^SH 167 P5 K4 'Copy I DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF FISHERIES HUGH H, SMITH, Ci3mmJ»»l- . 42 3 years old 55- . 60 years old 1. 00 12 years old 1. 35 THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 23 How widely sucli computations may differ appear from Ekstrom's observations. He fomid that pike fry 37 to 49 millimeters (about 1.45 to 1.90 inclies) long, kept in a spring with muddy bottom, only attamed in 5 years the size of a common herring, but that a specimen 15 centuneters (about 5.88 mches) long, kept m another spring with smaller fish to feed on, attamed in 5 years a length of 4 decimeters (about 15.70 mches). Whitmark gave a nmnber of statements from authorities m differ- ent parts of Germany showing the annual rate of growth of the pike, which appears to vaiy from 2 to 3 pounds, the maximum size attamed bemg from 40 to 70 pomids. He cited one mstance m which, in two summers, a few individuals liberated in a pond full of a species of carp grew from the weight of If to that of about 10 pomids. Frank Buckland was of the opuiion that pikes did not become egg- bearmg under the weight of 3 pounds (Jardine, 1898). CULTURE AND CONSERVATION. Notwithstanding its growing scarcity, the idea of any need of cul- ture or conservation appears not to have been generally entertained. Apparently no attempts at artificial propagation have been made. In the words of Forbes (1908), this noble fish, completely and almost ideally equipped for the predatory life, has now nearly disappeared from the larger and muddier streams of Illinois, but it is still found in abundance in the headwaters of the Kankakee and in the small glacial lakes of the northeastern part of the State. Chambers (1896) regarded it as fortunate that in many of the Lake St. Jolm waters, where it has been systematically fished during recent years, the pike is very much less abundant than formerly. In New England, about 1838, the fish, it seems, was transplanted from Lake Champlam into a pond ooimected with Black River, Wmd- sor County, Vt., and thence carried by a freshet mto the Comiecticut River. In 1846 Dr. Storer (1848) reported the capture of this species m the Coimecticut River, a specmien having been sent to him by Mr. William Henry, of Bellows Falls, Vt. Mr. Henry reported that he had known, in some seasons, 100 or more to be taken at Bellows Falls, weighmg from 1 to 14 pomids each. There are probably other mstances of its havmg been trans- planted, but its artificial propagation has not been encouraged in this comitry. However, regarding the British pike, Jardine (1898) wrote that inland lakes, ponds, and brooks were lymg useless and pike would well repay cultivation in them, for they grow and fatten with great rapidity. FOOD QUALITIES. As a food fish the pike is of no small value. The flesh is white, firm, wholesome, and comparatively free from bones. Fresh pike is by no means a bad dish, and the flesh has advantage over that of 24 THE PIKES: DTSTEIBTTTION" AND COMMF.RCIAL IMPORTANCE. many other fishes. It may he kept for a lono; time, without deteri- oratmg, in a salted or dried condition. Herbert (1849) said that it is coarse, watery, and of small value on the table. Preble said (1908) that in the Athabasca and Mackenzie region, a region of excellent food fishes, it is not higlily esteemed, but being easily captm-ed it is often a means of preventing much suffering from famine. Benecke (1880 and 1885) stated that only the young rapidly grow- ing pikes are edible, the old ones being dry and tasteless. Jardine (1898) cited the "Analysis tables of the food collection" at Bethnal Green Museum in support of his statement that the pike is a nutritious food, containing more nitrogenous or muscle-forming qualities than meat, and he added that as an adjunct to the domestic bill of fare a small pike from 5 to 8 pounds' weight, caught during November or the next three months, wdien fat and nicely cooked, is a dish by no means to be despised. AS A GAME FISH. Go where pike can be found, fish for them with legitimate tackle, give them a fair chance, and they will afford as much pleasure as any royal smallmouth bass that ever swam (Tomlin, 1892). Cheney (1896) wTote that the pike and pickerel had not been hatched in this country, but that the pike was cultivated in Germany by artificial methods and is regarded more highly in Europe than in this country. He explained that the reason for this is that we have such a great number of so-called game fishes considerably superior to the pike that the latter has been relegated to an inferior position. However, the pike has its loyal adherents who regard it highly as a rod fish and as a table fish. EASTERN PICKEREL (Esor rrliruhifus). The eastern pickerel has a comparatively limited natural geo- graphical distribution. It is believed originally to have been re- stricted to the fresh waters of the Atlantic seaboard, being commonly found everywhere east and south of the iVlleglieny Mountains from southwestern Maine to Florida. Aided by man its range has been extended tlux)ughout the southern half of Maine and even farther north into tlie lower waters of the St. John Iliver, into New Brunswick, and elsewhere. Thompson (1842 and 1850) did not record its being found in Lake Champlain, l)ut stated that it was the common pickerel on the east side of tlie Green Mountains, as Esox lucius was on the other. However, it has since been reported in Missisc[uoi Bay (Evermann and Kendall, 1902) and in the St. Lawrence as long ago as ISGo THE PIKES: DTSTRTBUTTON' AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 25 (Fortin, 1864). It has also been recorded in one locality in Lake Ontario (Evermann and Kendall, 1901). Occurring as it does so commonly in the St. Lawrence, it is peculiar that it is not more common in the northern tributary waters, but Halkett (1913) does not definitely record it at aU, and Nash (1908) states that he has not met with it elsewhere than in the neighborhood of Toronto, where he has taken a few specimens. LOCAL NAMES. A common book name given this pike is chain pickerel, l^ut in New England it is almost if not quite invariably known as pickerel. It is, perhaps, the grass pike of the St. Lawrence and the green pike of some other localities. It is commonly called jack in the south, the term being probably an early importation from England, where small pike are often so denominated. Smith (1907) mentioned pike, red- FIG. 4.