The oyster : a popular summary of a scientific study. |
| I. |
| II. |
| III. |
 | IV. |
 | V. |
BECAUSE THE DEMAND HAS OUTGROWN THE NATURAL
SUPPLY. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
 | CHAPTER V. The oyster : |  |
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
| 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
| CHAPTER V. The oyster : | |