The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
A REPORT
UPON
The Mollusk Fisheries
OF
MASSACHUSETTS.

BOSTON:
WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS,
18 Post Office Square.
1909.

Approved by
The State Board of Publication.

[The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.]

Commissioners on Fisheries and Game,
State House, Boston, Jan. 15, 1909.

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives.

We herewith transmit a special report upon the mollusk fisheries of Massachusetts, as ordered by chapter 49, Resolves of 1905, relative to scallops; chapter 73, Resolves of 1905, relative to oysters; chapter 78, Resolves of 1905, relative to quahaugs; and chapter 93, Resolves of 1905, relative to clams.

Respectfully submitted,

G. W. FIELD,
Chairman.

CONTENTS

[The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.]
[Report on the Mollusk Fisheries of Massachusetts.]
[Introduction.]
[The Shellfisheries of Massachusetts: Their Present Condition and Extent.]
[Quahaug (Venus mercenaria).]
[Scallop (Pecten irradians).]
[Oyster (Ostrea Virginiana).]
[Clam (Mya arenaria).]
[Index.]
[Transcriber's Notes]

[REPORT ON THE MOLLUSK FISHERIES OF MASSACHUSETTS.]

[Introduction.]

The general plan of the work was outlined by the chairman of the Commission on Fisheries and Game, who has given attention to such details as checking up scientific data, editing, revising, and confirming results, reports, etc. The work has been under the direct charge and personal supervision of the biologist to the commission, Mr. D. L. Belding. The able services of Prof. J. L. Kellogg of Williams College were early enlisted, and many valuable results which we are able to offer are the direct outcome of the practical application of the minute details discovered by Professor Kellogg in his careful study and original investigations of the anatomy and life histories of the lamellibranch mollusks.

Of the other workers who, under the direction of Mr. Belding, have contributed directly, special mention should be made of Mr. J. R. Stevenson of Williams College, W. G. Vinal of Harvard University, F. C. Lane of Boston University, A. A. Perkins of Ipswich and C. L. Savery of Marion. Those who have for a briefer time been identified with the work are R. L. Buffum, W. H. Gates and K. B. Coulter of Williams College, and Anson Handy of Harvard University.

In addition to the results here given, much valuable knowledge has been acquired, particularly upon the life histories of the scallop and of the quahaug, and the practical application of this knowledge to the pursuit of sea farming. It is hoped that the commission will later be enabled to publish these results.

The present report is limited to a statement of the condition of the shellfish in each section of our coast, and to consideration of practical methods for securing increased opportunities for food and livelihood by better utilization of naturally productive lands under water. Since the chief purpose of legislative action under which this work was undertaken was to ascertain how the best economic results could be secured, we have thought it wise to embody the results of our investigation in a plan which is suggested as a basis for appropriate legislation for making possible a suitable system of shellfish cultivation similar to that which already exists in Rhode Island, Connecticut and many other coast States, and which has been carried on for more than two thousand years on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

The following tentative outlines are offered, and it is intended to subject each topic to an unprejudiced examination and discussion:—

A Proposed System of Culture for the Tidal Flats and Waters of Massachusetts.

The Purpose.—The proposed system of shellfish culture aims to develop the latent wealth of the tidal waters, to increase the output of tidal flats already productive, and to make possible the reclamation of large portions of the waste shore areas of our Commonwealth. It is further designed to foster dependent and allied industries; to extend the shellfish market, both wholesale and retail; to multiply opportunities for the transient visitors and shore cottagers to fish for clams and quahaugs for family use, and to ensure fishermen a reliable source of bait supply; to increase the earnings of the shore fishermen, and to furnish work to thousands of unemployed; to increase the value of shore property; to add to the taxable property of the shore towns and cities of the State; to secure to all the citizens of the State a proper return from an unutilized State asset; to furnish the consuming public with a greater quantity of sea food of guaranteed purity; and in every way, both in the utilization of present and in the creation of new resources to build up and develop the fast-declining shellfish industries of the Commonwealth.

Private v. Public Ownership of Tidal Flats.—The first difficulty confronting this proposed system is the too frequently accepted fallacy that all lands between the tide marks now are and should be held in common by the inhabitants of the shore communities, to the exclusion of citizens from other sections of the State,—an assumption which is directly contrary to the more ancient law, supported by decisions of the highest courts, that the right of taking shellfish is a public right, freely open to any inhabitant of the State. Such unwarranted assumption of exclusive rights in the shellfisheries by individuals, corporations or towns sacrifices the rights of the majority. The disastrous effect of this policy is plainly demonstrated in the history of the rise and decline of the shellfisheries of Massachusetts.

Secondly, this fallacious assumption is contrary to the fundamental principles of all economic doctrines. It may be safely affirmed that the individual ownership of property has proved not only a success but even is a necessary condition of progress, and has in fact at length become the foundation of all society. It inevitably follows that if the system is justifiable in the case of farm lands it is equally justifiable in the case of the tidal flats, for the same principle is involved in each. It is therefore fair to assume that if private ownership of farm land has proved to be for the best interests of human progress, so private ownership of the tidal flats will also be a benefit to the public.

It is not our purpose to discuss the underlying principle involved in private ownership of property,—it is simply our purpose to call attention to two facts: (1) if individual control of real estate is just, private ownership of tidal flats and waters is likewise just; (2) that individual control of such areas is the only practical system yet devised capable of checking the alarming decline in the shellfisheries and of developing them to a normal state of productiveness, and rendering unnecessary an annually increasing mass of restrictive legislation.

The Present System.—The present system of controlling the shellfisheries is based on the communal ownership of the tidal flats. Ownership by the Commonwealth has degenerated into a system of town control, whereby every coast community has entire jurisdiction over its shellfisheries, to the practical exclusion of citizens of all other towns. Thus at the present time the mollusk fisheries of Massachusetts are divided into a number of separate and disorganized units, which are incapable of working together for the best interests of the towns or of the public. This communistic system is distinctly unsound, and is in direct opposition to the principles of social and economic development. The man who advocates keeping farm lands untilled and in common, for the sake of the few wild blackberries they might produce, would be considered mentally unbalanced; but it is precisely this system which holds sway over our relatively richer sea gardens. With no thought of seed time, but only of harvest, the fertile tidal flats are yearly divested of their fast-decreasing output by reckless and ruthless exploitation, and valuable territories when once exhausted are allowed to become barren. All hopes for the morrow are sacrificed to the clamorous demands of the present. The more the supply decreases, the more insistent becomes the demand; and the greater the demand, the more relentless grows the campaign of spoliation. The entire shore front of the Commonwealth is scoured and combed by irresponsible aliens and by exemplars of the "submerged tenth" who are now but despoilers, but who if opportunity were present might become cultivators of the flats rather than devastators. The thoughtful fisherman, who would control the industry in a measure, is under present conditions overruled by his selfish or short-sighted fellow workers, and is of necessity forced to join their ranks by the clinching argument that if the shellfisheries are to be ruined anyway, he might as well have his share as long as they last. The theory of public ownership of shellfisheries has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The necessity for some radical change in the present system is becoming more and more apparent, and a system of private control, with certain modifications, is the logical result.

Need of Reform.—The shellfish supply of Massachusetts is steadily declining. So extensive is this decline that it is unnecessary to mention the abundant proofs of almost complete exhaustion in certain localities and of failing output in others. While the apparent cause of this decrease is overfishing and unsystematic digging, the real cause can be readily traced to the present defective system of town control, which has made possible, through inefficiency and neglect, the deplorable condition of this important industry. Unless the decline is at once checked, within a very few years our valuable shellfisheries will be exhausted to the point of commercial extinction. The legislation of former years, essentially restrictive and prohibitory in character, has unfortunately been constructed on a false economic basis. Its aim has been to protect these industries by restricting the demand rather than by increasing the supply. What the future requires is not merely protective or restrictive legislation, but rather constructive laws for developing the shellfisheries. The system of shellfish culture here presented appears to be the only practical method for improving the condition of these industries in such a way as to protect all vested interests of both private and public rights, and at the same time to make possible adequate utilization of the natural productive capacity.

In brief, the proposed system of shellfish culture is based upon a system of leases to individuals. These leases should be divided into two classes: (1) those covering the territory between the tide lines, and consisting of small areas, from 1 to 2 acres; (2) the territory below low-water mark, comprised of two classes of grants, which differ only in size and distance from the shore,—the smaller (a), from 1 to 5 acres, to include the shore waters, small bays and inlets, and the larger (b), of unrestricted size, to be given in the deeper and more exposed waters. The owners of all grants shall be permitted to plant and grow all species of shellfish, and shall have exclusive control of the fisheries area covered by such lease. The large and more exposed grants, which cannot be economically worked without considerable capital, should be available for companies; while the smaller holdings, for which but small capital is required, are restricted to the use of the individual shore fishermen. For the tidal flats and shore waters but one-half of the whole territory in any one township shall be leased, the other half still remaining public property.

Success of this System.—The system of private control by leased grants is by no means a new and untried theory. In actual operation for many years in this and other States, in spite of lack of protection and other drawbacks which would be eliminated from a perfected system, it has proved an unqualified success. The rapid depletion and even extermination of the native oyster beds necessitated legislative consideration, and for years the oyster industry above and below low-water mark in this and other States has been dealt with by a similar system. The plan here suggested would be but a direct extension of a well-tested principle towards the cultivation of other species of mollusks. The financial value to the fishermen of such a step has been proved beyond all question in this State during the past three years by the demonstrations of the Massachusetts department of fisheries and game. These experiments have proved that tidal flats, with small outlay of capital and labor, will yield, acre for acre, a far more valuable harvest than any upland garden.

This system has the further element of success by being based on individual effort, in contrast to the present communal regulation of shellfisheries. In all business individual initiative and effort furnish the keynote of success, and the future wellfare of the shellfisheries depends upon the application of this principle.

Nature cannot without the aid and co-operation of man repair the ill-advised, untimely and exhaustive inroads made in her resources. This is shown in the thousands of acres of good farm lands made unproductive by unwise treatment, and by the wasteful destruction of our forests. It is as strikingly shown in the decline of our shellfisheries. The fisherman exhausts the wealth of the flats by destroying both young and adults, and returns nothing. The result is decrease and ultimate extermination. The farmer prepares his land carefully and intelligently, plants his seed and in due time reaps a harvest. If the fisherman could have similar rights over the tidal areas, he could with far less labor and capital and with far greater certainty year by year reap a continuous harvest at all seasons. The success of the leasing system in other States, notably Louisiana, Rhode Island and others, is definite and conspicuous.

The Obstacles to this Proposed System.—Before the proposed system of titles to shellfish ground can be put in actual operation, it is absolutely necessary to have all rights and special privileges pertaining to shore areas revested in State control by repeal of certain laws. In this centralization of authority four main factors must be carefully considered: (1) communal rights to fisheries in tidal areas, as in the colonial beach law of 1641-47; (2) the theory, practice and results of town supervision and control; (3) the rights of riparian owners; (4) the rights of the fishermen and of all other inhabitants of the State. So important are all four that it is necessary to discuss each in turn.

(1) Communal Fishery Rights of the Public.—The fundamental principle upon which the shellfish laws of the State are founded is the so-called beach or free fishing right of the public. While in other States shore property extends only to mean high water, in Massachusetts, Maine and Virginia, the earliest States to enact colonial laws, the riparian property holders own to mean low-water mark. But by specific exception and according to further provisions of this same ancient law the right of fishing (which includes the shellfisheries) below high-water mark is free to any inhabitant of the Commonwealth. The act reads as follows:—

Section 2. Every inhabitant who is an householder shall have free fishing and fowling in any great ponds, bays, coves and rivers, so far as the sea ebbs and flows within the precincts of the town where they dwell, unless the freemen of the same town or the General Court have otherwise appropriated them.

It is necessary that some change be made in this law, which at present offers no protection to the planters. Its repeal is by no means necessary, as the matter can be adjusted by merely adding "except for the taking of mollusks from the areas set apart and leased for the cultivation of mollusks."

