NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 December 1997

The History, Present

Condition, and Future

of the Molluscan Fisheries

of North and Central

Atnerica and Europe

Volutne 2, Pacific Coast

and Suppletnental Topics

Edited by

Clyde L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Victor G. Burrell,Jr.

Aaron Rosenfield

Willis L. Hobart

U.S. Department of Commerce
NOAA

Reports NMFS

u.s. DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE

WILLIAM M. DALEY

SECRETARY

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

D.James Baker

Under Secretary for

Oceans and Atmosphere

Tech ical

National Marine

Fisheries Service

Rolland A. Schmitten

Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries

The NOAA Technical Report NMFS

(ISSN 0892-8908) series is published by

the Scientific Publications Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA

98115-0070.

The Secretary of Commerce has determined that the publication of this series is necessary in the transaction of the

public business required by law of this

Department. Use of funds for printing of

this series has been approved by the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget.

Technical Reports of the Fishery Bulletin

Scientific Editor

Dr. John B. Pearce

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1097

Editorial Conunittee

Dr. Andrew E. Dizon National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. Linda L. Jones National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. Richard D. Methot National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. Theodore W. Pietsch University of Washington

Dr. Joseph E. Powers National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. TiIn D. Stnith National Marine Fisheries Service

Managing Editor

Shelley E. Arenas

Scientific Publications Office

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

Seattle, Washington 98115-0070

The NOAA T«hnical Report NMFS series of the Fishery Bulletin carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, flora

and fauna studies, and data intensive reports on investigations in fishery science,

engineering, and economics. The series was established in 1983 to replace two

subcategories of the Technical Report series: "Special Scientific Report-Fisheries" and "Circular." Copies of the NOAA Technical Report NMFS are available free

in limited numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also

available in exchange for other scientific and technical publications in the marine

sCiences.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

A Technica1 Report of the Fishery Bulletin

The History, Present Condition, and

Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of

North and Central Am.erica and Europe

Volum.e 2, Pacific Coast

and Supplem.ental Topics

Clyde 1. MacKenzie,Jr.

Victor G. Burrell, Jr.

Aaron Rosenfield

Willis L. Hobart (editors)

December 1997

U.S. Department of Commerce
On the cover

An early etching of oysters of varying ages attached to a block of wood, circa

1880's, courtesy ofW. L. Hobart.

Suggested reference

C. L. MacKenzie,Jr., V. G. Burrell,Jr., A Rosenfield, and W. L. Hobart

(eds.). 1997. The history, present condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries

of North and Central America and Europe, Volume 2, Pacific coast and supplemental topics. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 128, 217 p.

Note

Volume I was published in September 1997 and Volume 3 was published in

April 1997; both are available for purchase from the sources listed below.

Purchasing additional copies

Additional copies of this report may be purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh,

PA 15250-7954; 202-512-1800; http://www.gpo.gov. The report is also available for purchase in paper copy or microfiche from the National Technical

Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 1-800-

553-NTIS; http://www.ntis.gov.

Copyright law

Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been copyrighted

and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated.

Proprietary products

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned

in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would

indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its

purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be

used or purchased because of this NMFS publication.
CONTENTS _

Molluscan Fisheries Areas of North and Central America and Europe IV

E. BAQUEIRO C.

C. L. MACKENZIE,JR.

A. LOPEZ

j. R. VILLALAZ G.

j. A. GOMEZ H.

j. CACERES-MARTINEZ

W. N. SHAW

A. M. ROBINSON

C. E. LINDSAY

D. SIMONS

N. F. BOURNE

N.R.FOSTER

B.j. MCCAY

W. P. JENKS, III

T. E. BIGFORD

G. P. HOSKIN

S. R. RIPPEY

C. M.ADAMS

E. M. THUNBERG

W. R. KEITHLY

D. L. SUTHERLAND

S.j. KOPLIN

1. DORE

W. j. BELLOWS

E. FLEURY

The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico

Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua

History, Present Condition, and Future of the

Molluscan Fisheries of Panama

Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico:

History, Present Status, and Future

The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future

Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future

The Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Ostreola conchaphila;

Pacific Oysters, Crassostrea gigas; and Pacific Razor Clams,

Siliqua patula, in the State of Washington

Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia

The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska

The Importance of Shellfisheries to Coastal Communities

Environmental Challenges Facing the Shellfishing Industry

U.S. Regulatory Strategies for Ensuring the Safety

of Molluscan Shellfish

Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries

in the United States

Mollusk Statistical Data Collection in the United States

Shellfish Marketing in the United States: Past, Present, and Future

United States Trade in Bivalve Mollusks in 1990 and 1991

Markets for Bivalve Mollusks in the European Community

19

33

41

57

75

89

115

131

145

157

165

173

189

199

209

215

111
The molluscan fisheries areas of North and Central America and Europe featured in each volume

Volume II Volume I Volume III

t

N

Portugal

Iceland

9

Chesapeake Bay

Prince Edward Island

Nova Scotia

~ew Brunswick

\\':= Massachusetts Bay

\ \ """""'" \ \ Raritan Bay

\ Delaware Bay
The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico

ERIC BAQUIERO C.

Centro Regional de Investigacion Pesquera

Instituto Nacional de la Pesca

A.P.587

Campeche, Camp. Mexico

ABSTRACT

Over 100 molluscan species are landed in Mexico. About 30% are harvested on the

Pacific coast and 70% on the Atlantic coast. Clams, scallops, and squid predominate on the

Pacific coast (abalone, limpets, and mussels are landed there exclusively). Conchs and

oysters predominate on the Atlantic coast. In 1988, some 95,000 metric tons (t) of mollusks

were landed, with a value of $33 million. Mollusks were used extensively in prehispanic

Mexico as food, tools, and jewelry. Their use as food and jewelry continues. Except in the

States ofBaja California and Baja California Sur, where abalone, clams, and scallops provide

fishermen with year-round employment, mollusk fishing is done part time. On both the

Pacific and Atlantic coasts, many fishermen are nomads, harvesting mollusks wherever they

find abundant stocks. Upon finding such beds, they build camps, begin harvesting, and

continue until the mollusks become so scarce that it no longer pays to continue. They then

look for productive beds in other areas and rebuild their camps. Fishermen harvest abalones, mussels, scallops, and clams by free-diving and using scuba and hooka. Landings of

clams and cockles have been growing, and 22,000 t were landed in 1988. Fishermen harvest

intertidal clams by hand at wading depths, finding them with their feet. In waters up to 5 m,

they harvest them by free-diving. In deeper water, they use scuba and hooka. Many species of

gastropods have commercial importance on both coasts. All species with a large detachable

muscle are sold as scallops. On the Pacific coast, hatchery culture of oysters prevails. Oyster

culture in Atlantic coast lagoons began in the 1950's, when beds were enhanced by spreading shells as cultch for spat.

Introduction

In 1990, fisheries production in Mexico (Fig. 1) was

1,461,105 metric tons (t) with a total value of3,131,103

million pesos (US$I,043.7 million). Mollusks contributed only 98,771 t of the total (6.76%), with a value of

$45.09 million (4.32% of the total), but they are of

great importance to fishermen as a primary or alternative source of income. Fisheries statistics group more

than 100 species landed in the country into 11 categories: Abalone, conchs, and limpet (gastropods); clams,

mussels, oysters, cockles, scallops, and pen shells (pelecypods); octopus and squids (cephalopods); and shells.

About 30% of mollusk landings are from the Pacific

coast and 70% from the Atlantic coast, but the Pacific

coast leads in value (Fig. 2, 3). Abalone, limpets, and

mussels are landed exclusively on the Pacific coast,

while clams, scallops, pen shells, and squid predominate there. Conchs, oysters, and octopus predominate

on the Atlantic coast. Oysters, clams, and octopus lead

in production (Fig. 4), while oysters, octopus, and abalone lead in value (Fig. 5).

Historical Uses of Mollusks _

Mollusks were used extensively in prehispanic Mexico.

Their use as food is shown by the presence of many

shell middens along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts

(Sheng and Gifford, 1952; Lorenzo, 1955; FieIdman,

1969; Foster 1975; Reigadas et aI., 1984). They were

also used as tools and jewelry (Suarez, 1977; Suarez,

1988; Luna, 1986). That mollusks were carried inland is

evident from offerings in the main temple of

Tenochtitlan (Prehispanic Mexico City). Later, they

were used by Indians in New Spain as food, ornaments,
2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

and medicine (Ancona and Del Campo,

1953; Del Campo, 1984). The manufacture of handcrafts and jewelry from mollusks continues to the present time.

Current Fishing Practices

Many fishermen are nomads, harvesting

mollusks along the coast wherever they

find them sufficiently abundant. Fishermen build temporary camps and then harvest mollusks until they become so scarce

that it no longer pays. The practice prevails along most of the Pacific coast and

for marine species on the Atlantic coast.

Table 1 lists the number of fishing permits by group and state, and the numbers

of boats and fishermen that might be engaged in the shellfisheries. The number

of permits issued by each state is much

smaller than the number of boats and

fishermen that actively harvest mollusks.

Except in the States of Baja California

and Baja California Sur, where abalone,

clams, and scallops provide fishermen with

year-round employment, mollusk fishing

is done only part time, even where harvesting cooperatives have been formed.

Fishermen harvest clams, abalones, mussels, and scallops by free-diving and by using scuba and hookah.

They usually overexploit the stocks, except on the west

coast of Baja California. There, zones have been assigned to cooperatives, the members of which demand

that biologists assess their stocks.

1 Baja California

2 Baja California Sur

3 Sonora

4 Sinaloa

5 Nayarit

6 Jalisco

7 Colima

8 Michoacan

9 Guerrero

10 Oaxaca

11 Chiapas

12 Tamaulipas

13 Veracruz

14 Tabasco

15 Campeche

16 Yucatan

17 Quintana Roo

Figure 1

The coastal states of Mexico.

Abalone Fishery

The abalone, Haliotis sp., fishery is limited to the Pacific

coast of Baja California. Five of the eight abalone species that inhabit the northeast Pacific coast share this

habitat (Table 2). They live on rocky bottoms from the

intertidal zone to 30 m, and are associated with beds of

giant kelp, Macrocystis sp., and other algae, including

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 AVG

Metric tons (thousands)

100

80

60

40

20

o II I I I I I I I

Dollars (millions)

50

40

30

20

10

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 1990

• PACIFIC GULF AND CARIBBEAN 0 TOTAL

_ PACIFIC ATLANTIC 0 TOTAL

Figure 2

Mollusk landings from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts

of Mexico, 1979-88.

Figure 3

Value of mollusk landings from the Pacific and Atlantic

coasts of Mexico, 1979-90.
________________________ Baquiero C.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 3

Figure 4

Percent of volume landed by groups of Mexican molluscan fisheries.

