Present laws satisfactory,11
Direct State control of oyster industry,11
Town control, with right of appeal to the department of fisheries and game,1
Longer length of lease,4
More certainty of re-leasing grants if improved,7
More protection for industry,4
Right to grow all kinds of shellfish,1
More ground for cultivation,1
State to forbid marketing of oysters from contaminated waters,1
Provision for destruction of starfish,2
Total,43

While these answers show a diversity of ideas, about 75 per cent. urge that something be done to improve the present system, and, while many are in favor of placing the industry under State control, the majority is definitely of the opinion that the present system of town control is proving a serious drawback to the oyster industry. The best interests of the oysterman and the consumer demand a better method of regulation of this industry. As long as town politics, partiality and carelessness enter into the leasing of oyster grants, and thus deprive certain people of their rights, it is safe to say that the oyster industry can never get beyond its present state of development. One solution of the difficulty might be full State control of leasing the grounds for the oyster industry. This is possibly too radical a step at present, and the system can perhaps be so adjusted as to remedy its defects without taking the control of the fishery entirely away from the hands of the town. Another solution is to continue the system of town control, but to have a State commission which would act as a board of appeal for all who felt aggrieved at the judgment of the selectmen.

The advisability of ten-year grants has caused much comment among the oystermen. Practically all grants are now given for this period of time. As a system it is deservedly unpopular, since it does not help the quahaug interest, and it checks the development of the oyster industry. The oyster business, unlike the other branches of shellfish culture, requires a considerable capital. This system of ten-year grants operates directly to discourage the outlay of capital. If the oysterman were sure of reaping the benefits of his labor and capital, it would be to his selfish interest to develop his own grant to its maximum capacity. But what far-sighted business man will invest money in a business which stands a good chance of being completely "wiped out" in a few years? Again, this system makes three years out of the ten practically worthless. The oysterman usually "seeds" his grant about three years before he expects to reap his harvest; but when his grant has run for seven years, it is evident that he will plant no more oysters because of the uncertainty of obtaining a second lease, and naturally does not desire to invest his labor and money for the benefit of an unknown successor.

The remedy for this is not difficult. If a grant were rented annually as long as the planter desired to hold it, to be forfeited if not improved to a certain standard (to be decided upon), or for non-payment of rent, the difficulties above enumerated would disappear. Much of the territory now held unimproved would either be brought up to a standard of excellence or given over to the quahaugers, and in either case direct benefits would result. If legislation were so arranged that any man might take, by the payment of a nominal rent, a small piece of ground, which he could hold as long as he improved it, the oyster industry could be put on a firmer footing; a man confident of enjoying the fruits of his labors could thus improve his grant, and, as he acquired skill and knowledge, could add other land and ultimately expect to build up a successful business.

A third important suggestion relates to the marketing of oysters in a sanitary condition. The oyster industry of the State has suffered severely because of the scare resulting from the marketing of oysters from contaminated waters. The Cape and Buzzards Bay oysters are in general free from all sewage contamination, and should not be considered on the same basis as the impure varieties from outside the State. Naturally, the Massachusetts oystermen desire that there be some guarantee for the purity of the oysters marketed, as their interests suffer because this impure stock is often sold under the name of the Cape oyster. If laws were passed requiring the inspection and certification of marketed oysters in regard to healthful conditions under which they have been produced, both the oyster planter and the consumer would be benefited.

There is but little doubt that the oyster industry can be still further developed by opening waste territory which at this time does not appear available, since under existing conditions proper capital cannot be induced to enter the business. The oyster industry demands more attention than it has hitherto received, and must be considered an important asset of the Commonwealth.

History of the Industry.

Although the oyster laws are the mile-stones which mark the progress of the oyster industry, and any consideration of the development of these laws naturally gives many historical features, it is nevertheless necessary, at the risk of repetition, to give a separate account of the history of the oyster fishery. The Massachusetts oyster fishery can be divided historically into three distinct periods: (1) the free fishing period; (2) the period of bedding southern oysters; (3) the period of oyster grants.

(1) The Free Native Fishery (1620-1840).—In the early colonial days the oyster fishery was considered in the same way as the other shellfisheries are now looked upon, i.e., held to be the common property of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth. The natural supply was abundant enough to meet the needs of all the inhabitants, and for many years no signs of decline were manifest. In 1775 the natural beds of Wellfleet gave out, furnishing the first record of unmistakable decline. From that time there arose an extensive series of protective laws, with the one object of preserving the natural supply by limiting the demand. This policy of protective laws, though perhaps temporarily beneficial, was based on an erroneous principle. It was preventive, but not constructive, and did not build up the demolished fishery.

(2) Oyster Bedding (1840-70).—With the decline of the natural beds, the practice of bedding southern "plants" became an important part of the oyster trade. The southern oysters were bedded on the flats in the spring and taken up for market in the fall. Salem, Wellfleet and Boston were the leading places in this new phase of the oyster industry, and many thousand bushels were annually planted.