The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1911-06-15
nanny cnAsr nas mas.
Imtfse@ fe9tsH ffssm ssDe Vel tsg+
49, IL ts.as and s.an,e. and ws's'
a

f4te lifEa fNsfN e fMtsi@s4 ftA NeA
ru@len ans@HF fAsirrmen n fsEafs
80 uraas ~ ,mpFgTinr ne tnul
flshlnr ~ kwmaat tnflaas .dea
aw adfAbosa. and rafh advocate Q
certain nastFam n iacllnea q ~
liess ihat hs has discovered the oai'
sras srd pfaliibie REMEDY 20 hrinl
ahoai taeks improvement Auaigti
"a tbe alfieFent theories Advances
tsads 10 She's ihns mnsi u them af'
based upon wfoug principles q
slae are wholly impraciicahle Mani
II ghcss theories ingoiFo che fanda
mtnfhl pFlneiples ~ preservation
The first question appears to he
woald Il be- eApedlepl - fePeal "a
sls4nsh Las and have 10 legal iimt
whAiner apon the sire ~ trout lAs
80 ard "a lieu a such repeal rnae
measure providing Tor the perma
neat closing u al small iees
1Epamsf And in conjunction viii
this measure 81 relief the same ad
yosAtes can for restocking u The
streams upon the part 81 the flat
aua game department ~ tho state
aud especially more restocking viii
lingering lrou, instead ~ ny.
Sow. let IN eSAmlne these ideas
Ia detail Repeal the slp zach lawi
Never nhlem you tntcnd 20 enact
a seycH.ineh law Ia lee place. WAY
Simply because such a repeal would
strike al the very foundation Of
frost protection aud preservation.
Ia my judgment the late Nelson
Cheney ~ New York, one ~ the bcs
Authorities on trout culture and pro-
paga,lon in sild wamrs IN the eonn-
Try embodied the whole 81 the true
principle 60 follow when he said
TO maintain fair fishing, even In
a trout stream. such work as the
state may be able TO do IN the way
81 planting the water should be
supplemented by all the fish that
mas come from natural reproduction
and the trout should have every
possible opportunity to spawn un-
molestef There IL the whole mat
ter In nutshell II YOU desire eve
fair fishing not Que trout should
be- taken from the water until II has
had full opportunity 10 spawn at
least once In the stream from which
II Nas taken Who can doubt the
absolute necessity OF such wise
provision Would poultry raiser
think Of killing OF his stock indis-
ultimately before his hens had an
opportunity Of iaylngl u he did
~. how long would his stock last
without replenishlne 1t from out
side soureesF And even then, with
our trout supplemented by all the
restocking our Vermont commission
is able 10 do nj present there can
ararccly be returned to orr waters
over one-half the number OF fish
which are taken out annually II
follows, then. that there must be
an Inevitable decrease In the mum
her OF wild trout from year TO year,
The number OF fishermen and the
demand for trout has far outgrown
the supply In the streams aud at the
state hatchery. In the face Of this
condition. Jus, ponder the result II
the six-inch law were repealed Alb,
but our friends say, Close the feed
streams against all fishing and per
manently"
III this they are reckoning withou
the law and the constitution Of Yer
mont Our Supreme Court has
held That the right 10 take fish
from flowing. -boatable waters
pertains solely TO the owner Of the
land through which such waters
flow State " Theriault, 10 VI
GIT: and Ia State V, Norton. 90 VI
2bs, the court intImatcd that n
would declare unconstitutional any
law N reference TO fishing which
was clearly shown TO be so prohih-
itofy as 10 virtually deprive the in
habitanls Of their rights thus se-
cured by the constitution. undoubt
odly such measure would be so
pruhihitory as to deprive the ripar
Ian owners along the streams Of
the fights mentioned above. and aa
such would be unconstitutional and
void
We now have ample provisions by
statutes for closing private streams
after securing the consent Of the
landowners. and this Law was enacted
in 1898, but We do not find any |
streams In this section closed agree
able 10 these provisions Oh. no.
thai would require some work upon
the part o. somebody aud our adyo-
Gates want TO secure all these utop~
ian results without any effort. but
simply By operation OF the law.
Then why not have five or a
five and one-hnlf inch trout Law
our friends Inquirer Such a make
shit, can Ia no wise be regarded as
a protective measure and ID prac-
Teal sense can br deemed nothing
else but tacit repeal OF the six
inch las In particular aud ALI limit
laws Ia general Trout cnltnrists
have definitely ascertained tina, the
only safe minimum limit We can
place on trout aud feel sure that
such trout Ia the general waters has
once IN the stream IL six
Inches. iiarken 10 Mr.. cheney'a
advice 81 this respect Trout
spawn when they are yearlings. but
4 yeaFling ii more than ~ months
old Many yeariIng trout 10 Wild
eaters are not six inchcs long and
where the six-lneh trou,siaN Il OBJ
served namecfs Of trout viii spawn
before they can he legally taken u
there were no six-inch Law. Il would