MUSSEL 23%

SCALLOP 32%

3%

~~~~ON~2% SQUID 6%

OCTOPUS 10%

OYSTER 58%

Figure 5

Percent of value landed by groups of Mexican molluscan fisheries.

Pelvetia sp., Eisenia sp., Egregia sp., and Gigartina sp.

(Ortiz and Leon, 1988). Abalone compete for space

and food with sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus sp. (Palleiro

et aI., 1988), turbo shells, Astraea sp. and Turbo sp., and

the giant keyhole limpet, Megathura crenulata. When

fishermen remove abalone, its space is occupied by

competitors (Baqueiro et aI., 1980; Gusman, 1989).

Fishery History

Evidence from middens and other archaeological sites

show that Indians used abalone as food, tools, and

jewelry long before the Spanish arrived (Reigadas et aI.,

1984). The Indians collected them from intertidal pools

using sharp stones, and pounded the meat to soften it

for eating.

The commercial fishery began when Chinese immigrants came to the United States. In 1880, they paid

$60/boat for fishing rights along the coasts of Baja

California and fishermen used hand rakes from small

boats to gather abalones. At the tum of the century,

when the Chinese were expelled from California, a

syndicate at Ensenada, Baja California, acquired all the

boats there and established the first Mexican abalone

fleet. Shortly afterward, some Japanese fishermen inFigure 6

Hard hat diver descending to harvest abalone. Photograph by Erik Baqueiro C.

troduced free diving as a method to gather abalones.

They used barrels as floating devices to support themselves when at the surface. The Japanese controlled the

fishery until the beginning of World War II.

In 1930, hard hat divers began fishing for abalone

(Fig. 6), each collecting an average of 1,500 kg of

abalone/day. In 1937, the first fishing area with rights

for local fishermen was established, and in 1950 the

first cannery was built at Ensenada. Eventually, fishermen replaced hard-hat gear with scuba, and recently

have replaced scuba with hookah gear. Hard-hat diving

ended in 1980.

Present Status of the Fishery

In 1972, the government set aside abalones, pismo dams,

oysters, lobsters, and shrimp for fishing only by cooperatives, thus limiting access to them by private individuals. With the assistance of the Federal government,

34 cooperatives with 180 boats now actively fish along

the coast of Baja California. The catches are processed

in 12 local canneries (Fig. 7). A total of 30,000 people

are employed as fishermen and cannery workers and in

associated jobs.

The boats used for harvesting abalone are 4.9-6.7 m

(1~22 feet) long and are powered by 40-55 hp outboard motors. The crew of each boat consists ofa diver,

an oarsman who follows the diver, and a lifeline man

who tends the air hose and lifeline and takes up the

catch. Each diver is overweighted, wears boots, and has

a net bag kept open with a ring that hangs from his

weight belt (Fig. 8). The diver collects abalones using a

scraper and then places them in the bag. When the bag

is loaded, the diver releases his weight belt and the
4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

lineman hauls the belt and bag to the surface. The

diver can then ascend freely.

As with other mollusks, abalone production has varied annually. It increased sharply in the late 1940's and

reached 5,993 t in 1950. It fell to 1,220 t in 1952, but

then increased slowly to 3,461 tin 1956. Production was

nearly stable in the 1960's at about 3,000 t. It began to

decline in the mid-1970's and was only about 1,000 tin

Table 1

Permits, equipments, fishermen, cooperatives, and aquaculture enterprises in mollusk fisheries of Mexico for the year 1990.

Equipment Aquaculture

Permits Boatsl Cooperatives Fishermen Scuba Hookah Cooperative Private

Pacific coast

Baja California 126 2,245 14 3,093 1,335 20 1 3

Baja California Sur 99 1,955 40 2,399 571 23 5 1

Sonora 284 2,738 51 5,165 47 15 13 8

Sinaloa 290 7,627 124 7,325 102 0 76 4

Nayarit 42 1,877 14 2,022 0 3 2 0

Jalisco 72 2,383 25 1,585 19 5 2 0

Colima 45 877 13 1,186 2 86 0 0

Michoacan 42 3,110 18 1,653 0 15 0 0

Guerrero 51 3,920 38 2,115 73 37 4 1

Oaxaca 95 2,531 36 2,802 3 30 2 0

Chiapas 79 4,599 33 3,534 4 25 4 0

Total 1,225 33,862 406 32,879 2,156 259 109 17

Gulf and Caribbean

Tamaulipas 147 5,004 37 2,732 0 0 1 0

Veracruz 133 14,600 59 8,634 6 13 2 10

Tabasco 29 5,420 34 1,988 0 1 0 4

Campeche 222 2,529 37 2,809 0 0 1 2

Yucatan 54 1,580 17 1,771 178 35 1 0

Quintana Roo 39 811 13 567 175 98 0 0

Total 624 29,944 197 18,501 359 147 5 16

Number of permits by groups.

Abalone Clams Squid Conch Oyster M. Cockle Octopus Total

Total 34 267 423 223 561 19 322 1,849

Pacific 34 210 379 109 381 19 92 1,225

Atlantic 0 57 44 114 180 0 230 624

Private 140 165 143 1 14 250 713

Social 34 119 234 67 560 5 64 1,083

Government 8 24 13 8 53

1 Total number of boats registered for coastal fisheries.

Table 2

Commercial abalone of Mexico.

Species

Haliotis cracherodii

H corrngata

Hfulgens

H rufescens

H sorenseni

Habitat!

R,SI,Ow

R,SI,Ow

R,SI,Ow

R,Sl,Ow

R,Sl,Ow

Exploitation2

C

C

C

1

I

Percent of

production

11

20

63

1

5

Price

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

Area of exploitation

Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

1 Habitat: R=rock substrate, Sl=sublitorallevel, Ow=open waters location.

2 Exploitation: C=commercial, I=incidental.
Baquiero c.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 5

1981, but has been increasing slowly since then, reaching nearly 2,000 t in 1988.

Abalone prices paid to fishermen increased sharply

until 1981 when they were nearly $70/kg. When the

peso was devaluated, prices fell sharply, and abalones

sold for only $2.25/kg in 1983. Later, prices rose to

about $4.95/kg in 1988.

1982, the seasons were changed again. Based on growth

studies of different populations, closed seasons were

fixed locally, so that the species now has a different

minimum size in each area (Table 3).

Abalone Culture

Figure 7

Baja California, showing location of abalone hatchery, canneries, and

relative abundance of main species of abalone (Haliotis sp.).

Management and Regulations

One or two management directives have been applied

in the abalone fishery. From 1940 to 1972, the fishing

season was closed from January 15 to March 15. From

1972 to 1982, it was closed from 1July to 31 August. In

Conch Fishery _

Conchs have had commercial importance

recently in several states, as other species

have become scarcer (Fig. 9). From 1979 to

1988, landings ranged from 325 t to about

810 t (weight without shell). Landed value

was about $400,000 in 1984, but rose sharply

after 1986 to about $5.3 million in 1988.

In Baja California Sur, which leads the

nation in conch production, catches are

monospecific: species differ with location.

On the northern part of the Pacific coast,

the catch is directed toward the rockpile turban, Astrea turbanica, and wavy turban, A.

undosa, while on the southern portion of

that coast, it is directed towards the Pacific

crown conch, Melongena patula. In the Gulf

of California, the target species are Muricanthus nigritus and the pick-mouthed murex,

Hexaplex erythrostomus, both fished with baited

traps. Other species landed include the giant eastern Pacific conch, Strombus galeatus,

eastern Pacific fight conch, S. gracilior, and

granulated conch, S. granulatus, all of which

are fished by divers. The Pacific conch occurs around protected islands, whereas the

fighting conch and granulated conch occur

in bays along the coast (Table 4).

Landings in the State ofChiapas are second

in importance on the Pacific coast, and sixth in

Mexico. They are comprised of Purpura pansa,

found on rocky shores, and several species of

Murex, which are harvested with baited traps.

On the Atlantic coast, landings records of

queen conchs, Strombus gigas, began in the

Studies showed abalones were being overfished (Polanco

et aI., 1988). The decline of production in the 1970's

motivated the Federal government to construct an abalone hatchery at Tortugas Bay on the west coast of Baja

California. Production ofjuveniles 2.5 cm long began

in 1985. The intent was to restock areas where natural

recruitment was poor. Since then, due to technical and

management problems, only a few thousand

abalones have been released each year.

ZONE IV

e

H. cracherodii

H. fulgens

H. corrugata

Cannery

ZONE I

"

II

OJ

D

ZONE II

W

·------- air ~ . _ • -------------------

M Hatchery
6 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 9

Annual conch production from Mexico, 1979-88.

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

VOLUME 0 VALUE

6

4

3

2

5

o

Dollars (millions)

n l I n n.

MetriC tons

600

200

o

400

800

1000

Figure 8

Hookah diver collecting abalone. Photograph by Erik

Baqueiro C.

Limpet Fishery _

Table 3

Minimum size and closed season for the five species of

abalone on the four fishing zones. (Shell length in mm.)

1991). From 1984 to 1987, the laboratory reared and

liberated 25 thousand juveniles whose length was about

25 mm. However, in 1987, hurricane Gilbert damaged

the laboratory and the rearing ended.

Fishermen land two species of limpets. One is the keyhole limpet, which is attached to rocks in beds of giant

kelp in Baja California Sur. Fishermen sell it as a substitute for abalone. The other limpet is the top shell,

Allcistromesus mexicanus, which occurs on rocky shores

with heavy seas, from the states of Sonora to Oaxaca.

Catches of keyhole limpets are listed in landings statistics as "others" or with the rockpile turban, as both

are canned. Most limpets taken at Sonora are also

canned. Limpets from other states are consumed fresh

140

135

130

110

White

120

120

120

120

Black

165

165

Red

150

145

140

120

Blue

140

135

130

110

Zone Yellow

Closed season

I 1July-30 Nov.

II 1 Aug-31 Dec.

m I Aug-31 Dec.

IV I Sept.-31 Jan.

1

II

1II

TV

Aquaculture Development and Prospects

Efforts have been made to culture the queen con,::h,

which has a planktonic larval period of 18-26 days. A

laboratory was outfitted to produce juveniles for restocking depleted beds in Quintana Roo (Baqueiro,

1950's when the towns ofCosumel and Isla Mujeres, in

the State of Quintana Roo, were opened to tourism. In

the 1970's, exports began to the United States, which

soon became the main market, leaving only a small

portion for domestic consumption and tourists. Queen

conch landings reached a peak of 350 t in 1976 when

there were about 325 fishermen whose annual catch

was about 1 t each. In 1978, the catch fell to 200 kg/

fisherman and has since fallen even further, while the

number offishermen increased to 850 by 1983 (Polanco

et aI., 1988; Quijano, 1988).

In 1984, only 26% of the conch production in

Quintana Roo was comprised of queen conchs. The

milk conch, S. costatus, comprised 70% of the catch,

and the West Indian shank, Xancus angulatus, and

knobbed whelk, Busycon carica, comprised most of:he

remainder (De la Torre, 1984).

On the Gulf of Mexico coast, landings are multispecific, with Busycon sp. dominating in Tamaulipas,

Veracruz, and Tabasco, while the milk conch dominates in Campeche and Yucatan. Production in Yucatan

has fallen to such an extent that in 1989 the government

banned conch fishing. In Campeche, the maximum sustainable yield of conchs is 750 t a year, an amount that has

been reached since 1984 (Baqueiro et aI., 1991).
Baquiero c.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 7

Table 4

Commercial conchs and limpets of Mexico.

Percent of

Species Habitat] Exploitation2 production Price Area of exploitation

Conchs

Astraea turbanica R,SI,Ow C 90 $3/kg Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

A. undosa R,SI,Ow C 10 $3/kg Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Busycon carica S, Md,R C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

B. canaliculatum S I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

B. candelabrum SI I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

B. coarctatum Sl I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

B. contrarium Sl C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

B. perversum Sl C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

B. spiratum I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

Cassis madagascariensis C $4/kg Yucatan and Quintana Roo

C. tuberosa C $4/kg Yucatan and Quintana Roo

Charonia variegata C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

Fasciolaria princeps S, Md, R, SI C 20 $4/kg Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

F. tulipa C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

F. lilium C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

Hexaplex erythrostomus S, Md, R, SI C 40 $4/kg Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

Melongena corona C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

M. melongena Md,M,I-SI C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

M. patula S, M, SI C 60 $3/kg Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Muricanthus nigritus S, Md, R, SI C 60 $4/kg Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

Pleuwploca gigantea C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

Pomasea patula Md, Mp,Fw C $4/kg Veracruz

Strombus alatus I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

S. costatus C,O $4/kg Yucatan to Quintana Roo

S. galeatus S, Md,SI C 80 $4/kg Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

S. gallus I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

S. gigas S, Md, SI C,O $4/kg Yucatan to Quintana Roo

S. gracilior S, Md,SI C,P 60 $4/kg Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

S. granulatus S, Md,SI C,P 40 $4/kg B~a Calif. to Oaxaca

S. peruvianus S, Md,SI I $4/kg B~a Calif. to Oaxaca

S. pugilis C,P $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

S. raninus I $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

Xancus angulata C $4/kg Tamaulipas to Quintana Roo

Limpets

Ancistromesus mexicanus R,SI,Ow C,O 100 $4/kg Nayarit to Guerrero

Megathura crenulata R,SI,Ow C 100 $4/kg Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

I Habitat: substratum: S=sand, Md=mud, R=rock, Mp=macrophyt, M=mangrove; level: I=intertidal, SI= sublitoral; location: Ow=open

waters, Fw=fresh water.

2 Exploitation: C=commercial, O=overexploited, P=potential, I=incidental; Pr=protected.

and are available locally or in markets in the cities of

Ixtapa and Acapulco.

From 1979 to 1988, landings of limpets have ranged

from 180 t in 1982 to only 1 t in 1988. Their landed

value increased from $2,000 in 1979 to $37,500 in 1986.

Management and Regulations

The taking of conchs and limpets is open to all fishermen, except in Quintana Roo where permits are issued

only to cooperatives.

Clam and Cockle Fisheries _

Fishermen harvest clams and cockles intensively in

only a few states. The largest quantities are landed in

the States of Baja California Sur, Baja California, and

Sinaloa on the Pacific coast; and Campeche on the

Atlantic coast (Fig. 10). This group includes clams of

several families, with species of the family veneridae

being the most important, and cockles of the genus

Anadara (Table 5). Clams and cockles constitute 15%

of the quantity and 8% of the value of all mollusks

landed.
8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 10

Mean annual clam landings in coastal states of Mexico.

On the Pacific coast, fishermen harvest the red clam,

Megapitaria aurantiaca, and black clam, M. squalida, from

Baja California to Chiapas; the two comprise as much as

Be BeSSON SIN NAY JAl COL MIC GUEOAX CHI TAM VER TAB CAMYUC QR

70% of clam production. They are usually harvested

with Dosinia ponderosa. Though the three have different

sediment preferences, sometimes they occur in the same

general areas (Baqueiro, 1979). The mangrove cockle,

Anadara tuberculosa, inhabits mud between roots of the

red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle, in mesohaline areas.

The cockle is harvested extensively from Baja California Sur to Chiapas.

On the Atlantic coast, the principal clam produced is

the Atlantic rangia, which occurs in muddy bottoms in

low salinity estuaries from Chesapeake Bay to Campeche.

Clams that fishermen harvest occasionally from sandy

bays and open high salinity waters are the gaudy sanguine, Asaphis deflorata: tiger lucine, Codakia orbicularis;

southern quahog, Mercenaria campechensis; and the crossbarred venus, Chione cancellata.

Fishermen harvest intertidal clams and cockles by

hand at low tide. At wading depths, fishermen feel for

the clams with their feet and collect them. In deeper

water, up to about 5 m, fishermen harvest them by freediving using fins and mask. In yet deeper water, they

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Dollars (millions)I 0.6

_ VOLUME 0 VALUE

Metric tons (thousands)

2

3

4

6

5

Table 5

Commercial clams and cockles of Mexico.

Species Habitat 1 Exploitationt

Clams

Asaphis deflorata Mp, S, Md C,O

Chione califarniensis S. I-SI, Pw C

C. cancelata C,P

C. gnidea S, SI C,P

C. sulrrugosa S, SI C,P

C. undatella S, I-SI, Pw C

Codakia orvicularis C.P

Dosinia ponderosa S, SI P

Glycymeris gigantea S, Sl P

Laevicm'dium elatum S, SI P

Megapitmia aurantiaca S, SI C

M. squalida S, SI C

Mercenaria campechensis Mp, S C,P

Peryglypta multicostata S, SI P

Polimesoda carolineana C,P

Rangia cuneata Md,Cl C

R. flexuosa P

Tivela iJyronensis S, Sl P

T. stultornm S, I-SI, Ow C

Trachycardium sp. S, SI P

Ventricolaria isocardia S, SI P

Cockles

Anadara grandis S, SI I

A. multicostata S, SI I

A. tuberculosa M,Md,I C

Percent of

production

20

60

40

80

60

40

lao

100

Price

$2/kg

$4/kg

$2/kg

1¢/each

l¢/each

$4/kg

$2/kg

10¢/each

l¢/each

I¢/each

1M/each

llJ!1'/each

$2/kg

l¢/each

$2/kg

$2/kg

$2/kg

l¢/each

$2/kg

l¢/each

l¢/each

l¢/each

l¢/each

l¢/each

Area of exploitation

Veracruz to Quintana Roo

Baja Calif. to Sonora

Tamaulipas to Yucatan

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Sonora

Veracruz to Quintana Roo

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Tamaulipas to Yucatan

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Tamaulipas to Campeche

Tamaulipas to Campeche

Tamaulipas to Campeche

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. and Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Chiapas

1 Habitat: substratum: S=sand, Md=mud, Mp=macrophyt, M=mangrove; level: I=intenidal, SI= sublitoral; location: CI=coastal lagoons,

Pw=protected waters, Ow=open waters.

2 Exploitation: C=commercial, O=overexploited, P=potential, I=incidental.
use scuba and hookah. To locate the clams, the divers

use a hand tool which they punch into the bottom. This

forces nearby clams to issue ajet ofwater and sand. The