(2) Results of Town Administration of Mollusk Fisheries.—All authority to control mollusk privileges was originally vested in the State. The towns, as the ancient statutes will show, derived this authority from the higher State authority, developed their systems of local regulations or by-laws only with the State permission, and even now they enjoy the fruits of these concessions solely with the active consent of the Legislature. Thus the State has ever been, and is at present, the source of town control. The towns have no rights of supervision and control over shellfisheries except as derived from the General Court. The State gave them this authority in the beginning. It follows, therefore, that the Legislature can withdraw this delegated authority at any time when it is convinced that it is for the benefit of the State so to do. To those few who are directly profiting at the expense of the many, this resumption of authority by the State may seem at first sight a high-handed proceeding, but a brief survey of the facts will prove it to be justly warranted and eminently desirable. The present system of town control has had a sufficient trial. It is in its very essentials an un-business-like proceeding. A large number of towns acting in this matter as disorganized units working independently of one another could not in the nature of things evolve any co-ordinated and unified system which would be to the advantage of all. The problems involved are too complicated, requiring both broad and special knowledge, which cannot be acquired in a short term of experience. Lastly, the temptations of local politics have been found to be too insistent to guarantee completely fair allotment of valuable privileges.

The Legislature has not only acted unwisely in allowing the towns in this respect thus to mismanage their affairs, but it has not fulfilled its duty to the Commonwealth as a whole. The Legislature has unwittingly delegated valuable sources of wealth and revenue, the fruits of which should have been enjoyed at least in some degree, directly or indirectly, by all citizens of the Commonwealth alike as well as by those of the coast towns. Many of the coast cities and towns have dealt with this opportunity very unwisely, and few have developed or even maintained unimpaired this extremely valuable asset of the State. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that such important sources of wealth as the shellfisheries are not the property of the coast towns alone; they are the property of the whole Commonwealth, and the whole Commonwealth should share in these benefits. In allowing these valuable resources to be mismanaged and dissipated by the shore towns, the Legislature has done a great injury to all the inland communities, and, indeed, even to those very coast towns for whose benefit such legislation was enacted. The Legislature was not justified, in the first place, in granting jurisdiction over these important industries belonging equally to the whole Commonwealth and to the coast towns. It was but an experiment. Inasmuch as these towns have grossly mismanaged the trust placed in them, the Legislature is doubly under the obligation to take advantage of the knowledge gained by this experimental delegation of the State authority to cities and towns. The completely obvious obligation of the Legislature is to remove what is either tacitly or frankly acknowledged by many city and town authorities to be an impossible burden upon the city or town, and to restore to State officers the general administrative control and supervision of the public rights in the shellfisheries.

(3) Riparian Ownership does not include Exclusive Fishing Rights.—The third objection is that in the assumption of State control is involved the much-discussed and vaguely understood question of riparian ownership. To make plain the conditions relative to the fisheries, including the shellfisheries on the tidal flats, it should be borne in mind that in only four States, Virginia and Maryland, Massachusetts and Maine, does the title of the riparian owner extend to low-water mark, but in these States the right of fishing, fowling and boating are specifically mentioned as not included in the title. Under the existing laws owners of seashore property in Massachusetts possess certain rights (though perhaps not in all cases clearly defined) over the tidal areas within 100 rods of the mean high-water mark. As the proposed system of shellfish grants deals with this territory between high and low water marks, it is necessary to see in what manner, if any, the rights at present possessed by riparian owners would be impaired by the leasing of certain rights of fishing. While the riparian owner has in a measure authority over the territory which borders his upland, there are certain specific limitations to this authority. He does not have exclusive rights of hunting, boating and fishing between the tide lines on his own property, but participates in these rights equally with every citizen of this Commonwealth. The courts have distinctly held that shellfish are fish, and that a man may fish—i.e., dig clams—on the tidal flats adjoining the shore without the consent of the riparian owner.

(4) Rights of the Fishermen and of All Citizens.—The fishermen as a class are best located to benefit most from an opportunity to lease exclusive fishing rights, whether they chance to be riparian owners or not, though every other citizen of this Commonwealth who so desired would not be excluded from an opportunity to secure a similar lease. The personnel of the fisher class has vastly changed in the past decade. There are to-day two distinct types: The permanent resident, usually native born, bound to a definite locality by ties of home and kin and of long association,—a most useful type of citizen. Contrasted with this is the other, a more rapidly increasing class,—foreign born, unnaturalized, nomadic, a humble soldier of fortune, a hanger-on in the outskirts of urban civilization, eking out an existence by selling or eating the shellfish from the public fishing grounds. Too ignorant to appreciate the importance of sanitary precaution, the alien clammer haunts the proscribed territory polluted by sewage, and does much to keep the dangerous typhoid germ in active circulation in the community.

The public mollusk fisheries only foster such types of non-producers, and prevent them from becoming desirable citizens. The best class of fishermen and citizens has no advantage over the worst, but is practically compelled to engage in the same sort of petty buccaneering and wilfully destructive digging, in order to prevent that portion and privilege of fishing which the law says shall belong to every householder and freeman of the Commonwealth from being appropriated by these humble freebooters, who are at once the annoyance, the terror and the despair of cottagers and shore dwellers.

All these conditions would be almost completely corrected by the lease of the flats to individuals, thus removing from the fishermen stultifying competition and compelling these irresponsible wandering aliens to acquire definite location. But most particularly a system of leasing would permit each person to profit according to his industry, perseverance, thrift and foresight.

The Grants.—As previously stated, the grants should be made into two divisions: (1) including suitable areas between the high and low water marks; (2) territory below mean low-water mark. The privilege of planting and growing all shellfish should be given for both classes of grants. Class 1 would be primarily for the planting of clams, with additional rights over oysters and quahaugs; class 2 would be primarily for the planting of quahaugs and oysters, with possible rights over clams and scallops.

The grants should be leased for a limited period of years, with the privilege of renewal provided the owner had fulfilled the stipulated requirements of the lease. In order, however, that these leases should not degenerate into deeds, to be handed down from father to son, it might be necessary to assign a maximum time limit during which a man might remain in control of any particular lease. This would be merely fair play to all concerned, for it would not be just to allow one man to monopolize a particularly fine piece of property, while his equally deserving neighbor had land of far less productive value. In connection with this clause should follow some provisions for payment of the value of improvements. Should there be more than one claimant for lease of any particular area, some principle of selection, such as priority of application, highest bid, etc., should be established.

That there may be no holding of grants for purposes other than those stipulated in the agreement, there should be a certain cultural standard of excellence to be decided upon relative to the use made of the granted areas. A clause of this kind is necessary in order to keep the system in a proper state of efficiency, and to insure the development of the shellfish industries.

All taxes on the capital invested in these grants and taxes upon the income should go to the town in which the leasehold is situated. In addition, there should be a just and equable revenue assessed by the State on every grant, as rent for the same. This rent should be apportioned according to a fixed scale in determining the relative values of the grants, and should be paid annually, under penalty of forfeiture. The revenue might be divided into two parts: one part to go to the State department having the control of the shellfisheries, for the maintenance of a survey, control and protection of property on leased areas, and other work; the second part to go to the town treasury of the community in which the grant is located, to be expended under the direction and control of responsible State officials in restocking barren flats and otherwise developing the shellfish upon its unleased territory which is open for free public use.

Grants to be Nontransferable.—These grants, while designed for the use of all citizens of the Commonwealth, should be made especially available for the poor man with little capital. In order to assure the poor man of the enjoyment of his privilege, it is necessary to guard against the possibility of undue monopolization. Leases must, therefore, be strictly nontransferable. Neither should areas be rented to another individual under any consideration whatever. Every grant must be for the benefit of its individual owner. He should be at liberty to hire laborers to assist him in working his grant, but not to transfer it in any way. Any attempt on his part to do so should not only immediately result in the forfeiture of his grant, but should also subject him to a heavy penalty.

Survey.—In order to guard against confusion and to maintain an orderly system, an accurate survey of all granted areas should be made. The ranges of every grant should be determined and recorded. The plots should be numbered and properly staked or buoyed, and a record of the same, giving the name of the owner, yearly rental and value, should be kept on file at the proper town and State offices. The same system which is now in operation in the oyster industry of other States should be applied to all the mollusk fisheries of Massachusetts.

Administration.—The department of the State government under whose jurisdiction this system of leases may come should be indued with full authority, properly defined, to supervise the grants, furnish them with adequate protection by the employment of State or town police, oversee the survey, allot the grants, and to exercise such other powers as may be necessary to develop the system, remedy its defects and strengthen its efficiency.

Protection of Property and of the Rights granted by the Lease.—No system of shellfish grants is possible without absolute protection. The lessee must be permitted to cultivate his grant free from outside interference, and thus, with reasonably good fortune, he can enjoy the fruits of his labors. This protection, which is the greatest and most vital need of the entire system, and the foundation upon which depends its whole success, must be insured by proper legislation rigorously enforced, and accompanied by severe penalties.

Leasing of the Grants.—Every citizen of the Commonwealth is entitled to participate in this system, but for obvious reasons an inhabitant of any coast town should be given first choice of grants within the boundary of his particular town. The first grants might be given by allotment, but after the system had become well established, they could be issued in the order of their application.

Water Pollution.—The sanitary condition of the marketed shellfish taken from contaminated waters is not only at present to some extent endangering the public health, but is placing an undeserved stigma upon a most reputable and valuable source of food supply for the public. The public should demand laws closing, after proper scientific investigation, these polluted areas, and conferring the power to thoroughly enforce such laws. The danger arising from contamination should be reduced to a minimum by prescribing some definite regulations for transferring shellfish from these polluted waters to places free from contamination, where the shellfish may in brief season be rendered fit for the market.

It should be unlawful to use any brand, label or other device for designation, intended to give the impression that certain oysters offered for sale were grown at specified places, e.g., Cotuit, Wellfleet, Wareham, etc., unless such oysters were actually planted, grown or cultivated within the towns or waters designated, for a period of at least three months immediately previous to the date of marketing. Furthermore, there should be appointed proper inspectors, whose duties would be to guarantee by certificates, labels and stamps the purity of shellfish placed upon the market, and likewise have the power of enforcing severe penalties on violators.

[THE SHELLFISHERIES OF MASSACHUSETTS: THEIR PRESENT CONDITION AND EXTENT.]

By D. L. Belding, assisted by F. C. Lane.

Dr. George W. Field, Chairman, Commission on Fisheries and Game.

Sir:—I herewith submit the following report upon the present extent and condition of the shellfish industries of Massachusetts. The following biological survey was made in connection with the work done under chapters 49, 73, 78 and 93, Resolves of 1905, and chapter 74, Resolves of 1906. The statistics and survey records which furnish the basis of the report were obtained by D. L. Belding and F. C. Lane.

Respectfully submitted,

David L. Belding,
Biologist.

Introduction.

When money was first appropriated in 1905 for a three-year investigation of the life, habits and methods of culture of the clam, quahaug, oyster and scallop, provision was made for a survey of the present productive and nonproductive areas suitable for the cultivation of these four shellfish. The following report embodies the results of this survey.

A. Method of Work.—In making this survey two objects were in view, which permit the grouping of the work under two main heads:—

(1) A survey of the productive and nonproductive shellfish areas of the State was undertaken, showing by charts the location, extent and abundance of each of the four shellfish, as well as the biological conditions of the waters and soils of the areas along the entire coast which could be made more productive under proper cultural methods. Wherever possible, information as to the production of certain areas was obtained from the shellfishermen as a supplement to the survey work.

(2) Statistical records of the four shellfish industries were formulated, showing their value and extent as regards (a) production, (b) capital invested, (c) men employed. Data for these records were obtained from town records, from market reports and from the dealers and shellfishermen, both by personal interviews and by tabulated forms of printed questions. Owing to the present chaotic condition of the shellfisheries, it has been impossible to obtain absolutely exact data. The statistics that have been obtained are to all purposes correct, and are the most exact figures ever published on the subject.

B. Value of the Survey.—Before any reform measures of practical value can be advanced, accurate and comprehensive knowledge of the present shellfish situation in Massachusetts is absolutely essential. Up to this time there have been only vague and inaccurate conjectures as to the value of the shellfisheries, and even the fisherman, outside his own district, has little knowledge of their extent and their economic possibilities. The consumer has far less knowledge. For the first time this problem of the Massachusetts shellfisheries has been approached from the point of view of the economic biologist. This survey is intended to present a concise yet detailed account of the present status of the shellfisheries of Massachusetts, and is therefore the first step towards the preservation of our shellfisheries by providing a workable basis for the restocking of the barren and unproductive areas. It is hoped that it will be of interest both to the fishermen and consumers.