— EASTERN P\CKEREL {Esox reiiculatus). finned pike, black pike, duck-billed pike, and jack as names in com- mon use in the Albemarle region of North Carolina. He explained that old specimens living in deep, shady water were designated as black pike by the commercial fishermen. Bean (1902) said it is the federation pike of Oneida Lake, N. Y. CIIARACTERISTirS. The scales on the cheeks and opercles easily distinguish this fish from the muskeUunge or pike, but not from the otlier two species of pickerel. From these the adult may be always distinguished by the reticulated black or brownish lines on the sides. Younger fish do not show these marks, but are also banded, the cross bands ])eing wider and, consequently, fewer than in either of the others. The structural distinguishing characters have already been indicated. A well-con- ditioned pickerel, with its green and golden hues and dark markings, is a beautiful fish. SIZE. Ayres (1844) gave an account of phenomenally large examples. He said that on February 28, 1842, he examined a pickerel which had been caught in the Hockanum River, about 2 miles east of Hartford, 26 THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. Conn., wliicli ho claimed was " an undoubted retimlatus of Le Sueur." It was 38 inches in length and weighed 14 pounds. He stated that this was the largest example of the species which had ever come under his observation with one exception. The largest of which he had ever heard as occurring in the Eastern States was taken in the spring of 1842 near Greenfield, Mass., which weighed 20 pounds. These might be accepted as authentic records were it not for the fact that the introduced pike had become fairly common in the Connecticut River in 1846 in the vicinity of Bellows Falls, Vt., and had found its way down perhaps into these tributaries. This fact lends an element of doubt to the question, preventing acceptance of the records as authentic, although Dr. Ayi'es was an accomplished ichthyologist. However, ichthyologists have been known to make worse mistakes. Storer (1853) said that the largest pickerel seen by him were speci- mens weighing 7 pounds brought from Brewster, Cape Cod. Even larger ones were reported to have been found there. Pickerel weighing as high as 8 pounds have been authentically reported, but such size is uncommon and fishes accounted large will not usually exceed half that weight. Two and three pound pickerel are about the average in waters of ordinary suitability to the fish. However, bocUes of water differ m respect to their suitability, and in some the largest fish will not exceed a pound and in others much larger fish are common. HABITAT AND HABITS. Habitat. — The usual haunts of the pickerel are weedy streams and bays or coves of lakes. In some lakes small and medium sized pickerel occur in the shallow coves, where they lurk under lily pads or amongst the rushes and sedges. Often larger fish occur along rocky shores contiguous to deep water, especially if there are fallen trees, brush, or bowlders to afford concealment. It has, also, been caught on the rocky shoals of an open lake. In some streams, while it is most abundant in the sluggish, dead waters where aquatic vegetation is profuse, it is not infrequently found well up ui (piickcr water if the character of the shores or growth there provides concoahnent. In North Carolma, Smith (1907) stated that its favorite haunts are creeks, coves, and bayous contauiing grasses and broad-leaved water plants, under which it lurks. Where natural or artificial obstructions do not exist, the pickerel will sometimes make its way to extreme headwaters. Adult pickerel a foot in length have been taken near the spring source of a stream where it was not over 2 feet wide and only a few niches deep, but fuU of pondweed. However, pickerel will not ofteii traverse rapids or long extents of rips, and those found far upstream, as just de- THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION" AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 27 scribed, probal)ly reached those places for self-protection while young fish. The very young, just as in the case of many other fishes, find their way into the shallowest waters and mouths of brooks entering the lake, probably from neighbormg localities where they were born. According to Mr. Frank Todd, of St. Stevens, New Brmiswick,« a few years after the introduction of pickerel into the St. Croix Lakes, for a nmnber of years a good many individuals of large size were taken by weirs and by hook in salt water some 6 or 8 miles below the head of tidewater. At the time of writing, however, some 15 years since the introduction of the fish into that region, they had greatly decreased co incidentally with the pickerel of the fresh waters. Food and feeding.