divers see the jets and dig out the clams, then put them

in net bags. When the bag is filled, the lineman hauls it

to the surface with a line. In contrast to diving for

abalone, clam divers use fins and are not heavily

weighted (Fig. 11).

Landings and value of clams and cockles have been

growing. From 1979 to 1981 fishermen landed about

8,000 t annually, but by 1988 they landed about 22,000

t. Annual landings fluctuate as beds become overfished.

Mussel Fishery

Fishermen harvest mussels on the Pacific and Atlantic

coasts, but statistics are collected only on the Pacific

coast (Table 6). On the Atlan tic coast, they are inFigure 11

Scuba diver probing for clams. Photograph by Erik

Baqueiro C.

Baquiero C.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 9

cluded with clams in the few areas where they are

harvested.

Production on the Pacific coast is from Baja California and Baja California Sur where blue mussels, Mytilus

edulis, and California mussels, M. californianus, grow.

Fishermen also harvest a small quantity of Mytella strigata

from coastal lagoons in the state ofGuerrero (Table 6).

From 1979 to 1988, mussel production fluctuated widely

from about 850 tin 1981 to 190 tin 1984, while their

value has been increasing from about $2,000 in 1985 to

nearly $50,000 in 1988. Most mussels from the Baja

California States are shipped fresh to the United States,

and a small portion is also canned locally. Those from

Guerrero and the Atlantic coast are eaten locally and

some are occasionally shipped to Mexico City.

Scallop and Pen Shell Fisheries _

All mollusks harvested only for their adductor muscle

are considered as scallops (Table 7). At one time, pen

shells, Pinna sp. and Atrina sp., from the Pacific coast

were the only species of the group. But as they became

scarce and U.S. demand for scallops increased, all species with a large detachable muscle have been sold as

"Callo de almeja."

In recent years, the mother of pearl oyster, Pinctada

mazatlanica, and the western wing oyster, Ptena sterna,

have been harvested for their muscles, even though

they have been under protection for over 20 years. The

pen shells Pinna rugosa and Atrina rigida are still harvested along the coasts of the Pacific and Gulf of California. ext in importance to pen shells are the rock

scallops Spondillus calcifer and S. princeps and, finally,

Pecten bogdesii and Argopecten circularis. In the Gulf of

California states ofSonora, Sinaloa, and the Californias,

where scallops are in a great demand, additional species have been harvested (Fig. 12, 13, 14). Production

Table 6

Commercial mussels of Mexico.

Species

Choromytlus paliopunctatus

Geukensia demissa

Modiolus capax

Mytella strigata

Mytilus ralifomianus

M. edulis

Habitatl

R,I,Ow

Md,l

R,SI, Ow

Md, I. Cl

R,I-Sl,Ow

R, I-SI, Pw

Exploitation2

P

P

P

C

C

C

Percent of

production

100

80

20

Price

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$2/kg

$2/kg

Area of exploitation

Sonora to Chiapas

Camp. and Yucatan

Sonora to Chiapas

Sonora to Chiapas

Baja Calif.

Baja Calif.

1 Habitat: substratum: Md=mud, R=rock; level: I=intertidal, SI= sublitoral; location: Cl=coastallagoons, Ow=open waters.

2 Exploitation: C=commercial, P=potential.
10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 7

Commercial pen shell and scallops of Mexico.

Species Habitatl Exploitation2

Pen shell

Atrina rigida S,SI,Ow C

A. maura S,Sl,Ow C,O

Pinna rugosa S,SI, Ow C,O

Scallops

Argopeeten circularis Md, Mp,l-SI C

Lyropeeten subnudosus S, SI, Ow I

Pecten vogdesi S,S\, Ow C,O

Spondylus calcijer R,SI,Ow 0

S. princeps R,SI,Ow 0

Pearl oysters

Pinetada mazatlanica R,SI,Ow Pr

Pteria sterna R,SI,Ow Pr

Percent of

production

50

50

100

80

20

Price

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

$4/kg

Area of exploitation

Campeche and Yucatan

Baja Calif. to Sinaloa

Baja Calif. to Sinaloa

Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. Sur

Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

Baja Calif. to Oaxaca

I Habitat: substratum: S=sand, Md=mud, R=rock, Mp=macrophyt; level: l=intertidal, SI= sublitoral; location: Ow=open waters.

2 Exploitation: C=commercial, O=overexploited, l=incidental, Pr=protected.

Figure 12

Lifeline man unloading a bag of scallops. Photograph

by Erik Baqueiro C.

increased from only about 1 t in 1981 to nearly 2,000 t

in 1986, then was about 500 tin 1987, and 900 t in 1988.

Aquaculture Development and Prospects

Bivalve culture in Mexico dates from the beginning of

this century when the pearl oyster, Pinctada mazatlanica,

was cultured at Baja California Sur from 1904 to 1919

(Baqueiro and Castagna, 1988). Oyster larvae were collected from the plankton, and juveniles were placed on

the bottom for growth and natural pearl formation.

The oysters were grown for their nacre and pearls,

while the meat was eaten by the workers and their families.

Since the begining of this century, fishermen have harvested pearl oysters by diving in shallow water (Fig. 15).

In the 1970's, the Federal government created an office

of aquaculture. Except for some previous efforts to develop oyster culture, this marked the first time that attention was paid to resources with aquaculture potential.

A laboratory was constructed at La Paz, Baja California Sur, to develop bivalve culture methods, and another laboratory was built for producing spat of the

Pacific bay scallop, Argopecten circularis. In 1985 a laboratory in Kino Bay, Sonora, spawned and grew larvae of

the pen shell, Pinna rugosa, using the methods of Felix

et al. (1978) and Arizpe and Felix (1980). Using the

methods ofLoosanoff and Davis (1963), workers condition adult bivalves for spawning and rearing their larvae. They grow the juveniles in fenced pens.

Oyster Fishery _

Mexico now has six oyster species of commercial importance (Table 8). Crassostrea palmula, C. corteziensis, and

C. iridescens are native to the Pacific coast, and the

mangrove oyster, C. rhizophorae, and the eastern oyster,

C. virginica, are native to the Atlantic coast. The sixth

species, the Pacific oyster, C. gigas, has been introduced

to the north Pacific states for culture. C. iridescens grows

on rocky coasts exposed to heavy wave action, C.

corteziensis grows on mangrove roots and other hard

surfaces in coastal lagoons with freshwater runoff, and

C. palmula grows on exposed intertidal rocks and man-
Baquiero C.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 11

Figure 13

Workers shucking scallops. Photograph by Erik Baqueiro C.

Metric tons

BC BCS SON SIN NAY JAL COL MIC GUEOAX CHI TAM VER TAB CAMYUC QR

Present Status of the Fishery

Figure 14

Mean annual scallop and pen shell landings in coastal

states of Mexico.

ccc- cnn" n

150

100

o

50

250

200

300

harvest them by hand (Fig. 16) or with tongs, from

small boats powered with outboard motors. They can

use large open boats to take the catch to port (Fig. 17).

Fishermen harvest oysters in every coastal state, but

most are produced by Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco,

and Campeche-the four states bordering the Gulf of

Fishery History

Mexicans have eaten oysters since prehispanic times.

Middens of oyster shells are present in many places

along the Pacific coast from Baja California to Chiapas,

but are scarce along the Atlantic coast from Tamaulipas

to Campeche (Sheng and Gifford, 1952; Lorenzo, 1955;

Fieldman, 1969; Foster 1975; Reigadas, et aI., 1984).

They are also common in inland middens. Considered

a food for kings, they were brough t fresh to Moctezuma

at Tenochtitlan (Del Campo, 1984).

Oyster fishery data comprise the oldest fishery records

in Mexico. From 1940 to 1953, national annual production averaged 7,277 t, of which 23% were sold as raw

shucked meat. From 1952 to 1963, national production

averaged over 15,000 t (Ramirez and Sevilla, 1965). From

1979 to 1988, production ranged from 37,000 t to 58,000 t,

while value ranged from $0.5 million to about $11 million.

Fishing methods have not changed since early times.

Fishermen gather them at low tide using a sharp tool.

Where the oysters lie in subtidal beds, the fishermen

groves that have little influence from freshwater. The

eastern oyster inhabits mesohaline waters and grows

mainly on shells and other hard objects in coastal lagoons and intertidal canals. It forms beds where there

is little siltation. The mangrove oyster grows on mangrove roots in high salinity zones on the coast of the

Yucatan peninsula.
12 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Mexico (Fig. 18). Oysters were one of five mollusks

reserved for cooperative fishermen until 1992, when

the government passed the new fishery law. Of the

88,015 fishing cooperatives in Mexico, 561 had permits

to gather them.

Management

The only management regulations for oysters involve

two species. Fishermen cannot harvest eastern oysters

from May 15 to July 30, or C. iridescens, from July 15 to

!\Jovember 15. The minimum length for both is 8 em.

Other species are managed locally, but this has resulted

in mismanagement and depletion of stocks.

Aquaculture Prospects

On the Pacific coast, hatchery culture prevails. Four

laboratories produce spat of Pacific oysters for commercial culture. Though their combined production

Figure 15

Divers harvesting mother of pearl oysters. Photograph by Gaston Bives.

Table 8

Commer:ial oysters of Mexico.

Species Habitatl Exploitation 2

Crassos/rea corteziensis M,I,CI C

C. gigas I, CI C

C. iridescens R, I-SI. Ow C

C. palmula R, M, I, Ow I

C. rhizophorae M, I, Pw I

C. virginica R, Sh, T, CI C

Os/rea Jisheri R, I-SI, Ow C

Percent of

production

100

100

80

20

Price

$l/bushel

IO¢/each

$I/bushel

$l/bushel

$I/bushel

$l/bushel

$I/bushel

Area of exploitation

Sonora to Chiapas

Baja Calif. to Sinaloa

Baja Calif. Sur to Oaxaca

Sonora to Chiapas

Campeche to Quintana Roo

Tamaulipas to Campeche

Baja Calif. Sur to Oaxaca

1 Habitat: substratum: R=rock, M~mangrove, Sh = shell; level: I=intertidal, SI= sublitoral; location: Cl=coastal lagoons, Pw=protected

waters, Ow=open waters.

2 Exploitation: C=commercial, T=incidental.
has reached 42.5 million spat per year, many cooperatives have to import spat from U.S. hatcheries. Cultchless

Pacific oysters are grown on rafts and long lines from

Baja California to Sinaloa. Culture of this oyster has

also been introduced in Guerrero and further south.

Baquiero c.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 13

Another hatchery, in the town of San BIas, Nayarit,

produces C. carteziensis spat to compliment natural sets

(Alanis, 1982). C. carteziensis is grown in trays or on the

bottom in States from Colima to Chiapas. The seed comes

from hatcheries or is collected naturally on oyster shells.

Figure 16

Fisherman gathering oysters from a subtidal bank. Photograph by Erik Baqueiro C.

Figure 17

Boatload of oysters on its way to a landing port. Photograph by Erik Baqueiro C.
14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Metric tons (thousands) Dollars (millions)

25 1.7~

1.50

20

1.25

15 1.00

10 0.75

0.50

5

r 0.25

0 rft r1n 0.00

Be BeSSON SIN NAY JAL COL MIC GUEQAX CHI TAM VEA TAB CAMYUC QR

DVOLUME VALUE

20

15

10

5

o

Dollars (millions)

_ABALONE OTHERS 0 SHELLS _ CLAMS

Figure 18

Mean annual oyster landings in coastal states of Mexico.

Figure 20

Value of mollusk exports in Mexico, 1979-88.

10

100

0.01

1000

0.1

Dollars (millions)

I r Jl

Metric tons (thousands)

0.2

1.0

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0 0.001

Be BCSSON$IN NAY JALCOLMICGUEOAX CHI TAMVERTABCAMYUC OR 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

10,----------------------,

4

6

Metric tons (thousands)

8

_ABALONE OTHERS 0 SHELLS _ CLAMS _ VOLUME 0 VALUE

Figure 19

Volume of mollusk exports in Mexico, 1979-88. Figure 21

Mean annual shell landings in coastal states of Mexico.

Oyster culture in Atlantic coast lagoons began in the

late 1950's and early 1960's, when beds were enhanced

by spreading shells as cultch for oyster larvae. Such

enhancement is responsible for about 10% of oyster

production from Tamaulipas and Campeche, 20% from

Veracruz, and 90% from Tabasco (Polanco et a\., 1988;

Garcia and Mendoza, 1988). In addition, some intensive culture was begun using the Japanese method of

string culture. This method was abandoned in the late

1960's, but was recently begun again with success.

Shells

Shells are an important part of mollusk fisheries. The

main shell producers are Baja California and Baja California Sur (Fig. 19). Annual landings in Mexico average about 100,000 t valued at $100,000. They contribute substantially to the export trade (Fig. 20, 21).

Squid and Octopus Fisheries

Fishermen catch squid in all coastal states, but there is

an established fishery only in the north Pacific states

(Table 9). At Baja California, Sonora, and Sinaloa, a

fleet of multipurpose ships, equipped with electric

blocks, employ lines and jiggers and light attractors to

catch squid at night. In all other states, squid are an

incidental catch of shrimp trawlers. Catches from the

Pacific coast consist of the giant squid, "Dosidiscus gigas," which has cyclic fluctuations of abundance. Production from the Atlantic coast consists mainly of Loligo

paelei (Fig. 22).
Baquiero C.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 15

40

50

10

20

30

60

o

Dollars (thousands)

"

,.., h h h h n

Metric Metric tons (thousands) tons (thousands) Dollars (thousands)

5 225 14

200 12

4 175

10

150

3 8 125

100 6

75

4

50

25

0 0 0 Be BCS SON SIN NAY JAL COL MIC GUEOAX CHI TAM VER TAB CAMYUC OR 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

D VOLUME _ VALUE _ Volume D Value

Figure 22

Mean annual squid landings in coastal states of Mexico.

Figure 23

Annual octopus landings in Mexico, 1979-89.

Table 9

Commercial octopus and squid of Mexico.

Percent of

Species Habitatl Exploitation2 production Price Area of exploitation

Octopus

Octopus mmaculatus R, SI C,l 80 $2/kg Baja Calif. to Chiapas

O. digueti R,SI C,I 20 $2/kg Baja Calif. to Chiapas

O. maya R,SI,Ow C 90 $2/kg Tamaulipas to Yucatan

O. vulgaris and Pw C 10 $2/kg Tamaulipas to Yucatan

Squids

Dosidiscus gigas Ow C $3/kg Baja Calif. to Chiapas

Loligo pealei Pelagic C,I $3/kg Tamaulipas to Yucatan

I Habitat: substratum: R;rock; level: SI; sublitoral; location: Pw;protected waters, Ow;open waters.

2 Exploitation: C;commercial, l;incidental.

The octopus fishery is well developed only in

Campeche and Yucatan, with a minimum contribution

from the Pacific coast states. Octopus vulgaris is the main

species landed from Tamaulipas to Tabasco, while Octopus maya is the main species from Campeche and

Yucatan. Though production has been stable, averaging about 6,000 t annually (Fig. 23), prices have risen

sharply since 1984.

In most states, fishermen capture octopi by diving or

by using a hook during low tides. But in Yucatan and

Campeche, where intensive fisheries exist, diving and

use of hooks are prohibited. The catches there are

made from outboard motor boats that drift while trawling six to eight baited lines. The bait is half a crab or a

live crab. When the octopus attaches to the crab, the

fisherman pulls it aboard.

Fishery History Uses of Mollusks

The earliest record of octopus catches dates from only

1949, when fishermen landed 50 tons. In 1960 they

landed 307 t, and by 1969, 2,038 t. Landings declined

sharply, however, in 1970 to 1,108 t.

In Mexico, clams and cockles are usually eaten raw on

the half-shell, or in cocktails or salads. Sometimes the

red clams, M. aurantiaca; and the black clam, M. squalida,

are shucked, chopped, prepared with other ingredi-
16 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

ents, and broiled in their shells. The Atlantic rangia,

cross-barred Venus, and other small clams are used for

soups and cooked dishes with rice or spaghetti.

Oysters are eaten in cocktails or on the half-shell. In

addition, a tiny quantity (0. I% of landings) is smoked

and canned in Tamaulipas and Tabasco.

Shells for export are mainly the mother of pearl or

nacre for cosmetics, clam shell for buttons, and abalone shell for jewelry. In Mexico, shells are used as

poultry feed, building material, handcrafts, jewelry, and

souvenirs (Fig. 24, 25).

Figure 24

Handcrafts made from mollusk shells. Photograph by Erik Baqueiro C.

Figure 25

Jewelry made from mollusk shells. Photograph by Erik Baqueiro C.
Literature Cited

Ancona, H., and R. M. Del Campo.

1953. Malacologia precortesiana. Mem. I Congo Sci. Mex.

VB. p. 9-24.

Arizpe, 0., and R. Felix.

1980. Resultados preliminares en el cultivo de Pinna rugusa

en bahfa de La Paz, B.C.S. Mex. III. Simp. Latinoamericano

de Acuacultura, Cartagena, Colombia, 7 p.

Alanis, P. M.

1982. Datos preliminares sobre el cultivo de ostion Crassostrca

corteziensis Hertlein, 1951 en el area norte de Sinaloa. Mex

mediante la introducci6n de colectores en sartas. Tesis Fac.

Sci. Oniv. Natl. Auton. Mex, 147 p.

Baqueiro C., E.

1979. Sobre la distribucion de Megapitaria aurantiara

(Sowerby), M. squalida (Sow.) y Dosinia ponderosa (Gray) en

relaci6n a la granulometrfa del sedimento (Bivalvia:

Veneridae): Nota cientffica. An. Centro Cienc. del Mar

Limnol. Oniv. Natl. Auton. Mex, 6(1):25-32.

1991. Aquaculture facilities for the queen conch Strombus

gigas, in Mexico. Strombus gigas Workshop, First Latin-American Malacology Congress, Caracas, Venezuela.

Baqueiro C., E., and M. Castagna.

1988. Fishery and culture ofselected bivalves in Mexico: past.

present and future.]. Shellf. Res. 7:433-443.

Baqueiro C., E.,]. Masso R, and A. Velez B.

1980. Biologfa y Reproducci6n del caracol panocha "Astrea

(Megastrea) turbanica" en San Roque, Baja California Sur.

Second Int. Symp. on Mar. BioI., La Paz, B.C.S.

Baqueiro C., E., M. Medina, and H. Ramirez.

In press. Conch fishery of Campeche. Fish. Res.

De la Torre, R.

1984. Pesquerfa de caracoles en el estado de Quintana Roo.

Inst. Natl. Pesca, Mex. Ser. Div. 5:25.

Del Campo, R. M.

1984. Etnomalacologfa Mexicana antigua. Mem. I Reun. Natl.

Malacol. Conquiliol. O.A.B.C.S.R, p. 10-39.

Felix, P. E., R Morales, M. Cota,]. Singh, and]. Verdugo.

1978. Cultivo piloto de la almeja catarina Argopectrm circularis en

la ensenada de la Paz, B.C.S. Mex. Mem. 2nd Simp. Latinoamericano de acuacultura, Sria. de Pesca, Mex 1:823-844.

Fieldman, L.H.

1969. Panamic sites and archaeological mollusks of lower

California. Veliger 122:107-168.

Foster,]. W.

1975. Shell middens, paleoecology and prehistory, the case

from estero Morua, Sonora, Mex. The Kiva 415:182-194.

Baquiero C.: The Molluscan Fisheries of Mexico 17

Garcia, S. S., and A. O. Mendoza.

1988. Maricultivo: Algunos aspectos de la ostricultura en

Mexico. In Inst. Natl. Pesca (ed.), Los Recursos Pesqueros