C. Presentation of the Report.—The first part of the report presents the general results of the survey, i.e., the present condition of the shellfisheries, while the second part deals directly with details of the survey. The report is divided into four parts, each shellfish being considered separately. Under each is grouped (1) the industry as a whole; (2) a statistical summary of the industry for the whole State; (3) the towns of the State and their individual industries. A series of charts showing the shellfish areas of the State makes clear the description of the survey.

Geographical Situation.—The peculiar geographical situation of Massachusetts renders possible the production of the four edible shellfish—clam, oyster, quahaug and scallop,—in great abundance. Cape Cod forms the dividing line between the northern and the southern fauna, which furnish the coast of Massachusetts with a diversity of molluscan life. Zoölogically, the Massachusetts coast is the point where the habitats of the northern (the soft clam, Mya arenaria) and the southern clam (the quahaug, hard clam or little neck, Venus mercenaria) overlap. Nature has favored Massachusetts with a coast indented with bays, estuaries and inlets which are especially adapted for the growth of marine food mollusks.

Former Natural Abundance.—If we compare the natural shellfish areas of to-day with those of former years, we find a great change. All four shellfish formerly throve in large numbers in the numerous bays and indentations of our coast line. The area between tide marks was formerly inhabited by quantities of soft clams, and the muddy patches just below low-water mark produced great numbers of quahaugs. In the estuaries were extensive natural oyster beds. On our shoals it was possible to gather many thousand bushels of scallops. Now thousands of acres once productive lie barren, and we have but a remnant of the former abundant yield.

Historical Wastefulness.—History tells us that the Pilgrims at Plymouth "sucked the abundance of the seas" and found health and wealth. But between the lines of history we can read a tale of wastefulness and prodigality with hardly a parallel, and to-day we find the natural heritage of the shellfisheries almost totally wasted through the careless indifference of our forefathers. Prof. James L. Kellogg, in the introduction to his "Notes on Marine Food Mollusks of Louisiana," gives the following excellent account of the exploiting of natural resources:—

As one looks over the record of the settling of this country, and notes how a continent was reclaimed from a state of nature, he can hardly fail to be impressed with the reckless wastefulness of his ancestors in their use of the treasures which nature, through eons of time, had been collecting. In thousands of cases, natural resources, which, carefully conserved, would have provided comfort and even luxury for generations of men, have been dissipated and destroyed with no substantial benefit to any one. They scattered our inheritance. Such knowledge dulls a feeling of gratitude that may be due to them for their many beneficent acts,—though the truth probably is that few of them ever had a thought of their descendants. Men seldom seem to have a weighty sense of responsibility toward others than those who immediately follow them. The history of the prodigality of our ancestors since their occupation of this great continent has not fully been written,—and it should be, in such a way that the present generation might know it; for sometimes it seems as if the present generation were as criminally careless of the natural resources that remain to it as were any of those that are gone. Perhaps it is hardly that. We have learned some wisdom from the past, because our attention has recently been drawn to the fact of the annihilation of several former sources of subsistence. Rapidly in America, in recent years, the struggle to obtain support for a family has become more severe to the wage earner. In thirty years the increasing fierceness of competition has resulted in a revolution of business methods. In every profession and in every line of business only the most capable are able to obtain what the mediocre received for their honest labor in the last generation.

But it is easier to condemn the past for its failures than to recognize and condemn those of our own generation. The average man really has a blind and unreasoning faith in his own time, and to laud only its successes is to be applauded as an optimist. In the present stage of our national life we certainly have no room for the pessimist, who is merely a dyspeptic faultfinder; nor for the optimist, who blinds his eyes to our faults and mistakes, and so fails to read their priceless lessons. Instead, our intelligence, as a race, has reached that degree of development which should give it the courage to consider "things as they are."

Considering things as they are, we must admit that we are not realizing our obligations to future generations in many of the ways in which we are misusing our natural resources. This waste is often deliberate, though usually due to the notion that nature's supplies, especially of living organisms, are limitless. The waste of 70 or 80 per cent, in lumbering the Oregon "big trees," and the clean sweep of the Louisiana pine, now in progress, is deliberately calculated destruction for present gain,—and the future may take care of itself. In making millionaires of a very few men, most of whom are still living, a large part of the lower peninsula of Michigan was made a hopeless desert. To "cut and come again" is not a part of the moral codes of such men. It seems to mean sacrifice; and yet they are woefully mistaken, even in that.

But most often, no doubt, the extinction of useful animals and plants, that we have so often witnessed, has been due to the ignorant assumption that, under any circumstances, the supply would last forever. This idea seems especially to prevail concerning marine food animals. The fact that the sea is vast might naturally give the impression that its inhabitants are numberless.... But when a natural food supply nears complete annihilation, men begin to think of the necessity of a method of artificial culture.[1]

Present Unimproved Resources.—In spite of the wastefulness of former generations, many areas can again be made to produce the normal yield if proper and adequate measures are promptly taken to restore to the flats, estuaries and bays of Massachusetts their normal productive capacity. In spite of the fact that some of the natural beds have entirely disappeared, either "fished out" or buried under the débris of civilization, and others are in imminent danger of becoming exhausted, Massachusetts still possesses a sufficient natural supply to restock most of these barren areas.

Possibilities of Development.—Opportunities for development are alluring. The shellfisheries could be increased, in these days of rapid transit and marketing facilities, into industries which would furnish steady employment for thousands of men and women, both directly and indirectly, resulting in a product valued at a minimum of $3,000,000 annually, with possibilities of indefinite expansion. At present the idea of marine farming attracts popular attention. The conditions are parallel to agriculture, except that in the case of marine farming the crops are more certain,—i.e., are not subject to so many fatalities. The experiments of the Department of Fisheries and Game for the past three years have proved that cultivation of shellfish offers great inducements and profit to both individuals and towns. When the present waste areas are again made productive, the value of the annual catch should be increased tenfold.

Statistical Summary of the Shellfisheries for 1907.

In the above table the areas for the scallop, clam and quahaug are only approximate. The scallop and quahaug fisheries cover nearly the same areas, and employ to a great extent the same men and capital.

Annual Yields (in Bushels) of the Shellfisheries of Massachusetts since 1879, from United States Fish Commission Reports.

Massachusetts fishermen to-day receive an annual income of $685,705 from the shellfisheries, which approximately cover a productive area of 40,000 acres. Under the present methods of production, the average value per acre is only $17; each acre, if properly farmed, should furnish an annual production of at least $100, or six times the present yield. The shellfish areas of Massachusetts which are at present utilized are giving almost a minimum production, instead of the enormous yield which they are capable of furnishing. All that is necessary to procure the maximum yield is the application of systematic cultural methods, instead of relying on an impoverished natural supply. Not only are the productive areas furnishing far less than they are capable of producing, but also Massachusetts possesses 6,000 acres of barren flats, which should become, under the proper cultural methods, as valuable as the productive areas. (This has been experimentally demonstrated by the commission.) While it is possible to develop, through cultural methods, these latent natural resources, it will take years to bring them to a high degree of development. It can be partially accomplished, at least, in the next few years, and the present production increased several times, as nature responds to the slightest intelligent effort of man, and gives large returns.

Decline of the Shellfisheries.

A. Is there a Decline?

(1) So obvious is the general decline of the shellfisheries that almost every one is aware, through the increasing prices and difficulty of supplying the demand, that the natural supply is becoming exhausted.

(2) Statistical figures of the shellfish production not only show a decline, but conceal a rapid diminution of the supply.

(3) Production statistics alone should never be taken as typifying the real conditions of an industry, as such figures are often extremely deceiving. For instance:—

(4) The increased prices, stimulated by an increasing demand, have caused a greater number of men, equipped with the best modern implements, to swell the production by overworking shellfish areas which in reality are not one-fourth so productive as they were ten years ago.

While the general decline of the shellfisheries is a matter of public knowledge, specific illustrations of this decline have been lacking. The present report calls attention to actual facts as proofs of the decline of each shellfishery, by a comparison of the present conditions in various localities with the conditions of 1879. The only past record of Massachusetts shellfisheries of any importance is found in the report of the United States Fish Commission for 1883, and, although this is very limited, it is sufficient to furnish many examples of the extinction or decline of the shellfisheries in certain localities.

In a general consideration of the shellfisheries, it is noticeable that in certain localities the extinction of the industry has been total, in others only partial, while others have remained unchanged or have even improved. This last class is found either where the natural advantages are so great that the resources have not been exploited, or where men have, through wise laws and cultural methods (as in the oyster industry), preserved and built up the shellfisheries.

1879 v. 1907.—In comparing the present condition of the shellfisheries with that of 1879, it will be seen that many changes have taken place. Even twenty-five years ago inroads were being made upon the natural supply; from that time to the present can be traced a steady decline. During the past five years the production has been augmented by additional men, who have entered into the business under the attraction of higher prices, and the extension of the quahaug and oyster fisheries. Though the annual catch is greater, a disproportionately greater amount of time, labor and capital is required to secure an equal quantity of shellfish.

The following instances illustrate specific decline in the various natural shellfisheries:—

(1) Oyster industry, natural beds: Wareham, Marion, Bourne, Wellfleet, Charles River.

(2) Sea clam industry: Dennis, Chatham, Nantucket.

(3) Scallop industry: Buzzards Bay and north side of Cape Cod (Barnstable).

(4) Clam industry: Essex, Plymouth, Duxbury, Buzzards Bay, Annisquam, Wellfleet, Nantucket.

(5) Quahaug industry: Chatham, Buzzards Bay, Fall River district.

These are only a few of the more prominent cases. Similar cases will be found all along the coast of Massachusetts, and no one can deny that the natural supply is rapidly becoming exhausted, and that methods are needed to increase the production, or at least to save the little that remains.

B. Causes of the Decline.

I. An Increasing Demand.—The indirect cause of the decline of the shellfisheries is the increased demand. To-day more shellfish are consumed than ever before, and the demand is much greater each succeeding year. It is an economic principle that there must be an equilibrium between supply and demand. If the demand is increasing, either the supply has to increase to meet the demand, or the price of the commodity goes up and a new equilibrium is established. The supply must equal the demand of the market. This increasing demand has worked havoc with the shellfisheries. There was a time when the natural supply was of such abundance that the moderate demand of those early days could be met without injury to the fishery. Soon this limit was passed, and with a steadily increasing demand came a corresponding drain on the natural resources, which little by little started a decline, the result of which is to-day apparent.

The ill-advised policy of the past has been to check the demand by various devices, such as closed seasons, limited daily production, etc. These not only have proved without benefit to the fisherman, but also have hurt the consumer by the increased price. The demand can be checked by raising the price, but this tends towards a class distinction between the rich and the poor. The poor man should be able to enjoy "the bounties of the sea" as well as the rich. The policy of the future should be not to check the demand, but rather to increase the supply.

Several causes contribute to this demand, which has unlimited possibilities of expansion:—

(1) The popularity of shellfish as an article of diet is steadily increasing, not merely for its nutritive value, but for variety and change in diet. Fashionable fads, i.e., the "little neck" of the restaurants and hotels, contribute to the popularity of these shellfish.

(2) In the present age, transportation facilities and cold storage make possible shipments to all parts of the United States, and continually widen the market for sea foods.

(3) The influx of summer people to the seashore not only causes an additional summer demand, but also widens the popular knowledge of these edible mollusks.

(4) Advertising and more attractive methods of preserving and selling sea food by the dealers still further increase the demand.

II. Overfishing.—The immediate and direct cause of the decline is overfishing. Increased demand causes a severe drain upon the shellfish beds, which soon leads to overfishing. It is not merely the hard working of the beds, but the continuous unmethodical and indiscriminate fishing which has caused the total extermination of once flourishing beds in certain localities. Under present methods a bed is worked until all its natural recuperatory power is exhausted, and then it is thrust aside as worthless, a barren area. Prof. Jacob Reighard, in "Methods of Plankton Investigation in their Relation to Practical Problems,"[3] aptly sums up the situation in his opening paragraph:—

In this country the fisherman as a rule continues to fish in any locality until fishing in that locality has become unprofitable. He then moves his operations to new waters until these in turn are exhausted. He is apt to look upon each new body of water as inexhaustible, and rarely has occasion to ask himself whether it is possible to determine in advance the amount of fish that he may annually take from the water without soon depleting it.

In this way the shellfish beds have become exhausted through the indifference and lack of knowledge on the part of the fishing public. In colonial days the resources of the shellfisheries were apparently inexhaustible. The conviction that man could ever exhaust the resources of nature took firm hold of the Puritan mind, and even in the present generation many still cling to this illogical doctrine, although proof to the contrary can be seen on all sides. This idea has caused great harm to the shellfisheries, stimulating men to wreck certain localities by overfishing.

