University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER V.

THE CAUSE OF THE DECLINE OF OUR OYSTER INDUSTRY,
AND THE PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL BEDS.

Every one now acknowledges that the condition of
the oyster industry gives good reason for great
anxiety. In times of hardship it is natural to look for
some one to bear the blame, and for a long time our
daily papers have been filled with letters from packers,
dealers, brokers, dredgers, tongmen and planters, all
throwing the responsibility on some one else. The
important question is, what can be done to improve
matters? Every one knows that there has been ignorance
and error and mismanagement in many quarters,
but no good can be done by blaming others.

It is necessary, however, to study the causes of the
present state of things, not as an excuse, but as a basis
for the intelligent discussion of remedies; for a little
knowledge of the subject will show that no relief can
be expected from most of the protection measures
which are advocated in the newspaper correspondence.

If wise measures had been adopted years ago we
might have passed gradually to a better state of things
without exposing to hardship any one who is engaged
in any branch of the industry, but our people have
always been so firmly convinced that our supply was
inexhaustible, that all warnings have been disregarded,

and we have never taken the first step towards reform
—a thorough examination of the exact condition of
our resources.

The world will scarcely believe that in a State whose
largest and most characteristic industry depends on
the oyster, the oyster-beds have never been thoroughly
examined or even surveyed and mapped, but this is
the case. For many years I have urged the importance
of thorough periodical examinations of the beds
as a basis for the intelligent regulation of the fishery,
but this work has never been undertaken by the State.
If it had been, the result would long ago have proved
to every one with absolute conclusiveness, before the
damage was past remedy, what has been perfectly
obvious for many years to all who have studied the
subject, that our beds are being exhausted and ruined
by our present system.

In 1882 I was appointed a commissioner to examine
the condition of the oyster-beds of the State and to
report the same to the next General Assembly, but no
means for the prosecution of a survey of the beds were
provided. This would have required a large force of
trained assistants, with expensive appliances, and even
then it would have been the work of years, and I was
forced to content myself with a mere superficial examination.
In this I was most effectually aided by
the intelligence and enthusiasm of my fellow-commissioner,
the late Capt. Jas. I. Waddell, and the Governor
of the State furnished from his "emergency fund" a
small sum for the purchase of a few pieces of simple
apparatus. The Trustees of the Johns Hopkins University
allowed me to devote to the work two years,

during which they paid me for my service to them,
and they also furnished aid in other ways, so that the
results of our examination of the beds were, in great
part, a gift from the University to the State.

With such scanty means as we could command we
organized a plan of work, and soon accumulated
enough data to prove that our oyster policy is destructive
and sure to result, ultimately, in ruin to the industry.
Our first step was to try to ascertain the condition
of the beds by personal examination, but we
found that the absence of any exact data as to their
condition in past years rendered any inference from
our observations very difficult.

In a small part of the bay exact data were on record.
The beds of Tangier Sound were very carefully
surveyed in 1878 and 1879 by Lieutenant Francis
Winslow, U. S. N., acting under the direction of the
Superintendent of the United States Coast Survey.
His published report is one of the most important
documents ever printed on the subject, and while
it covers only a small part of the waters of Maryland,
it gives a very exhaustive account of all the
oyster-beds of the region examined, with their areas,
location, boundaries, position, general character, the
number of oysters to the square yard, the ratios between
oysters of different ages, etc., so that we were
able to ascertain without difficulty the changes which
these beds have undergone in the three years which
had passed since this work was finished, but we were
unable to obtain exact information of this kind regarding
the great mass of the beds of this State. Lieutenant
Winslow was employed for nearly two years in the

survey of Tangier Sound, and a similar survey of all
the oyster area of our State would have required four
or five years more, and as we had no means at our
disposal for exact surveying, even if there had been
time to undertake it, we adopted a more rapid method
of gaining a crude idea of the condition of the beds.

It is obvious that a bed where there are many oysters
to the yard is in a more fertile condition than one
where the oysters are few. It is also clear that a bed
in which the living oysters are few as compared with
the dead empty shells, is less vigorous than one where
the dead shells are less numerous.

It is clear, too, that a bed upon which many young
oysters are growing up to replace the old ones is
more prolific than one where the young oysters are
few. During the first year of its life the oyster is
much more exposed to accidents and enemies than
it is after it reaches maturity, and it is therefore plain
that if the average life of the oyster upon our worked
beds is three years, any bed upon which the oysters
one year old are not much more than one-third of the
whole number must soon be destroyed.

We therefore attempted to ascertain these three
points for all the larger beds in our waters: first, the
number of oysters to the square yard; second, the
ratio of living oysters to empty shells, and, third, the
ratio of mature to immature oysters. To ascertain the
number of oysters to the square yard, a dredge with a
mouth a yard wide was dragged over the bottom, for
a measured distance, at a definite rate of speed, and its
contents were then brought aboard and counted.
This method does not give perfect accuracy, for the

dredge does not, as a rule, take all the oysters. The
number of oysters taken by the bredge varies with the
weight of the dredge, the speed of the boat, the depth
of the water, the length of the line, the character of
the bottom, etc. Still examinations of this sort, made
upon different beds by the same dredge used by the
same persons in the same boat and managed in the
same manner, give results which are reliable, although
it is more difficult to compare the results of two or
more examiners.

The oysters captured in this way were carefully
separated from the empty shells and other refuse, and
both oysters and debris were measured and counted.
The oysters of various ages were then separated into
four sets: large oysters, or those less than 200 to the
bushel; medium oysters, or those between 200 and
300 to the bushel; small oysters, or those over 400
to the bushel and over an inch long; and young
growth, or those less than an inch long.

During this work we examined sixty-one beds and
made three hundred and forty hauls of the dredge;
and the results of this examination are here given in
full, together with an analysis, and a comparison of
our results with those which had previously been obtained
by Winslow and others.

In 1878 and 1879 Lieutenant Winslow found that
there were about .419 oysters to the square yard in
Tangier Sound, or one oyster to every two and three
hundred and eighty-six thousandths square yards.
As the Tangier Sound beds at that time showed indications
of exhaustion, this number, .419 to the square
yard, is less than it would be upon uninjured beds,

and it is probable that the beds outside the Sound
would have given a much greater number at that
time. If we now find that the average is below this
number, we can safely assume that the difference is
entirely due to the injury which the beds have sustained
since 1879, and we can thus form some estimate
of the time which will be required for their complete
destruction. We made use of the method which
was employed by Winslow in his examination. A
dredge, a yard wide, was dragged slowly over the
bed until we ascertained that we were upon the oyster
grounds. The dredge was then emptied, lowered on
to the bed, and as soon as it began to take hold of the
bottom it was timed, and the rate of the steamer was
also ascertained by the ground-log. The area dredged
over was not the same in all cases. Where oysters
were abundant the steamer was stopped and time was
taken as soon as the dredge was full. In other cases
five minutes were allowed to pass and the steamer
was then stopped. The dredge was then hauled in,
and the oysters were counted and measured.

This method does not give the actual number of
oysters upon the bottom, for the dredge does not
always sweep clean, and it is necessary to pass over
the ground several times to thoroughly exhaust it,
but results obtained in this way give the relative condition
of the bed with great accuracy.

Whenever the contents of the dredge showed that we
were off the bed, or near its limits, the haul was not
counted, and the results therefore show the number of
oysters upon the beds; not the number per yard over
the whole bay.

Fifty-nine beds were examined in this way, and the
results are given in the accompanying table, which
shows that forty-four of these beds are below Winslow's
average, and fifteen above it. Upon one of these
beds, in Hooper's Strait, we found 8.2 oysters to the
square yard, and we here obtained 4000 oysters in six
hauls. These oysters were all very small, averaging
four hundred to the bushel, and we probably struck
an area where there had been a good catch of spat a
year or two before, but where there were no large
oysters. At any rate, this condition is exceptional,
and I have therefore omitted the dredgings in Hooper's
Strait in the average for the bay. Leaving this out,
the average for the other fifty-eight beds gives .235
oysters to the square yard, or one oyster to each
4234/1000 yards, while three years before there was one
oyster to each 2386/1000 square yards.

Startling as this result is, it is by no means the
whole truth. We must remember that in 1879 Tangier
Sound itself was more exhausted than the bay,
so there were undoubtedly more than .419 oysters to
the square yard at this date. Then, too, we have examined
many beds where dredging is not permitted,
and other beds where the oysters are unmarketable,
and the high results which we obtained from these
beds are included in the average. If these were
omitted our total would show nearly 50 per cent of
exhaustion to the most valuable beds of the State.
The accompanying table, which is compiled entirely
from the facts which we observed by personal examination
of all the beds, must speak for itself. It is the
most trustworthy evidence which we have been able

to obtain, and it certainly justifies the widespread belief
that the oyster property of the State is in imminent
danger of complete destruction unless radical
changes in the methods of managing the beds are
made at once.