del Pais, p. 379-390. Sec. Pesca, Mex.

Gusman, D. S.

1989. Biologfa reproductiva de Astrea undosa Wood, 1828

(Gasteropoda: Turbinidae). X Congo Natl. ZooI. Oniv. Natl.

Auton., Mex. (abstr.).

Lorenzo,]. L.

1955. Los concheros de la costa de Chiapas. Ann. Inst. Natl.

Antropol. e Hist. Mex. VII:40-52.

Loosanoff, V. L., and H. C. Davis.

1963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks, In F. S. Russell (ed.), Advances in marine biology, 1:1-136, Acad. Press, London.

Luna, P,E.

1986. Los moluscos y la arqueoJogfa. Mem. II. Meet. Natl.

Malacol. Conquiliol. Fac. Cci. LT.N.A.M., p. 208-218.

Ortiz Q., M., and G. Leon C.

1988. Recursos pesqueros de Mexico y sus perspectivas,

recurso abul6n Haliotis sp. In Inst. Natl. Pesca (ed.), Los

Recursos Pesqueros del Pais, p. 11-74. Sec. Pesca, Mex.

Palleiro N.,]., M. Navarrete G" A. Lelevier G., and]. Romero M.

1988. Biologia del erizo rojo, S. jranciscanus y su pesqueria en

Baja California. In Inst. atl. Pesca (ed.), Los Recursos

Pesqueros del Pais, p. 53-74. Sec. Pesca, Mex.

Polanco E.,]., R. Mimbela S., L. Belendez M., M. Angel F.,

and A. Reynoso A.

198~. Situaci6n actual de las principales pesquerias Mexicanas.

Sec. Pesca, Mex., p. 169-300,415-426.

Quijano F.,].

1988. EI recurso caracolero en el Caribe Mexicano. In Inst.

Natl. Pesca (ed.), Los Recursos Pesqueros del Pais, p. 497-

512, Sec. Pesca, Mex.

Ramirez G., R., and M. L. Sevilla.

1965. Las Ostras de Mexico. Rev. Invest. BioI. Pesq. Mex. 7,

102 p.

Reigadas D., F., G. Vazquez, E. Amador, and R. S. Mendoza.

1984, Especies de moluscos en concheros de la region del

Cabo, Baja California Sur. CIBCASIO Reun. An. (abstr.).

Sheng, W. E., and E. W. Gifford.

1952. Archaeological sites on opposite shores of the Gulf of

California. Ann. Antiquiti, p. 172-265.

Suarez D., L.

1977. Tipologia de los objetos prehispanicos de concha. Inst.

Natl. Antropol. Hist., S.E.P. Mex. Col. Sci. 54, 299 p.

1988. La distribuci6n de los objetos de concha en eI occidente

y norte de Mexico y en el sur de Arizona. Inst. Natl. Antropol.

Hist., S.E.P. Mex. Col. Sci. 72:111-241.

Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua

CLYDE L. MAcKENZIE,jR.

James]. Howard Laboratory

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Highlands, NewJersey 07732

ADOLFO LOPEZ

Malacological Center

UCA University

P.O. Box A-90

Managua, Nicaragua

ABSTRACT

Mollusks are harvested on both coasts of Nicaragua. On the Atlantic coast, the species

harvested are marshclams, Polymesoda sp.; coquina clams, Donax denticulata and D. striata;

Caribbean oysters, Crassostrea rhizophorae; and some gastropods. Market demand is weak and

most mollusks are eaten by the harvesters and their families. On the Pacific coast, the black

ark clam, Anadara tuberulosa, is the most important mollusk harvested, and it is sold whole

and in cocktails in nearly every town and city in the west. Other species include beanclams,

D. dentifer; chitons, Chiton stokesi; and conchs, Strombus galeatus. On both coasts, nearly all

harvesting is by hand; no rakes or dredges are used. The primary vessel used is the dugout

canoe, which is propelled by paddles, sail, or outboard motor.

Introduction

Nicaragua lies at about the mid-way point of Central

America (Fig. 1), with Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Belize to the north, and Costa Rica and

Panama to the south. It is the poorest of these underdeveloped countries, with an annual per capita income of

$425 (Anonymous, 1995). The eastern half of Nicaragua has about 10% of the country's population of 4

million people (Anonymous, 1995); the western half

has the rest. Mollusks are harvested on both the Atlantic (Caribbean Sea) and Pacific coasts. On the Atlantic

coast, subsistence fishing predominates, while on the

Pacific coast, commercial sales are more extensive.

The presence of shell middens on the Atlantic coast

suggests that mollusks have been harvested for a great

many years. Among them are marshclams, Polymesoda

sp.; coquina clams, Donax denticulata and D. striata; Caribbean oysters, Crassostrea rhizophorael; and the gastropods Strombus gigas, Melongena corona, and M. melongena.

Species harvested on the Pacific coast include black

ark clams, Anadara tuberculosa; beanclams, D. dentifer;

chitons, Chiton stokesi; and giant eastern Pacific conchs,

S. galeatus. Black ark clams are by far the most important,

since they are sold in central markets and along streets,

and black clam cocktails are sold in most restaurants and

many food stands in the western part of the country.

Nearly all mollusks are harvested by hand; no rakes

or dredges are used. The most common type of boat

used is the dugout canoe, which averages about 4.5 m

long. Scuba divers harvest most of the gastropods on

both coasts. No species now are cultivated, though oyster farming was tried without success. Mollusks are rarely

exported, owing to low production, uncertified beds,

and a lack of production and transportation facilities.

Nothing heretofore has been published about

Nicaragua's mollusk fisheries, and no government sta-

) This species may actually be Crassostrea virginica. Its classification

remains unsettled.

19
20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

o 86 84"

12C

A

T

L

A

N

T

I

C

o

C

E

A

N

o

Corn Island

Puerto Cabezas

\.'

Laguna de Krukira

Laguna de Perlas

Laguna de Wounda

Costa Rica

Honduras

o 25 50 Km J ! I I I

o 25 50 Miles

EI Salvador

88 o 86 84

Figure I

Mollusk fisheries are active on the Atlantic (Caribbean Sea) and Pacific coasts of icaragua.

tistics on total annual mollusk landings have ever been

collected. In addition, no previous formal surveys of

the mollusk fisheries were made, little biological study

has been made of any mollusks, and local people have

little knowledge of fishing practices elsewhere.

Habitats _

The Atlantic coastline, about 460 km long, is indented

with six shallow, muddy estuaries, the largest of which

are Laguna de Perlas and Bahia de Bluefields. The

coast is otherwise fairly straight and smooth. Many rivers flow eastward across Nicaragua's broad eastern lowlands, termed the Costa de Miskitos, into the estuaries

and ocean. The tidal range is 0.75 to 0.9 m. Mangroves,

Rhizophora sp., are present in the estuaries, but are

much less extensive than in the smaller Pacific coast

estuaries and mixed with other large plants. The estuaries contain large quantities of marshclams (30-40 mm

long). In the surf zone along the Atlantic coast, coquina clams, D. denticulata (25 mm long) and D. striata

(25-40 mm long), are abundant. Oysters are abundant

only in Bahia de Bluefields.

The Pacific coast, about 300 km long, is straight and

mostly smooth, and similar in appearance to the Atlantic

coast. Several small muddy estuaries, mostly lined with

mangrove swamps (Fig. 2), indent the northern coast.

The tidal range is from 1.8 to 3.4 m. Black ark clams occur

only in the mangrove swamps and are found in mud

bottoms among roots and under the leaf cover of the

trees. The clams grow to a length of about 65 mm. Loud

pops can be heard every minute or so in the swamps,

which probably are the sounds ofsnapping shrimp.
______________________ MacKenzie & Lopez: Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua 21

Figure 2

The edge ofa mangrove swamp in Estero Padre Ramos, with dugout canoe tied to

a tree: black ark clams are present in the mud. The canoe was used by three

harvesters. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Beanclams occur near the sediment surface in sandy,

intertidal, sheltered zones of the same estuaries inhabited by black ark clams, and they grow to a length of

about 38 mm.

No mollusk harvesting takes place along the Pacific

coast from Puerto Sandino to San Juan del Sur. Sheltered by land on three sides, but exposed on the east,

the port of San Juan del Sur is bounded by rocks and

rock cliffs along both sides of its wide entrance. It has a

gradually sloping sand beach about a kilometer long on

its west side, with restaurants lining it. The port has one

large dock on its south side, just beyond the beach.

Chitons are present on the large rocks and rock faces at

the base of the steep cliffs that line the entrance to the

port. Chitons range to at least 130 mm long. They

usually occupy shady areas under ledges during the

day, crawling around at night to feed. At night, during

low tides, many are exposed in the intertidal zone.

Giant eastern Pacific conchs are found on ocean bottoms beyond the port and in the Gulfo de Fonseca to

the north.

Shell Middens

Shell middens left by ancient peoples are present on

the Atlantic coast. The senior author examined two of

them at Punta de Masaya on the west shore of Bahia de

Bluefields, about 2 km south of the city of Bluefields

and about 50 m inland from shore. Each is roughly an

acre in area and about 25 cm deep. Their shells consist

of marshclams, with some brown crown conchs, M.

melongena, scattered among them. In 2 hours of digging, a crew of three local men found one clay artifact

of early origin. They said that other middens in the

vicinity have many clay artifacts of native origin, but of

unknown age. Various other middens along the coast

contain shells of oysters, cockles, coquinas, and gastropods (Ramirez Arth urs2).

Atlantic Coast Fisheries _

Clams, oysters, and gastropods are harvested year-round.

The government sets no harvest regulations, nor does it

provide sanitary controls over marketing, or require a

harvesting or marketing license.

Bivalves

Marshclams-Marshc1ams (called "cockles" locally) are

harvested in all but one estuary along the coast, inc1ud2 Ramirez Arthurs, S. 1995. Fisherman advisor, Bluefields. Personal

commun.
22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

ing Laguna Bismuna, Laguna Pahara, Laguna de

Wounda, Laguna de Perlas, and Bahia de Bluefields.

The exception is Laguna de Krukira. It contains

marshclams, but is polluted, so no one can safely eat

them (Ramirez Arthurs2). Marshclams usually arc abundant, more so in sand than in mud bottoms, and most:

are 20-50 mm under the surface (Burga3). They also

are common in oyster beds (McCrae4 ).

Native Nicaraguans, from Laguna Bismuna to Laguna de Perlas, regularly harvest marshclams. Families

eat the clams as often as 15 days a month year-round

(Ramirez Arthurs2; Rigby5). The harvesters. mostly

women and children, paddle or sail in dugout canoes

to the clam beds, which are 60-90 cm deep at low tide.

Stepping out onto the bottom, they simply feel for the

clams with their fingers and put them in buckets or

sacks. Each typically harvests about four 4-gallon buckets of marshclams in 3 hours (Wilson Hudson6). In

contrast, individuals harvest them only once every 1-2

weeks in Bahia de Bluefields where they eat oysters

daily instead (Wilson Hudson6).

To prepare marshclams for the table, housewives first

boil them in a small amount ofwater until the meats fall

out to be collected for use in various recipes. They

sometimes are placed in a bowl of water before being

boiled, so they will pump out the sand from their mantle

cavities (Rigby5). When sold for human consumption,

the clam meats are cooked and placed in plastic bags

that hold a little more than a pint. But the market for

them is limited and sales are minute (Ramirez Arthurs2;

Rigby5). The clams also are used as fish bait (VogeJ7).

Coquina Clams-Along nearly the entire Atlantic coast,

people in small, scattered villages harvest coquina clams

(called "ahis" and "coquinas" locally). Most often women

and children, but sometimes men, wade into 30-60 em

of water in the gen tle surf zone at low tide and harvest

them with shovels (Ramirez Arthurs2); or, if only a

small quantity is needed, they simply stir the sand with

their hands and gather them (Howard8). They use shovels to scoop the sand and clams into mesh sacks or

mesh baskets, then rinse them to flush out the sand. A

good catch with a shovel is 3-5 sacks of coquinas in 30

minutes of harvesting. The best harvests are made after

an easterly storm (Ramirez Arthurs2).

3 Burga, E. 1995. Fisherman-farmer. Masaya Point, Bahia de

Bluefields. Personal commun.

4 McCrae, R. 1995. Rama Key, Bahia de Bluefields. Personal commun.

5 Rigby, R. 1995. Biologist, Haulover, Pearl Lagoon. Personal

commun.

6 Wilson Hudson. D. 1995. Boat repairman. Bluefields. Personal

commun.

7 Vogel,]. 1995. President. Oceanic, Oceanus De Nicaragua, S.A.,

Repano Sanjuan, Managua. Personal commun.

8 Howard,]. 1995. Pearl Lagoon. Personal commun.

Fishermen take the coquinas home, usually to boil

whole with vegetables in a pot. The meats rise, while the

shells and any sand remain at the bottom of the pot,

and the liquid, clam meats, and vegetables are dipped

off to be eaten. Cooks often dump the shells and sand

out the windows of their homes (Petuch9). A typical

family eats coquinas about 10 days a month (Ramirez

Arthurs2) •

Oysters-Oystering is concentrated in Bahia de

Bluefields. Oysters also occur in estuaries to the north,

such as Laguna Bismuna, Laguna de Pahara, and Laguna de Perlas, but are scarcer in these locations and

are not harvested to any extent (Ramirez Arthurs2). In

Bahia de Bluefields, oysters have been harvested from

several beds for a great many years, shells have never

been returned, and yet supplies have remained adequate. Natural setting and growth of oysters so far

appears to at least equal the harvesting losses.

No one has studied the oysters, but Elick Burga3, a

local fisherman-farmer, believes stingrays (family

Dasyatidae) eat some, but that boring gastropods do

not. The harvested oysters are 50-75 mm long and are

in clumps; barnacles, undersized oysters, and a few

ribbed mussels are attached to them. Oysters also occur

on hard surfaces along shorelines of the bay.

Oysters are harvested in beds 60-90 cm deep at low

tide. The principal harvesters are native Nicaraguans,

mostly women and teenage girls, from Rama Key (Fig.

3). They travel to the oyster beds, about 2 km from

Rama Key and 8 km south of Bluefields, in dugout

canoes (1-3 people in each). The canoes are paddled

or sailed, the sails consisting of a sheet of cloth or black

plastic. Wearing rubber boots, commonly about 30 cm

high, or rubber sandals, the harvesters stand in the

beds and pick up the oysters with one hand, while

holding onto their canoes with the other. Some wear

gloves, while others go bare-handed. In anyone day,

10-15 canoes with 23-35 people are harvesting oysters

(Fig. 4). Each person gets 2-3 bushels of oysters in

typically 3 hours of harvesting. The total daily harvest

from the bay is about 70-75 bushels. While the females

are harvesting mollusks to eat at home, the adult males

go after fish, shrimp, turtles, lobsters, and gastropods to

sell.

The harvesters return home with their oysters, put

them on the kitchen floor, and, with the help of other

female family members, shuck a sufficient quantity of

meats to last a day or two (Fig. 5), leaving the rest for

later use. Women also cook the oysters (Fig. 6) and toss

the shells onto large piles near their homes (Fig. 7).

Oysters, eaten every day, are the main source of animal

9 Petuch, E. 1995. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Personal commun.
_______________________ MacKenzie & Lopez: Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua 23

Figure 3

Some homes of native icaraguans on Rama Key, where people are dependent on

oyster harvests for daily food. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Figure 4

Group of Rama Key dugout canoes with people harvesting oysters on a bed in

Bahia de B1uefieIds. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,Jr.

protein here. They are considered a good food and do

not cost anything, as is true for marshcIams and coquinas wherever they are harvested (Ramirez Arthurs2).

Some oyster meats are sold, but the market is very

small. The meats are put in plastic bags or plastic bottles,

both ofwhich hold a little more than a pint, or in gallon
24 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 5

A native woman shucks oysters in her home on Rama Key. Photograph

by C. L. MacKenzie.jr.

Figure 6

A native woman shows her preparation of oyster soup.

Ingredients include oysters, flour, onions, coconut milk, water, and black pepper. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,jr.

plastic bottles. The containers of meats

are then put in buckets and, with no delay, are taken by canoe to Bluefields, which

has a population of about 50,000 (Atily

C. 1O). Each family's children peddle the

un iced oysters to hotels, door-to-door

along the streets of Bluefields, and at the

local airport to passengers from Managua,

the capital (Fig. 8) (Chang11 ). The oysters sell for US$0.65/bag and US$6.45/

gallon. Oyster sales are highest in November and December (McCrae4), but

otherwise are slow. Meats not sold are

discarded before they spoil. Oysters are

never sold in the shell.

At least one man in Bluefields goes

oystering on Sundays. He puts his harvests of 2-3 bushels of oysters under his

house and opens them on orders. He

usually sells 1.0-1.5 gallons ofoyster meats

a week and spreads the shells to fill low

marshy areas near his house.

Many locals believe the bay water and

oysters ncar Bluefields are contaminated, because untreated sewage is discharged into the bay (BricenoI2 ).

No studies of water quality are available, however, and

no established sanitary controls are practiced when

oysters are opened in fishermen's homes.

AJapanese national once attempted to develop oyster culture in the Laguna de Perlas, but a freshwater

flood killed the oysters and the project was abandoned

(Martinez CascoI3 ).

Gastropods

A gastropod fishery exists along the Atlantic coast ofNicaragua as an adjunct to the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus,

haIVest by scuba divers. The gastropods are gathered in

quantity with the lobsters only when a market exists for

them. The harvesting proceeds along most of the coast

from near shore to a distance of about 65 km offshore.

On any weekday throughout the year, from 800 to

1.000 divers are working. They operate from three types

of boats: 1) industrial boats from 18 to 55 m long, 2)

$ailboats, and 3) artisanal boats. The industrial boats,

which land at the ports of Puerto Cabesa, Corn Island.

10 Atily C., M. A. 19Y5. Delegado De Gobernacion (RAAS) , Bluefields.

Personal commun.

II Chang, R. 1995. University of Maryland Field Station, Laguna de

Xiloa, Managua.

I~ Briceno, M. 1995. Fisherman, G-18, Managua. Personal commun.

13 Martinez Casco, S. 1995. Director, Centro De 1nvestigacion De

Recursos Hidrobiologicos, Managua. Personal commun.
______________________ MacKenzie & Lopez: Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua 25

Figure 7