^The prmcipal subsistence of adult pickerel consists mainly of other fishes, although it includes many other animals in its bill of fare, such as frogs and other batrachians or, in fact, any livmg thmg moving m the water within reach which it can capture and handle. According to Smith (1907), m the spring about Albermarle Sound, this fish feeds chiefly upon alewives. Like other members of the family, this pickerel is accomited an extremely voracious and destructive fish, but it is seldom found gorged with food, as is the salmon and trout, although it sometimes proves itself successfully ambitious respecting the size of the object it swallows — swallowing, as it were, on the instalhnent plan. Wlien ravenous, it does not hesitate to seize a fish at least half as large as itself or so large that a portion of the fish may be seen protruding from the pickerel's mouth as the remainder is being digested m the stomach. In Umbagog Lake, of Mauie and New Hampshire, of numerous pickerel examined, those that contained any food at all usually had small suckers. Three pickerel — 11, 12, and 15|^ niches long — caught in a stream in the vicinity of Freeport, Me., contained only aquatic insect larvse. A 2-pound pickerel caught at the mouth of Sebois River, a tributary to the east branch of the Penobscot in Maine, contauied a hornpout (Ameiurus nehulosus) about 4 inches long, and in one weighing 2^ pounds, taken in the Wissatoquoik Deadwater of the east branch, was found a smaller hornpout. The character of the food of young and adolescent pickerel may be mfeiTed from the following examples: At Sebago Lake two pickerel about 23 inches long each, contauied small insect larvae and small crustaceans, and one about 5.8 inches in length had only a tmy fish in its stomach. One less than 2.5 inches long contained a young sucker, apparently partly digested, about one-half an inch in lengths One about 3.2 inches in length contained one sunfish {Lepomis gihhosus) about nine-tenths of an inch long, swallowed head first, and one 4.7 niches in length had fed upon nothuig but insect larvae a Forest and Stream, vol. vin, June 21, 1877, p. 320. 28 THE PIKES: DTSTRIBUTTON AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. and amphipods, small crustaceans very common in the brook in which the fish were found. At Umbagog Lake many young pickerel ranguig from 2 to 4 niches long were found to })o feeding exclusively upon Entomostraca and msect larv?e. Of eight examples, from 4.25 to 6.37 inches ui length, caught at the same time and in the same place, six contained fishes, four of which were young pickerel. Of another lot a 4.25-inch fish had also a young pickerel 3 inches long in its almientary tract; one 5.37 niches long also contamed a pickerel 3 inches long; another 5.87 niches long, besides other thmgs, had a pickerel 2.06 inches in length hi its stomach; still another 5.62 inches hi length contamed two small niumows; one 6.37 inches long had in its stomach one pickerel 3 inches long and one shmer 2.5 mchcs in length; and another 7.5 niches long contamed a 1.5 inch hornpout. Other instances were those m which one 7.5 niches long contained the head of a small chub and one 9^ mches long had a 2.3 inch pickerel hi its stomach. The foregomg suggests a cannibalistic tendency even hi very young fish, which is maintahied throughout life owmg to the pre- viously mentioned fact that, when feeding, the pickerel will attack any accessible moving object. Pickerel, however, are not always fcedmg, and apparently go without feedmg for periods of days, or at least, durmg the time hi such periods as they are mider observation. Probably, its himger having been satisfied, like many other fishes, it refrahis from eatmg for a considerable period. When it takes its food it does so with a rush, and if the food is a fish the pickerel grasps it crosswise, then stops and works its victhn around so that it is swallowed head first. Breeding. — The breeding places of the pickerel are shallow coves, mouths of inlets, approaches to outlets, and sometimes in over- flowed areas, in water from 3 to 10 feet deep, but not always in the same places eacli year. Sometimes the eggs are deposited among the roots of submerged tree stumps, the lu'anches of fallen trees or bushes, water plants, and occasionally on gravel or in the crevices among I'ocks. Here, according to Tomlin (]S02a), the fisli are found in pail's, gently swimming to ajid fro, rub])ing > by side until the female is ready to spawn. Similar to the perch, the eggs are laid in glutinous strings of a yellowisli-white color, which often form large masses and have been seen clinging to sub- merged l)ushes in great mats or long strings. Strings of pickerel eggs observed l)y the collector of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (1907) were said to average from 2 to 9 feet in length. Most pub- lished statements regarding the spawning time of pickerel are rather indefinite, as in "winter and spring." It is quite possible that southward it does spawn in late winter. However, the report of a commissioner of Massachusetts (1870) staled that Mi'. Stone found THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 29 the pickerel ripe in the heginiiinickerel now occur that the depletion of the trout has not been ascribed to the pickerel. It undoubtedly eats other fishes, and there arc few fishes that do not. But the habits of the pickerel are such that it is not nearly so detrimental to other fish life as some other species held in higher regard, and the pickerel in large bodies of water become still less harmful. It is not much of a