Great importance should not, however, be given to
the exact quantitative result which we obtained, as it
is based on only one examination. If the beds could
have been examined every year or two in the same
way, as we recommended at the time, the results of
successive examinations could have been compared
with considerable accuracy, and definite data could
thus have been obtained, but it is difficult to estimate
the exact value of a single examination.

EXPLANATION OF TABLE NO. 1.

The first column gives the name of the bed; the
second the number of dredgings which were made
upon it by us; the third the number of square yards
dredged; the fourth the number of oysters taken; the
fifth the number found by us in 1882; the sixth the
number found by us in 1883; the seventh the amount
of deviation from Winslow's average for 1879, of .419
oysters to the square yard, and the eighth the percentage
of gain or loss since the last examination.
Thus the first line shows that eight dredgings were
made upon the Bodkin; that 1732 square yards were
examined; that 894 oysters were obtained; that the
bed had lost 50/100 oysters to each square yard since
1882, and that it has lost 62 per cent of its value in
that time.

Table No. 1.— Showing the Number of Oysters to a Square
Yard in the Waters of Maryland in 1882 and 1883.

                                                                                                                                           

Name of Bed.	Number of Dredgings.	Area examined. Square Yards.	Total number of Oysters.	Oysters to Square Yard.		Deviat'n from Winslow's average for 1879.	Percent'ge of gain or loss since last examination, or since 1879.
				1882.	1883.		Gain	Loss.
Bodkin	8	1732	894	.81	.305	-.114		62
Sandy Point	9	2318	1164	1.21	.19	-.229		84
Hackett's Point	12	2978	3158	3.728	.234	-.185		93
Swan Point	8	1954	2333	5.22	.057	-.362		99
South Side Chester River	10	5280	189		.0358	-.3732		89
Cornfield Creek	5	1217	463		.371	-.08		13
Thomas' Point	4	1173	102		.089	-.33		79
Round Point Reef	5	3666	495		.135	-.284		67
Thomas' Bar	6	2200	205		.0931	-.3259		78
Tally's Point	7	2493	571		.23	-.189		45
Scull Hall	3	1037	231		.222	-.197		47
Chink Point	6	2200	777		.353	-.066		16
Choptank River—
Cook's Point	5	3777	123		.02	-.387		92
Benoni's Point	2	1173	430		6	-.059		14
Chlora's Point	1	293	40		.115	-.04		74
Todd's Point	1	73	8		.01	-.409		97
Castlehaven	1	2	6		.02	-.99		95
Horn Point	1	293	150		.51	+.91	21
Total in Choptank	11	6562	757		.117	-.302		72
First Kent Point	6	2064	69		.33	-.3856		92
South Kent Point	6	2138	119		.056	-.363		86
Eastern Bay	2	587	24		.041	-.378		90
Cox's Creek	3	487	575	1.18		+.761	181
Tilghman's Point to Wade's Point	5	3666	186		.05	-.369		88
South River	1	23	225		.76	+.341	81
Shackel's Point	1	220	190		.868	+.444	106
Duvall's Bar	1	183	200		.109	+.67	16
Brewer's Point	2	513	340		.66	+.211	57
Purdy's Point	1	293	165		.56	+.141	33
Three Sisters	22	7313	1676	1.9	.959	+.54		50
Poplar Island	8	2364	727	.69	.084	-.335		87
Sharp's Island	12	1494	289	1.33	.0981	-.3209		90
Little Choptank No. 1	6	2200	28		.012	-.407		97
Ragged Point	6	2200	78		.05	-.384		91
Hill's Point	5	1833	80		.043	-.376		89
Nigger Head	3	1089	37		.034	-.385		91
Holland Point	12	6233	375		.065	-.3545		84
Plum Point	6	4033	23		.0057	-.4133		98
Daddy Dare	3	1173	22		.019	-.4		95
Little Corn Point	4	1466	308		.21	-.209		49
Hog Island	6	2200	158		.071	-.348		83
Hawk's Nest	6	2200	569		.27	-.149		35
Broom's Island	6	2200	872		.39	-.029		06
Middle Ground	4	1467	39		.231	-.188		44
Kent Island	3	488	340	.7		+.281	67
Kent Island	9	5463	185		.0765	-.325		81
Potomac River No. 1	4	2787	151		.058	-.361		86
Cornfield Point to Pitt's Point	7	513	513		.1	-.319		76
St. Mary's River	4	2787	226		.08	-.9		80
St. George's Island	4	1687	705		.4176	-.0014		3-01
Pincy Point to Blackstone's Island	20	7333	686		.073	-.326		79
Total in Potomac	39	19627	2281		.1497	-.2693		63
Piney Island Bar	6	976	1025	1.05		+.631	116
Fishing Bay Dredging Ground	3	488	439	.9		+.481	114
Fishing Bay Tonging Ground	1	163	84	.517		+.098	23
Hooper's Strait	6	488	4000	8.2		+7.781	1857
James' Point	2	39	181	.47		+.051	12
No Point Bar	3	813	427	.52		+.102	24
Great Rock	20	5708	1555	.272		-.147		34
Turtle Egg Rock	3	1626	355	.218		-.201		48
Total	326	1298	32405
Total number of beds examined 59
Total number of dredgings 326
Total number of square yards examined 120,958
Total number of Oysters found 32,405
Number of Oysters to the square yard .267
Number of Oysters to the square yard, exclusive of Hooper's Strait .235

RATIO BETWEEN LIVING OYSTERS AND DEAD SHELLS.

When the oysters are culled upon the beds where
they are caught, the dead shells are thrown back, and
the oysters upon a bed which has been overworked
will therefore form a smaller part of the total contents
of the dredge than they will upon a more prosperous
and valuable bed. In a dredge which has been hauled
over an unexhausted bed, the living oysters are many
and the shells are few, while the dredge brings up
from an exhausted bed a great mass of rubbish, which
must be lifted and handled in order to obtain a few
oysters.

The ratio between the living oysters and the dead
shells therefore furnishes us with a means for deciding
whether a bed is deteriorating or not. This method
of estimating the condition of the beds is a very rough
one, and the evidence is not of much value when only
a single bed is examined. The dead shells are swept
into the channel in some places, and covered up by
sand or mud in others, so that the dredge may come
up filled with shells when it happens to strike a bed
where they have been swept together, and in another
case, where most of the shells are buried, it may contain
few shells. If the dredge is heavy and is dragged
with a long line, it may dig into the mud and become
filled with old shells, where another dredge, or the
same dredge dragged in a different way, may contain
few or none. The contents of the dredge are determined
by so many accidents that single observations
of the ratio between shells and oysters are of little
value, but the case is different where a great number

of dredgings are made. In 1876 Mr. Otto Lugger
visited most of our beds, and measured the quantity
of shells and of oysters obtained from each. As he
made a great number of observations, his results give
us a means of ascertaining the average ratio in 1876.
His results, obtained by the examination of twenty
beds, show that in 1876 the dredge brought up 368/100
bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells. In 1878
and 1879 Lieut. Winslow examined in the same way
seventeen beds in Tangier Sound, and found that only
196/100 bushels of oysters were obtained for each bushel
of shells.

In November, 1882, we examined fourteen beds in
this way, and found that the average had fallen from
368/100 in 1876 and 196/100 in 1879 to 131/100 bushels in
1882. Thirty-two beds were examined in the same
way in the summer of 1883, and nearly the same
ratio was obtained, there being 1⅖ bushels of living
oysters for each bushel of dead shells.

The results of this examination are given in full in
the following table.

Table No. 2.—To Show the Number of Bushels of Oysters
to Each Bushel of Dead Shells.

                                                                                                   

	1876. Lugger.	1879. Winslow.	1882.	1883.
Bodkin	1.22		.14	.46
Sandy Point			.14	3.
Hackett's Point			1.37	4.
Swan Point	1.85		8.	2.
Chester River				1.8
Cornfield Creek				.89
Thomas' Point	3.			3.
Tally's				1.16
Scull Hall				4.
Chink Point				1.57
Cook's Point				1.33
Benoni's Point				1.25
Castlehaven				.17
Horn Point				6
Eastern Bay				2.
Kent Point	1.5			2.
Tilghman's Point				.66
South River				.33
Shackel's Point				.33
Duvall's Bar				.66
Brewer's Point				2.5
Purdy's Point				1.
Three Sisters				1.5
Sharp's Island				.28
Holland Point	3.			.18
Plum Point	4.			4.
Little Cove Point	1.85			1.
Hog Island	2.33			.5
Hawk's Nest				.79
Broom's Island				.52
Kent Island	2.33		1.	.25
Piney Island	2.33	1.15	.21
Fishing Bay	9.		.28
Hooper's Strait	5.6		2.85
James' Point	4.		2.
Sharp's Island	5.6		.83
Poplar Island	5.6		.57
No Point Bar			.1
Great Rock		.41	.14
Turtle Egg Rock		1.02	.75
Great Fox Island	4.
South Marsh Island	5.6
St. Michael's	5.6
Bozman's Flats	2.33
Roaring Point	3.
In 1876 Lugger found as the average for twenty beds 3.682 bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells.
In 1879 Winslow found as the average from seventeen beds 1.962 bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells.
In 1882 we found as the average for fourteen beds 1.31 bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells.
In 1883 we found as the average for thirty-one beds 1.4-10 bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells.