Piles of oyster shells outside homes on Rama Key. Photograph by C. L.

MacKenzie, j r.

and EI Bluff, can carry as many as 20 dories each. Each

dory carries a diver and a tender. The tender follows

with the dory as the diver harvests. The dories go out

from industrial boats each morning in different directions, and crews harvest all day at depths from 3.5 to 15 m,

the shallowest being near various keys scattered along the

coast, particularly in the north. The industrial boats remain at sea for 12 days at a time. They ice the lobster and

freeze the gastropod catches (Ramirez Arthurs2).

Sail boats (12-14 m long), artisanal boats (dugout

canoes 3.7-9.0 m long), and fiberglass boats about 7.6

m long (called "pongas" locally) leave from various

ports (Ramirez Arthurs2; CassellsI4 ), including Bluefields

(Wilson Hudson6). The pongas sometimes tow 2-3 dugout canoes, each with a diver and tender (Wilson

Hudson6 ), and harvest in the same waters as the industrial boats (Ramirez Arthurs2).

The gastropods harvested include queen conchs, S.

gigas; high-spired crown conchs, M. corona; and brown

crown conchs, M. rnelungena. Conchs (called "weelks"locally)

also are taken around numerous keys at wading depths

(Ramirez Arthurs2). The gastropods are kept mostly for

home use, butsometimes a few are sold locally (Changll).

Pacific Coast Fisheries _

As is true on the Atlantic coast, mollusks are harvested

year-round. The Federal government has only recently

14 Cassells M., R. 1995. Consejo Regional Automonio Atlantico, Sur,

BJuefields. Personal commun.

Figure 8

Children offer bags of oyster meats for sale at the

Bluefields airport. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,jr.
26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

regulated the Pacific coast mollusk fishery. The exceptions are a recent regulation (that is somewhat ignored)

prohibiting fishing for black ark clams from 15 August

to 30 September, to give the clams some time to reproduce and grow (Camacho Bonilla15 ), and a 45 mm

minimum length rule for the clams, passed in 1995.

Bivalves

Black Ark Clams-The most important estuaries for

black ark clams (called "conchas negras" locally) are

Estero Real, Estero Padre Ramos, Bahia de COI'into

(Puerto de Esparta and Puerto el Baruito), and Puerto

Sandino, though the clams also occur in a few smaller

estuaries in this region. The fishermen (called

"concheros" locally) who harvest the clams are usually

males and range in age from 8-year-old boys to the

elderly. On any day, about 30 fishermen harvest the

clams in Estero Real, 60 in Estero Padre Ramos (Fig'. 9),

30 in Bahia de Corinto, 10 in Puerto Sandino, and

perhaps 30 in all the smaller estuaries combined, for a

total of about 160. 16

The fishermen live in tiny villages or isolated homes

along the estuaries. The houses have roofs of thatch or

corrugated, galvanized metal sheets, and walls of thatch or

wood. Roads to the villages are unpaved, and motor vehicles

have difficulty traversing them during rainy periods.

15 Camacho Bonilla, M. G. 1995. Departamento de Fauna Silvestre,

Ecologo R.R.N.N., Managua. Personal commun.

16 Personal communication with various native fishermen.

At low tide, fishermen paddle to the mangrove swamps

in dugout canoes, though some go in 7.6-m fiberglass

boats with 15-25 hp engines. They tie their boats to

mangrove trees, walk into the swamps over the roots in

their bare feet, then bend down and feel with their

fingers for the clams in the mud between the roots (Fig.

10). The clams seem to be most abundant in small

pools ofwater interspersed in pockets over the mud; no

other clam species are harvested in the swamps.16 Fishermen sometimes camp for up to 4 days near good

harvesting sites that are some distance from their homes

(Torrente17).

Catches range from 10 to 40 dozen clams/person/

tide, and fishermen retain them in cloth sacks (Fig. 11).

Most harvested clams range from 45 to 65 mm long.

Some fishermen have ignored the 15 August-30 September closure and continue harvesting, while others

switch temporarily to seining shrimp larvae to sell to

local shrimp farms. 16

When fishermen return home, they usually set aside

a dozen clams for themselves, bag the rest, and then

walk them to a dealer (Fig. 12) or a main market to sell

them. Many harvest clams one day and sell them the

next. In 1995, the fishermen were paid from US$0.26--

0.39/dozen for the clams, the largest clams bringing

the highest prices. 16 An average price of US$0.325/

dozen would bring the fishermen US$8.13 for a day's

harvest of 25 dozen. Trucks deliver the clams to markets in towns and cities.

17 Torrente, L. 1995. Fisherman, Puerto Sandino. Personal commun.

Figure 9

Villagers in jiquilillo, all but the youngest of whom harvest black ark

clams. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,jr.
______________________ MacKenzie & Lopez: Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua 27

The peak demand period for black ark clams is during holidays, especially Easter, but they are eaten yearround. Whole clams are sold in central markets and

along streets, where customers pay US$0.65-0.77/dozen

for them. In restaurants and roadside stands, the clams

are served as black clam cocktails, or "coctel de conchas

negras" (Fig. 13). The clams can be opened by being

held in a person's hand and forcing a knife between the

shells, or using a "mechanical" knife (Fig. 14). Each

clam has a large amount of shell liquor which is dark

brown, nearly black. The orange meat and liquor are

served together with added lime juice as a cocktail in a

cup or on the half-shell. Either 6 or 12 clams comprise a

serving,16 the smaller one selling for about US$1.95. A

hotel restaurant in Managua sells a cocktail with 12

clams and chopped onions for US$4.50.

Beanclams-Fishermen harvest beanclams (called

"Almejas" locally) at low tide by stirring the sand with

Figure 10

A woman harvests black ark clams between the roots of

mangrove trees in Estero Padre Ramos. On the same

day, her husband gill-netted fish. Photograph by C. L.

MacKenzie,Jr.

their hands to bring the clams to the surface, and then

picking them up and putting them in sacks. Fishermen's

families commonly eat all the beanclams harvested.

They usually boil the clams and mix the meats with

scrambled eggs;16 the meats also are consumed with

milk (Montealegre I8 ).

Some beanclams are sold, and they can be found in

several fish markets in Managua. The markets pay dealers US$0.65/pound, and sell them for US$1.30/pound;

a pound has from 20 to 25 whole clams. Markets sometimes cook the clams and sell the meats in a frozen 0.25-

pound package for US$1.56. Managua residents often

eat beanclams in paellas (Martinez CascoI3 ). The demand for beanclams is small, as is the fishery.

Giant Ark Clams-Giant ark clams, A. grandis, often are

found by fishermen in the Gulfo de Fonseca in the

north and off the coast ofSanJuan del Sur in the south.

Called locally "Casco de burro" or, literally, hoof of the

mule, they are as long as 15 em when harvested. Fishermen sell the meats and shells, which are used as ash

trays, separately. 16

Oysters-Small numbers ofoysters occur in places such

as the Gulfo de Fonseca and around Sanjuan del Sur,

but not in sufficient quantity to have much commercial

value. A number of years ago, a second Japanese national attempted to introduce the Pacific oyster,

Crassostreagigas, to the Gulfo de Fonseca, but the planted

oysters did not reproduce and they died (Martinez

CascoI3).

Gastropods

Chitons-From 30 to 50 fishermen in Sanjuan del Sur

go after chitons (called "cucarachas" locally) during

low tides, mostly at night. They walk from their homes

to the harvesting sites, where they use a flashlight to see

the chitons and a knife to pry them off the rocks (Fig.

15). The harvested chitons, which range from 38 to 130

mm long, are retained in small sacks. 16

Upon returning to their homes, the fishermen use

the knife to shuck the meats, putting them in a dish and

discarding the shells. In a night, each fisherman gets

15-20 pounds of meat, whereas in the daytime he gets

much less. A fisherman harvests about 85 pounds of

meat (about 2,000 chitons) a week. Most of the meat is

sold to dealers who take it to towns and cities but

sometimes also to local restaurants for resale. Fishermen are paid US$1.56-$1.95/pound for the meat. 16

18 Montealegre G.. O. 1995. Hotel Consiguina, Chinandega. Personal commun.
28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure II

A woman and her two daughters, taking a break from harvesting black

ark clams in Estero Padre Ramos, hold their clams in a sack. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,jr.

Figure 12

A dealer in jiquilillo counts the black ark clams she has purchased

from harvesters. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,jr.

Giant Eastern Pacific Conchs-In the Gulfo de Fonseca,

lobster fishermen often find giant eastern Pacific conchs

(called "cambuste" locally and pronounced "cambutay")

in their gear. They eat the conchs, which grow to a

length of about 20 em, themselves. Fishermen used to

harvest the conchs by snorkel diving along the south

shore ofthe Gulf and sell them to dealers across the bay

in EI Salvador. The conchs have since become scarcer,

and this practice has been abandoned. 16

Fishermen in Sanjuan del Sur scuba dive for conchs

commercially on grounds as far as 800 m offshore.

Crews of four divers each work from 7.6 m fiberglass
______________________ MacKenzie & Lopez: Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua 29

Figure 13

Ice chests with black ark clam cocktails in a roadside stand. The sign on

the left, "vuelve a la vida," roughly translates to "restore vigor"; the one on

the right advertises clam and shrimp cocktails. A cocktail with six clam

meats sells for 15 cordobas = US$I.93. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Figure 14

Before being opened, black ark clams must be scrubbed of mud. The knife

and block are used to open the clams. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,Jr.

boats propelled by outboard motors. Two of the divers

descend and gather conchs, while the others remain in

the boat. Each crew gets 200-300 conchs every 2 days

working from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Some crews bring in the

conchs whole, while others bring in only the meat so

they will have less volume to handle. 16

Snorkel divers from San Juan del Sur also go after

conchs. A diver can get as many as 30 conchs/day if the

water is clear over a concentration of conchs. Each

snorkel diver gets about 300 pounds of conch meat/

month to sell to restaurants along the coast, where it is

served in cocktails and serviche. 16
30 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Figure 15

A mollusk harvester in San Juan del Sur holds a knife

used to pry chitons from rocks. Other types of common

knives also are used. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Shell Uses

The shells of mollusks harvested for food are used to a

small extent, but most are discarded. Some jewelry is

made in Puerto Cabesa and Bluefields using mollusks,

such as the West Indian topsnail, Citarium pica (Fig. 16)

(Atily C.!O; Gutierrez!9; Ramirez Arthurs2). Elsewhere,

people who harvest variously colored coquina clams

sometimes string the shells for necklaces or paste them

onto paper in various designs, for ornaments (Howard8).

On Corn Island, queen conch shells are used to decorate porches (Changl !; Hooker2o). Marshclam shells

19 Gutierrez. P. P. 1995. Tienda Y Taller de Artesania, Bluefields.

Personal commun.

:<0 Hooker, O. 1995. Cook, South Atlantic Hotel 2, Bluefields. Personal commun.

sometimes are used to decorate the surfaces of cement

walkways (Fig. 17) (Howard8) and to fill in low areas

(Ramirez Arthurs2). Oyster shells often are used to

make roads, fill in low areas (McCrae4; Rigby'), and

make cement (McCray de Ramacy2!). Some shells of

freshwater clams have been taken from Lago de

Managua; chicken farmers use them for hardening egg

shells (Camacho Bonilla15).

The Future

Interest in developing Nicaraguan mollusk fisheries contrasts sharply on the two coasts. On the Atlantic coast,

local leaders (McCrea4; Ramirez Arthurs2; Rigby5;

Vogel7) regularly discuss possible ways to preserve natural resources and to enhance fishermen's incomes by

commercializing production ofestuarine mollusks. Commercial clam and oyster harvesting would have to be

carefully controlled, because it could deplete the food

supply of the locals. Besides, uncontaminated waters

would have to be identified for harvesting, and sanitary

processing and handling would have to be assured.

No one knows the size of marshclam stocks, and no

one has estimated how many could be taken without

depleting them. A company based in Managua has plans

to process the clams on the Atlantic coast (Vogel7), but

to obtain a sufficient supply, it might have to encourage

harvesters to use rakes or dredges.

Increasing oyster production would require much

effort. Oyster supplies in Bahia de Bluefields could be

increased by spreading shells beyond the borders of

existing beds; this has never been done. The harvesting

waters would have to be tested and certified, as would

waters where marshclams were halvested for commerce.

A shucking plant with a cold room to hold oyster meats

also might be constructed. Transporting the meats in

the warm climate to distan t markets under refrigeration would be difficult and expensive: Quantities would

likely be small, refrigerated transport now is unavailable, and, though it is a port for airplanes and boats,

Bluefields does not have any roads leading from it. The

meats might be canned as an alternative to refrigerating meats. After this, markets would have to be found.

Market testing has been underway. During October

1995, the Rama Key natives shipped 50 gallons of oyster

meats to Jamaica as a trial to develop a market demand

there. A market exists for oysters in Costa Rica, but

transporting them there is difficult (McCrae4).

In contrast, interest in enhancing mollusk fisheries

on the Pacific coast is nil. The likely expansion of

21 McCrae de Ramacy, F. 1995. Fisherman, Rama Key, Bahia de

Bluefields. Personal commun.
______________________ MacKenzie &: Lopez: Molluscan Fisheries of Nicaragua 31

Figure 16

Earrings and a bracelet made from West Indian topshell, Cittarium pica (top), are

displayed in a shop in Bluefields.

shrimp farming is a threat to the black ark clam fishery.

New shrimp farms would remove some existing mangrove swamps along shores and eliminate the clam

habitat.

Traditional Nicaraguan Mollusk Recipes __

The principal daily foods of most Nicaraguans are rice

and beans. On the Atlantic coast, they also eat plant

roots, plantain, fish, mollusks, shrimp, turtle, red meat,

chicken, and fruits. In the west, many people subsist

almost entirely on rice and beans, with plant roots and

plantains included (Levie, 1985). When they can afford

animal protein, they eat red meat (Cook22). Fish and

other seafood, except for black ark clams, rarely are

eaten in inland towns and cities. Adult males along the

Pacific coast consider clams, such as beanclams and

black ark clams, to be aphrodisiacs.

Atlantic Coast

A stew ofJamaican origin, called "rundown," frequently

is made. It contains plantains, plant roots, coconut

milk, and fish or clams (marshclams) (Hooker2U).

22 Cook, H. L. 1995. Aquaculture Services, Inc., Apartado 137,

Chinandega. Personal commun.

Serviche is made with raw shellfish meat (usually cut

into little pieces, iffrom a conch) or fish with lime juice,

tomato, onions, salt, and black pepper. It is left to marinate for about 2 hours. If left for an extended period, the

citrusjuice breaks down the meat too much (HookerZ°).

Oyster soup at Rama Key is made with oysters, sliced

bananas, Irish potatoes, tomatoes, coconutjuice, water,

and pepper (McCrae4 ).

Western Nicaragua

The locals prepare black ark clams in various ways: 1)

on the half-shell, 2) chopped up raw with lemon juice

and such other condiments as tomatoes and onions,

and served in a cup (black clam cocktail), 3) clam meat

and rice, and 4) clam patties (clams mixed with corn or

wheat flour and eggs and then cooked) .16

When a housewife purchases black ark clams, she

washes the mud off the shells, opens them, chops the

meat, and adds bell pepper, chili pepper, onion, tomato, and lemon juice to the meat and shell liquor.

This is eaten as a side dish. 16

Beanclams can be prepared by boiling the meats with

rice in the same water, continuously until little water is

left. The result is extra flavorful rice. The beanclams

also are used in paella, soup, and cocktails. 16

Giant eastern Pacific conchs usually are boiled, their

meat is chopped up, and then mixed with rice. 16
32 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 17

Marshclam shells decorate a walkway at Rama Key.

Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,jr.

Aclrnowledgments _

Special thanks to Michael F. McCoy for making several

arrangements and for working as an interpreter offishermen. Thanks also to Alvaro Armas and Reinaldo Ulloa

Juarez, who helped as interpreters and guides. Many

people kindly provided information. Their names are

listed in the footnotes.

Literature Cited _

Anonymous.

1995. World almanac and book of facts 1995. Funk and

Wagnalls Corp., Mahwah, NJ., 975 p.

Levie, A.

1985. Nicaragua the people speak. Bergin and Garvey Publishers, Inc.. Mass., 198 p.
History, Present Condition, and Future of the

Molluscan Fisheries of Panama

JANZEL ROGELIO VILlAL<\Z G.

JUAN ANTONIO GOMEZ H.

Centro de Ciencias del mar y Limnologia

Universidad de Panama

Panama City, Panama

ABSTRACT

In Panama, the Pacific calico scallop, Argopecten ventricosuS; mangrove oyster, Crassostrea

rhizophorae; edible oyster, Ostrea iridescens; littleneck clam, Protothaca asperrina; grand ark

clam, Anadara grandis; and queen conch, Strombus gigas, ha e been harvested for food, and

the pearl oyster, Pinctada mazatlanica, mainly for pearls. Most scallop meats and pearls have

been exported, while the other species are eaten locally. The calico scallop occurs only in

the Gulf of Panama, and in the 1960's, about 300 metric tons (t) were landed annually.

During 1981-84, landings were 1.5-26 t, but they increased to 41 tin 1985 and to 2,050 t in

the first half of 1986. Fishermen harvested the scallops with shrimp boats 13 m long, and

small boats 5 m long. Since then, the scallops have becoml~ scarce. Shells of the grand ark

clam once were used by Indians to make knives. The mangrove oyster and queen conch are

harvested on the Caribbean side ofthe Isthmus of Panama. The pearl oyster was harvested at