III. Pollution of Harbors and Estuaries and the Ill Effects upon Public Health through the Shellfisheries.—The unscientific disposal of sewage, sludge, garbage and factory waste may tend to rapidly fill up the harbor channels, as well as the areas where the currents are not so rapid.

Competent authorities scout the idea that Boston harbor is at present filling up to any considerable degree with sewage sludge, but the problem must be met in the not distant future. This sewage sludge upon entering salt or brackish water precipitates much more rapidly than in fresh water or upon land, and becomes relatively insoluble, hence the accumulation in harbors, e.g., Boston and New Bedford harbors and the estuaries of the Merrimac, Taunton and other rivers. This sludge, instead of undergoing the normal rapid oxidation and nitrification, as it does when exposed to the air on land, undergoes in the sea water a series of changes, mainly putrefactive, which results in the production of chemical substances which in solution may (1) drive away the fish which in incredible quantities formerly resorted to that place; (2) impair the vitality and even kill whatever fish spawn or fry may be present; (3) check the growth of or completely destroy the microscopic plants and animals which serve as food for the young fish and shellfish; (4) by developing areas of oily film floating upon the surface of the water, enormous numbers of the surface-swimming larvæ of clams, quahaugs, scallops, oysters, mussels and other marine animals may be destroyed annually. But most serious of all is the fact that all the edible mollusks, notably the clam, quahaug, oyster and mussel, act as living filters, whose function is to remove from the water the bacteria and other microscopic plants and animals. Most of these microscopic organisms serve as food for the mollusk; and in instances where the mollusk is eaten raw or imperfectly cooked, man is liable to infection, if the bacillus of typhoid fever or other disease chances to be present in the mollusk. Though the chance of such infection is remote, it is nevertheless actually operative. Many typhoid epidemics in this country and abroad have been found to be directly referable to shellfish from sewage-polluted waters. For these reasons approximately 1,500 acres in Boston harbor and 700 acres in New Bedford harbor have become unsuitable for the growth of shellfish; and the State Board of Health, after investigation, decided that clams, oysters and quahaugs found within these areas are likely to be the direct cause of a dangerous epidemic of typhoid. For this reason the taking of these shellfish for any purpose was very properly prohibited; but at the last session of the Legislature a bill was passed which permitted the taking of such shellfish for bait, upon securing permits from the Board of Health, and providing heavy penalties for both buying and selling. As a matter of fact, however, it is well-nigh impracticable to properly enforce this law, for the reason that it is possible only in very rare instances to keep any one lot of clams known to have been dug under these conditions under surveillance from the time of digging until they are placed upon the hook as bait. Complete prevention of the taking of such shellfish is the only method by which the public health can be properly safeguarded. Even though in our opinion the annual financial loss to the public from the destruction of this public fishery by the dumping of city sewage into the water is not less than $400,000, the public health is of greater consequence, and should not be jeopardized, as is the fact under present conditions. Until such a time as the public realize that economic disposal of sewage must take place on land rather than in water, laws absolutely preventing any contact with the infected shellfish should be enforced without exception. In instances like these it is greatly to be deplored that but rarely under our system of government can legislation, which the best knowledge and common-sense demand for the public weal, be passed in its adequate and beneficial entirety, but is so frequently emasculated in the selfish interests of a few persons.

IV. Natural Agencies.—The above causes are given as they are obviously important, but by no means are they to be considered the only reasons. Geographic and climatic changes often explain the extinction of shellfish in certain localities.

The Present Abuses of the Shellfisheries.

Not only has this survey shown by specific examples the alarming but actual decline of the natural shellfish supply (in spite of deceptive production statistics), but it has brought to light numerous evils of various kinds. These abuses have developed gradually with the rise of the shellfisheries, until at the present day they cannot be overlooked or considered unimportant. So closely are these connected with the present status of our shellfishery that upon their abolition depends its future success or failure. Some need immediate attention; others will require attention later. After a thorough and competent investigation, remedies for the correction of each evil should be applied.

In the future Massachusetts will have to utilize all her wealth of natural resources, to keep her leading position among the other States of the Union. To do this she should turn to her sea fisheries, which have in the past made her rich, and hold forth prospects of greater wealth in the future. Untold possibilities of wealth rest with her shellfisheries, if obsolete methods and traditions can be cast aside. In any age of progress the ancient and worthless must be buried beneath the ruins of the past, while the newer and better take their place. There is no more flagrant example of obsolete methods and traditions holding in check the development of an industry than with the shellfisheries, and it is time that Massachusetts realized these limitations.

The shellfisheries of Massachusetts are in a chaotic state, both legally and economically. The finest natural facilities are wasted, and thousands of acres of profitable flats are allowed to lie barren merely for a lack of initiative on the part of the general public. This chaotic and unproductive state will exist until both the consumer and the fishermen alike understand the true condition of affairs, and realize that in the bays, estuaries and flats of Massachusetts lies as much or more wealth, acre for acre, as in the most productive market gardens.

In Rhode Island the clam and scallop fisheries have almost disappeared. Five or ten years from now the shellfisheries of Massachusetts will be in a similar condition, and beyond remedy. Now is the time for reform. The solution of the problem is simple. Shellfish farming is the only possible way in which Massachusetts can restore her natural supply to its former abundance.

I. The Shellfish Laws.—The first evils which demand attention are the existing shellfish laws. While these are supposed to wisely regulate the shellfisheries, in reality they do more harm than good, and are direct obstacles to any movement toward improving the natural resources. Before Massachusetts can take any steps toward cultivating her unproductive shellfish areas, it will be necessary to modify the worst of these laws.

A. Fishery Rights of the Public.—The fundamental principle upon which the shellfish laws of the State are founded is the so-called beach or free fishing rights of the public. While in other States property extends only to mean high water, in Massachusetts the property holders own to extreme low-water mark. Nevertheless, according to further provisions of this ancient law, the right of fishing (which includes the shellfisheries) below high-water mark is free to any inhabitant of the Commonwealth.

(1) Origin.—The first authentic record of this law is found under an act of Massachusetts, in 1641-47, by which every householder was allowed "free fishing and fowling" in any of the great ponds, bays, coves and rivers, as far "as the sea ebbs and flows," in their respective towns, unless "the freemen" or the General Court "had otherwise appropriated them." From this date the shellfisheries were declared to be forever the property of the whole people, i.e., the State, and have been for a long period open to any inhabitant of the State who wished to dig the shellfish for food or for bait.

(2) Early Benefits.—In the early days, when the natural supply was apparently inexhaustible and practically the entire population resided on or near the seacoast, it was just that all people should have common rights to the shore fisheries. As long as the natural supply was more than sufficient for the demand, no law could have been better adapted for the public good.

(3) Present Inadequacy.—Two hundred and fifty years have passed since this law was first made. The condition of the shellfisheries has changed. No longer do the flats of Massachusetts yield the enormous harvest of former years, but lie barren and unproductive. The law which once was a benefit to all has now become antiquated, and incapable of meeting the new conditions.

(4) Evil Effects.—If this law were merely antiquated, it could be laid aside unnoticed. On the contrary, as applied to the present conditions of the shellfisheries it not only checks any advancement, but works positive harm. From the mistaken comprehension of the so-called beach rights of the people, the general public throughout the State is forced to pay an exorbitant price for sea food, and the enterprising fishermen are deprived of a more profitable livelihood. The present law discriminates against the progressive majority of fishermen in order to benefit a small unprogressive element.

(5) Protection.—If shellfish farming is ever to be put on a paying basis, it is essential that the planter have absolute protection. No man is willing to invest capital and labor when protection cannot be guaranteed. What good does it do a man to plant a hundred bushels of clams, if the next person has a legal right to dig them? Since the law absolutely refuses any protection to the shellfish culturist, Massachusetts can never restock her barren flats and re-establish her shellfisheries until this law is modified to meet the changed conditions.

(6) Who are the Objectors? Objectors to any new system are always found, and are not lacking in the case of shellfish culture. These would immediately raise the cry that the public is being deprived of its rights. To-day the public has fewer rights than ever. The present law causes class distinctions, and a few are benefited at the expense of the public. The industrious fisherman suffers because a few of the worthless, unenterprising class, who have no energy, do not wish others to succeed where they cannot. In every seacoast town in Massachusetts the more enlightened fishermen see clearly that the only way to preserve the shellfisheries is to cultivate the barren areas.

Hon. B. F. Wood, in his report of the shellfisheries of New York, in 1906, clearly states the case.[4]

There is, unfortunately, in some of the towns and villages upon our coast an unprogressive element, composed of those who prefer to reap where they have not sown; who rely upon what they term their "natural right" to rake where they may choose in the public waters. They deplete, but do not build up. They think because it may be possible to go out upon the waters for a few hours in the twenty-four (when the tide serves) and dig a half peck of shellfish, that it is sufficient reason why such lands should not be leased by the State to private planters. It might as well be said that it is wrong for the government to grant homestead farms to settlers, because a few blackberries might be plucked upon the lands by any who cared to look for them.

The following is taken from the report of the Massachusetts Commissioners on Fisheries and Game for 1906:[5]—

There are at least four distinct classes within our Commonwealth, each of which either derive direct benefits from the mollusk fisheries of our coast, or are indirectly benefited by the products of the flats:—

(1) The general public,—the consumers, who ultimately pay the cost, who may either buy the joint product of the labor and capital invested in taking and distributing the shellfish from either natural or artificial beds, or who may dig shellfish for food or bait purposes for their own or family use.

(2) The capitalist, who seeks a productive investment for money or brains, or both. Under present laws, such are practically restricted to distribution of shellfish, except in the case of the oyster, where capital may be employed for production as well,—an obvious advantage both to capital and to the public.

(3) The fishermen, who, either as a permanent or temporary vocation, market the natural yield of the waters; or, as in the case of the shellfisheries, may with a little capital increase the natural yield and availability by cultivating an area of the tidal flats after the manner of a garden.

(4) The owners of the land adjacent to the flats, who are under the present laws often subjected to loss or annoyance, or even positive discomfort, by inability to safeguard their proper rights to a certain degree of freedom from intruders and from damage to bathing or boating facilities, which constitute a definite portion of the value of shore property.

All of these classes would be directly benefited by just laws, which would encourage and safeguard all well-advised projects for artificial cultivation of the tidal flats, and would deal justly and intelligently with the various coincident and conflicting rights of the fishermen, owners of shore property, bathers and other seekers of pleasure, recreation or profit, boatmen, and all others who hold public and private rights and concessions.

That any one class should claim exclusive "natural valid rights," over any other class, to the shellfish products of the shores, which the law states expressly are the property of "the people," is as absurd as to claim that any class had exclusive natural rights to wild strawberries, raspberries, cranberries or other wild fruits, and that therefore the land upon which these grew could not be used for the purpose of increasing the yield of these fruits. This becomes the more absurd from the fact that the wild fruits pass to the owner of the title of the land, while the shellfish are specifically exempted, and remain the property of the public.

The class most benefited by improved laws would be the fishermen, who would profit by better wages through the increased quantity of shellfish they could dig per hour, by a better market and by better prices, for the reason that the control of the output would secure regularity of supply. Moreover, when the market was unfavorable the shellfish could be kept in the beds with a reasonable certainty of finding them there when wanted, and with the added advantage of an increased volume by growth during the interval, together with the avoidance of cold-storage charges. Thus the diggers could be certain of securing a supply at almost any stage of the tide and in all but the most inclement weather, through a knowledge of "where to dig;" moreover, there would be a complete elimination of the reasoning which is now so prolific of ill feelings and so wasteful of the shellfish, viz., the incentive of "getting there ahead of the other fellow."

B. All the shellfish laws should be revised, to secure a unity and clearness which should render graft, unfairness and avoidable economic loss impossible, and be replaced with a code of fair, intelligent and forceful laws, which would not only permit the advancement of the shellfish industry through the individual efforts of the progressive shellfishermen, but also protect the rights of the general public.