This table shows that while it is necessary, in 1883,
to handle 161 bushels of oysters and shells to obtain
100 bushels of oysters, it was necessary to handle only
151 bushels in 1879 and only 127 bushels in 1876.

This evidence, in connection with that which has
been given in Table 1, seems to prove that the whole
oyster area of our State is being rapidly exhausted.

THE RATIO BETWEEN LARGE AND SMALL OYSTERS.

Any bed is on the road to destruction if the number
of old oysters which are removed from it each year is
as great as the number of young ones which are growing
up to take their places. Oysters, like other animals,
are exposed to many accidents, and the number
which can be taken from a bed annually is equal to
the number which are growing up to take their places,
less the number which will be destroyed by the accidents
of nature.

An accurate count of the oysters of various ages
upon a bed, therefore, gives us a means of deciding
whether it is or is not in danger of exhaustion.

We have examined in this way the oysters upon
the beds which we have visited, and have divided
them into four classes. The first class includes
large oysters, or all oysters of which a bushel does
not contain more than 250; the second class includes
medium oysters, or those between 250 and 400 to the
bushel; the third class includes the small oysters,
those which are large enough to be seen and counted
without difficulty, and more than 400 to the bushel;
and the fourth class, or "young," those which are less
than one-half inch long.

The accompanying table shows the number of oysters
of each class which we obtained upon the beds
which we visited, and the ratio between them.

Thus we found upon the Bodkin bar in November,
1882, no large oysters, 225 medium oysters, 355 small
ones, and no young, and there were at that time 100
small ones for each 67 of medium size.

In June, 1883, we found no large ones, and the
small ones which we had found in November had
grown to a medium size, and there were no small ones
growing up to take the places of these when removed by
the season's dredging. This result seems at first sight
to indicate that the fishing this season (1884) will exhaust
the Bodkin bed and put an end to work there,
but in truth the case is not quite so discouraging, for
our second examination was made before the end of
the spawning season, and an examination in the fall
might have given a different result.

In order to be trustworthy, an examination of this
kind should be made every year, in the same month,
and if the oysters of various sizes upon each bed could
be counted twice every year, in May or June, and in
September or October, the results would be very
valuable and would soon furnish a very exact means
for ascertaining the condition of the beds. This evidence
would be the more valuable, as it would soon
enable us to determine, a year or more in advance,
how many marketable oysters a bed could yield without
injury.

In the absence of any records of the numbers of
oysters of various sizes in previous years, our table is
of no particular value, but we give it in full, in order
to facilitate the work of comparison in the future.

Table No. 3.—To Show the Number and Ratios of Oysters
of Various Sizes.

                                                                                                                                           

	Large, or less than 250 to the bushel.	Medium, or from 250 to 400 to the bushel.	Small, or more than 400 to the bushel, but large enough to count.	Young too small to count.	Ratio of large to medium.	Ratio of medium to small.
Bodkin, November, 1882	0	225	355	0		.67
Bodkin, June, 1883	0	314	0	0
Sandy Point, June, 1883	133	176	0	0	.75
Sandy Point, November, 1882	0	155	700	many.		.207
Hackett's Point, November, 1882	600	2,025	0	0	.29
Hackett's Point, June, 1883	108	425	0	0	.25
Swan Point, November, 1882	300	2,250	0	few.	.133
Swan Point, June, 1883	34	49	0	0	.69
Chester River, June, 1883	110	79	0	0	2.14
Cornfield Creek, June, 1883	0	463	0	few.
Thomas' Point, June, 1883	102	0	0	0
Tally's Point, June, 1883	197	271	103	0	.2	2.
Eastern Bay, June, 1883	13	146	53	0	.0	2.
Eastern Bay, November, 1882	50	525	0	few.	.009
Tilghman's Point, June, 1883	0	101	85	0		1.2
Scull Hall, June, 1883	91	140	0	0	.65
Chink Point, June, 1883	0	777	0	0
Cook's Point, June, 1883	0	123	0	0
Benoni's Point, June, 1883	0	0	430	few.
Chlora's Point, June, 1883	0	0	40	0
Todd's Point, June, 1883	0	8	0	0
Castlehaven, June, 1883	0	6	0	0
Horn Point, June, 1883	0	0	150	few.
Choptank, June, 1883	0	137	620	0		.22
South River, June, 1883	0	0	225	many.
Shackel's Point, June, 1883	0	190	0	0
Duvall's Bar, June, 1883	0	0	200	few.
Brewer's Point, June, 1883	0	340	0	0
Purdy's Point, June, 1883	0	165	0	0
Round Point Reef, June, 1883	495	0	0	0
Saunders' Point, June, 1883	0	802	0	0
Poplar Island, November, 1882	218	15	210	few.	1.24	.3
Poplar Island, June, 1883	0	124	0	0
Three Sisters, November, 1882	450	208	0	few.	1.91
Three Sisters, June, 1883	23	13	0	0	1.19
Sharp's Island Rock, November, 1882	400	00	0	many.	.44
Sharp's Island Rock, July, 1883	21	143	0	0	.146
Little Choptank, July, 1883	0	0	28	0
Ragged Point, July, 1883	0	78	0	0
Hill's Point, July, 1883	80	0	0	0
Nigger Head, July, 183	0	37	0	0
Near Holland Point, July, 183	0	182	0	0
Holland Point, July, 1883	0	0	193	0
Plum Point, July, 1883	23	0	0	0
Daddy Dare, July, 1883	0	121	0	0
Steps, July, 1883	0	22	0	0
Little Low Point, July, 1883	0	308	0	0
Patuxent River, July, 1883	0	0	158	many.
Hawk's Nest, July, 1883	0	0	569	many.
Broom's Island, July, 1883	0	0	872	0
Patuxent Middle Ground, July, 1883	0	339	0	0
Thomas' Bar, July, 1883	0	0	205	0
Kent Island, November, 1882	180	160	0	0	1.12
Kent Island, July, 183	22	59	10	0	.37	5.9
Bloody Point, July, 183	45	49	0	0	.91
Potomac No. 1, January, 1883	0	151	0	many.
Cornfield Point, August, 1883	0	0	513	many.
St. Mary's River, August, 1883	0	0	226	many.
St. George's Island, August, 1883	0	705	0	many.
Piney Point, August, 1883	0	0	66	many.
Great Rock, November, 1882	7	407	401	0	1.83	1.01
Piney Island Bar, November, 1882	0	700	325	0		2.15
Fishing Bay, November, 1882	0	227	212	0		1.07
Fishing Bay, November, 1882	0	46	8	0		1.21
Hooper's Strait, November, 1882	0	0	4,000	many.
James' Point, November, 1882	0	0	111	many.		.3
No Point Bar, November, 1882	84	213	130	0	9	1.60
Turtle Egg Rock, November, 1883	191	164	0	few.	1.16
Total	4,717	15,6	11,8

The precise significance of this table cannot be understood
until similar examinations have been carried on
for a term of years, and at the same time in each year.

It will be observed, however, that it shows a total of
20,390 large and medium oysters to only 11,848 small
ones. Four thousand of these small oysters were
taken at one time in Hooper's Strait, in a "pocket"
which had escaped the dredgers, and this haul should
be omitted in order to show a typical average. If we
leave it out we shall have 20,390 large and medium
oysters to 7848 small ones, or only a little more than
one small one to three marketable ones. It is very
probable that if all our examinations had been made
in the fall, the number of small oysters would have
been found much greater, and they are above the
average on the beds which we examined in November.

Still the summary of the whole table shows that the
beds are losing their fecundity, and that the crop this
winter (1883-1884) will be greater than it will be the
year after.

The reasons for the small number of young oysters
we believe to be, in part, the scarcity of mature oysters
to furnish spawn; in part the wanton destruction of
great numbers of very young oysters through the violation
of culling laws, and in part the absence of enough
clean shells on the beds to furnish attachment for the
spat.

There are unlimited numbers of old, decayed and
dirty shells on all the beds, but on many of them we
found hardly a single shell proper for the attachment
of spat.

We regard the annual examination of the beds, in

the way we have employed, as a matter of very great
importance. In the absence of such observations it is
impossible to state with perfect certainty how many
oysters a bed may yield annually without injury. This
examination should be made every year, during the
same months, and it should be made under the superintendence
of the same person, in the same way, in order
that the results may admit of direct comparison. Provision
should be made for the annual examination of
all the beds under the direct control of the State.
The proper time for this examination is the closed
season. An examination after the year's dredging
would show how many full-grown oysters remain and
how many the bed might safely yield during the next
season. If the examination were made late in the
summer it would also show how many young oysters
have become attached during the spawning season.

While our own work was not exhaustive enough
to give the information which is necessary for this purpose,
it was amply sufficient to show that in 1882 and
1883 the deterioration of our beds had made rapid
progress, and that our system of managing the beds
was a failure.