wanderer. THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE, 35. It does not rush about in marauding bands seeking what it may de- vour. It hes in wait and siezes what comes its w^ay when it is inchned to feed, yet often schools of tempting shiners have been seen swim- ming unharmed in apparently dangerous proximity to big pickerel heads. Again he wi'ote (1894) that dm-ing most of the year it resorts to waters uncongenial to trout, and at all times it prefers such waters. A warm, muddy" pond or stream with profuse grow^th of aquatic veg- etation is its favorite abode. Trout can not exist long in such sur- roundings. In weedy waters where trout manage to exist pickerel w^ill also thrive, but trout will lie in the cooler, clear portions, while pickerel seek the water i^lants and shallow water. In most instances it would seem that the pickerel is not the whole, though possibly an accessory, cause of the disappearance of trout, and harm done by pickerel is overestimated. The injurious effect of pickerel upon trout and salmon is more often indu'ect than direct, especially when it ap- pears in congenial waters where trout or salmon are barely main- taining themselves or decreasing. The indu-ect influence is u]ion the food supply, and this ultimately reverts upon the pickerel itself. It is an ahnost invariable rule that in time, after a period of increase in numbers and size, pickerel begin to decrease owing to diminution of the food supply.^ Referring to the same subject a number of years ago, after expres- sing similar sentiments to the foregoing, the writer remarked that excessive and destructive methods of fishing (to which should have been added untimely fishing), pollution of the waters, and the de- struction of forests are far more fatal to trout life than their natural enemies. AS A GAME FISH. If the pickerel is not on the list of honor as a game fish, it is entitled to the distinction of being an exceedingly good sport fish. As for its game qualities even, in its way, it })ossesses some characteristics that equal the much-lauded trout. In fact, the writer has more thau once found to his surprise that a pickerel was on his hook instead of the expected trout. The actions are much the same. If the tackle con- sists of the customary long bamboo or stiff wooden pole, stout line, and large hook, and the fish is lifted from the water by main strength, it must be confessed that in this kind of fishing ])iscatorial poets would find little inspiration. But use a light casting rod, a slender bait rod, or even a fly rod with about the same weight of line as one would employ for trout of like size, and no disappointment will be experienced regarding the gameness of the fish. oThe word "muddy" here does not refer to roily water, but to a muddy bottom, and "warm'' is a com- parative term meaning warmer than trout waters. 6 This discussion refers mainly to comparativelys mall lakes or streams into which the pickerel have been introduced. 36 THE PIKES: DISTEIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPOETANCE. BANDED PICKEREL {Esox aitierkanus). GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION . This little fisli has a somewhat more restricted geographical dis- tribution than the eastern pickerel. Its stated range (Jordan and Evermann, 1896) is from Massachusetts to Florida in lowland streams and swamps. It is found only east of the Allegheny Mountains, the westernmost record being from Escambia River at Flomaton, Ala. It may be added, the northernmost locality from which it has been reported is Lake Bomessen, Vt. (Kendall, 1908). Whether it is indig- enous there the writer is not infonned. NAMES. Bean (1902) said that it is probably identical with the ''mackerel picker<4" of Mitchill. Storer (1853) called it the "smaller pickerel," and it is referred to as the troutnose pickerel. Herbert (1849) and others mention it under the name of Long Island pickerel. Smith (1907) cited pike, red-fumed pike, and jack as North Carolina names. -=*^^ FIG. 5.— BANDED PICKEREL (f.xoj amrnVawMs). SIZES. Most references state that it rarely exceeds a foot in length or it rarely exceeds a pound in weight. Herbert (1849) said that a pound was greatly above the average weight, which was probably not more than one-half pound. HABITAT AND HABITS. Ilahitat. — The local lial)itat of this species is m general essentially the same as that of the eastern pickerel. It is found in shallow water amongst water plants, etc. Bean (1902) said that it is especially plentiful in certain tidal creeks of Long Island, and Eugene Smith reports that it is often found m brackish water in the vicinity of New York, where it is browai in color. Herbert (1849) described an mdividual which he stated was caught in a not in the salt water of Newark Bay. He wrote that it weighed somethuig over a pcnmd and a half and that it was in the finest con- dition. Its color, however, was remarkable, for the back and sides THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE, 37 down to the lateral line were of the richest and most lustrous copper color, paling on the sides into bright hrazen yellow, with the belly of a silvery whiteness. The cheeks, gill covers, and fins all partook of the same coppery tone, and the whole fish was far more lucent and metallic than any of the family previously seen by hkn. There was not the slightest mdication of any transvei"se bars or any mottUngs nor was there any of that sea-green color which is so peculiar to the pike family. Habits. — Its breedmg or feeding habits have not been specifically described, but they are probably very similar to those of the eastern pickerel. Smith (1907), wiiting of the North Carolma fish, stated that its food is chiefly mimiows, with which the stomach is often gorged. FOOD AND GAME QUALITIES. Bean (1902) wrote that the little banded pickerel is a fish seldom exceedmg 10 inches in length, with flaky, white flesh, very few bones, and with delicious flavor, and ihat it is well worthy of the attention of fish culturists. Smith (1907) said that in North Carolina it was of less importance as a food and game fish than Esox reticulatus, Storer (1853) wrote that it was not infrequently noticed in Boston market, and that it was so similar to the reticulatus that it had pre- viously been considered to be the young of that species. LITTLE PICKEREL (Esox vermiculatus) . GEOGRxVPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. Accordmg to Bean (1902), its range is the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi and streams flowing into the Great Lakes. He stated that Cope mentioned that it is also found in the Susquehanna, of which river it is probably not a native. Forbes (1908) stated that its general range includes the tributaries of Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, extending thence southward to the Tennessee, Escambia,"' and White Rivers and, according to Ever- mann and Cox, to the Neuse River on the Atlantic slope." It is stated (Evermann a^id KendaU, 1901 and 1902) to be rather common in all suitable waters of Lake Ontario and is recorded from Black Creek at Scriba Corner; Lake View, West Oswego; Wart Creek near Buena Vista; Great Sodus Bay; outlet of Long Pond near Charlotte; and Marsh Creek near Point Breeze, N. Y. Cox does not record it from Minnesota, but Tomlin (1892a) wi-ote: "While fishing in a Mmnesota lake one summer evening, I found a o It is a noticeable coincidence that the Escambia River is given as a locality for both Esox americanus and Esoi vermiculatus, and it is remarkable that it should be recorded from the Neuse River east of the Alleghenies distinctly in the range of Esox americanus. These records support the idea advanced by a stu- dent of these fishes, to which reference was previously made, to the effect that the two are specifically identical. 38 THE PIKES : DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. school of trout-pickerel * * * common in this lake, and it was a handsome, clean fish." NAMES. Forbes (1908) referred to it as httle pickerel and grass pike. Tliis latter name appears also in many other publications. It is apparently the common name apphed to it in the Pennsylvania Fish Com- mission's reports. Bean mentioned it also under the name of trout pickerel. SIZE. Tlie general statements regarding its size are that it never attains a length of over 12 inches. HABITAT AND HABITS. Ilahltaf. —AccoTding to Forbes (1908), it has a noticeable pref- ence for cpiiet and muddy water, and a greater part of his collections FIG. 6— LITTLE P\CKEREL {Esoi vcrmiculatus). were stated to have come from the weedy branches of tiie Embar- ros. Little Wabash, and Big Muddy in eastern and central Illinois. He wrote that it also occurred occasionally in the main stream of the Ilhnois or in the muddy overflow ponds of the bottoms. Indeed, large numbers of this fish are annuMly destroyed by the drying up of such ponds after the overflow. Fading. — Forbes (1908) stated that the feeding mechanism of this little species is a reduced copy of that of the destructive and voracious common pike, and its food, as illustrated by 18 speci- mens, seems to be of a purely animal nature. Two of these had eaten frog tadpoles and eight had taken fishes, one of wliicli was a cyprinoid minnow, one a sunfish, and the other a common top min- now (Gambusia) of the southern part of the State. The remaining food was mostly composed of the larger aquatic insects. Amphipods and isopod crustaceans have been found in the stomachs of other specimens taken from Quiver Lake, near Havana. Breeding. — Nothing definite appears to have been pubhshcd regarding the breeding habits of this species. Forbes (1908) stated that it apparently spawns early and ripe individuals of both sexes had been seen ])y him in March. THE PIKES: DISTEIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 39 PROPAGATION. The Pennsylvania Commission (1906) at one of its hatcheries undertook to hatch the eggs of the grass pike, and it was stated that no difficulty was found in taldng the eggs but great difficulty was experienced in keeping them from sticking owing to their gluti- nous character. For some years more or less adult grass pike have been distributed by this commission. FOOD AND GAME QUALITIES. A Pennsylvania report (1906) states that it is a valuable fish. It is rather small to figure much as a game fish. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES FOR THE PIKES. The various early statistical reports afford but httle definite data regarding any of these fishes, owing to confusion of local names and the combination of very different species under the common head- ing of "pike and pickerel/' when very frequently one or the other refers to the pike perch. For this reason no general comparative statistics can be compiled. However, the tlu*ee larger species have always been of some local commercial value. Pike.- — The U. S. census of 1908 gives four cU visions in which '' pike and pickerel" figure. The total catch for the United States, accord- ing to these figures, w^as 2,959,000 pounds, valued at $194,000, excluding the Atlantic coast division, winch can be regarded as in- cluding no pike. From the other tln-ee divisions the figures were as follows, prob- ably composed mostly of pike: Di\-isions. Quantity. Value. Great Lakes di\"ision Pouvdx. 