C. The majority of the shellfish laws of the State are enacted by the individual towns. In 1880 the State first officially granted to each town the exclusive right to control and regulate its own shellfisheries, as provided under section 68 of chapter 91 of the Public Statutes. This was slightly modified by the Acts of 1889 and 1892 to read as follows (now section 85 of chapter 91 of the Revised Laws):—

Section 85. The mayor and aldermen of cities and the selectmen of towns, if so instructed by their cities and towns, may, except as provided in the two preceding sections, control, regulate or prohibit the taking of eels, clams, quahaugs and scallops within the same; and may grant permits prescribing the times and methods of taking eels and such shellfish within such cities and towns and make such other regulations in regard to said fisheries as they may deem expedient. But an inhabitant of the commonwealth, without such permit, may take eels and the shellfish above-named for his own family use from the waters of his own or any other city or town, and may take from the waters of his own city or town any of such shellfish for bait, not exceeding three bushels, including shells, in any one day, subject to the general rules of the mayor and aldermen and selectmen, respectively, as to the times and methods of taking such fish. The provisions of this section shall not authorize the taking of fish in violation of the provisions of sections forty-four and forty-five. Whoever takes any eels or any of said shellfish without such permit, and in violation of the provisions of this section, shall forfeit not less than three nor more than fifty dollars.

Responsibility has thus been transferred from the State to the towns, and they alone, through their incompetence and neglect, are to blame for the decline of the shellfisheries. The town laws are miniature copies of the worst features of the State laws. While a few towns have succeeded in enacting fairly good laws, the majority have either passed no shellfish regulations at all, or made matters worse by unintelligent and harmful laws. It is time that a unified system of competent by-laws were enacted and enforced in every town.

The ill-advised features which characterize the present town laws are numerous, and are best considered under the following headings:—

(1) Unintelligent Laws.—One of the worst features of our town shellfish laws is their extreme unfitness. Numerous laws which are absolutely useless for the regulation and improvement of these industries have been made by towns, through men who knew nothing about the shellfisheries. These laws were made without any regard for the practical or biological conditions underlying the shellfish industry. It is to be expected that laws from such a source would often be ill-advised and unintelligent, but under the present system it cannot be avoided. Until sufficient knowledge of the habits and growth of shellfish is acquired by the authorities of State and town, Massachusetts can never expect to have intelligent and profitable shellfish laws. While the majority of these unintelligent laws do no harm, there are some that work hardship to the fishermen and are an injury to the shellfisheries.

(2) Unfairness; Town Politics.—Town politics offers many chances for unscrupulous discrimination in the shellfish laws. Here we find one class of fishermen benefiting by legislation at the expense of the other, as in the case of the quahaugers v. oystermen. In one town the oystermen will have the upper hand; in another, the quahaugers. In every case there is unfair discrimination, and a resultant financial loss to both parties. The waters of Massachusetts are large enough for both industries, and every man should have a "square deal," which is frequently lacking under the present régime.

Besides party discrimination, there is discrimination against certain individuals, as illustrated in giving oyster grants. Town politics plays a distressing part here. Favoritism is repeatedly shown, and unfairness results. All this shows the unpopularity and impracticability of such regulations and the method of making them.

(3) Present Chaotic State.—The present town laws are in a chaotic condition, which it is almost impossible to simplify. No one knows the laws, there is merely a vague impression that such have existed. Even the selectmen themselves, often new to the office and unacquainted with the shellfisheries, know little about the accumulated shellfish laws of the past years, and find it impossible to comprehend them. The only remedy is to wipe out all the old and replace them with unified new laws.

(4) Unsystematic Laws.—The present laws are unsystematized. Each town has its own methods, good and bad, and the result is a heterogeneous mixture. Often there are two or three laws where one would definitely serve. To do absolute justice there should be a definite system, with laws elastic enough to satisfy the needs of all.

(5) Nonenforcement.—The worst feature of allowing town control of the shellfisheries is the nonenforcement of the laws already passed. We find in many towns that good by-laws have been made, but from inattention and lack of money these have never been enforced and have become practically nonexistent. The 1½-inch quahaug law of several towns is an instance of this. In but one town in the State, Edgartown, is any effort made to enforce this excellent town by-law, although several of the other towns have passed the same. The proper enforcement of laws is as important as the making, as a law might as well not be made if not properly enforced. The only way that this can be remedied is either to take the control completely out of the hands of the town, or else have a supervisory body which would force the town to look after violators.

Besides the town by-laws there are other evils which result from the present system of town control.

II. Lack of Protection in Oyster Industry.—In no case is the management by towns more inefficient and confusing than in the case of the oyster industry. As this subject will be taken up in the oyster report which follows, it is only necessary here to state that there is great need of a proper survey of grants, fair laws, systematic methods, etc. Protection is necessary for the success of any industry, and is especially needed for the oyster industry. The oyster industry of Massachusetts will never become important until adequate protection is guaranteed to the planters. Under the present system, uncertainty rather than protection is the result.

III. Town Jealousy.—The evil of town jealousy, whereby one town forbids its shellfisheries to the inhabitant of neighboring towns, is to-day an important factor. It is fair that a town which improves its own shellfisheries should not be interfered with by a town which has allowed its shellfisheries to decline. While this is true perhaps of the clam, quahaug and oyster, it does not hold true of the scallop. The result of this close-fisted policy has resulted in the past in a great loss in the scallop industry. The town law in regard to scallops is all wrong. The scallop fisheries should be open to all the State, and no one town should "hog the fishing," and leave thousands of bushels to die from their dog-in-the-manger attitude.

IV. Sectional Jealousy.—Another evil, which in the past has been prominent, but is becoming less and less as the years go by, is the jealousy of the north shore v. the south shore, Cape Cod v. Cape Ann. In the past this has been a stumbling block against any advance, as any plan initiated on the south shore would be opposed from sheer prejudice by the north shore representatives, and vice versa. The cry of "entering wedge" has been raised again and again whenever any bill was introduced for the good of the shellfisheries by either party. Merely for political reasons good legislation has been defeated. However, the last few years have shown a decided change. The jealous feeling has in a large measure subsided; the shellfisheries need intelligent consideration, and all parties realize that united effort is necessary to insure the future of these industries.

V. Quahaugers v. Oystermen.—On the south shore the worst evil which at present exists is the interclass rivalry between the quahaugers and oystermen. This has caused much harm to both parties, through expensive lawsuits, economic loss, uncertainty of a livelihood, as well as retarding the proper development of both industries.

VI. Waste of Competition.—At the present day the utilization of waste products in all industries is becoming more and more important. In this age material which was considered useless by our forefathers is made to play its part in the economic world. Through science industrial waste of competition is being gradually reduced to a minimum, although in any business which deals with perishable commodities, such as fish, fruit, etc., there is bound to be a certain amount of loss.

Under the present system the shellfisheries suffer from the effects of waste resulting from competition. Both the fisherman and the consumer feel the effects of this, in different ways,—the fisherman through poor market returns, the consumer through poor service. As long as the shellfisheries are free to all, there is bound to be that scramble to get ahead of "the other fellow," which not only results in the destructive waste of the actual catch, but also causes a "glutted" market, which gives a low return to the fisherman. Thousands of dollars are thus lost each year by the fishermen, who are forced to keep shipping their shellfish, often to perish in the market, merely because the present system invites ruthless competition. The fishermen in this respect alone should be the first to desire a new system, which would give to each a shellfish farm and the privilege of selecting his market.

VII. At the present moment there are two evils which demand attention, and which can be lessened by the passage of two simple laws:—

(1) During the past three years many thousands of bushels of quahaugs under 1½ inches have been shipped out of the State, merely passing into the hands of New York oystermen, who replanted, reaping in one year a harvest of at least five bushels to every one "bedded." Through the inactivity of town control, the incentive to get ahead of the other fellow and the ignorance that they are wasting their own substance have caused many quahaugers in the past to do this at many places.

The 1½-inch quahaug law has been for years a law for many towns in the State. It has been practically a dead letter in all but Edgartown, where it is enforced thoroughly. There should be a State law restricting the size of the quahaugs taken.

(2) The enforcement of a 1½-inch clam law, especially in the towns of Fall River and Swansea, where the digging has reduced the clams to a small size, likewise deserves immediate attention.

All the present evils have each contributed their share toward the ruin of the shellfisheries, and can be best summed up under one head, i.e., the abuse of nature. All the above evils have either directly or indirectly worked towards this end. This "abuse of nature" has resulted in several ways: (1) indiscriminate fishing, restricted by no laws, augmented by unwise laws; (2) overfishing in certain localities until the supply is exhausted, as, among other instances, with the Essex clam flats and the natural oyster beds of the Weweantit River; (3) exploiting and wasting the natural resources, so that nature cannot repair the inroads. Nature cannot cope with despoiling man,—man must assist nature.

In the past there has been much feeling, especially among the clammers of the north shore, against the Fish and Game Commission. It therefore is necessary to correct a mistaken impression, which has arisen among the clammers, that "the State is going to take the clam flats away from us." This idea is on the face of it absurd. The Massachusetts Fish and Game Commission is seeking only to have this question solved in such a manner as to yield the most satisfactory results for the public good. At the present time it would be highly undesirable to take the complete control of the shellfisheries from any town, as long as that town shows itself capable of regulating them wisely. At the present day but few towns show any signs of this. What is necessary and desirable is to have an intelligent supervisory body, with power to compel each town to take proper care of its shellfisheries. It is advisable that there be a central power, co-operating with the town control in all matters pertaining to the shellfisheries, whether it be regulations or the restocking of barren areas. A board of arbitration, a committee of appeal for any grievance under the town control, and a commission that would act for the interests of the whole State, are what is most desirable at the present time. Such an arrangement would not be changing radically the present system of town control, but it would free it from its existing evils, place it on a firm and just basis, and give the shellfisheries a chance for improvement.

The Fisherman and Laws.

The fisherman of to-day, though nominally his own master, is in reality subject to the demands of the market. To gain a living he is forced to work in all kinds of weather, at cold, disagreeable work. Under the present system he is oppressed by useless special town laws, which merely increase his daily labors without benefiting the fishery in the least. A few good laws only are necessary for the shellfisheries. It is time that the fisherman, one of the great factors in the commercial supremacy of Massachusetts, should be freed from all unnecessary burdens through a new system of satisfactory laws.

The Remedy.

In spite of all the existing evils of the town shellfisheries, the outlook is far from hopeless. To-day the shellfisheries of Massachusetts, owing to great natural resources, are as good or better than those of any other coast States, and only await development under proper methods to ensure a bright future. The Commissioners on Fisheries and Game can only point the way of reform; the result lies in the hands of the intelligent voters of this Commonwealth, whose action decides the future success or failure of the shellfisheries. It should be the object of every thinking voter, whether he be fisherman or consumer, to see that the right action be taken in regard to the shellfisheries.

As shown in the preceding pages of this report, the attempted remedy has been based upon the false economic basis of attempting to check the demand by prohibiting digging for certain periods (closed seasons), limiting the amount to be legally dug by any one person, etc. It would be quite as logical for a town or city to prohibit by by-laws the use or digging of potatoes or any other food crop, when the supply was short, rather than to attempt to increase the supply. An increasing demand cannot be checked by any such ill-advised measures, but can be met only by a corresponding increase in the natural production. The only remedy that can be applied successfully is shellfish culture, which means the utilizing of thousands of acres of barren shore area for the planting of farms which will furnish harvests of shellfish. In this way the latent potentialities of nature, which it is criminal to neglect, will be utilized for the good of the entire population of the State.

We learn from the dictionaries that a farm is defined to be a tract of land under one control, devoted to agriculture, etc.; and that agriculture is the cultivation of the soil for food products or other useful or valuable growths. All this is very familiar knowledge, as applied to the dry land; but that there may fairly be brought within these definitions the operations of an industry in which lands covered by the salt waters of our bays and harbors are tilled, cultivated, raked, harrowed and planted with seedling bivalves, and harvests of a valuable product garnered, constituting a superb food for the masses, is less familiar, and to many may seem quite astonishing. It is within a comparatively few years that this unique style of farming has had its growth and development, until now many thousands of acres of land under water have been carefully surveyed, and the boundaries marked by buoys and stakes.[6]

To bring the shellfisheries of Massachusetts to their maximum production will take years, but within five years the production can be nearly doubled, if work in the right direction is begun at once. Patience will be required to overcome the obstacles which must be met, and the change must necessarily be gradual.

Every year the difficulties of reform increase. Owing to a steadily increasing demand, the natural supply is becoming smaller, and consequently the difficulty of increasing it becomes so much the harder. Soon the line of possibility will be crossed, and the shellfisheries will become an industry of the past. A few shellfish will always remain, but as an important industry, the shellfisheries, if no remedy is applied, in twenty-five years will be commercially extinct. While there is still time, let action be taken.