least as early as the 16th century, when the Spanish began to collect pearls. Between 1900

and 1940, earnings from pearl oysters were high. Annual exports were 700 t (2 million oysters)

annually. During the 1940's, the oysters became scarce, apparently from overfishing.

Introduction

The shellfisheries of Panama (Fig. 1) have utilized the

Pacific calico scallop, Argopecten ventricosus; mangrove

oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae; edible oyster, Ostrea

iridescens; littleneck clam, Protothaca aspernma; grand

ark clam, Anadara grandis; and queen conch, Strombus

gigas, for food, and the pearl oyster, Pinctada mazatlanica,

mainly for pearls. The scallop meats and pearl oysters

have usually been exported, while the other species are

eaten locally.

Habitat

The Pacific side of the Isthmus of Panama is 1,780 km

(1,100 miles) long, but most shellfishing takes place in

the Gulf of Panama (Fig. 2). All fisheries there are

influenced by oceanographic conditions that vary seasonally. During the dry season (January-March), a distinct upwelling of deep water brings cold (about 20°C),

nutrient-rich water into the Gulf which stimulates an

increase in phytoplankton (Glynn, 1972). The upwelling

does not occur during the wet season (April-December), whl:n the seawater reaches about 30°C and the

phytoplankton density is low. The seasonal changes

affect the life cycles of many marine organisms, including molluscan shellfish, squid, shrimp, and anchovies.

Pacific alico Scallop Fishery

The Pacific calico scallop (Fig. 3) is the most abundant

pectinid in the Panamic province of the Pacific Ocean

(Keen, 1971). It ranges from Cedros Island in Baja California to Puerto Paita in Peru, in depths of 1-135 m. In

Panama, it occurs only in the Gulf of Panama on mudsand bottoms that have large amounts of scallop shells.

The scallop has a life span of 2 years and has a maximum

shell height of 6.0 em (2.3 inches). In 1986, scallop beds

were found in the Gulf near San Miguel (Rey) Island,

Tortola Island, Tortolita Island, Veracruz Beach, Farallon

Beach, and in Parita Bay (Arosemena and Martinez, 1986).

The scallops are subjected to predation and are parasitized. Scuba divers have observed portunid crabs, gastropods, octopuses (Fig. 4), starfish, and rays preying

on juvenile and adult scallops. In 1977, Iverson (1978)

found a heavy infestation of a larval stage of a digenetic

33
34 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

: San Bias I ~.'

;'0'

Isla del Rey

Gulf of Panama

I ParHa Bay

'-.

Pacific Ocean

Caribbean

Coiba

Gulf of Chiriqui

r"C"----------.---------------------.

Figure I

The Republic of Panama, including important areas mentioned in text.

SllIo Conle

" Farallon

Q",o Tortola

Taboga

...Pacheca

Saboga~'", 0 Chapera

>

'If

a~.'41~."1

Padro Gonzalez -cv~) \l.~"· ::'y a"

(f . 0

San Jose

GULF OF PANAMA

Figure 2

The Gulf of Panama, with important areas mentioned in text.

trematode and a minor infestation of a cestode in the

scallops' adductor muscle. The parasites are not harmful to humans.

Fishery History

The Panamanian Government's first official scalloping

statistics in the 1960's showed that several boats harvested

about 300 metric tons (t) ofscallops annually (Arosemena

and Martinez, 1986). Statistics were not gathered again

until 1975, when the Direcci6n de Recursos Marinos (a

branch ofthe Secretary ofCommerce in charge of administration of marine resources) reported that 6.9 t of scallop meats (adductor muscles) worth $5,696 were exported.

In 1976, exports of scallop meats totalled 143 t worth

$351,026, but no scallops were available for harvest in

1977. The scallop fishery resumed in 1982 when 26 t of

meats were harvested, but in 1983 and 1984 meat exports

fell to 3.9 t and 1.5 t, respectively (USDOC, 1979).

The scallop fishery expanded dramatically in 1985 and

1986. Scallops were harvested from Veracruz Beach to
___ Villalaz G. & Gomez H.: History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of Panama 35

Figure 3

The Pacific calico scallop, Argopecten vent1icosus.

Farallon Beach, at depths from 3 to 20 m. In 1985, scallop

meat exports reached 41 t, and during the first 6 months

of 1986 scallop exports were 2,050 t, worth $10 million

(Anonymous, 1987). Fishermen harvested the scallops

using shrimp boats about 13 m (42 feet) long (Fig. 5), and

small boats 5 m (16 feet) long (Fig. 6, 7). In 1986, 20

shrimp boats had licenses for scallop fishing. They used

large nets (Fig. 8), whereas the small boats used dredges

pulled by hand. The small boats, with crews of three and

powered by outboard motors of 25 or 40 hp, could each

harvest about half a bushel of scallops in 20 minutes of

dredging or about 20 bushels a day. A catch of 20 bushels

yielded about 136 kg ofmeats. Puerto Caimito was a major

landing port for the small scallop boats (Fig. 2), having

about 300 of them (Arosemena and Martinez, 1986).

About 400 people (fishermen, divers, shuckers, middlemen, drivers, and assistants) worked in the scallop fishery.

Fishery Conflict

The shrimp boats and small boats sometimes had conflicts, and the crews of the small boats claimed that the

shrimp vessels were depleting the scallop beds. To resolve the conflict, the Direccion de Recursos Marinos

ruled that shrimp vessels were excluded from scallop

fishing within 4.5 km (3 miles) of the coast.

Figure 4

The octopus, Octopus chierchae.

Processing

In 1985-86, the shrimp vessels brought whole scallops

to Puerto Vacamonte to sell to large companies, whose

workers shucked them in processing plants. The smallboat fishermen brought the scallops ashore to beaches

or ports, where crews of shuckers ("peladores") re-
36 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

moved the adductor muscles and packed them in plastic bags that held 3.5 kg. Another group, the middlemen, sold the meats to exporting companies (freighters) for $6.30/kg. The fishery provided nearly 35,000

jobs (Anonymous, 1987). The income distribution

among different workers was 70% for fishermen, 17.5%

for shuckers, and 12.5% to middle men (Gaceta

Financiera, 1986). Most scallop meat was sold to the

United States; air shipments from Panama docks to

U.S. retail outlets took less than 48 hours.

Figure 5

Panama shrimp boat, about 13 m (42 feet) long.

Current Condition of the Fishery

The Gulf uf Panama's scallop fishery has totally collapsed. and fishermen have switched to catching fish

and shrimp. The collapse is attributed to several causes:

1) The short life span of the scallop, 2) predation, 3)

overfishing, 4) interannual oceanographic variations in

El Nino which adversely affected recruitment, and 5)

deterioration of the environment caused by pollutants

(Villalaz, 1992).

According to Villalaz (1992), the large scallop production in 1985 and 1986 resulted from good oceanographic conditions, a large settlement of scallop seed,

and a low density of predators. However, in 1985 the

predators increased rapidly and, after 1986, killed most

of the scallops.

The Future

The scallop fishery will again reach 1985-86 production when 1) A strong upwelling brings a water temperature of 20°C and a high density of plankton, 2)

scallop larvae set in large numbers, 3) predators are

scarce. If a high density ofscallops is reached again, the

Direcci6n de Recursos Marinos and the U.S. National

Marine Fisheries Service suggest three areas of action:

Quality control, marketing, and monitoring of the fisheries. Quality control must include good storage and

Figure 6

A small boat, about 5 m (16 feet) long. used for dredging scallops.
___ Villalaz G. & Gomez H.: History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of Panama 37

sanitary conditions on boats and good sanitary conditions in processing plants. Marketing should include

sales in Europe and new techniques for cooking scallops such as frying them. Monitoring of the scallop

fishery must include: 1) Collection of oceanographic

and fisheries data, 2) an ecological study of natural

beds and the scallop's reproductive cycle, 3) establishmen t of fishing licenses for boats and types of nets, and

4) creation of a temporal ban in specific areas either by

weight or shell height, according to the scallop reproductive stage. The Centro de Ciencias del Mar y

Limnologia at the University of Panama has been invesFigure 7

A small scallop boat, used with a crew of three and powered by an outboat motor of 25-

40 hp.

Figure 8

Doors and part of net on shrimp boat used for harvesting scallops.
38 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

tigating possible aquaculture techniques which can provide scallop seed for depleted beds.

Mangrove Oyster Fishery

The mangrove oyster, Crassostrea rhiwphorae, grows intertidally on the roots of the mangrove tree, Rhizop/wra

mangle, on the Caribbean side ofthe Isthmus ofPanama.

It is routinely harvested and eaten locally. The Panamanian Government tried culturing the species in

Archipielago of Bocas del Toro between 1979 and 1980

using methods developed in Cuba (MCI, 1980). It was

found that oysters could be grown there, but it was too

expensive to transport them to markets afterward and

the program did not develop.

Other Edible Oysters

Other edible oysters, which include mainly Ostrea

iridescens and, to a lesser extent, 0. columbiensis, have shells

with a rugose texture outside and that are white with

purple spots inside. They are harvested on rocky bottoms,

especially in intertidal zones and set gregariously in beds.

Littleneck Clam Fishery _

The littleneck clam, Protothaca asperrima, ranges from

the Gulf of California to Peru. Its rugose shell has a

maximum height of 37 mm (1.5 inches). It inhabits

muddy-sandy beaches such as Playa Bique (Arraij{m),

Playa Leona (Chorrera), and Chepo, and is harvested

in all three areas. Fishermen also harvest another clam,

Chione subrugosa, but its numbers are small, compared

with P. asperrima. Clams are harvested daily for sale to

local markets and restaurants.

Grand Ark Fishery _

The grand ark clam, Anadara grandis, occurs in mangrove areas in the Gulf of Panama. Before Europeans

arrived in the Americas, Indians used its shells as knives,

as described by Lothrop (1937) after an archeological

study at Sitio Conte, Cocle. Today, this clam is exported

to other countries of Central America, where is consumed in "seviche."

Queen Conch Fishery _

The queen conch, Strombus gigas, occurs on the Caribbean side of Panama. The San Bias Indians harvest and

cat conchs in Bocas del Toro, Colon, and the Archipelago of San Bias. Recent overfishing has caused a

large stock decline (Uribe, 1988).

Local Preparation of Edible Mollusks

In Panama, people eat scallops and oysters in a traditional dish called "seviche": Raw scallop adductor

muscles or raw oysters are soaked in lemon juice and

onions for 24 hours and then eaten. Scallops are also

cooked in rice, pastas, and soups, or fried with butter.

The littleneck clam is served in several dishes, often

with rice and pastas.

Pearl Oyster Fishery

The pearl oyster, Pinctada mazatlanica, has a heavy brownto-gray shell and a maximum shell height of 10-12 cm

(4-4.75 inches) (Fig. 9). It ranges along the Pacific

coast from Baja California to Peru (Keen, 1971). In

Panama, this oyster occurs in the Gulfs of Chiriqui and

Panama on rocky bottoms, where it attaches by a byssus.

It is not gregarious (Galtsoff, 1950).

The earliest fisheries for pearl oysters were reported

in the 16th century, when the Spanish, including Vasco

Nunez de Balboa, collected pearls in the GulfofPanama.

Before the arrival of Europeans, Indians commonly

harvested oysters by diving. They ate the meat, but did

not use the pearls. The Spanish harvested the oysters

from small row boats and sail boats called "bergantins."

A small boat could be built from a single tree and carry

as many as eight people (Camargo, 1983). At first the

Spanish employed Indians to dive for pearl oysters, but

disease and poor food reduced their numbers. By the end

of the 16th century, African divers had replaced the Indians, as they had more resistance to tropical diseases.

Spain's monarchy levied several taxes on products

brought from the New World, including pearls. Pearls

from Panama were sold in Santo Domingo (Dominican

Republic), and the European cities of Seville, Venice,

Amberes, Nuremberg, Hamburg, and Lisbon (Camargo,

1983). During the 17th century, prices for pearls declined when some countries began to produce imitation glass "pearls." During the 18th century, the Spanish continued extracting pearls from oysters and they

employed 400 divers and 230 boats for the work in

Panama.

In 1812, an estimated 500 persons harvested oysters,

receiving a total income of 35,000 pesos. Panama declared its independence from Spain in 1821 and immediately joined Colombia. The oyster fisheries continued, but in 1855, the industry declined when many

divers left oystering and went to work building the
___ Villalaz G. & Gomez H.: History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of Panama 39

160,----------------------,

126

oo

~100

f 75

..'l!

o

o 60 (/)

:J

25

Pearl Oyster

1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1960 1955 1950

Literature Cited and

Selected References _

Anonymous.

1987. The Latin American scallop fisheries, 1980-86, Mar.

Fish. Rev. 49(1):72-76, [Also IFR-86/51, NMFS Off. lnt.

Fish., Wash., D.C.]

Figure 10

Total income and weight per year of the pearl oyster,

Pinetada mazatlaniea, in Panama, 1906-60. Data (to

1948) from Galtsoff (1950) and annual bulletins published by the Department of Statistics of the Republic

of Panama.

Pearl Oyster

1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960

12

o 10

52

8 .,

c:

6

o

'<;

Q; 4 ::;

When the Panamanian Government showed him data

indicating that annual oyster exports had been 700 t

(2,000,000 oysters with an average of 350 g each) since

1925, Galtsoff (1950) concluded that overfishing was

the main reason the oyster industry failed. To restore

the fishery, he recommended that further fishing be

banned and oyster research be started. Similar overfishing of oysters had been reported in the 16th century,

and it forced the cessation of oyster fishing for many

years.

Trans-Isthmian Railroad. When that construction ended,

oyster harvesting was resumed. Soon thereafter, overfishing in the Gulf of Panama prompted a shift to

harvest them in the Gulf of Chiriqui.

In 1903, Panama peacefully separated from Colombia. The oyster harvests continued, and from 1900 to

1940, earnings from the pearl oysters were high, with

exports declining only during World War II.

The first fishery regulations were issued by Panama

President Belisario Porras in 1913, at which time four

main companies and many small groups were harvesting oysters. The largest company owned two large 100 t

vessels. Each of these large vessels had an auxiliary fleet

of 10 small boats about 10.5 m (35 feet) long, with

crews of 10, including the crew, divers, and inspectors.

Divers were paid $1.25 for each quintal (100 pounds)

of oysters harvested, and some harvested as much as 7

quintals a day. The fisheries were active year-round,

and oysters were harvested around several islands in the

Gulfs ofChiriqui and Panama, including Cebaco, Coiba,

Taboga, Otoque, Pacheca, Saboga, Chapera, Pedro

Gonzalez, and San Miguel (Rey) (Fig. 1, 2).

During the 1940's, pearl exports began to decline

(Fig. 10). Although the causes were never documented,

some people claimed the Japanese poisoned the beds,

while others blamed overfishing. Paul S. Galtsoff, who

studied the oyster beds in 1950, did not believe poisoning caused the decline because it would have affected

many species, not just oysters. He also ruled out diseases and parasites, though he found that Nematopsis

and Bucephalus were present; and he ruled out deterioration of the bottom, because the divers who collected

the oysters did not damage the bottom.

Figure 9

The pearl oyster, Pinetada mazatlanica.
40 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Arosemena, D., and A. Martinez.

1986. Contribuci6n al conocimiento biol6gico pesquero de

la conchuela (Argopecten circularis) , explotada en el Golfo de

Panama. Minist. Comer. Ind., Direcci6n General Recursos

Mar., 22 p.

Bocas del Toro.

1980. Aplicaci6n del metodo de cultivo para CWHustrea

rhizophorati.

Boyer,]., R. DuBois, G. Hartshorn. S. Heckandon, E. Ossio.

F. Zadroga, and G. Schuerholtz.

1980. Panama: Condiciones del medio ambiente y df' los

recursos naturales. Int. Sci. Technol. Inst., Inc. Wash., D.C.,

Contr. o. AlDjPDC-C-0251, 162 p.

Camargo, M.

1983. Las pesquerias de perlas y conchas madreperla en

Panama. Rev. Loteria No. 326-327, Mayo-Junio (32-76).

Gaceta Financiera.

1986. La industria de la conchuela: Mucho manoco. Ar,o 4,

No.1!.

Galtsoff, P.

1950. The pearl-oyster resources of Panama. U.S. Dep. Inter.,

Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 28, 53 p.

Glynn, P.

1972. Observations on the ecology of the Caribbean and

Pacific coasts of Panama. In M. L.Jones (ed.), The Panamic

biota: Some observations prior to sea level canal, p. 13-30.

Bull. BioI. Soc. Wash. 2.

Iversen, E. S.

1978. Informe sobre analisis de muestras de conchuela

panamena. Universidad de Miami. In D. Arosemena and A.

Martinez (eds.), Contribution al conocimiento biologico

pesquero de la conchuela (Argopecten circularis), explotada

en el Golfo de Panama. Minist. Comer. Ind. Direcci6n General Rccursos Mar., 22 p.

Keen. A. M.

1971. Sea shells oftropical west America. Stanford Univ. Press,

Stanford, Calif., 1,064 p.

Lothrop, S.

1937. An archaeological study of central Panama. Mem.

Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Elhnol., Harvard Univ. VII, 327 p.

Ministerio de Comercio e Industrias.

1980. Aplicacion del metodo de cultivo para Crassostrea

rhizophora en Bocas del Toro, 68 p.

Uribe, E.

1988. Producci6n de larvas y juveniles de especies marinas.

Cent. Int. Invest. Desarrollo (CUD), Chile, 184 p.

USDOC.

1977. Industrial outlook report: Fishing industry (Panama). U.S.

Dep. Commer., Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, Va., 53 p.

1979. Industrial outlook report: Fishing industry (Panama).

U.S. Dep. Commer. Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, Va.,

16 p.

Villalaz,].

1992. Reproductive biology of Argopecten circularis.Univ. Del.,

Newark, Ph.D. thesis, 100 p.

Villalaz,]., and]. Gomez.

1986. Esquema de cultivo de bivalvos en Panama. Proceedings of the Latin American seminar on aquaculture organized by the International Foundation for Science,

Stockholm, Sweden, p. 310-319.
Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico:

History, Present Status, and Future

JORGE CACERES-MARTINEZ

Centro de lnvestigacion Cientifica y