2,142,000 31)7, 000 30.5, 000 •5130, 000 l(i, 000 11,000 Total 2,814,000 163, 000 By States the figures appear as follows: states. u Quantity. Value. Illinois . P omuls. 14,000 6i;000 478,000 3.51,000 .58, 000 90, 000 1,118,000 100 30.5. 000 317,000 $1,100 3, 200 32,000 11,000 1,200 New York . . . .• 9, 000 Ohio. 70, 000 (f') 11,000 23,000 a Other States not distinjaushed. b Loss (ban -SIOO. 40 THE PIKES : DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. Ill the foregoing list Ohio appears to he the paramount State^ yielding nearly 40 per cent of the entire catch of the country, ail of which was from Lal^e Erie waters. In 1899 the recorded catch of pike and pickerel of Oliio in Lake Erie amounted to only 739 pounds, valued at $38, showing the astonishmg increase in nine years of over a milhon pounds, with very little increase in price per pound to fishermen (ahout 1 cent). Pickerel. — In the census of 1908 only the Atlantic coast division includes any appreciable quantity of pickerel, miless possibly New York, which has been placed with the other divisions in tliis dis- cussion upon the assmiiption that the hulk of the catch was of the Great Lakes fisheries (Lake Erie and Lake Ontario), although some Esox reticulatus are doubtless marketed from the St. Lawnuice River and some of the smaller lakes. In New England commercial fisheries for pickerel are pennittc^d only locally, being more or less protected as a sport fish. In 1898 there were 200 pounds recorded for Rhode Island and 5,420 pounds for Connecticut. In 1899 Maine recorded 300 poimds. No statistics are given for later dates except in Connecticut, which in 1902 yielded 8,230 pounds, valued at $530. The Atlantic division yielded 145,000 pounds, valued at $11,000, most of which probably were Esox reticulatus, although some Esox americanus may have been included. By States the catch was recorded as foUows: • states. Quantity. Value. Piii/nil.i. 140,000 1,100 35,000 69,000 14,000 600 12,000 $1,100 Oeorgia. . loo 3,S00 3,100 1,6(10 Rhode Island 100 1,000 Of the aforementioned States, statistics are availal)le for Delaware and Maryland for the years 1SS7, 1888, 1901, 1904, and 1908. The figures are given for pike, wliich, if they are not intended for pike perch, doubtless indicate pickerel (Esox reticulatus) and possibly Esox americanus. In these years, also, New Jersey, which in 1908 shows no 3"ield at aU, lias a comparatively large catch. The following table is given for what it is worth: Years. New Jersey. Delaware. Maryland. Pounds. Value. Pounds. Value. Pounds. Value. 1NS7 27, 625 30, 400 2,560 600 $1,S50 2, 066 210 55 26, 268 25, 3,S9 16,310 11,050 14,000 $2,073 2,031 654 544 1,100 521, 146 577, 745 67, .530 42,317 35,000 $33,496 INSS. . . . 37, 2S6 I'JOl 5,390 1904 3,716 lyos . . 3,S00 THE PIKES: DISTKIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 41 Statistics arc also available for North Carolina for the foregoing years, excepting those for 1904 and 1901, the latter T)oing replaced by those of 1902. Also, Virginia and Georgia record small catches for 1901 and 1902, respectively. There may be some doubt regard- ing the pike of Virginia and North Carolina, as they possibly may comprise some pike perch. Years. Vir^'inia. North Carolina. fieorpia. Pounds. Value. Pounds. Value. Pounds. Value. 1SS7 22,402 27, 161 $1,056 1,303 ISHS 1901 32, 103 $2, 84S 1902 30, S50 1,4S7 350 $18 1904 3,644 12,000 2, 934 1,000 1908. 09,000 3, 100 1, 000 100 In the first table a decrease is shown in the catch in each State, New Jersey completely disappearing. In the Southern States the quantity caught appears to have increased considerably. North Carolina gained 46,588 pounds, or over 148 per cent, in the 21 years from 1887, but feU off slightly in price per pound to fishermen. The foregoing figures, taken with what is known about the pickerel, suggest that it does not breed and grow fast enough to furnish a permanent supply for any extensive or intensive fishery. The first table shows almost progressive decreases in tlu-ee Middle States in proximity to large markets. While in the South an increase is shown, it is probably ascribable to more extensive and perhaps more inten- sive fisliing in later years. It is safe to prethct that unless the fishing is regulated a canvass of the fisheries a few years hence wiU show a decrease. Muskellunge. — Owing to its restricted distribution and its impor- tance as a game fish, this fish has never attained to any very con- siderable commercial fishery. The report of the United States Census of 1908 gives 25,000 pounds, valued at $1, 700, for the Great Lakes chvision. Micliigan furnished 4,000 pounds. New York 19,000 pounds, Wisconsin 1,900 pounds, and Ohio less than 100 pounds. In 1902 New York alone yielded 92,650 pounds, valued at $13,890, of wliich 85,400 pounds were taken in Lake Chautauqua. In New York these foregoing figures show a falling off of 67,650 pounds in six years. The qi*estion is: Ai-e the pike fisheries wortliy of protection and conservation ? According to the writer's view, they merit protection as a conservative measure for other so-called "better" fishes and as an economic provision. Consideration of the question wiU show that such a reason is not so paradoxical as it seems at first sight. The ever-increasing demand l)y a growing population hastens the decrease 42 THE PIKES : DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. of the fisheries for those species most in popular favor, wliich, when accompanied by neglect or waste of other edible but less-favored kinds, results