The next step in our inquiry was to find the defects
in our system, and to point out the reason for its failure,
and this task was found to be an easy one, for
the experience of other countries which have passed
through the same history gave a clear and simple explanation.

THE CAUSE OF THE EXHAUSTION OF THE BEDS.

While the reason for the exhaustion of our beds is

perfectly clear and simple, the greatest ignorance upon
this point exists in the minds of our people.

Certain writers have attributed the destruction of
the oysters to disease, like the pious oystermen of
Wellfleet, on Cape Cod, who, after they had exterminated
their oysters by over-fishing, laid their loss upon
Providence, which had, they said, punished them for
their sins by inflicting a fatal disease upon the innocent
oysters.

Some of the explanations of the destruction of the
oysters come from persons who have enjoyed such
opportunities for observation and study of the subject
that broader views might fairly be expected from them.

Thus, to explain the disappearance of oysters from
the New England coast north of Cape Cod, a well-known
conchologist, Dr. Gould, says that he does not
believe there were ever any oysters there; while a very
eminent naturalist, Prof. Verrill, holds that the climate
of New England has undergone a change within the
last century or two, and that it is now too cold for
oysters, although a few scattered oysters are found
there still, and although they are still abundant at some
points on the much colder coast of New Brunswick,
and although we have the minute accounts which the
early settlers have given us of the gradual destruction
of their oysters as the population increased.

We can hardly be surprised that our people should
exhibit total ignorance of the true cause of the destruction,
when we recollect that there is not a single
word in any of the laws of Maryland which indicates
that our legislators are aware that the supply of oysters
can be artificially increased, or that there is need for
any such increase.

The contrast between the views upon the oyster
question which are now prevalent among our people,
and those which come from a broad-minded consideration
of the question in all its relations, can be illustrated
by an example. The uncivilized Indians are
able to supply all their wants from the natural resources
of their hunting-grounds, but as population
increases, food grows scarcer and hard to procure, and
it soon becomes evident that the natural supply is
not enough. The first impulse, in such an emergency,
is to restrict the demand, by driving away or starving
out the superfluous population; and if savage tribes
were able to enact and enforce laws, they would no
doubt try to preserve their game by laws restricting
the quantity to be killed, or by laws forbidding the use
of improved appliances for capturing it.

Civilized races have long recognized the fact that
the true remedy is not to limit the demand, but rather
to increase the supply of food, by rearing domestic
sheep and cattle and poultry in the place of wild deer
and buffaloes and turkeys, and by cultivating the
ground instead of searching for the natural fruits and
seeds of the forests and swamps.

It is not in a spirit of harsh criticism, but in the
hope that our people may be awakened to their own
interest, that we point out the similarity between the
views of our people and their legislators and the
opinions of savage races. We live in a highly civilized
age, and if we fail to grasp its spirit we shall go
to the wall before the oyster cultivators of the Northern
States, and those of Virginia and North Carolina,
just as surely as the Indians have been exterminated

by the whites. We cannot resist the progress of
events, but we can control it if we will be wise in time.

It is not essential that a patient should know the
nature and cause of his disease, but this knowledge is
of the greatest importance to his physician, and it is
of equal importance that the men who are called upon
to legislate for the preservation of our oysters should
clearly understand the true reason for their destruction.

I state, then, in capital letters, that our beds are in
danger,

BECAUSE THE DEMAND HAS OUTGROWN THE NATURAL
SUPPLY.

There are only two possible remedies. Either we
must diminish the demand by killing the packing industry
which has created it, or we must increase by
artificial means the natural supply of oysters.

Even if our natural beds could be restored and
placed as they were twenty years ago, this would only
delay for a few years their final exhaustion, for the demand
is now far beyond the natural productive powers
of our waters, and it is growing greater every day.

The daily papers often publish letters from oystermen
who think that they can point out the true remedy,
and the proposed remedies are almost as numerous as
the authors, and nearly all the letters give statements
which, while they are perfectly true, are based upon
such narrow experience that they are of little or no
value as contributions to a broad, comprehensive view
of the problem.

The tongmen know that most of the oysters have
been taken away by the dredgers, and they therefore

advocate the prohibition or restriction of dredging.
Ignorant of the fact that in localities where no dredging
has been allowed, the natural beds have been exhausted
by tongmen just as soon as a demand for the
oysters sprung up, they believe that the prohibition of
dredging is all that is needed to restore the beds. The
dredgers, on the other hand, attribute the injury to
the law which allows the tongmen to take oysters for
private use in the summer, forgetting that the beds of
Connecticut are rapidly increasing in value under a
law which allows not only tonging, but dredging as
well all through the year. The small dredgers and
scrapers hold that the larger vessels are destroying the
oysters by the use of heavy dredges, although the
Connecticut farmers find it to their interest to use on
their own private beds far heavier dredges, which they
drag over the beds by steam.

Many of the oyster-packers, who carry on their business
only in the winter, believe that all the damage is
due to the oystermen who fish in March, April and
May, and men who have money invested in the oyster
business in Maryland believe that the exportation
of oysters in the shell, and especially oysters for planting
in Northern waters, is the cause of the mischief.

All agree in throwing the blame on some one else,
and all believe that some form of the business in which
they are not interested is responsible for the present
state of things and should be prohibited; but as the
oyster navy is a convenient scapegoat, all parties unite
in throwing the blame upon the officers of the Fishery
Force.

While the views of the oystermen are in this state

of confusion, all students of the subject are agreed as
to the cause of the mischief. As Lieutenant Winslow
well said in 1883, not only must the fecundity of the
beds be preserved, but the market supply must also
be kept up to the present demand, if not actually increased;
and is a cessation of dredging likely to accomplish
the latter end, when at present the vast fleet
of pungies and canoes are straining every rope and
windlass and openly violating every law of two powerful
States in order to find oysters in the required numbers?
The truth is that the Chesapeake beds are no
longer equal to the demands made upon them. Some
policy must be adopted which will supplement the supply
granted by nature, or else the supply will surely
fail.

No mere restriction of the fishing can possibly accomplish
the desired end. It may prevent the extinction
of the beds as they are now, though that is doubtful.
It certainly will not relieve in the least the present
condition of the market. What should be done is
to adopt a policy similar in essential features to that
of Connecticut. The fishery of that State is one of the
few instances of recuperation on record. I know of
many destroyed oyster fisheries, and I know of a few
that have been rebuilt, and I find one cause common
to all failures and as common to all successes. In the
first instance, the fishery has been common property,
its preservation everybody's business—that is, nobody's—and
consequently it has not been preserved.
In the second instance, the fishery has been conducted
and owned by persons singly and together as private
property; it has been this, that or the other man's

business to see to its preservation; that is, its preservation
has been everybody's business instead of nobody's,
and consequently it has been preserved.

Maryland cannot escape the action of universal laws,
and the sooner those interested in the matter recognize
the fact, and that a man does best by his own, whether
it be a wheat or oyster farm, the sooner will a correct
conclusion be reached regarding the oyster question.

It seems as if there were little probability, even at
the present day, of the necessary change in Maryland's
policy. Things of this kind, which so vitally interest
our whole community, rarely get better until they have
become decidedly worse. The current of public
opinion must be turned in the right direction by disaster,
caused by allowing ruinous systems to remain
in force; but it is to be hoped that a point will soon
be reached where our people will become alive to the
situation and apply the remedy.

If, however, the present system must remain in force,
there are some suggestions which may be offered
which, though they could never restore our lost industry,
might save our natural beds from complete
destruction.

One explanation which has been urged to account
for the destruction of our oyster-beds is the wanton or
unnecessary destruction of young oysters. Upon the
piles of shells which are thrown out from the packing-houses
great numbers of young shells can often be
found. They are, of course, dead, and as they are too
small to be of any use, their destruction is a clear loss
to our people. It is impossible to prevent this from happening
occasionally, as in many cases the little oysters

are so small and so firmly fastened to the old one that
they cannot be removed without destroying them, and
even if the oystermen could be compelled to throw
back on to the beds any large oyster which has small
ones fastened to it, there is reason to doubt whether
this would be advantageous, for one full-grown oyster,
like a bird in the hand, is more valuable than two
small ones which may or may not grow up to maturity.
I believe, however, that in cases where great
numbers of young are fastened to the large ones, the
use or destruction of them at the packing-house should
be discouraged. This difficulty will disappear with
the growth of the planting industry, for small oysters
will then be valuable as seed, and they will pass into
the hands of the planters instead of going to the packing-houses.
The true remedy, therefore, is the encouragement
of planting, and if our people would develop
this business immediately, all need for special
legislation would disappear.