The utilization of the barren shellfish areas, wise laws, good regulations and systematic methods of culture are necessary, in order to obtain the maximum production from these sea farms. The sea farm possesses one advantage over the ordinary farm,—the soil never becomes exhausted, as the shellfish derive their sustenance from the water, utilizing indirectly the waste nitrates of the land. To do this it is necessary that shellfish culture be at once begun, either by individuals or by towns.

Three methods of shellfish culture offer ways of approach towards the utilization of the waste areas:—

(1) To leave the matter wholly in the hands of the town. This is the poorest way, as has been shown in the past. Unless the town officials were well informed about the shellfisheries, it would be an absurd farce to entrust the future of this important industry wholly in their hands.

(2) Place all power with the State, instead of with the town. Have a unified and simplified system, whereby shellfish farms and grants can be leased by the individuals. This plan, much better than the first, and possibly the final solution, is, however, not practical of application to the existing conditions. Later, when these conditions are removed, it may prove the best solution of the problem.

(3) The present system of town control to remain. The appointment of the Fish and Game Commission, or a similar commission, to have complete advisory power over the towns, and power to force each town to properly protect its shellfish. A State law would be passed, legalizing grants to individuals and dividing the flats into two equal parts,—public and private. The leasing of grants would be in the hands of the town authorities, but subject to appeal for any grievance to the Fish and Game Commission.

In the chapter relating to each shellfish will be given the practical methods of cultivation for reclaiming the waste areas. These methods have been proved by the experimental work of this commission, the results of which may be published in a subsequent scientific report upon the shellfish. The commission has definitely shown that shellfish culture in Massachusetts is a possibility, and, moreover, a remunerative possibility.

Who Would Benefit?

(1) Under the proposed system of practical shellfish culture, many classes of people would be benefited. The person who would be primarily benefited is the fisherman. In the following ways the condition of the industrious fisherman would be bettered: (a) his work would be steady, not uncertain; (b) he would know his exact annual income, and could govern his living expenses accordingly; (c) he would receive more money, with less hardship; (d) he would ensure steady market returns, which under the present system are very uncertain; (e) he would be his own master, and not forced to work for poor pay, under the stress of wasteful competition.

(2) The shellfisheries are not for any particular class, but should benefit all, and any improvement in the industry affects all people. A second class would also be benefited by an increase in the shellfish industries. This class can be divided into two groups: (a) those directly influenced; (b) those indirectly. In the first group are the middlemen,—dealers. By an increased trade, more firms enter the business, more men are hired, etc. Comprising the second group are teamsters, coopers, shop owners, sailors, transportation lines,—an indefinite list, which would be indirectly benefited by an increase in the shellfish industry.

(3) Thirdly, the consumer would receive the benefit of improved quality of goods, reasonable prices, etc. Through increased transportation facilities the inland consumer would have the pleasure of partaking of sea food, and what were once the luxuries of the rich could be had by all.

Capital.

Capital is needed for the best success of any business. In a broad sense, the tools, implements, etc., of the shellfisherman are capital. In the future, if the shellfisheries are to become a great industry, money as working capital is indispensable. Blind objection to the employment of capital on the part of the fishermen works against the best interests of the shellfisheries.

Shellfish Monopoly.

For years the fishermen have feared that the shellfisheries would fall into the hands of a few companies or trusts, and the individual fisherman thereby lose his independence. As the present age tends toward the formation of monopolies in all business, the fears of the fishermen are not altogether groundless in this respect; nevertheless, while there are certain chances of monopoly in the shellfisheries, these chances are very small. In the first place, a monopoly of a raw edible product, such as shellfish, is hardly possible. Never can it be possible for any one company to control all or the majority of a shellfish supply, which possesses unlimited possibilities of expansion.

Secondly, there are but two ways in which a monopoly of the shellfisheries can be obtained: one is the control of the market by buying up all the shellfish,—a thing far easier under the present conditions; the other, by buying through contract the rights of the individual planters. The success of such an enterprise would depend wholly upon the personnel of the shellfishermen, and such a result could never become possible if each shellfisherman would refuse to sell his rights.

Summary.

This survey has shown (1) that the shellfisheries have declined (an established fact); (2) that the causes of the decline are overfishing and unwise laws; (3) that the remedy is, not to check the demand, as has been previously attempted, but to increase the production by the utilization of vast areas of barren flats, which have been experimentally proved capable of yielding a great harvest; (4) that the present chaotic laws render this impossible; (5) that there is a need of reform, or else the shellfisheries will soon disappear; (6) that the first step is the removal of these laws to permit the application of proper cultural methods.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Gulf Biologic Station, Cameron, La., Bulletin No. 3, 1905.

[2] Returns of Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Game.

[3] United States Fish Commission Pamphlet, 1898.

[4] New York Shellfish Report, p. 7.

[5] Report on the Shellfisheries, pp. 33-35.

[6] Forest, Fish and Game Commission Bulletin, Shellfish Culture in New York, 1905. By B. Frank Wood.

[Quahaug (Venus mercenaria).]

Inhabiting common waters with the scallop, the northern range of the quahaug (the hard-shell clam or "little neck") in Massachusetts is Plymouth. Commercially it is found both on the north and south side of Cape Cod and in Buzzards Bay, the principal fisheries being at Wellfleet, Orleans, Edgartown, Nantucket and in Buzzards Bay.

The quahaug, while essentially a southern and warm-water form, being found in the United States along the Atlantic seacoast as far south as the Gulf of Mexico, practically reaches its northern range in Massachusetts. In a few sheltered bays on the Maine coast quahaugs are sometimes found, but in small quantities. However, at Prince Edward Island there is said to be an abundance.

Along the coast of Massachusetts north of Boston very few quahaugs are found, although they were formerly taken near Salem. The black quahaug (Cyprina islandica), so called from its dark epidermis, is often caught in the trawls, but this is a deep-sea form, and by no means a true quahaug. In Essex and Ipswich rivers and on Plum Island experimental beds have shown that quahaugs grow in these waters, but no spawn has yet been noticed, though ripe eggs were developed in the planted quahaugs. Owing to the swift currents, which carry the spawn perhaps for miles, it is impossible to determine accurately whether any set has taken place.

During the past three years, as outlined by chapter 78, Resolves of 1905, the Fish and Game Commission has conducted a series of experiments upon the quahaug, designated to furnish sufficient data concerning the growth of this mollusk under a variety of conditions, to demonstrate the possibilities and value of practical quahaug farming. The results of these investigations upon the life, habits and culture of the quahaug are to be published in a later scientific report. It is necessary here to say that all statements in this report concerning the growth and culture of quahaugs have been proved by experiments, the results of which are on file at the office of the department of fisheries and game.

It is the object of this report to present both to the fishermen and consumers (1) actual statistical figures of the industry of the State for 1907; (2) a biological survey of the quahauging areas, outlined by maps and descriptions; (3) a description of the industry. This survey should furnish a basis for determining any decline or advance in the quahaug industry of the future, as well as affording comparison with the United States Fish Commission survey of 1879, made by Ernest Ingersoll.

Massachusetts, situated at the northern limit of the quahaug industry of the United States, is handicapped in comparison with other States, as only the southern waters of the State are given to this industry. Nevertheless, though possessing only a partial industry, Massachusetts ranks the fourth State in quahaug production, according to the 1906 report of the United States Fish Commission.

The same natural conditions which suit so well the shallow-water scallop are also adapted to the growth of the quahaug. In nearly all the sheltered bays, inlets and rivers of the southern coast of Massachusetts the quahaug can be found in varying abundance. Technically, there is more territory which admits the possibility of quahaug growth than of any other shellfish. The bathymetric range of the quahaug is extensive, as the quahaug is raked in all depths of water up to 50 feet. In spite of the vast territory nature has provided for the quahaug in the waters of Massachusetts, the commercial fishery is found only in small parts of this large area. Scattered quahaugs are found over the rest of the area, but in paying quantities only in limited places.

The possibilities of developing this great natural tract of quahaug ground are especially alluring,—far more so than any of the other shellfisheries. The quahaug has a greater area, greater possible expansion and a more profitable market. Nature has equipped southern Massachusetts with numerous bays with remarkable facilities for the production of quahaugs; it only remains for man to make the most of these.

Method of Work.—The method of work used in preparing this portion of the report varied but little from that relating to the other shellfish, though several features made it harder to obtain accurate information. There is a more general obscurity about the history of the quahaug than about any of the other shellfish, even though the quahaug industry is commercially the youngest of all. This is due, perhaps, to the gradual rise of the industry through the discovery of new territory. The only historical record obtainable is E. Ingersoll's report on the quahaug, in 1879, in which he deals briefly with the industry in Massachusetts. Town records help but little in determining the history of the industry, as only of late years have the towns required the taking of permits.

In making the biological survey, the difficulty arises of defining what constitutes quahaug ground, since scattering quahaugs are found over vast territories, but only limited areas are commercially productive. The estimates of the quahaugers, both historically and in regard to production and areas, are often erroneous and vary greatly. By the use of market reports, express shipments, estimates of dealers, estimates of several reliable quahaugers, and all methods at our command, the facts of the industry were compiled and errors eliminated as far as possible. The home consumption is hard to determine, and is merely an estimate. The area of the quahaug territory was plotted on the map, and calculations made from the plots. Whenever personal inspection was not possible, as in Falmouth, the estimates of several quahaugers were taken.

Results.

1. Is the Quahaug Fishery declining?—The decline of the quahaug fishery is well recognized. Even the production figures, which, when stimulated by high prices, usually give a deceptive appearance of prosperity to a declining industry, since more men enter the fishery, show a decline in the last few years. When such a point is reached,—when, in spite of higher prices and more men, the annual production becomes less and less,—not many years will pass before the industry will collapse completely.

Increased prices show either an increase in demand or a falling off of the supply. Both are perhaps true of the quahaug industry. The demand, especially for "little necks," has been steadily on the increase, and a broad inland market is gradually opening, since the quahaug is capable of long transportation without perishing. So the increased prices are a sign of the diminution of the supply, as well as of an increased demand, the indeterminable factor being what ratio the one bears to the other.

The only way to determine accurately the decline in the natural supply is to compare the amount the average quahauger could dig ten or twenty years ago with the amount dug to-day. Even this comparison is unfair, as the better rakes, improved methods, etc., of the present time tend to increase the daily yield of the quahauger.

This decline can best be shown by taking special localities:—

(1) Buzzards Bay.—The quahaug industry in Buzzards Bay has shown a great decline in the past ten to twenty years, and the industry is now at a low ebb, especially in the towns of Marion and Mattapoisett. Wareham, Bourne and Fairhaven still manage to ship about 27,000 bushels annually, employing over 200 men; but this is hardly up to their former standard. To-day at Wareham the daily catch per man is one-fifth of what it was twenty years ago; in 1887 a man could dig 5 bushels to a catch of 1 bushel now. Buzzards Bay perhaps has shown the greatest quahaug decline.

(2) South Side of Cape Cod.—While not so marked a decline has taken place as in Buzzards Bay, every quahauger agrees that the industry is gradually failing. In Bass River, at Hyannis, and in Chatham, there is a marked decrease, while at Cotuit and Osterville the industry has remained stationary.

(3) North Side of Cape Cod.—The best quahaug fishery of Massachusetts, except at Edgartown, is found on the north side of Cape Cod, in the towns of Wellfleet, Eastham and Orleans. These three towns give an annual yield of 75,000 bushels. Only about fifteen years old commercially, the industry has passed its prime and is on the decline. This decline is shown both by production figures and by the gradual moving to deeper water. As the quahaugs were thinned out in shallow water, the fishermen moved farther and farther out, using long rakes, until 60-foot rakes are now used at a depth of 50 feet. Probably the 60-foot limit will never be exceeded, unless a method of dredging is devised; and it will be only a question of years when the industry will become extinct.

(4) Nantucket.—The industry here has generally declined, though in the last few years there has been a slight increase in production.

(5) Edgartown.—The quahaug industry at Edgartown has declined little, if any, while the fishery has been carried on for many years. The natural resources have not been seriously impaired, owing to the efficient town management; and Edgartown can be congratulated on being the only town in the State that can boast of a protected industry.