in a general depletion, with the result that the more higldy esteemed fishes rise in price beyond the purchasing reach of the majority, who are forced to seek cheaper fish food, only to find that there is not enougli remaining to supply the demand. Tliis un- satisfied demand affects the price of the so-called inferior fish, and it, in turn or in consequence, also moves upward. The writer is radical enough to believe that there is not an edible fish that swims that should not be conserved. The people of these United States are going to need them sooner or later if they do not already. It may be added that, as a rule, native species are naturally the easiest to conserve, and indiscriminate stocking of waters with new kinds is not to be recommended. The Biblical injunction about new cloth and old garments or new wine and old bottles is apphcable to waters and fishes. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Armstrong, J. O. 1904. Maskinonge or maskenozha. Forest and Stream, vol. lxii, no. 15, April 9, p. 298. New York. Ayre.s, William O. 1844. Enumeration of the fishes of Brookhaven, Long Island. Boston Journal of Natural History, p. 271. r>oston. Bean, Tarleton H. 1891. The pike family. — I. Forest and Stream, vol. xxxvi, no. 11, April 2, p. 210. New York. 1891a. The pike family. — II. Forest and Stream, vol. xxxvi, no. 12, April 9, p. 233. New York. 1891b. The pike family. — III. Forest and Stream, vol. xxxvi, no. 11, April 2, p. 210. New York. 1892. The fishes of Pennsylvania. Report of the State Commissioners of Fisheries for the years 1889, 1890, and 1891. The pikes, p. 89-94. Hanisburg. 1897. Notes upon New York fishes received at the New York aquarium, 1895 to 1897. Second annual Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game, and Forests of the State of New York for 1896, p. 229-232. New York and Albany. 1902. The food and game fishes of New York. Seventh Report of the Forest, Fish, and Game Commission of the State of New York for 1901, p. 353-3G1. Albany. 1902a. Catalogue of the fishes of New York. New York State Museum, Bulletin 60, Zoology 9, Pikes, p. 291-307. Albany. 1908. The maskalonge of the Ohio basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, p. 145-151. Appleton. Benecke, Berthold. 1880. Systematische Uebersicht der Fische von Ost- und Westpreussen. Fische, Fischerei und Fischzucht in Ost- und Westpreussen, p. 165-167. Konigs- berg. 1885. Utilizing water by fish culture. (Translated from the German by Herman Jacobson.) Report of the United States Fish Commission for 1883. Vii. The raising of fish of prey spawning in summer, p. 1129. Wash- ington. THE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 43 Burnett [Waldo I.] 1854. [Note on breeding of muskellunge.] Proceedings of the Tioston Society of Natural History, vol. iv, p. 360. Boston. Chambers, E. T. D. 1896. The Ouananiche and its Canadian Environment. The pike, p. 283-288. New York. 1904. ' 'Maskinonge " is its name. Forest and Stream, vol. lxii, no. 11, March 12, p. 212. New York. 1904a. Maskinonge or mascalonge. Forest and Stream, vol. lxii, no. 16, April 16, p. 316. New York. Cheney, H. N. 1893. The pike. Forest and Stream, vol. xl, no. 15, April 13, p. 319. New York. 1896. The mascalonge, pike, and pickerel. First annual Report of the Commis- sioners of Fisheries, Game, and I'^orests of the State of New York for 1895, p. 121-124. New York and Albany. 1898. The pikes. Forest and Stream, vol. l, no. 17, April 23, p. 330-331. New York. Cox, Philip. 1896. History and present state of ichthyology of New Brunswick. Bulletin of the Natural History Society of New Brunswick, no. xiii, p. 62-75. St. John. Evermann, Barton Warren. 1902. Pike, pickerel, mascalonge. Forest and Stream, vol. lix, no. 10, September 6, 1902, p. 193. New York. Evermann, Barton Warren, and Goldsborough, Edmund Lee. 1901. Notes on the fishes and moUusks of Lake Chautauqua, New York. Sixth annual Report of the Forest, Fish, and Game Commission of the State of New York for 1900, p. 362-364. Albany. 1907. A check list of the fresh-water fishes of Canada. Proceedings of the Biologi- cal Society of Washington, vol. xx, December 31, p. 89-120. Washington. Evermann, Barton Warren, and Kendall, W. C. 1896. An annotated list of the fishes known from the State of Vermont. Report of the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1894, p. 579-604. Washington. 1901. Notes on the fishes of Lake Ontario. Sixth annual Report of the Forest, Fish, and Game Commission of the State of New York for 1900, p. 485. Albany. 1902. Notes on the fishes of Lake Ontario. Annotated list of the fishes known to occur in Lake Champlain and its tributary waters. An annotated list of the fishes known to occur in the St. Lawrence River. United States Fish Commission Report for 1901, p. 209-240. Washington. Forbes, Stephen Alfred, and Richardson, Robert Earl. 1908. The fishes of Illinois. Natural history survey of Illinois, State Laboratory of Natural History. The pikes, p. 205-209. Danville. FoRTiN, Pierre. 1864. Continuation of the list of the fishes of the Gulf and River St. Lawrence. Annual Report of Pierre Fortin, Esq. . . . Fisheries Appendices from Annual Report for 1863 of Hon. Wm. McDougal, Commissioner of Crown- land in the year 1863. Pikes, 65-66. Quebec. GiRARD, Charles. 1856. Description of some new species of fish from the State of Massachusetts. Proceedingsof the Boston Society of Natural History, 1854, p. 41. Boston. GooDE, G. Browne. 1884. Tlie pike family. The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States, sec. 1, text. p. 461^66. Washington. 