The destruction of young oysters at the packing-houses
is trifling, however, compared with that which
results from violations of the culling laws. When a
dredge is brought up from an oyster-bed it usually
contains a few marketable oysters and great quantities
of empty shells, which are often covered with young
oysters. The law requires that these shells shall be
thrown back upon the beds where they are taken,
under a penalty of three years' imprisonment, or three
hundred dollars fine, or the forfeiture of the boat used,
but the enactment of this law has failed to remedy the
evil. It is and always must be very difficult to enforce
a culling law, and as the captain of a dredging boat

wishes to improve his time on the beds to the best
advantage, and to make the most of pleasant weather
while it lasts, it is, of course, to his interest to fill his
boat as quickly as possible, and all hands are therefore
so fully employed in catching oysters that there
is no time to cull them. Even when a captain is disposed
to cull on the beds, he may be compelled by
stormy weather, to run for harbor, and will then employ
his crew in culling the oysters while lying in harbor.
The shells are then dumped overboard in heaps around
the anchorage, and even if the bottom should by chance
be favorable for the growth of the oysters, they are
smothered and killed under the heaps of shells.

The only way in which this can be prevented is by
making it to the interest of the fisherman to save rather
than to destroy the small oysters, and this can be done
by the encouragement of planting. There is enough
suitable ground under our waters to rear to maturity
all the seed oysters which the natural beds can yield,
and the time is sure to come when it will not pay the
fisherman to destroy those which cannot be sold to
the packers, and it will not be necessary to legislate for
their protection.

The aim of the culling law is twofold: first, to preserve
the young oysters, and secondly, to compel the
return of the dead shells to the beds, that they may
serve for the attachment of spat.

The value of these shells for this purpose is not very
great, as they are usually decayed and slimy and covered
with sponge, but it is undoubtedly true that they
are sufficiently valuable to justify the culling law.
The dry, clean shells which accumulate at the packing

houses during the winter are far more valuable, and if
these could be returned to the beds in the summer, a
great increase in fertility would certainly follow.

The improvidence of the people of the United States
in dealing with their oysters, so long as they were
abundant, has been almost beyond belief. The early
settlers found at their doors a supply which they regarded
as inexhaustible, and they not only used them
freely as food, but they also spread them upon their
fields as manure, and poured them, alive, into their
lime-kilns and iron furnaces. In the Northern States
the beds soon showed signs of exhaustion, and these
practices were prohibited by law.

As it has taken our people nearly two hundred
years to discover that we cannot afford to destroy
oysters in this way, we can hardly expect them to perceive
that clean, empty shells are also so valuable that
their use for lime, road-making, etc., should be prohibited.

I called attention to the very great value of oyster
shells in 1879, in an appendix to the report of the
Fish Commission, and showed that a great increase
of fertility would follow the return of the shells to the
waters of our bay.

If this advice had been followed at the time it was
given, our oyster-beds would now be much more valuable,
but no attention was paid to it.

The Commissioners of Shell Fisheries of the State
of Rhode Island, in their annual report for the year
1882, make the following statement upon this subject:

"The oyster shells, which have for years back been

considered almost worthless, have, within a short time,
become valuable to the oyster fisheries. It is a well-known
fact that large quantities of shells are purchased
here from the oyster business, and these shells, which
have until a short time been considered worthless, are
now selling for from eight to ten cents per bushel, to
be carried out of the State (mostly to New Haven) for
the purpose of planting them in deep water in Long
Island Sound, to catch the oyster spawn and for the
raising of oyster seed. These shells are taken up at
the expiration of two years, and, with the increase of
oysters adhering to them, are brought back to the
same parties selling the shells in the first instance, for
the purpose of planting in our waters, and the price
paid for them is from forty to fifty cents per bushel."

The statement which I made twelve years ago, that
this is a matter of great importance, has been passed
over in absolute silence and has attracted no attention.
It seems now as if it were almost time that the enterprise
of practical Connecticut oystermen should have
taught our people a lesson which they would not learn
from a scientific student. Years ago I recommended
that laws be passed requiring the return of shells to
the beds. The simplest way in which this could be
done would be to adopt the Connecticut plan of private
farming, and we may be sure that just so soon as
the fruits of private enterprise are secured to the cultivators,
private interest will lead to the return of the
shells to the water, as it has already done in Connecticut.

One of the causes to which the destruction of our
oyster-beds is often attributed is the exportation of

small oysters into other States. I have tried to gather
information as to the extent to which this is practiced,
but it is difficult to obtain exact statistics.

In discussing this subject we must bear in mind
the fact that Northern fishermen or boats are not
allowed to catch oysters in our waters, and that the
industry contributes to our State treasury and gives
employment to our people; for all the oysters which
are exported for planting must be purchased from our
licensed fishermen. Any person who lawfully owns
oysters clearly has the right to dispose of them in the
best market, and nothing can be done directly to prevent
our oystermen from selling to Northern planters
when it is to their interest to do so.

So far as the exported oysters are mature and marketable
for food, it is obviously to our interest to encourage
the business, which is perfectly legitimate.

The only ground upon which the practice can be
objected to is, that it leads to the sale by our people of
oysters which would be much more valuable to them
if they could be kept in our own waters until they
reached maturity. Oysters which cost the Delaware
planters twenty-five cents per bushel are resold in a
few months for eighty cents per bushel, and many of
them are bought by Maryland packers. The policy
of allowing our impoverished beds to enrich the citizens
of another State is an unwise one, but it is proper
to point out the fact that there is no reason why our
own people should not themselves have this profit of
55 cents a bushel.

It must be obvious to every one that the true
remedy is to encourage planting in our own waters. We

have vastly more land suitable for the purpose than
the State of Delaware, and as our own planters are on
the ground, they would have no canal fees or transportation
to pay, and they could, if they choose, secure
all these oysters for their own use, and gain the profit
which now goes elsewhere. The development of the
Maryland planting industry is, therefore, the true
remedy for the evil. When we have, as we easily
might, more seed oysters than we can use, the exportation
of seed will become a legitimate and profitable
branch of the industry well worthy of encouragement.

The favorite remedy for the difficulty, at least
among those fishermen who are not dredgers, is the
prohibition of dredging. Every one knows that our
beds have deteriorated because they have been excessively
fished, and every one knows, too, that most of
this fishing has been done by dredgers. It is therefore
natural to conclude that since the dredgers have
done the damage, the prohibition of dredging will cure
the mischief, but this is by no means true. The great
demand for oysters, which has come from the growth
of the packing industry, has been supplied by dredgers,
because the dredge is more effective and economical
than the oyster-tongs; but if dredges had not been
invented, the demand would still have been supplied
by the much more expensive and laborious method of
tonging, and the prohibition of dredging now would
simply cause an increase in the number of tongmen.
It would not, however, cause any increase in the
wages of tongmen or in the price of oysters, unless
the importation of oysters from States where dredging
is permitted were forbidden, and this would require

an amendment to one of the most important clauses
of the Constitution of the United States. The beds
in deep water would escape, but they would then be,
like many of the deep-water beds of Virginia, of no
use to any one except pirates, and all the beds which
could be reached by tongs would be as badly off as
ever.

In order to show that this is the case, and that
where no dredges are used the excessive working of
beds with tongs soon causes their destruction, we will
here note a number of cases where beds have been
exterminated with tongs alone.

In 1874 the officers of the United States Coast Survey
found a number of fine beds of valuable oysters
near Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Many fine beds
were found in this region by the earlier settlers, but
they were destroyed so long ago that none of the
natives had any knowledge of oyster-fishing or any
instruments for taking the oysters; but it happened
that an old oysterman from the Chesapeake Bay was
living near-by, and he sent to Providence for oyster-tongs
and began tonging upon the newly discovered
beds. His example was imitated so effectively that
in five years the beds were exhausted and ceased to
be productive.

Ingersoll tells us that from the earliest times the
borders of the Quinepiac River, near New Haven,
Connecticut, have been the scene of oyster operations.
The earliest settlers found on its shores great mounds
of oyster shells, which showed that the Indians had
resorted to its beds, season after season, for an unknown
period. The first white fisherman found natural

beds scattered over the bottom of the whole
river, as well as in favorable areas along the eastern
shore of the harbor. All of the beds were easy of
access, and the result was that the raking of oysters
was soon adopted as a business by many persons who
lived near the water, and a considerable retail peddling
trade was thus kept up throughout the neighborhood,
in addition to the home supply. Wagon loads
of opened oysters traveled in winter to the interior
towns, even as far as Albany, and thence westward by
canal.

These beds continued to supply fine oysters for all
the inhabitants of the surrounding country for many
years, but they have long been worthless as a supply
of food, although they still yield small oysters, which
are used as "seed" for planting. The beds were exhausted
by tongs, and it is interesting to note that
nearly all of the oysters were removed in a single day
in each year. After the beds were closed by law
until November 1, great crowds assembled on the
banks of the river, on the last night of October, and
at the striking of midnight by the town-clock, began
an attack which cleaned the beds of most of their marketable
oysters before the end of the day, and a few
hours of this fishing resulted in the capture of all marketable
oysters.

Native oysters were abundant at Wellfleet, on Cape
Cod, at the time of the first white settlements, and for
more than a hundred years the town was famous for
its oysters, but they became extinct in 1775, through
excessive tonging, although the inhabitants attributed
their destruction not to their own rapacity, but to a

disease sent by Providence upon the oysters, as a
punishment for the sins of the fishermen, who certainly
were more worthy of such an infliction than the
helpless oysters.

