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."