foam-making. At all times 
his dorsal fin was above water and I 
could plainly see his every move and 
the set of his wicked undershot 
jaw. For ten minutes he kept up 
the display and then suddenly gave 
up the struggle, lying on his 
side, gasping in utter exhaustion. 
Never before or since have I had 
such a spectacular fight with any 
fish and the thrilling memory of it 
will be with me till time is no 
more. 
N the spring of 1921 I cut a 
niche in the tail fins of seven 
trout at Dog Pond. I was very 
careful not to mark any that 
weighed over % of a pound. None 
of these was caught until the 
summer of 1924, when my pard- 
ners, Clyde Post and Fred Geist, 
each had the good fortune to get 
one. We kept one of them to check 
up on the size and he weighed 
exactly 2 pounds 12 ounces. This 
is a mighty interesting experiment 
to make if care is taken while 
doing it. The trout must be put 
in a wet bag to be weighed and 
should only be handled with wet 
rubber gloves. It doesn’t take very 
much to injure the protective cov- 
ering of slime with which the trout 
is covered. When this slime is 
rubbed off it results in fungus at- 
tacking the unprotected spot and 
this disease often spreads to other 
fish in the same waters. One can not 
exercise too much care when returning 
trout. to the water. 
In marking trout one should take 
only fish of the same size, otherwise it 
would not be a good check-up. If they 
are marked in successive years the 
marking should be different each time 
and an accurate record taken of such 
markings. If done in a careful way 
this is an eye opener as to the growth 
of fish in different waters. 
In the same year that I marked the 
“Dog” trout I also nicked some of the 
Cat Mountain Pond fish. In this pond 
I had never caught a trout over twelve 
inches long and very few of these. 
Picking out a half dozen well condi- 
tioned fish of seven inches long I care- 
fully marked their dorsal fin with a 
little nick, 
HREE years later I caught one of 
them and it was only nine inches 
long and weighed only six ounces. I 
firmly believe that there isn’t a trout 
in Cat Mountain Pond that weighs a 
pound. Why these conditions exist I 
cannot imagine, as the food supply is 
excellent, equally as good if not better 
than Dog Pond. As near as I can 
judge, the number of trout in each 
pond is nearly equal and the ponds 
are about the same size in surface 
area. ‘Dog,’ however, has at least 

A good day’s work. 
twice the volume in cubie feet of water. 
Then, too, “Cat” trout are pretty near, 
if not all, hatchery trout, or descen- 
dants of hatchery trout. 
WO other ponds in the near vicinity 
of “Cat” show, upon investigation, 
interesting facts. Basshout Pond, 
which is almost an exact replica of 
“Cat,” has fish that average about 
three to the pound, with an occasional 
pound fish, This is better than the 
“Cat Mountain” average, which is five 
to the pound. Cow Horn Pond nets 
trout anywhere from 4 of a pound to 
five pounds.’ The average would prob- 
ably go about one pound. 
However, 
the “Horn” is a different type than the © 
other two, both in water and the bot- 
tom. After an exhaustive study of the 
food conditions in each of these three 
ponds, I could not find that they dif- 
fered much in this respect. All of 
them have been heavily stocked with 
hatchery trout and all apparently had 
trout in before stocking. There is a 
doubt, however, about “Cat” and 
“Basshout” ever having any trout in 
before stocking. If this could be true, 
then it seems to explain somewhat the 
differences in the size of the fish. 
To return to Dog Pond for one last 
visit. I have in mind a very unfor- 
tunate trip late one August, when after 
three days and nights of hard plugging, 
trying every method, every trick 
at my command, I was ready to 
give up and pack out. Then I re- 
membered an old stunt that Chan 
Westcott told me of, a stunt to use 
when everything else failed. 
UST before dark I staked out a 
lantern in the southeast bay at 
the edge of the deep water. I then 
anchored within fair casting dis- 
tance of the spot and waited for 
results. Understand, I had never 
caught a trout in Dog Pond after 
sunset or before sunrise. In fact, 
the very best time had always been 
the middle of the day. Bear in 
mind, also, that I had not caught 
a single trout after three hard 
days’ work. During this time I 
had seen only three trout rise. 
Of course, I really did not expect 
any results from this experiment, 
but it was too late to get out of the 
woods before dark and I had half 
a loaf of bread left yet, so why 
worry! However, a nice broiled 
trout to go with that bread would 
be quite acceptable, but really I did 
not expect any such luck as that. 
Darkness came slowly over the 
pond and with the darkness came 
the myriad night noises. It was 
quite enjoyable just to lay there 
on the raft and try to distinguish 
the different sounds. Up near the camp 
I heard the sing-song murmur of the 
“Porky” and presently I heard him 
busily gnawing a piece of floor which 
probably had been saturated with 
bacon grease. At stated intervals I 
heard a bird let out a plaintive sad call 
bemoaning the hard trip south which 
was ahead of him. Then I noticed a 
spot in the water, a little blacker than 
the rest of the surface near me, and I 
recognized friend Beaver taking his 
nightly cruise. In the shadows of the 
deeper forest lurked a raccoon, for I 
recognized his call which so nearly 
resembles an owl. A fox barked on a 
nearby hill and a deer came into the 
(Continued on page 496) 
461 