In all of these cases the exhaustion of the beds has
been brought about almost or entirely without the use
of dredges, although in a few cases dredges may have
been used to a slight extent.

The list might be greatly extended were it not for
the fact that upon all the more southerly beds dredges
as well as tongs have been used.

Enough instances have been given to show that the
prohibition of dredging will not save any bed which
can be reached with tongs, and as the dredge is much
more scientific, effective and economical apparatus
than the rude tongs which it has superseded, there
does not seem to be any reason why its use should be
prohibited.

In one way the use of dredges is a positive advantage
to the beds. On a natural bed which has never
been dredged, the oysters grow side by side in clusters,
so crowded together that they have no room to
grow. Most of them die when very young, and the
others become long and thin. The dredge breaks up
and scatters these bunches, and gives the oysters room
to grow and to become valuable; and by scattering
the shells, dredging causes an increase in the area of
the natural bed.

It is asserted that the heavy dredges crush and kill
the young oysters, and drag them into the mud and
smother them, but the private farmers of Connecticut
find it to their advantage to drag over their farms, by

the aid of steam, dredges very much larger than any
which are used in Maryland. They use these heavy
dredges in the summer when the young oysters are
very small and fragile, as well as in the winter, yet
their farms are improved by this treatment.

It is undoubtedly true that little oysters are sometimes
broken and killed by the dredge, but the destruction
of oysters in this way is so slight as to have
no significance. I have paid especial attention to the
matter while dredging for oysters, and the number
broken or injured by the dredge is surprisingly small.
Young oysters fasten themselves flat upon the surface
of attachment, and they do not begin to grow up and to
become erect until they are large enough to crowd
each other, and by this time they are large enough to
withstand the dredge without injury.

After most careful examination of the subject I am
convinced that there is no objection to dredging which
does not apply with equal force to all other methods
of oystering, and the interest of the community demands
the employment of improved methods and
cheap and effective labor-saving appliances.

What is needed is more oysters: not the prohibition
of effective methods of catching them.

No animal upon earth, large enough to be valuable
as human food, can long survive the attacks of an enemy
who brings against it the resources, the destructive
weapons, and the intelligence of civilized man. Fortunately,
the resources which render man the most irresistible
of enemies, also enable him to become a producer
as well as a destroyer; and while the fear of him
and the dread of him is upon every beast of the earth

and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that
moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the
sea, while they are all delivered into his hands and are
powerless to resist him, he alone, of all animals, is able
to make good his ravages, by agriculture and by
domestication, by the selection and improvement of
animals and plants, and by artificial propagation.

In the year 1880 the fisheries census, and special
investigations under the direction of the U. S. Fish
Commission, proved that there had been a most rapid
and alarming decline in the value of the shad fisheries
in the rivers and bays and sounds of our Atlantic
coast, and that there was every reason to fear that in
a few years the shad would cease to be of any value as
a food supply.

The adult shad are oceanic fishes, but each spring
they enter our inlets and bays and make their way
up to the fresh-water streams where they deposit their
eggs.

The supply for the market is caught during this
spring migration, when the fishes enter our inland
waters heavy and fat after their winter's feast upon the
abundant food which they find in the ocean. As they
spend most of the year gathering up and converting
into the substance of their own bodies the minute
marine organisms which would otherwise be of no
value to man, and as their instincts compel them to
bring back to our very doors this great addition to our
food supply, and thus put at our service a great and
fertile area of the ocean, which without their aid would
be beyond our control and of no value to man, their
economic importance is very great, and their extinction
would be a national calamity.

In 1880 the fishermen of the interior believed that
the fishermen in lower waters, nearer the ocean, were
to blame for the decline of the fisheries. They complained
of the erection of pounds and weirs along the
shores of the salt-water bays and sounds, where the
fishes were captured in great numbers far away from
their spawning grounds. They believed that legislation
could save the fishery, and that if these obstructions
were prohibited by law and removed, and all the
shad were permitted to reach fresh water before they
were captured, enough eggs would be deposited to
keep up the supply, but that the destruction of such
numbers in salt water must necessarily result in extermination.

This seemed to fresh-water fishermen to be good
logic, but the salt-water fishermen took a different view
of the matter. They wanted more legislation themselves,
but of a different sort, and claimed that what
was needed was protection for the shad upon the
spawning ground. They said that they themselves furnished
most of the shad for the market; that without
them the cities could not be supplied, and that enough
shad escaped their nets and reached the fresh water
to supply all the eggs that were needed, if they could
be left to lay their eggs in peace.

In 1880 there seemed to be good sense in this view
also, and it was difficult for a disinterested outsider to
tell who was right. The only thing which seemed clear
was that the shad were growing scarce, and that, if
the Legislature did not do something to protect them,
they would soon be exterminated.

In 1888 more shad were caught in salt water than

were caught altogether in 1880, and yet the shad fisheries
are now increasing in value from year to year,
and this change has been brought about, not by the
enactment of new laws to restrict the fishery, but by
the production of more fishes.

In 1880 the U. S. Fish Commission began, systematically
and upon a large scale, the work of collecting
the eggs from the bodies of the shad which were
captured for the market, in the nets of the fishermen.
These eggs were artifically fertilized and the young
were kept for a short time in hatching jars, and the
waste of eggs was thus prevented. This work has
been prosecuted steadily ever since, and the results, up
to the end of the season of 1888, are given in the following
table:

TOTAL NUMBER OF SHAD TAKEN EACH YEAR.

           

	In Salt and Brackish Water.	In Rivers.	Total.	Percentage of increase over 1880.
1880	2,549,544	1,591,424	4,140,968
1885	3,267,497	1,906,434	5,172,931	25 per cent.
1886	3,098,768	2,485,000	5,584,368	34 per cent.
1887	3,813,744	2,901,661	6,715,405	62 per cent.
1888	5,010,101	2,650,373	7,660,474	85 per cent.

The money value to the fishermen of the excess in
1888 over the total catch of 1880 was more than
$700,000. I have no record for 1889 or 1890, but
last year, 1890, the fisheries were more profitable than
they have been for many years, and our markets were
stocked with an abundance of fine shad, which were
sold at prices which ten years ago would not have been
thought possible. The percentage of increase in 1889

and 1890 has been much greater than it was in any of
the years given in the table, and this result is not due
to any change in the method of fishing. It is exclusively
due to the increase in the supply.

The conditions are now more unfavorable than ever
to natural reproduction, and it can be proved that if
no shad had been produced by man, while the other
factors had remained as they now are, the fisheries
would be completely ruined and abandoned.

The mature fishes are now excluded by dams and
other obstructions from the most valuable spawning
grounds, and the area which is now available is restricted
to the lower reaches of the rivers, where there
is little proper food for the young, and where the bottoms
are so continually and assiduously swept by drift
nets and seines that each fish is surely captured soon
after its arrival. The number of eggs which are
naturally deposited is now very small, for while the
spawning-grounds have increased from 1,600,000 to
2,600,000, the take in salt water has increased from
2,500,000 to 5,000,000, and the shores of our bays
and sounds are now so lined by fyke nets and pounds
that the number of shad which reach the spawning-grounds
at all is proportionately much less than it was
in 1880, and more shad are now taken each year in
salt water, where spawning is impossible, than were
taken altogether in 1880.

This fact, rightly considered, means that the shad is
now an artificial product, like the crops of grain and
fruit which are harvested on our farms and orchards.

If more shad than the natural supply were taken in
1880 in all waters, and if still greater numbers are now

taken each year in deep water, before they reach the
spawning-ground, it follows that we are now entirely
dependent upon the artificial supply.

This short history will serve to show that we must
look to an increase in the supply of oysters as the only
remedy for the scarcity, and that we can hope for no
benefit from new laws to regulate the method of taking
the oysters.

I must insist, however, upon one most important
difference between the shad and the oyster. The shad
goes out into the ocean to pasture, and it is at this
time beyond the direct control of man. During its
migration it may pass through the waters of two or
three States before it reaches its feeding-ground, and
private ownership and protection of shad is impossible.
The work of shad-hatching is therefore a proper
object for the employment of the Government, but
there is no reason for Government oyster-farming, for
the oyster is as sedentary as a potato, and it is therefore
perfectly adapted for propagation by individuals.

Among the remedies for the destruction of the oyster-beds
the shortening of the season is a favorite
measure, and it has many advocates. This remedy
seems, at first sight, to be an effective one, but a little
thought shows that it is, in reality, of no very great
value.

So long as our present oyster policy is maintained
it will be necessary to have a closed season to facilitate
the enforcement of other legal measures, but as
it is clear to every one that a great number of fishermen
working upon a bed for a short season will do
just as much damage as a lesser number working for

a longer time, we cannot hope that laws to shorten the
season will, in themselves, effect any great improvement
in the condition of the beds.