44 TTTE PIKES: DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. IIalkett, Andrew. 1913. Check list of the fishes of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland. Pikes, p. 68-69. Ottawa. Henshall, James A. 1892. The mascalonge. American Game Fishes, p. 191-190. Chicago and New York. 1904. Mascalonge or maskinonge. Forest and Stream, vol. lxii, no. 13, March. 26, p. 253. New York. Herbert, Henry William. 1849. Frank Forester's fish and fishing, Esocidse, p. 217-236. London. Jardine, Alfred. 1898. Pike and perch, illustrated. Pike, p. 1-143. London. Jordan, David Starr, and Evermann, Barton Warren. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America. Bulletin of the United States Museum, no. 47, pt. 1. The pikes, p. 624-630. Washington. 1902. American food and game fishes. The pikes, p. 233-240. New York. Kendall, W. C. 1894. Notes on the fresh-water fishes of Washington County, Me. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission for 1894, p. 43-54. Washington. 1908. Fauna of New England. List of the pisces. Occasional papers, Boston Society of Natural History, vol. vii, April. Esocidge, p. 51-53. Boston. 1913. Fishes and Fishing in Sunapee Lake. Bureau of Fisheries document no. 783, p. 22-24. Low, A. P. 1895. Report on explorations in the Labrador Peninsula along the East Main, Kokaoak, Hamilton, Manicuagan, and portions of other rivers in 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895. Geological Survey of Canada, annual report, new series, vol. viii, appendix iii, Pike, p. 329-332 L. Ottawa. Lyman, Theodore. 1869. Pickerels. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries for the year ending January 1, 1869, p. 21. Boston. Maine Woods. 1907. Do hornpouts "hook" pickerel? Maine Woods, vol. xxix, no. 51, July 26, p. 1. Phillips. Massachusetts Fish Commissioners. 1870. Pickerel. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries for the year ending January 1, 1870, p. 36-37. Boston. Mather, Fred. 1898. Pickerel, pike, and mascalonge. Forest and Slrcam, vol. l, no. 21, May 21, p. 410-412. New York. MOSHER, A. A. 1892. The mascalonge in Wisconsin waters. American game fishes, p. 199-207. Chicago and New York. Nash, C. W. 1908. Check list of the vertebrates of Ontario and calaloi^uie of specimens in the biological section of the provincial museum. Fishes. Department of Education. Esocidse, p. 451^52. Toronto. Nevins, James. 1901. The propagation of muskellunge in Wisconsin. Transactions of the Amer- ican Fisheries Society, p. 90-93. Appleton. New Hampshire. 1876. Pickerel. Report of the Commissioners on I'Msheries of the State of New Hampshire, p. 8. Concord. . Pennel, H. Cholmondkley. 1863. The Angler-naturalist ; a popular history of British fresh-water fish. The pike family, p. 181-209. London. THE PIKES: DISTEIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE. 45 Pennsylvania. Fish Commission. 1906. Propagation of pickerel. Report of the Departmenlifeof Fisheries of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from December 1 , 1904, to November 30, 1905, p. 57-59, 143-146. Harrisburg. 1907. Pickerel fishing in the lakes — Miiscallonge — field work — pickerel work. Report of the Department of Fisheries of the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania from December 1, 1905, to November 30, 1906, p. 21-22, 23-24, 51-54, 140-141. Harrisburg. 1908. Pickerel — pickerel work — chain-pickerel work. Report of the Department of Fisheries of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from December 1, 1096, to November 30, 1907, p. 25, 123, 137. Ilarrisbm-g. Preble, Edward A. 1908. A biological investigation of the Athabaska-Mackenzie region. North American Famia, no. 27, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey. The pike, p. 513. Washington. Rathbun, Richard, and Wakeham, William. 1897. Report of the joint commission relative to the preservation of the fishes in the water contiguous to Canada and the United States. House Docmnent no. 315, Fifty-fourth Congress, second session, p. 14-178. Washington. Samuels, Edward A. 1902. Random notes of an angler. Forest and Stream, vol. lix, no. 8, August 23, p. 146. New York. Scott, Genio C. ]S75. Fishing in American Waters. Pike and masldnonge, p. 270-2S0. New York. Smith, Hugh M. 1907. The fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological and Economic Survey. The pikes, pickerels, and muskallunges, p. 142-145. Raleigh. Smitt, F. a. 1892. A History of Scandinavian Fishes, vol. ii. The pike, p. 997-1010. Stock- holm. Storer, D. H. 1844. Additions to the cabinet. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, vol. i, 1841-1844, p. 84. Boston. 1848. Concerning a species of Esox. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, vol. ii, p. 105-106. Boston. 1853. A history of the fishes of Massachusetts. Memoir of the American Academy of .Vrts and Sciences. Esocidfe, p. 311-313. Cambridge and Boston. Thompson, Z.a.dock. 1842. History of Vermont: Natural, Civil, and Statistical. Pikes, p. 137-138. Burlington. 1850. Descriptions and drawings of a new species of Esox. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 1848-1851, p. 163. Boston. 1853. History of Vermont: Natural, Civil, and Statistical. Pikes, 137-138, and appendix, pt. 1. Natural History, p. 32-33. Burlington. Thoreau, H. D. 1859. Esox from Concord. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, vol. VI, 1856-1859, p. 430. Boston. Tomlin, W. David. 1892. The pike. American game fishes, p. 367-380. Chicago and New York. 1892a. The pickerel. American game fishes, p. 387-396. Chicago and New York. O LIBRARY OF CONGRESS e 002 850 109 2 % ill