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.

1907.1879.Gain.
Production (bushels),562,991264,818297,273
Men,2,9129102,092
Capital,$502,857$165,000$337,857
Area (acres),66,50166,501—

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.