Education Superior de Ensenada (CICESE)

Departamento de Acuicultura

Km. 107 Carret, Tijuana-Ensenada

Apdo. Postal 2732

Ensenada, Baja California, Mexiro

ABSTRACT

The native mussel, Mytilus californianus, has been gathered for human consumption for

centuries. Middens as old as 8,890 years have shells comprised of mussels, abalone, limpets,

and snails. Fishermen have harvested M. ralifornianus from rocky shores, using simple tools.

Landings reached a peak between 1968 and 1981, when average annual production was 430

metric tons. Most mussels were processed in canneries. Two mussel species, Mytilus

californianus and the exotic M. galloprovincialis, now have good potential to be cultured in

Baja California. The first attempts to culture both species were made in the 1970's. A

company now is culturing M. galloprovincialis, using longlines 200 m long. Seed is collected

on rope collectors, then attached to ropes at a rate of 2 kg/m, and hung on longlines. The

seed is thinned after 1-2 months and is harvested for market at a length of 6-7 em, at 7-8

months. The culture has been fairly successful, but will require further development

because ofthe exposed condition ofthe bays in Baja California. A recovery of M. californianus

beds, an appropriate technology for M. galloprovincialis (using specific machinery), and the

possibility of using M. capax in the Gulf of California suggest a promising future for the

mussel fishery.

Introduction

The State of Baja California is located on the peninsula

of the same name in northwestern Mexico. It borders

California on the north and the State of Baja California

Sur (parallel 28°) on the south (Hernandez, 1975;

INEGI, 1987) (Fig. 1). Abundant natural beds of bivalve mollusks, including mussels, occur along its 1,129

km coast, which represents 11.6% of Mexico's total

coastline (BassoIs, 1961; Ruiz, 1978). Two species of mussels, Mytilus califamianus and M. galloprovincialis, have good

economic potential (Garcia and Reguero, 1987).

M. califomianus has been gathered for human consumption in Baja California for centuries (Linik, 1977;

Tellez, 1987). The fishery for this mussel now continues

on a small scale for local markets. The first attempts to

culture both mussel species were made at the end of

the 1970's to found a new industry and conserve the

natural M. califomianus beds which were heavily exploited for sales to the cannery industry from 1967 to

1981. One private company is culturing M. galloprovincialis using submerged longlines, with good results,

and another company is preparing to culture them.

This paper describes the history of the fishery and

culture of M. califomianus and M. galloprovincialis and

offers recommendations for the future.

Habitat

M. califomianus, locally named "choro," is found in

dense aggregations along the Pacific coast of Baja California from the U.S. border to Bahia Magdalena in the

south. It primarily inhabits the middle and low intertidal areas of exposed rocky shores, but is found to

depths of 12 m (Fitch, 1953; Berry, 1954; Bernaldez,

1987). In the area of abundant mussel beds between

Jatay and El Rosario, the water temperature ranges

from 13°C to 17°C, the salinity is around 33.5%0 (Salas

and Garcia, 1987; Fernandez and Aldeco, 1981), and

41
42 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

s

Culture area

BAJA

CALIFORNIA

SUR

o

• Mussel beds

till Ancients shell deposits

or "concheros"

Bahfa de

C1) Todos Santos

Bahla

BAJA

CALIFORNIA

Figure 1

Baja California, Mex., showing locations mentioned in the text. The mussel fishery

area is from Jatay to EI Rosario, and the mussel culture area is in Bahia de Todos Santos.

the tidal range averages 2.0 m (Gutierrez and Gonzalez,

1989). Upwellings of cold Pacific water, rich in nutrients throughout the year and with a maximum intensity

during spring and summer (Roden, 1971; Amador, 1975;

Torres, 1982), support good growth of organisms

(Dawson, 1951).

M. galloprovincialis apparently was introduced accidentally to southern California from Europe many years

ago (McDonald and Koehn, 1988). Beds of this mussel

are not abundan t, but aggregations occur on submerged

structures like cliffs, boulders, etc.. and on exposed

rocky shores, but mainly in pools in association with M.

califomianus.

Characteristics

M. califomianus has a good survival rate combined with

good growth. and its thick shell offers resistance to

predators and allows for mechanical cleaning. It is in
_ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 43

People have eaten mussels and other intertidal mollusks in coastal areas since antiquity (Mateus, 1985,

1986; Tellez, 1987). Local shell deposits (middens) are

called "concheros" (DEMARSA, 1965; Tellez, 1987).

The earliest one found, 8,890 years old, was discovered I Ensenada History Museum, Av. Riviera y Blvd. Lazaro Cardenas,

22800, Ensenada, B.C., Mexico.

in a cave near Punta Negra, in the north of the peninsula (Linik, 1977). Other concheros were found on the

peninsula at Bahia de los Angeles (6,100 years old),

Punta Cabras (6,400 years old), and Bahia de San

Quintin (6,165 years old) (Leon-Portilla, 1983).

Concheros occur on both coasts of Baja California,

near permanent freshwater sources, such as in Bahia de

los Angeles (Aschmann, 1959), and in mountain caves

of the peninsula (Tellez, 1987) (Fig. 2, 3).

M. califomianus is the most common species in the

concheros, comprising up to 90% of the shells present.

This correlates with the presence of dense populations

of the species on rocky shores where they are easily

collected (Tellez, 1987).

The good condition of the mussel shells, the marks

on them, and the presence of lithic tools such as scrapers and razors observed in several concheros, show

something of the techniques used to collect and eat

bivalves (Tellez, 1987). An example of the shells and

tools is found in conchero Las Rosas, belonging to the

community denominated "Cumiai" in Ensenada, with

an estimated age of 4,000 years 1.

When the Spanish arrived in Baja California, they

named the natives "Californios" (Fig. 4), but those living near the shore were specifically named "Playanos."

The latter had developed rafts, nets, and harpoons to

catch fish, mollusks, and turtles (Leon-Portilla, 1983).

Mussels, abalone, clams, oysters, and other shellfish

were important foods of the Playanos, who used fire to

open the shells and boil the meats. They ate most ofthe

Figure 2

Conchero (shell midden) in a cave of Las Rosas, Ensenada, B.C.

Associates and Predators

marketable condition during the entire

year because it lacks a pronounced seasonal spawning cycle, instead spawning at

low intensity throughout the year. This

mussel is not particularly tolerant of siltation and low salinity. Thus, it does not

survive well where they occur. In culture

tests, it has settled in only sparse numbers

on artificial collectors (Yamada and Dunham, 1989).

History of the Fishery

Several species are associated with the M.

califomianus beds on the exposed rocky

shores. The most common are the leaf

barnacle, PoUicipes polymerus; balanus,

Megabalanus califomicus; keyhole limpet,

FissureUa volcano; ribbed limpet, Collisela

digitalis; polychaete worms, such as

Phragmatopoma caliJornira; emarginate

dogwinkle, Nucella emarginata; circled rock snail, Ocenebra

circumtexta; and isopods, Cirolana harfordi and Idotea

(Pentidotea) montereyensis. Species of Gelidium, Egregia,

Corallina, and Gigartina are common algae (Chi and

Garcia, 1983; Dittman and Robles, 1991). M. galloprovincialis often occurs with M. califomianus, but its abundance in exposed rocky shores is limited because it has

a relatively weak attachment and slow growth in exposed habitats (Ricketts et al., 1968; Harger, 1970; and

Haderlie and Abbott, 1980).

The most important predators are the neogastropod,

Acanthina lugubris, and the starfish, Pisaster ochraceus

(Suchanek, 1978; Salas and Oliva, 1983). Snails (Roperia

poulsoni, Nucella emarginata, and Ceratostoma nuttalli),

intertidal crabs, and shore birds also prey upon small

M. caliJomianus (Haderlie and Abbott, 1980). The commensal crab, Fabia subquadrata, is found living within

the mantle cavity of mussels (Haderlie and Abbott,

1980; Chi and Garcia, 1983; Salas and Oliva, 1983).

Trematodes (possibly Proctoeces) and the protozoan

Haplosporidium also have been found in M. califomianus

(Chi et al., 1981). Studies have not been made of the

associates of M. galloprovincialis under culture conditions in Baja California.
44 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Figure 3

Shells of mussels, abalone. and limpets from the Conchero Las Rosas,

Ensenada, B.C.

mollusks at the shore. For transport to distant places,

the meats were removed from their shells, preserved by

drying, and strung together (Barco, 1973; Espinoza,

1992) .

Unlike in Spain, where oysters, clams, and mussels

were consumed by the elite (Gondar, 1983; Ferreira,

1988), few records indicate that Spanish priests at the

early missions ate mollusks. One report in the Dominic

Mission in Santo Tomas, north of the peninsula, noted

in 1800 that the shellfish was important for the nutrition of the local people (Moreno et aI.. 1987).

Natives probably have always eaten mollusks. During

exploration ofthe peninsula and establishment of clerical missions, one priest recruited native guides and

porters to help him explore the area. When food occasionally was scarce, the natives. expert in the knowledge

and use of local food resources, went ashore to collect

various shellfish including mollusks to eat and continue the exploration. This is documented in the diary

ofthe priest Fernando Consag from the Jesus Company

in 1751 (Ortega and Baltasar, 1944).

Several elderly people interviewed in Ensenada stated

mussels have always been eaten in the area. They remember that, during the weekends, they opened and

boiled mussels in saltwater in handy buckets or in casseroles at the shore, providing them with a delicious food

(Guerrer02). This practice still takes place.

The recent history of the M. californianus fishery began to be officially recorded by the Delegacion Federal

Z Guerrero, T. Fisherman (chorero), Ejido Erendire, B.C., Mexico.

Personal commun.

de Pesca from Ensenada in 1962. Fishermen harvest

mussels from accessible beds between Jatay and El

Rosario and sell them to local markets and the canneries.

Mussels occasionally are also used as bait for fishing.

The fishery reached its peak between 1968 and 1981,

when average production was around 430 t (15,800

bushels) per year (Fig. 5). Production was irregular

because there was little or no management. Whenever

fishermen found a new mussel bed, they harvested all

of it. Periodic increases in production resulted from

finding new beds. Most of the production went to canneries, which then sold it in Ensenada, Tijuana, Mexicali,

San Luis Rio Colorado. and Mexico City. The names3 of

some canneries handling mussels were Pesquera Peninsular (now defunct), Conservas del Pacifico, Empacadora

Marco Antonio, Empacadora Mar (which supported part

of the production of the governmental company), and

Productos Pesqueros Mexicanos (which sold the product

under the trademark "mejillones la Coruna"). Another

trademark was "Marco Antonio" (Bernaldez4 ).

In the 1970's, overexploitation of accessible beds

exhausted the mussel populations. The supply to the

canneries consequently was reduced, and fishermen

sought other products with higher market value, such

as abalone, lobster, tuna, and sea urchins. Harvesting

and processing small quantities of mussels for the canneries was unattractive.

J Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.

j Bernaldez, A. Founder of Empacadora Marco Antonio (cannery

factory), Rayon #357. Ensenada, B.C.. Mexico. Personal commun.
_ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 45

Figure 4

A Californio, an ancient inhabitant of Baja California.

French illustration ofJ. Gaildrau; picture from LeonPortilla (1987).

The reduced harvests allowed the mussel beds to

recover, and, in 1991, a new attempt was made to exploit mussels for a canning factory named Playa Mar

located in La Paz. However, the excessive cost and

problems associated with transporting mussels from

Ensenada 800 miles to La Paz, made this operation

unprofitable. Natural mussel beds currently are fairly

abundant, and fishermen harvest them for local markets and occasionally for the canneries.

Harvesting Methods

The fishermen, or "choreros," who harvest M. californianus

gather them during low tides on accessible rocky shores.

The simple tools used to pull off mussel clusters include a

pipe with a piece of spring welded on the top, called a

"barra" (Fig. 6), a pike called a "talacho" (Fig. 7), an iron

beam called a "pata de chivo," and protective gloves

(Santiago and Rojas, 1982; Bernaldez, 1987).

During the period of greatest mussel production,

1967-81, a group of 40-50 choreros harvested about

lOt (365 bushels) of mussels per day for the canneries.

Cannery personnel collected the mussels at the shore

or purchased them from the choreros who delivered

them (Bernaldez4). After depleting the stocks during

those years, the choreros then exploited previously overlooked species such as marine algae (Macrocystis pyrifera,

Gelidium robustum) to be used for extracting alginate

and agar, starfish and anemones for biology laboratories, and barnacles, Pollicipes polymerus, to be sold in

Spain (Bernaldez, 1987; Bernaldez5).

Choreros sort the mussels by size on the shore, putting the market sizes in sacks and the small mussels

back on their beds (Fig. 8). After that, they transport

the mussels to the cooking site. Mussels about 8 cm

long are preferred by the canneries, while larger mussels are destined for the fresh market. The mussels are

cleaned, the byssus and digestive glands (only when

mussels are large) are pulled out, and the meat is boiled.

After that, the meats are cooled, put in packages of 15

kg each, and sent on trucks to the canning factories or

fresh markets. Mussels may be harvested throughout

the year, but the main season is during autumn and

winter when the mussels have their best condition index and major low tides occur (Guerrero2).

Mussel Culture _

Various semiprotected bays and zones occur along the

Baja California coast where mussel culture is possible.

According to Baylon (1987), the poten tial surface area

for mussel culture in the northwest Pacific coast of Baja

California is about 8,000 ha, with a potential production of 80,000 t per year. The most important culture

area is Bahia de Todos Santos which is approximately

18 km long and 14 km wide and has a surface area of

230 km2. Its bottom is sandy and it is partially separated

from the ocean by two small islands which delineate

two channels to the ocean. The depth of the culture

area is between 10 and 20 m (Garcia, 1987; Garcia and

Garcia, 1987).

Culture History and Research

In 1978 the Direccion General de Tecnologia Pesquera

ofthe Secretaria de Pesca, and, in 1979, the Instituto de

Investigaciones Oceanologicas of the Universidad

Autonoma de Baja California, and Industrias Pesqueras

5 Bernaldez, A. J. General director of Empacadora Marco Antonio

(cannery factory), Rayon #357, Ensenada, B.C., Mexico. Personal

commun.
46 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

1000

900

U;600

c

g 700

c

-2 600 g

"8500

Q:

0;400

(f)

(f)

300

200

100

Figure 5

Mussel production (in metric tons), 1962-93.

Figure 6

Fisherman (chorero) using a "barra," a special type of shovel to

remove clusters of Mylilus califomianus from a natural bed.

Paraestatales del Noroeste began projects to establish

mussel culture and to protect natural mussel beds in

Baja California. Knowledge relating to the use of and

the biology and management of M. californianus was

obtained. Mateus (1978) studied the feasibility of including mussel meal in chicken diets; Santiago and

Rojas (1982), Chi and Garcia (1983), and Hoyos (1988)

determined spawning periods; Olguin (1983) studied

the fluctuations ofmussel larvae in the plankton; Orozco

(1982), Salas and Oliva (1983), Chi and Garcia (1983),

and Monje (1983) determined the settlement periods

on established mussel beds and artificial collectors;

Lagos (1982) and Carpizo (1983) studied conditioning

of mussels in laboratory; and Chi and Garcia (1983)

and Salas and Oliva (1983) determined the incidence of

the parasite crab Fabia subquadrata. Establishing annual

limits on mussel harvesting and leaving patches ofmussels

in beds to favor population recovery was recommended.

During the studies of M. californianus, M. galloprovincialis settled on artificial collectors, permitting their
_ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 47

Figure 7

A pike, called "talacho," occasionally used by choreros

to pull out clusters of mussels.

collection and study (Orozco, 1982; Monje, 1983). Culture experiments were conducted to compare the characteristics of the two species. Trials were made with

floating rafts using Spanish technology (Orozco, 1982;

Cancino, 1985; Garcia, 1987; Garcia and Garcia, 1987;

Lizarraga, 1987) and with longlines (Gonzalez and

Guerrero, 1987) (Table 1). The first results were encouraging, and in 1985 some investigators who participated in

the experiments from the Instituto de Investigaciones

Oceanologias received financial support from the National Fishery Bank (BANPESCA) to found the first private mussel culture company using floating rafts. The

company was called Martesano, S. A. In 1987 the first

cooperative (social company), called the "Cooperative

Society Bahia Falsa," for mussel culture using longlines

was constituted, and in 1987 the groups had a regional

meeting with the Trust National Capital for Fishing Development agency (FONDEPESCA), educational institutions,

and fishing authorities (Secretaria de Pesca) to stimulate

the growth of mussel culture in Baja California. Several

mussel production limitations were identified:

1) The procurement of M. califomianusseed on artificial collectors is limited because the seed does not

remain attached to them. While M. galloprovincialis remains on artificial collectors, settlement is irregular,

beds of seed are scarce, and beds where seed can be

obtained in quantity are unknown;

2) Protected areas to practice culture are limited and

thus adequate culture technology in semiexposed conditions needs to be developed;

3) The various culture steps require mechanization;

4) M. califomianus is not known and accepted in the

international market; and

5) Market demand needs to be enhanced by promotion to attract further investments to the culture operations and canneries.

The efforts of cooperatives and private companies

