Morning journal and courier., 1892-08-12
PLEA FOR THE SALMON.
One Reason Advanced for its DtsaP-
pearance From the Connecticut

pearance From the Connecticut
River.
A timely and able article in the Ameri-
can Angler by Livingston Stone on "a
National Salmon Park" speaks on sub
ject of national Importance, and one which
our Connecticut anglers know has the
sterling stamp. The Connecticut river
shad interest, by the way, seems to be 60
ing the same way that the salmon did.
hear already from all directions the
question, "What do the salmon need
park fora Are there not plenty of places
of safety for them already in all the rivers
and streams in this country, not to men
ton the painless ocean where man cannot
follow thems" 1t looks so at first sight, I
admit, but let us try to find these
places of safety, if they exist, and then
see how it looks. We certainly cannot
find them on the Atlantic coast, where the
scanty yield of the only two American
salmon rivers, the Kenebec and Penobscot,
is only a drop in the bucket compared
with the total demand for and consumption
of salmon. Passing over to the Pacific
coast, We find only the Sacramento, the
Columbia and the lesser streams on the
Washington and Oregon coast, and in all
these the salmon are about as safe as the
fur seals were last year in Behring sea. I
will say from my personal knowledge that
not only is every convenience employed
that human ingenuity can devise to
destroy the salmon of our west
more fatal than all, is the slow but inexor-
able march of those destroying agencies OF
| human progress, before which the salmon
must surely disappear, as did the buffalo
| of the plains and Indian of California
| The helpless salmon's life is gripped be.
| tween these two forces, the murderous
| greed of the fisherman and the white mans
| advancing civilization, and what hope il
there for the salmon in the end? Protec.
| tive laws and artificial breeding are to hold
the first in check, but nothing can stop the
last.
To substantiate this statement, which
may seem exaggerated, let me inquire
| what it was that destroyed the salmon o.
the Hudson, the Connecticut and the Mer
rimac, and the various smaller rivers Of
New England where they used to be ex
ceedingly abundant. 1t was not over
fishing that did it. If the excessive fish
ing had been all there was to contend with
few simple laws would have been suf
6cient to preserve some remnants
at least, of the race. It was not tn,
fishing; it was the growth of the country
as it is commonly called, the increase
of the population necessarily bringing witt
it the development of the various indus
tries by which communities live and be
come prosperous. 1t was the mills, tbs
dams, the steamboats,, the manufactures
injurious to the water, and similar causes
which, first making the streams more an6
more inhabitable for the salmon, finally
exterminated them altogether. In short
it was the growth of the country, and no
the fishing, which really set bound t,
the habitations of the salmon on the At
lantic coast.
This leaves us only Alaska. Now hoy
| is it with the salmon streams of Alaska
Not even there are the salmon safe. Count
less myriads of salmon formerly filed al
the rivers and streams of the long Alaskan
coast, and they were nearly 1000 mile
from the destroying hand of civilized man
but they were not safe even on those dis
tant shores. The ubiquitous cannerymal
found them, and he already has his gri
on the best and most fruitful of the Alas
kan rivers. The pressure of the world
demand on the worlds supply of canine
salmon renders it necessary for the salmo
Gamer to occupy more distant and LEI
fruitful fields every year. and it is only
| question of time when all the Alaskan ga
mon streams are given over to the came
les, and when that time comes no one wi
claim, I think, that the salmon are safe
| Alaska.