Ingersoll gives a very vivid description of the
method of fishing in early days, upon one of the
natural beds of Connecticut, and as this bed was finally
exterminated by little more than one day's fishing in
each year, we quote his account in order to show how
little protection a closed season can afford.

Ingersoll says: "The law was `off' on the 1st day
of November, and all the natural beds of the State
became open to any person who wished to rake them.
In anticipation of the date, great preparations were
made in the towns along the shore and even for twenty
miles back from the seaside. Boats and rakes and
baskets and bags were put in order. The day before,
large numbers of wagons came toward the shore from
the back country, bringing hundreds of men with their
utensils. Among these were not unfrequently seen
boats, borne in the rigging of a hay-cart, ready to be
launched on the expected morning. It was a time of
great excitement, and nowhere greater than along the
Quinepiac. On the day preceding, farmers flocked
into Fair Haven from all the surrounding country, and
brought with them boats and canoes, of antique pattern
and ruinous aspect. These rustics always met
with a riotous welcome from the town-boys, who hated
rural competition. They were very likely to find their
boats, if not carefully watched, stolen and hidden
before they had a chance to launch them, or even temporarily
disabled. These things diversified the day
and enlivened a community usually very peaceful, if

not dull. As midnight approached, men dressed in
oilskin, and carrying oars, paddles, rakes and tongs,
collected all along the shore, where a crowd of women
and children assembled to see the fun. Every sort of
craft was prepared for action, and they lined the whole
margin of the river and harbor on each side in
thick array. As the `witching hour' drew near, the
men took their seats with much hilarity and nerved
their arms for a few moments' vigorous work. No eye
could see the face of the great church clock on the
hill, but lanterns glimmered upon a hundred watchdials
and then were set down, as only a coveted
minute remained. There was a hush in the merriment
along the shore, an instant's calm, and then the great
bell struck a deep-toned peal. It was like an electric
shock. Backs bent to oars and paddles churned the
water. From opposite banks, waves of boats leaped
out and advanced towards one another in the darkness,
as though bent on mutual annihilation. `The
race was to the swift' and every stroke was the mightiest.
Before the twelve blows upon the loud bell had
ceased their reverberations, the oyster-beds had been
reached, tongs were scraping the long-rested bottom,
and the season's campaign upon the Quinepiac had
begun. In a few hours the crowd upon some beds
would be such that the boats were pressing close together.
They were all compelled to move along as
one, for none could resist the pressure of the multitude.
The more thickly covered beds were quickly cleaned
of their bivalves. The boats were full, the wagons
were full, and many had secured what they called
their `winter's stock' before the day was done, and
thousands of bushels of oysters were packed away
under blankets of sea-weed, in scores of cellars. The
first day was the great day. By the next day the rustic
crowd had departed, but the oysters continued to be
sought. A week of this sort of attack, however, usually
sufficed to clean the bottom so thoroughly that
subsequent raking was of small account."

For a few years the bed was able to resist this
attack and recover from it, but it was not long before
all the mature and full-grown oysters were caught,
and at the present time the bed does not yield marketable
oysters, although it still provides seed oysters for
planting.

It is clear from the history of this bed, and of many
others which might be referred to, that as oysters
grow scarce and the demand for them increases, the
only effect of a closed season is to assemble all the
oystermen upon the bed at the end of the season. The
oysters which would otherwise have been removed
slowly are then taken away rapidly, and the plan has
no advantages as a means of protection unless the
closed season is long enough to allow a new generation
of young oysters to grow up and replenish the
beds.

Although the closure of the beds for a part of each
year is of very little value in itself, a closed season is
a great help in the enforcement of other means of protection,
and many of the States which own oyster-beds
have passed laws to prevent the taking of oysters in
certain months.

In Massachusetts any resident may take oysters for
family use between September 1st and June 1st, but no

one can take them without a permit between June 1st
and September 1st, although the local authorities have
the power to grant permits to fish for oysters at any
time.

Some of the public beds of Rhode Island are open to
residents between September 15th and May 15th, while
others are open only between April 1st and June 15th,
but no one can take more than twenty bushels in one
day.

Connecticut has no closed season, and her public as
well as private beds are fished at all times. The beds
in the river Thames, however, are closed by a local
law between March 1st and September 1st.

New York has local laws for the closure of the beds
of certain regions at specified times, and some of the
towns have town laws to the same effect; thus the beds
of Great South Bay are closed by a State law from
March 1st to September 1st, and those in Harlem river
from June 1st to August 30th, while the town of Brookham
has a town law closing the beds, which furnish
the well-known "Blue Point" oysters, from June 15th
to October 1st.

In certain counties of New Jersey the closed season
is from May 1st to September 1st; in others from July
1st to September 1st, and in still others from May 1st
to October 1st.

The public beds of Delaware are closed from April
30th to September 1st.

In Virginia the closed season is from May 1st to
September 1st, but any resident may catch two bushels
a day for family use, and any owner of planted oysters
may catch them at any time and in any quantity
for family use.

In Ireland the season opens on September first in
some localities, on October first in others, and on
November first in others, and it closes on March first,
April first or May first. It is unlawful to possess any
oysters during the closed term. The inspectors of
fisheries can call a meeting of interested persons to
decide upon a change in the closed season.

In the English Channel the closed season, as established
by the concurrent legislation of England and
France, is June sixteenth to August thirty-first, and
any boat found at this time with a dredge aboard is
held guilty of a violation of the law.

In Maryland in 1884 no dredging was allowed between
April 1st and October 15th, and no oysters in the
shell could be carried outside of the State between
April 1st and September 1st. There is also a State
law in the following words: "It shall be unlawful for
any person or persons to take or catch oysters, except
for private use, to the amount of five bushels per day,
or for sale of the same to any citizen or citizens of the
neighborhood, and to them only for the purpose of
being consumed when sold, or for the purpose of replanting
or bedding in the waters of the counties
wherein they are caught, or for sale to the citizens of
the county wherein they are caught, and to them only
for the purpose of replanting or bedding in the waters
of said counties, between the 15th day of April and
the 1st day of September."

A special act of the Legislature is needed to explain
what the ambiguous wording of this section
is intended to prohibit or permit; but Sec. 13, of
the Act of 1874, for which the words above quoted

were substituted in 1880, forbids the taking of oysters
during the closed season, except for private use, or
for the purpose of replanting, or for sale to the citizens
of the county next adjoining. It is, therefore, probable
that the framers of the present law wished to permit
by it the taking between April 15th and September
1st of oysters to be sold to residents of the neighborhood
for food, or to citizens of the county for planting,
and also to permit the taking of five bushels a day for
private use.

It will be seen by examination that almost the only
thing which these laws have in common is the prohibition
of oyster-fishing in the summer months, and to
this there are exceptions, as some of the Rhode Island
beds are open only in the summer, while those of Connecticut
are open at all times. This provision, which
is borrowed from the laws for the protection of game,
is based upon the fact that this time is the spawning
season. Game birds soon desert a region where they
are disturbed in the breeding season, and as they lay
few eggs and care for their helpless young, the destruction
of an old bird at this time may result in the
death of the whole brood. The provision of the game
law which forbids the capture of game during the
breeding season is therefore a wise one, but oysters
are very different from game birds. They discharge
vast numbers of eggs into the water, but they take no
care of their young, and while it is true that the removal
of too many mature oysters from a bed destroys
its productiveness, the time when they are removed is
a matter of no consequence, and overfishing in December
is in this respect as bad as overfishing in May.

I have made a study of the spawning time of our
oysters, and have carried my observations over several
years. I have found spawning oysters in our waters
in every month in the year except December, January
and February, and I have had no opportunity to visit
the beds during these three months.

By far the greater number of these oysters, however,
are found to spawn between May 20th and July
1st, and although the temperature of our spring months
causes considerable variation, this period may properly
be called the spawning season. At any time before
May 20th, the disturbance of the beds can do little
harm, and the experience of the Connecticut oyster-farmers
shows that the thorough raking of the beds
just before the spawning season is a positive benefit.
The young oysters cannot attach themselves to dirty
and slimy shells, and if all the sponges, hydroids and
sea-weeds could be dragged from our beds in April
and May, and if the old decayed and slimy shells
could be plowed under and covered with the cleaner
shells from below the surface by dredging just before
the spawning season, the fertility of the beds would be
greatly increased, and there is, therefore, nothing in
the nature of the oyster to demand the closure of the
beds in April and May.

I believe that no increase in the value of our beds
can be hoped for until it is brought about by private
cultivation, and that the State should use every possible
means to foster and encourage the oyster-planting
and oyster-farming industries. I show elsewhere that
the States where the oyster industry is most prosperous
have found it necessary and to their advantage to

use the natural beds chiefly as a supply of seed for
planting, and I believe that whenever the people of our
State are prepared to use our great natural advantages
for oyster culture, it will be wise to throw open the
natural beds in the summer time, but at present such
a measure would simply result in the depletion of the
beds, without any compensating advantage.