Although the quahaug industry has not openly shown the tendency to decline that the soft clam has manifested in southern Massachusetts, the danger is nevertheless very great, and the disaster would be far worse. The fishermen of Cape Cod realize that the clam industry has practically gone; but they are blind to the fact that a far more important one—the quahaug industry—is in as grave danger, and only when it is too late will they wake to a realization of the situation.

The clam industry on Cape Cod and Buzzards Bay will never assume the importance it possesses on the north shore, owing to lack of extensive flats. Rather the quahaug industry is the main shellfish industry of the south shore, as it is more valuable, more important, and capable of vast expansion. The development of the quahaug industry should bring many hundred thousand dollars to Cape Cod.

II. Causes of the Decline.—The direct cause is overfishing. The quahaug is hardy, little harmed by climatic changes, and has but few natural enemies. Man alone has caused the decline of the natural supply. Not satisfied with taking the mediums and large quahaugs, but spurred on by the high prices offered for the "little neck," the quahaug fisherman has cleaned up everything he can get, and the natural supply has suffered greatly. If the market demands the capture of the "little neck," it is necessary to leave the large quahaugs as "spawners." At the present time, by the capture of both the industry is being ruined.

The Remedy.—Quahaug Farming.

There is only one way in which the present decline can be checked, and that is, to increase the natural supply by cultural methods to meet the demands of the market. The only way to accomplish this increase is to plant and raise quahaugs,—in fact, have a system of quahaug farming for the whole south shore of Massachusetts. In considering quahaug farming, many questions naturally arise: (1) Is quahaug farming an established fact, or a mere theory? (2) Possibilities of quahaug farming. (3) What is the growth of the quahaug, and how long does it take to raise a crop? (4) What is the value of a quahaug farm? (5) What benefits would the quahaug industry receive from such a system?

(1) Quahaug Farming an Established Fact,—not a Theory.—It is not the object of this report to go into a scientific treatise upon experiments in quahaug culture. For the past three years the Commission on Fisheries and Game has been conducting experiments upon the growth and culture of quahaugs, the results of which will be published in a subsequent report. These experiments have shown that quahaug farming is no theory, but an established fact, and that, if taken up, it will make the quahaug fishery the most important shellfish industry of the State. These experiments, consisting of small beds one one-thousandth of an acre in area, were located at different places along the coast. Various conditions in regard to food, current, tide, soil, etc., were tested. The results from nearly every bed were excellent, and showed the ease of culture and the great profit which would result if larger areas were thus worked.

The results obtained from the experiments of the commission alone are sufficient to prove the practicability of quahaug farming, even if there were no other proofs. As it is, there have been many tests made by the oystermen, both outside and inside the State. Some years ago the oystermen near New York realized the possibilities of raising quahaugs on their oyster grants, and to-day Massachusetts ships many barrels of "seed" quahaugs out of the State to these far-sighted business men, who reap large returns by replanting these small "little necks." The Massachusetts oystermen have not been slow to realize the large returns afforded by quahaug culture, and some have planted many bushels of the "seed," thus turning their grants into partial quahaug farms. These men have proved that this style of farming is practical, and that as a money-making proposition the quahaug is far ahead of the oyster.

As affairs exist to-day in Massachusetts, a few men alone have the privilege of raising quahaugs, while the rest stand idle. Theoretically and legally, no one has the right to plant and raise quahaugs in the State; but practically and secretly it is done with great success. Who can blame the oysterman for raising quahaugs with his oysters, in view of the fast-declining quahaug industry? Rather by so doing he is helping perpetuate the natural supply. The objection to this present system of secret quahaug farming is its unfairness. A few men are enjoying the privileges that many others should likewise enjoy. There is plenty of room, and quahaug farming might as well be carried on openly, to the benefit of all.

While the oystermen have made a move toward general quahaug farming, and have shown the great possibilities that this system possesses, the quahaugers have also exhibited a tendency in a similar direction. The originators of the town law in Eastham, Orleans and Wellfleet, which provides for the leasing of 5,625 square feet of flat for bedding the catch, and thus makes possible the advantage of a favorable market, probably did not imagine that this was the first great step on the part of the quahaugers towards shellfish farming. The success of this scheme has here opened the eyes of the intelligent quahaugers to the even better possibilities of quahaug culture, and any well-devised scheme of shellfish farming will be favorably received.

The main impulse that makes people turn to quahaug culture is the steady decline of the industry, especially during the last few years. In the previous pages of this report there have been shown: (1) the actuality of the decline; (2) the causes of this decline. The proof of the decline is so generally apparent that it has created a popular demand for a fair system of quahaug farming, to check the diminution of the present supply.

(2) Possibilities of Quahaug Farming.—The quahaug has a wide range; it is found in all depths of water, from high tide line to sixty feet, and in various kinds of mud and sand bottom. This natural adaptability gives the quahaug a wider area than any other shellfish, as it will live in nearly any bottom, although the rate of growth depends essentially upon its location in respect to current. This permits the utilization of vast areas which to-day are unproductive, and which can all be made into profitable quahaug farms. Quahaugs will grow on thousands of acres of flats, such as the Common Flats of Chatham, if they are planted. There are indefinite possibilities of expansion in quahaug farming through the reclamation of this unproductive sea bottom.

(3) Rate of Growth of Quahaug.—The rate of growth of the quahaug varies greatly in regard to its location in respect to the current. The quahaugs which have the better current or circulation of water show the faster growth. The fastest growth recorded by the experiments of the Department on Fisheries and Game was a gain of 1 inch a year; i.e., 1½-inch quahaugs attained in one year a length of 2½ inches. The average growth is between ½ and ¾ inch a year, or a yield of 3 to 5 bushels for every bushel planted, or the return in one year of $4 for every $1 invested. In the more favorable localities there would be the enormous gain of $8 for every dollar invested. All this can be done in six months, as the quahaug grows only during the six summer months. The above figures are taken from experiments which have been conducted on Cape Cod, in Buzzards Bay and at Nantucket.

(4) Value of a Quahaug Farm.—An acre of "little-neck" quahaugs has a high market value. A conservative estimate of 10 per square foot gives the yield in one year of 2½-inch quahaugs as 600 bushels per acre; This means that 120 bushels of 1¾-inch quahaugs were planted to the acre. The price paid for the same would be $600, at the high price of $5 per bushel. The price received for the same, at $3 per bushel, would bring $1,800, or a gain of $3 for every $1 invested. This is a conservative estimate on all sides. Quahaugs could be planted two or three times as thick, seed might be purchased for less money, more money might be received for private shipments, and faster growth can be obtained. The only labor necessary is gathering the quahaugs for market. The quahaug farm requires no such care as the agricultural farm, and offers far more profit.

(5) Advantage of Quahaug Culture.—The quahaug is the most remunerative of any of our shellfish. It possesses several advantages over the oyster: (1) it is hardier,—less influenced by climatic conditions; (2) it has fewer enemies, as it lies protected under the sand; (3) it possesses a market the whole year; (4) there is more money for the planter in raising "little necks" than in raising oysters. If oyster culture has succeeded in Massachusetts, there is no question that, given a proper chance, quahaug culture can be put on a firm basis, and made the leading shellfish industry of Massachusetts. The value of the present quahaug industry lies chiefly in the production of "little necks." Under a cultural system of quahaug farms, this could be made a specialty. Old quahaugs would be kept as "seeders," and "little necks" alone raised for the market. The advantage of furnishing "little necks" of uniform size would lead to increased prices; steady customers would be obtained and certainty of production guaranteed. All the advantages lie with quahaug farming, as opposed to the present method of "free-for-all" digging.

The quahaug industry of the future, if put on a cultural basis, will not only check the decline of a valuable industry, but will increase the present production many fold. A far larger supply, work for more men and better prices for the consumer will result.

(6) Spat Collecting.—The main obstacle that stands in the way of permanent quahaug culture is a lack of sufficient young "seed" quahaugs. While several heavy sets have been recorded, the "seed" quahaugs are never found in vast quantities, as are the young of the soft clam (Mya arenaria). The set of quahaugs is usually scattering and slight. A method of spat collecting, i.e., catching the spawn and raising the small quahaugs, is alone necessary for the complete success of quahaug culture. While nothing of practical importance has yet been found, indications are favorable that some means will be devised in the next few years, and that quantities of young quahaugs can be raised. Experiments have already shown that as many as 75 can be caught per square foot in box spat collectors; but a more practical method than this must be found to make the business profitable.

The Quahaug Industry.

Methods of Capture.—Several methods of taking quahaugs are in vogue in Massachusetts, some simple and primitive, others more advanced and complex, but all modifications of simple raking or digging. These methods have arisen with the development of the industry, and record the historical changes in the quahaug fishery, as each new fishery or separate locality demands some modification of the usual methods.

(1) "Treading."—The early settlers in Massachusetts quickly learned from the Indians the primitive method of "treading" quahaugs, which required no implements except the hands and feet. The "treader" catches the quahaug by wading about in the water, feeling for them with his toes in the soft mud, and then picking them up by hand. Nowhere in Massachusetts is it used as a method of commercial fishery.

(2) Tidal Flat Fishery.—Often quahaugs are found on the exposed tidal flats, where they can sometimes be taken by hand, but more often with ordinary clam hoes or short rakes. Owing to the scarcity of quahaugs between the tide lines, this method does not pay for market fishing, and is only resorted to by people who dig for home consumption.

(3) Tonging.—In most parts of Buzzards Bay and in a few places on Cape Cod quahaugs are taken with oyster tongs. This method is applicable only in water less than 12 feet deep, as the longest tongs measure but 16 feet. Four sizes of tongs are used, 8, 10, 12 and 16 feet in length. Tonging is carried on in the small coves and inlets, where there is little if any rough water. A muddy bottom is usually preferable, as a firm, hard soil increases the labor of manipulating the tongs, which are used in the same manner as in tonging oysters.

(4) Raking.—The most universal method of taking quahaugs is with rakes. This method is used in every quahaug locality in Massachusetts, each town having its special kind of rake. Four main types of rakes can be recognized:—

(a) The Digger.—In some localities, chiefly in Buzzards Bay, the ordinary potato digger or rake, having four or five long, thin prongs, is used. Usually it has a back of wire netting, which holds the quahaugs when caught by the prongs. As the digger has a short handle of 5 feet, it can be used only in shallow water, where the quahauger, wading in the water, turns out the quahaugs with this narrow rake. This method yields but a scanty return, and is more often used for home consumption than for market.

(b) The Garden Rake.—The ordinary garden rake, equipped with a basket back of wire netting, is in more general use in shallow water, either by wading or from a boat, as it has the advantage of being wider than the potato digger.

(c) The Claw Rake.—This type of rake varies in size, width and length of handle. It is used chiefly at Nantucket. The usual style has a handle 6 feet long, while the iron part in the form of a claw or talon is 10 inches wide, with prongs 1 inch apart. Heavier rakes with longer handles are sometimes used for deep water, but for shallow water the usual form is the short-claw rake.

(d) The Basket Rake.-The greater part of the quahaug production is taken from deep water, with the basket rake. These rakes have handles running from 23 to 65 feet in length, according to the depth of water over the beds. Where the water is of various depths, several detachable handles of various lengths are used. At the end of these long handles is a small cross-piece, similar to the cross-piece of a lawn mower; this enables the quahauger to obtain a strong pull when raking. The handles are made of strong wood, and are very thin and flexible, not exceeding 1½ inches in diameter. The price of these handles varies according to the length, but the average price is about $2. As the long handles break very easily, great care must be taken in raking.

Three forms of the basket rake are used in Massachusetts. These rakes vary greatly in form and size, and it is merely a question of opinion which variety is the best, as all are made on the same general principle,—a curved, basket-shaped body, the bottom edge of which is set with thin steel teeth.

The Wellfleet and Chatham Rake.—This rake is perhaps the most generally used for all deep-water quahauging on Cape Cod, and finds favor with all. It consists of an iron framework, forming a curved bowl, the under edge of which is set with thin steel teeth varying in length from 2 to 4 inches, though usually 2½-inch teeth are the favorite. Formerly these teeth were made of iron, but owing to the rapid wear it was found necessary to make them of steel. Over the bowl of this rake, which is strengthened by side and cross pieces of iron, is fitted a twine net, which, like the net of a scallop dredge, drags behind the framework. An average rake has from 19 to 21 teeth, and weighs from 15 to 20 pounds.