Soon after the young oysters are born they fasten
themselves to stones, gravel, empty shells, living oysters
and other clean, hard substances. They are at
first so small and flat that they are in no danger of
injury by dredgers, and there is, therefore, no reason
why the taking of marketable oysters should not be
continued all summer if the large oysters could be
taken away without the young ones, but these are at
first so small that they are invisible, and for several
months they are too small to be removed from the
shells of larger oysters. As it is very difficult to
enforce culling laws, the opening of the public beds
immediately after the spawning season would cause
millions of the small oysters to be carried away on the
shells, and even if the culling laws could be enforced,
many of the small oysters would be carried away on
the large ones.

This would be a great advantage if the small oysters
were used as seed for planting, but at present
most of them are destroyed.

I therefore believe that, for the present at least, the
public beds should be closed for as long a time as
possible in the fall, in order to give the young oysters
time to grow large enough to render it possible to
detach them from the larger ones and from the shells.

I also think that each public bed should be examined
annually in order to determine how many oysters it
can yield without injury. This examination should be
made in August or September, in order to learn how
many young oysters have settled upon the bed, and as
the analysis and publication of the results of this examination
would require at least two months, the opening
of the public beds should be postponed as long as
possible.

After the closure of the packing-houses in the early
spring, most of the oysters which are taken are sold
outside the State at a very low price to planters, who,
in many cases at least, resell to Maryland packers in
September and October at a great advance.

If our own people would themselves engage extensively
in the planting business, or if our beds were not
already overtaxed, it would be wise to encourage the
taking of seed to be sold to Northern planters, as this
is one of the legitimate sources of the demand for
our oysters.

As soon as our people engage extensively in oyster-planting,
and need these months to gather their
seed oysters, and as soon as our beds are sufficiently
prolific to supply Northern planters, we believe that
the beds should be thrown open until June 1st, or
even longer.

The experience of Connecticut, where both public
and private beds are open throughout the whole year,
and are rapidly increasing in value, shows that a
closed season is not necessary for the preservation of
the beds.

As the closed season is a matter of policy, and is

not due to the nature of the oyster, I believe that it
should be made absolute, and that all laws which permit
any one to take any oysters from the public beds
at that time should be repealed.

It is possible to stock oyster-farms and planting-grounds
without drawing upon the public beds, and
there is no reason why those oyster-planters who wish
to get their seed from the public beds should not do so
after the oyster season is opened. It is true that they
would then have to compete with the prices paid by
the packers, but as our present oyster policy is
opposed to any private interest in the beds, there is
no good reason why a planter should have oysters
from the public beds any more cheaply than any one
else.

The law which allows any person to catch oysters
from the public beds at any time for family use or
for sale in the neighborhood, is a wide loophole for
infringement of the law, and so long as our present
oyster policy is adhered to, I believe that the public
beds should be absolutely closed during the closed
season.

ON THE ADVISABILITY OF DIVIDING OUR OYSTER AREA
INTO OPEN AND CLOSED DISTRICTS.

We cannot hope for any marked improvement in
the condition of our oyster-beds through the enforcement
of laws closing them for certain months in the
year.

The rapidly increasing demand for oysters must be
supplied in one way or another, and the effect of a
closed season is simply to gather the oystermen upon

the beds in greater numbers than ever at the end of the
season.

This is equally true whether the closed season is
long or short. If our waters, or any part of them,
should be closed to the public for a term of years, the
oysters would increase and multiply and finally restock
the beds. It is difficult to state exactly how long a
time would be required, as this depends upon the condition
of the beds. When there are plenty of mature
oysters to supply the spat, and plenty of clean shells
for the young to fasten upon, a few years will suffice
to restore the bed; but after an oyster-bed is thoroughly
exhausted there is no reason why another natural bed
should ever grow up in the same spot rather than anywhere
else, and in any case the closure of certain
districts cannot increase the supply beyond its natural
limits. In some parts of France the oyster territory
has been divided into sections, and each section is
fished in turn while the others are closed and left to
repair their losses. We are told by a recent French
writer that, while the provinces which have made use
of this system have been able to preserve their beds
from complete ruin, they have not been able to increase
their fruitfulness or to restore them to their ancient
splendor.

Even if the waters are loaded with spat from adjacent
beds, there is no reason why the young should
gain a foothold on the site of the exterminated bed.
Between the natural beds there are areas where the
bottom is perfectly adapted for oysters, except that
there is nothing for the spat to fasten to, and an exterminated
natural bed is in the same condition.

The regrowth of such a bed is, therefore, exactly
like the original formation of a natural bed, and it
must be a very slow process indeed; how slow it is
very difficult to say, as we have very little information
which will help us to decide, although we have facts to
show that a century may not be long enough.

When New England was settled there were very
many valuable beds between Cape Cod and the northern
limit of our coast. Many of these beds were
destroyed so long ago that we have no records of the
date when they ceased to be productive, and others
were yielding oysters about one hundred years ago.
There are still a few scattered oysters at certain points
on the coast, and we may be sure that the conditions
are still favorable, but there is no evidence to show
that any of these beds have become restocked, although
some of them have certainly been untouched for two
hundred years or more. It is possible that the beds
which were discovered by the United States Coast
Survey in 1874, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
have grown there since the oysters were exterminated, a
hundred years before. This region was renowned
among the Indians for its oysters, and in 1697, a river
emptying into the bay was known as Oyster River. One
hundred years ago a number of vessels were loaded with
oysters there, but since that time the region has yielded
no oysters until 1874, when the officers of the United
States Coast Survey found about a dozen large beds or
clusters of beds in about ten feet of water.

It is impossible to state whether these beds occupy
the place of the beds which were exterminated a century
ago, but it is probable that most of the old beds

were in shallow water. The bay must have contained
enough oysters to furnish spat, and as no new beds
have grown up in shallow water, we are forced to conclude
that, even when spawn is present, a period of a
hundred years is not enough to restore a bed which has
been completely destroyed.

The adoption by the State, of a plan to close certain
districts long enough for the beds to recover, would,
undoubtedly, delay the work of extermination, but it
would also cause an immediate decrease in the supply.

I believe that if our present policy is continued,
measures of this kind must be adopted, but such an
expedient can have only a temporary value, as it will
do nothing in itself to enlarge our oyster area, or to
increase the productiveness of our waters.

I believe that the districting plan is neither a real
remedy nor the best method for arresting the destruction.
It is the best which can be put into force without
delay, but while recommending it, I feel that it is my
duty to call attention to the fact that there is a still
better method, although it is one which would require
considerable time and the expenditure of large sums
of money.

Under natural conditions each bed is able to yield a
certain number of oysters each year, and whenever
this number is exceeded the bed suffers, and if the
practice is continued it must be destroyed. It makes
no difference whether the oysters are taken in one
month or in twelve, or in one year or in five. The
ultimate effect upon the bed is the same in all cases.

In the absence of measures for artificially increasing
the productiveness of the oyster grounds, or even when

such measures are employed, the only way to effectually
protect a bed is to examine it each year, and to
learn how many oysters it can furnish without injury,
and to take such steps as may be necessary for preventing
each bed from being drawn upon in excess of
its capacity.

When the natural beds are small and few in number
it is easy to do this, and the plan has been employed
in some parts of our own country, and also in many
parts of Europe, where a few-guard-boats are enough
to protect the beds, and to learn how many oysters are
taken from each one.

The waters of Maryland cover nearly one-third of
the whole area of the State, and as oyster-beds are
found in nearly all our waters, there are very great
practical difficulties; and the attempt to learn how
many oysters are taken, and how many should be taken
from each bed, demands great executive ability and a
large and well-trained and equipped force. Our present
Fishery Force is totally incompetent to undertake
such a work, and no force could do it efficiently
without devoting much time to organization and to preliminary
work.

The restriction of the crop according to the capacity
of the bed is absolutely necessary, if our beds are to
remain public property, and it must be brought about
in one way or another.

The result can be reached by a system of intelligent
private cultivation upon grounds held for the purpose
upon long leases, or deeded outright by the State; for
personal interest is the strongest motive which can
exist to prevent the needless destruction of property.

If all our oyster area were divided up into private
holdings, the whole could be watched and its condition
and capacity much more carefully and exactly ascertained,
than can ever be the case under State management,
and an enlightened system of private cultivation
would be the most sure safeguard against the exhaustion
of the beds.

The first step, the survey of all the beds and the
construction of accurate maps, would employ a large
and well equipped force for several years. After all
the beds are mapped, a large force will still be needed
to make the annual examinations, and to obtain the
data which are needed to determine how many oysters
each bed can yield without injury.

The enactment and enforcement of the necessary
laws would even then present many difficult and complicated
problems, but if our public beds could be
placed for a term of years under the supervision of an
officer or a commission to study the subject, and to
superintend and direct the survey and examination,
and to develop a plan for protection; and if competent
persons could be found to devote themselves to
this work; and if an efficient navy, under the command
of trained officers, could be employed to act
under their supervision and direction, a practical and
efficient plan could no doubt be devised and put into
execution. Possibly the same thing could be accomplished
by an organized co-operative company of
oystermen.