Edgartown Basket Rake.—The basket rake used at Edgartown and Nantucket is lighter and somewhat smaller than the Wellfleet rake. The whole rake, except the teeth, is made of iron. No netting is required, as thin iron wires 1/3 inch apart encircle lengthwise the whole basket, preventing the escape of any marketable quahaug, and at the same time allowing the mud to wash out. This rake has 16 steel teeth, 1½ inches long, fitted at intervals of 1 inch in the bottom scraping bar, which is 16 inches long; the depth of the basket is about 8 inches. Much shorter poles, not exceeding 30 feet in length, are used with this rake, and the whole rake is much lighter. The price of this rake is $7.50, while the poles cost $1.50.

The third form of basket rake is a cross between the basket and claw rakes. This rake is used both at Nantucket and on Cape Cod, but is not so popular as the other types. The basket is formed by the curve of the prongs, which are held together by two long cross-bars at the top and bottom of the basket, while the ends are enclosed by short strips of iron. This rake exemplifies the transition stage between the claw and basket types, indicating that the basket form was derived from the former. Handles 20 to 30 feet long are generally used with these rakes.

Shallow v. Deep Water Quahauging.—Two kinds of quahauging are found in Massachusetts,—the deep and the shallow water fisheries. This arbitrary distinction also permits a division of localities in regard to the principal methods of fishing. Although in all localities there exists more or less shallow-water fishing, the main quahaug industry of several towns is the deep-water fishery. In all the Buzzards Bay towns except Fairhaven and New Bedford the shallow-water fishery prevails; this is also true of the south side of Cape Cod. On the north side of Cape Cod the opposite is true, as the quahauging at Wellfleet, Eastham, Orleans and Brewster is practically all deep-water fishing. At Edgartown and Nantucket, although there is considerable shallow-water digging, the deep-water fishery is the more important.

The deep-water fishery is vastly more productive than the shallow-water industry, furnishing annually 118,500 bushels, compared to 23,227 bushels, or more than 5 times as much. The deep-water fishery, i.e., the basket-rake fishery, is the main quahaug fishery of the State, and each year it is increasing, because of the opening of new beds. On the other hand, the shallow-water grounds are rapidly becoming barren from overfishing.

The deep-water quahauging is harder work, requires considerable capital but has fewer working days. Naturally the earnings from this fishery should surpass those of the shallow-water industry. The deep-water quahauger averages from $5 to $8 for a working day, while the shallow-water fisherman earns only from $2 to $3 per day.

Deep-water Quahauging.—Both power and sail boats are used in deep-water quahauging, though power is gradually replacing the old method of sailing, because of its increased efficiency and saving of time. When the quahaug grounds are reached, the boat is anchored at both bow and stern, one continuous rope connecting both anchors, which are from 500 to 600 feet apart, in such a way that the bow of the boat is always headed against the tide. A sufficient amount of slack is required for the proper handling of the boat, which can be moved along this anchor "road" as on a cable, and a large territory raked. The rake is lowered from the bow of the boat, the length of the handle being regulated by the depth of the water, and the teeth worked into the sandy or muddy bottom. The quahauger then takes firm hold of the cross-piece at the end of the handle, and works the rake back to the stern of the boat, where it is hauled in and the contents dumped on the culling board or picked out of the net. In hauling in the net the rake is turned so that the opening is on top, and the mud and sand is washed out before it is taken on board. The long pole passes across the boat and extends into the water on the opposite side when the rake is hauled in. This process is repeated until the immediate locality becomes unprofitable, when the boat is shifted along the cable.

The usual time for quahauging is from half ebb to half flood tide, thus avoiding the extra labor of high-water raking. Deep-water raking is especially hard labor, and six hours constitute a good day's work.

Boats.—Nearly all kinds of boats are utilized in the quahaug fishery, and are of all values, from the $10 second-hand skiff to the 38-foot power seine boat, which costs $1,500. The shallow-water industry requires but little invested capital. Dories and skiffs are the principal boats, costing from $10 to $25. Occasionally a sail or power boat may be used in this fishery. The deep-water industry requires larger and stronger boats. These are either power or sail boats, often auxiliary "cats," and their value runs anywhere from $150 to $1,500. The average price for the sail boats is $250, while the power boats are assessed at $350. At Orleans several large power seine boats, valued at about $1,500, are used in the quahaug fishery. These seine boats are 30 to 38 feet over all, have low double cabins, and are run by 8 to 12 horse-power gasolene engines. The ordinary power boats have gasolene engines from 2 to 6 horse-power. In this way each method of quahauging has its own boats, which are adapted for its needs.

Dredging.—So far as known, dredging is never used in quahauging in Massachusetts, although it is sometimes used on sea-clam beds. It has been tried, but without success, chiefly because of the uneven nature of the bottom. The invention of a suitable dredge is necessary, and there can be little doubt that in the future, if this difficulty is overcome, dredging will be used in the quahaug fishery. In 1879 Mr. Ernest Ingersoll reports in Rhode Island the use of a quahaug dredge similar in structure to our rake. Evidently this form was never especially successful, possibly because these dredges could not be dragged by sail boats.

Outfit of a Quahauger.—The implements and boats used in quahauging have already been mentioned. The outfit of the average quahauger in each fishery is here summarized:—

Deep-water Quahauging.

Shallow-water Quahauging.

Season.—The quahaug fishery is essentially a summer fishery, and little if any is done during the winter. The season in Massachusetts lasts for seven months, usually starting the last of March or the first of April, and ending about the first of November. The opening of the spring season varies several weeks, owing to the severity of the weather; and the same is true of the closing of the season.

As a rule, the Buzzards Bay industry, where digging is done in the shallow waters of protected bays and coves, using short rakes and tongs, has a longer season than the quahaug industry of Cape Cod, where the fishery is carried on in deep and open waters. With the former, the cold work and hardship alone force the quahaugers to stop fishing, a long time after storms and rough weather have brought the latter industry to an end.

The actual working days of the deep-water quahauger number hardly over 100 per season, while those of the shallow-water fishermen easily outnumber 150. The deep-water quahauger's daily earnings are two or three times the daily wages of the shallow-water quahauger, but the additional number of working days in part make up this difference.

The quahaug season can be divided arbitrarily into three parts: (1) spring; (2) summer; (3) fall. The spring season lasts from April 1 to June 15, the summer season from June 15 to September 15, and the fall season from September 15 to November 1. These seasons are marked by an increase in the number of quahaugers in the spring and fall. The men who do summer boating quahaug in the spring before the summer people arrive, and in the fall after the summer season is over. The opening of the scallop season, in towns that are fortunate enough to possess both industries, marks the closing of the quahaug season. These two industries join so well, scalloping in the winter and quahauging in the summer, that a shellfisherman has work practically all the year.

The Principal Markets.—The principal markets for the sale of Massachusetts quahaugs are Boston and New York. In 1879 the Boston market, according to Mr. Ernest Ingersoll, sold comparatively few. At the present time the Boston market disposes of many thousand bushels annually, but nevertheless the greater part of the Massachusetts quahaugs are shipped to New York. This, again, is due to the better market prices offered by that city. Besides passing through these two main channels, quahaugs are shipped direct from the coast dealers to various parts of the country, especially the middle west. This last method seems to be on the increase, and the future may see a large portion of the quahaug trade carried on by direct inland shipments.

Shipment.—Quahaugs are shipped either in second-hand sugar or flour barrels or in bushel bags. The latter method is fast gaining popularity with the quahaugers and dealers, owing to its cheapness, and is now steadily used in some localities. When quahaugs are shipped in barrels, holes are made in the bottom and sides of the barrel, to allow free circulation of air and to let the water out, while burlap is used instead of wooden heads.

"Culls."—Several culls are made for the market. These vary in number in different localities and with different firms, but essentially are modifications of the three "culls" made by the quahaugers: (1) "little necks;" (2) "sharps;" (3) "blunts." The divisions made by the firm of A. D. Davis & Co. of Wellfleet are as follows: (1) "little necks," small, 1½-2¼ inches; large, 2¼-3 inches; (2) medium "sharps," 3-3¾ inches; (3) large "sharps," 3¾ inches up; (4) small "blunts;" (5) large "blunts."

Price.—The prices received by the quahaugers are small, compared with the retail prices. "Little necks" fetch from $2.50 to $4 per bushel, sharps and small blunts from $1.10 to $2, and large blunts from 80 cents to $1.50, according to the season, fall and spring prices necessarily being higher than in summer. The price depends wholly upon the supply in the market, and varies greatly, although the "little necks" are fairly constant, as the demand for these small quahaugs is very great. To what excess the demand for "little necks" has reached can best be illustrated by a comparison between the price of $3 paid to the quahauger per bushel, and the actual price, $50, paid for the same by the consumer in the hotel restaurants.

Bedding Quahaugs for Market.—By town laws in Orleans, Eastham and Wellfleet, each quahauger may, upon application, secure from the selectmen a license, giving him not more than 75 feet square of tidal flat upon which to bed his catch of quahaugs. While no positive protection is guaranteed, public opinion recognizes the right of each man to his leased area, and this alone affords sufficient protection for the success of this communal effort, which is the first step by the people toward quahaug farming.

The quahauger needs only to spread his catch on the surface, and within two tides the quahaugs will have buried themselves in the sand. Here they will remain, with no danger of moving away, as the quahaug moves but little. The quahauger loses nothing by this replanting, as not only do the quahaugs remain in a healthy condition, but even grow in their new environment.

The result of this communal attempt at quahaug culture is beneficial. While the market price for "little necks" is almost always steady, the price of the larger quahaugs fluctuates considerably, and the market often becomes "glutted." This would naturally result in a severe loss to the quahauger if he were forced to keep shipping at a low price. As it is, the fortunate quahauger who possesses such a grant merely replants his daily catch until the market prices rise to their proper level. An additional advantage is gained by the quahauger, who at the end of the season has his grant well stocked, as higher prices are then offered. As many as 1,000 barrels are often held this way at the end of the season.

Food Value.—See food value table in scallop report.

Uses.—Besides its many uses as a food, raw, cooked and canned, the quahaug is of little importance in Massachusetts.

(1) For bait the soft clam (Mya arenaria) is generally preferred, and but few quahaugs are used for this purpose.

(2) The shell was once prized by the Indians for their wampum; now it is occasionally used for ornamental purposes.

(3) Oystermen use it for cultch when they can get nothing better; though more fragile shells are usually preferred, so that the masses of oyster "set" can be easily broken apart.

(4) Shell roads are occasionally made from quahaug shells. Possibly lime could be profitably obtained.

History of Quahaug Industry in Massachusetts.

South of Plymouth harbor quahaugs have always been plentiful along the shores of Cape Cod, Buzzards Bay and the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. Frequent shell heaps show that the Indians were accustomed to use this mollusk as a food, and even indulged in an occasional clam bake. Colonial records show us that the early colonists were not slow in learning to "tread out" this mollusk from the mud flats. The shells of the quahaug were much prized by the Indians for wampum beads, because of their purplish color.

Although reckoned inferior by many to the soft clam (Mya arenaria), the quahaug was dug for home consumption for years in Massachusetts, and but little attempt was made to put it on the market. The commercial quahaug fishery started on Cape Cod, about the first of the nineteenth century, growing in extent until about 1860. From 1860 to 1890 the production remained about constant. The production in 1879 for Massachusetts, as given by A. Howard Clark, totaled 11,050 bushels, valued at $5,525. It is only in the last fifteen to twenty years that the actual development of the quahaug fishery has taken place. The present production of Massachusetts is 144,044 bushels, valued at $194,687. To the popular demand for the "little neck" can be attributed the rapid development of the quahaug industry during the last ten years. This development has furnished employment for hundreds of men, and has given the quahaug an important value as a sea food. What it will lead to is easily seen. The maximum production was passed a few years ago, constant overfishing caused by an excessive demand is destroying the natural supply, and there will in a few years be practically no commercial fishery, unless measures are taken to increase the natural supply. Quahaug farming offers the best solution at the present time, and gives promise of permanent success.

The following statistics, taken from the United States Fish Commission reports, show the rapidity of the development of the quahaug fishery:—

Not only has there been an increase in production, but also an increase in price, as can be seen from the above table, which shows that the price has more than doubled between 1888 and 1902. This increase in price has alone supported a declining fishery in many towns, making it still profitable for quahaugers to keep in the business, in spite of a much smaller catch. The advance in price is due both to the natural rise in the value of food products during the past twenty-five years and also to the popular demand for the "little neck," or small quahaug.