have focused on the culture of M. galloprovincialis. However, the seed supply remained small, and, in 1988, the

worst storm in about 100 years hit the area and destroyed all the rafts of the private company (Rangel,

1990). In addition, organizational problems beset the

cooperative Bahia Falsa. Culture activities consequently

ceased in 1988 and mussel production was low in the

following years (Fig. 5). The members ofthe Martesano

Company returned to their academic activities in the

Instituto Investigaciones Oceanologicas and switched

their research efforts to producing M. galloprovincialis

seed in the laboratory (Alvarado, 1989; Anguiano, 1989;

Gonzalez, 1992; Velazco, 1994).

In 1991 a new private company, Acuacultura

Oceanica, began culturing M. galloprovincialis using subsurface longlines in Bahia de Todos Santos, a

semiexposed area. Its results have been promising and

represent an important effort to develop mussel culture. Another mussel culture company also is beginning operations.

Culture Methods

The first mussel culture company, Martesano, raised M.

galloprovincialis using floating rafts with two wooden

floats covered with fiberglass and with sharpened foward

ends. The floats supported a wooden framework, 10xlO

m, from which 375 culture ropes, each 10 m long, were

suspended. The raft was anchored with an iron chain

and a 5 t concrete anchor. The seed was obtained from

artificial collectors which had been placed in the area

during the win ter. The production capacity of the company was 200 t (7,300 bushels). About 20 permanent

employees and 40-50 temporary employees (during

collecting time) were working for the company (Garcia

and Garcia, 1987; Rangel, 1990).

The cooperative, Bahia Falsa, used 20 m longlines

supported by 5 buoys and anchored with 80 kg concrete
48 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 8

Sacks with mussels ready to be carried from shore to boiling areas in

Erendira, B.C.

Figure 9

Small raft used to support different maintenance operations of mussel

culture in longlines in Punta Banda, B.C.

anchors, and obtained seed from artificial collectors. The

cooperative's production capacity was 50 t (1,835 bushels)

(Baylon, 1987; Gonzalez and Guerrero, 1987).

The culture of M. galloprovincialis curren tly is carried

out by a private company, Acuacultura Oceanica, which

uses submerged longlines suspended from 200 I plastic

floating barrels and are anchored with 0.8 or 1.2 t

concrete anchors. Longlines, 200 m long, are placed in

lines parallel to the shore. The main line is placed at a 5 m

depth from which culture ropes, 7 m long, are suspended.

The company uses a 7.6-m boat, scuba divers, and a small

raft of 6x4 m to maintain the longlines (Fig. 9).
_ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 49

Table 1

Trials of Baja California mussel culture.

Institution or company System Locality Year

Direcction General de Tecnologia Pesquera Floating rafts El Sauzal 1978

Delegacion Federal de Pesca Longline Bocana de Santo 1979

Tomas

Industrias Pesqueras Paraestatales Floating rafts Bahia de Todos Santos 1980-82

Longline

Productos Pesqueros Mexicanos Floating rafts Bahia de Todos Santos 1985

HOi Longline Erendira 1980-82

HOi Floating rafts Bahia de Todos Santos 1982-83

MARTESANOS Floating rafts Bahia de Todos Santos 1985-88

Observations/species

Experimental

Experimental

Experimental

M. galloprovincialis

M. califarnianus

Commercial

Raft destroyed by

deficient design

Experimental

M. galloprovincialis

M. califarnianus

Experimental

M. califarnianus

Commercial

In 1988 rafts were

destroyed by storm

M. galloprovincialis

Sociedad Cooperativa Bahia Falsa

Acuacultura Oceanica

1 Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanologicas.

Longline

Longline

Isla de San Martin

Bahia de Todos Santos

1987

1991 to

date

Commercial

M. galloprovincialis

Commercial

In operation

M. galloprovincialis

The culture follows the usual sequence ofsteps when

using longlines and floating rafts.

Collecting and Handling Seed

Mussel seed is obtained from artificial collectors that

consist of a polyethylene rope of 1 em diameter and 7 m

long which is placed inside a thin polyethylene net (Fig.

10) and suspended from surface longlines. Larval settlement occurs during autumn and winter on longlines in

locations where there are no other culture ropes. By

May and June, the seed has grown to a size of about 3

em, and is taken to the harbor where it is removed from

the collectors and attached to polyethylene growing

ropes of 2 em diameter.

Workers attach the seed by enveloping it with a polyethylene or cotton mesh in a process called "encalcetinar" (put in socks). They attach about 2 kg of seed

per meter of rope. As in the Spanish system (CaceresMartinez and Figueras, 1997), at every 40-50 em of

rope, the workers insert pieces of PVC tubing, 20-25

em long and 2 em in diameter, between strands of the

ropes, to prevent clumps of mussels from sliding down

the ropes. The following day, scuba divers attach the

seeded lines to the longlines. The nylon mesh remains

during the growing season, while cotton mesh disintegrates soon after the mussels have attached to the culture rope with their byssus.

Thinning Seed

While growing, the mussels compete with each other

for space and food and some clusters fall off the ropes

during rough weather. After the mussels have grown

for 1-2 mon ths and have reached a size of about 5 em,

scuba divers remove the ropes (Fig. 11). Workers then

take them to the harbor and thin them by removing the

mussels from one rope and reattaching them to two or

three ropes. This operation may be repeated again

depending on growth of the mussels. In placing the
50 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Figure 10

Amussel seed collector made of polyethylene rope in Punta Banda, B.C.

Figure 11

A rope with Mytilus galkJpruuincialis about 5 cm long for disuibution in two or three new ropes in Punta Banda, B.C.

seed on ropes, seed of different sizes is kept together to

maintain a uniform distribution ofsizes during growth

and for the market.

Growing and Harvesting

Mussel growth is rapid and is comparable with that in

the most productive mussel culture areas of the world,

such as Spain and New Zealand (Salas and Garcia,

1987). The first harvesting can take place when the mussels attain a size of 6-7 cm, 7-8 months C\JovemberDecember) after the seed has been placed on the ropes. If

the market demands larger sizes, the mussels may be left

for another 4-5 months. As in the previous steps, the

ropes are taken out by hand, the mussels are taken to the

harbor, and they then are transported by truck to markets.

Marketing _

For the local fresh market, the meat of M. californianus

is taken from the shells at the shore and is boiled, then

transported, and sold. Freshly boiled meat sells for

N$lO/kg (N$8 = US$I). It also is sold in the shell, in

which case the price is N$5/g (Fig. 12). There are no

markets for fresh mussels outside of Ensenada due to a

lack of adequate transportation routes, refrigerated

trucks, and demand.

The M. californianus destined for canning arrived

uncooked in the shell at the canneries, where they were

cleaned, the byssus removed, and then boiled. Their

meats were prepared in brine or marinated in cans
_ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 51

holding 115 or 454 g. The product finally

was sterilized and packed. Most production was sent to markets in Mexico City

(Bernaldez5). In 1987, the production capacity of canning factories in Ensenada

was 150 t (5,500 bushels) of mussels per

day and the estimated annual national

demand was 6,000 t (220,000 bushels)

(Baylon, 1987). In contrast, cultured M.

galloprovincialis is sold in the shell to seafood restaurants in Mexico City and other

places in the country. Currently mussels

are also sold to the U.S. market.

Fishery Regulations

During the period of maximum mussel

production, choreros had to have special

permission from the Delegacion Federal

de Pesca from Ensenada to harvest mussels, and the choreros and canneries had

to report the quantities of mussels to fishing authorities

and pay a tax of N$2.0 per kg of harvested mussels

(Bernaldez4 ). The Delegacion Federal de Pesca in

Ensenada currently gives the social organization in

"Ejidos" (delimited land, including their coast, that

belongs to farmers and fishermen of the area) permission to exploit marine resources in their area, including mollusks. This situation favored the recovery of

accessible mussel beds and, in fact, any exploitation of

them is in accordance with the members of the Ejido

whose members are called "ejidatarios." In general,

they permit the free harvests of controlled quantities of

mussels for local consumption and the fresh market

and, when necessary, the canneries. However, there is

no systematic and regulated harvest to increase the

supply to the canning factories.

The Delegacion Federal de Pesca in Ensenada has

established a written form, called a "ventanilla unica,"

which must be completed to carry out any aquacultural

project including mussel culture. Mussel farmers have

to present a technical description oftheir project, which

includes the environmental impact of the culture. The

project is analyzed by technicians from the ministry,

and, if adequate, the project is approved and authorized for implementation in Federal zones.

The water in the bay is periodically analyzed by technicians of the National Program of Bivalve Mollusks

who certify its quality and verify whether mussels require depuration (Velarde, 1987). Red tides occur, but

heretofore they have not caused problems. Toxicity by

DSP (diarrhetic shellfish poison) or PSP (paralytic shellfish poison) have not been reported in the area, but

this is an aspect that requires attention.

Figure 12

Fresh mussels in an Ensenada, B.C., fish market.

The Future

The exceptional development of the mussel industry in

Europe provides promise for the mussel industry in

Baja California. Baylon (1987) estimated that the potential demand for mussels will be about 37,000 t (1.4

million bushels) per year, but some limitations of the

mussel fishery and culture are related to marketing. In

markets, M. californianus is considered inferior to M.

galloprovincialis. M. galloprovincialis tastes better than M.

californianus and does not contain sand in its shell cavity

or organisms on its shells as M. californianus frequently

does. In addition, the shelf life of M. galloprovincialis is

reportedly longer (Guevara6). M. galloprovincialis farmers emphasize these points when selling their mussels.

However, the qualities of M. californianus have been

understated. The problem of sand in M. californianus

may be easily resolved by placing the mussels in a current of clean seawater for about 12 h. The problem of

organisms attached to the shell could be resolved by

cleaning the shell with brushes. The taste difference

and shell problem disappear when mussels are canned.

This argument is used by canneries to offer the same

price for both species. The result is an undervaluation

of M. galloprovincialiswhich causes culturing them to be

less cost-effective than harvesting M. californianus. The

negative comparisons between M. californianus and M.

galloprovincialis with respect to their sales could be

changed to positive values by differentiating the qualifi Guevara, S. General director ofAcuacultura Oceanica, S. de R.L.M.I.

Lote 4, Manzana 8, Parque Industrial Fondeport, EI Sauzal, Baja

California, Mexico. Personal commun.
52 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

ties of each species and giving each a distinctive place

in the market, emphasizing the high quality of fresh

and canned mussels.

The fishery for M. californianus must be carried out to

allow harvesting while conserving the natural beds. This

can be done by establishing annual harvest limits and

seasons, leaving patches in beds, and establishing temporary reserves (Chi and Garcia, 1983; Salas and Oliva,

1983; Paine, 1989; Caceres-Martinez et al., 1994).

Resource managers initially believed that M.

californianus had low culture potential, but potential

seed sources exist in abundant M. californianus beds.

Studies need to be made concerning the reasons for

limited sets of this species on artificial collectors to

assist in further development of a culture system.

The culture experiences with M. galloprovincialis have

been relatively successful but will require further development because of the semiexposed conditions of the

bays in Baja California. Irregular sets of seed on artificial collectors of the first company to attempt mussel

culture suggested that seed production in a laboratory

could be useful. The Instituto de Investigaciones

Oceanologicas has developed successful methods to

produce mussel seed in the laboratory. However, during the last five years, natural mussel settlement has

been successful and therefore, laboratory seed production has not been necessary. Academic researchers and

companies need to continue to develop methods for

collecting natural seed and search for natural populations of M. galloprovincialis seed. Appropriate insurance

services that protect the industry need to be developed,

and some steps in mussel culture need to be mechanized.

More scientific findings need to be made available to

mussel farmers. The scientific studies that have been

conducted at local academic institutions have been reported mostly in bachelor of science theses, and the

relevant information has been circulated only within

the institutions or at national or academic meetings.

This situation is especially limiting in Baja California

where an aquaculture tradition is lacking and where

fishermen have little training. The fishermen have been

harvesting marine resources without an attitude of culture, i.e. seeding and growing, throughout the years. It

is difficult for them to change their work patterns to

culture activities which require additional effort, investment, and training for a species without an immediate

economic return such as is obtained from harvesting

abalones, lobsters, and tuna. In critical situations or

with the arrival of poorly educated people in the region

searching for work, alternative employment has been

found in easier work such as sales of used merchandise

coming from the U.S. border region.

The fat horse mussel, Modiolus capax, has some economical potential in the Gulf of California (Buckle and

Farfan, 1987; Garcia and Reguero, 1987). However, the

existence ofvaluable scallops (Argopecten circularis, Pecten

vodguesi), shrimp (Penaeus vannamei, P. stylirostris), and

lobsters (Panulirus inflatus, P. gracilis) in the Gulf of

California, and the presence of M. californianus and M.

galloprovincialis on the northwest coast of Baja California has resulted in a low interest in this mussel for

fishery or culture purposes. The recovery of M. californianus beds, an appropriate M. galloprovincialis culture

technology perhaps using specialized machinery, and

the possibilities of exploiting other mussel species such

as M. capax suggest a promising future for the mussel

industry in Baja California. Future mussel development

efforts should include contributions from politicians,

educational institutions, fishing authorities, canneries,

the choreros, and mussel farmers. It should take into

account both M. californianus and M. galloprovincialis,

and both harvesting wild stocks and culture.

Acknowledgments _

I wish to thank A. Bernaldez and A. Bernaldez,Jr., from

the cannery "Marco Antonio" for their patient help and

the supply of information. Also, I thank E. Olmos

Tomasini, Director of Fomento Acuicola, Secretaria de

Pesca, for providing some ofthe mussel fishery records;

and M. Ibarra Leon, Director of the Ensenada History

Museum for the historical information. For additional

information and help, I thank A. Ochoa, Director of

the Museum ofGente de Mar; L. Morales ofthe CICESE

library; M. C. M. Tellez of the UABC; Enrique and

Tomas Guerrero, two of the first choreros from Ejido

Erendira, H. Mateus; and S. Weiland, 1'. Puig, and C. L.

MacKenzie, Jr., for their critical reviews of the manuscript. I also thank S. Guevara, Director of Acuacultura

Oceanica, for allowing a visit to their culture installations, allowing me to take pictures and make use of all

facilities and information. This work was made possible

by the financial support of the Aquaculture Department of CICESE.

Literature Cited and

Selected References _

Aguirre. H. E.

1987. Analisis de la fijacion. crecimiento y sobrevivencia del

mejillon Modiolus capax (Conrad) (Bivalvia: Mytilidae), durante el desarrollo de la comunidad sobre sustratos artificiales

en la Bahia de Los Angeles, B.C. Cent. Invest. Cient. Educ.

Superior Ensenada, M.S. thesis, 106 p.

Alvarado, E. A. del C.

1989. Acondicionamiento del mejill6n Mytilus edulis L: efeeto

de la temperatura sobre la produccion de gametas. Univ.

Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. thesis, 89 p.

Alvarez, B. J.

1981. Variabilidad espacial y temporal de temperatura en
__ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 53

dos lagunas costeras. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. thesis, 85 p.

Amador, A.

1975. Caracteristicas de las aguas de surgencia adyacentes a

la Bahia de Todos Santos. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S.

thesis, 50 p.

Anguiano, B. C.

1989. Efeeto de la temperatura, salinidad y concentracion de

alimento sobre el desarrollo larval de Mytilus californianus.

Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. thesis, 95 p.

Aschmann, H.

1959. The central desert of Baja California. Demography and

ecology. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, 315 p.

Barco, M. del.

1973. Historia natural y cronica de la antigua California.

Mex., Inst. Invest. Hist., UNAM, p. 135-151.

Bassols, B. A.

1961. Segunda exploracion geografico-biologica en la Peninsula de Baja California. Bol. Soc. Mex. Geogr. Est. XCII(1-

2),184 p.

Baylon, G. O.

1987. Potencial productivo y perspectivas del mejillon en

Baja California. In Mejillon marisco rico en proteinas.

Memorias del Encuentro Regional sobre produccion de

mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion, comercializacion y

consumo), p. 131-135. FONDEPESCA, Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Bernaldez, A. C.

1987. La pesqueria del mejillon en Baja California. Acuavision

2(10):30-31.

Berry, S. S.

1954. On the supposed stenobathic habitat of the California

sea mussel. Calif. Fish Game 40(1):69-73.

Buckle, R. F., and C. Farfan.

1987. Experiencias y posibilidades del cultivo de Modiolus capax

en Bahia de Los Angeles, Baja California, Mexico. In Mejillon

marisco rico en proteinas. Memorias del Encuentro Regional sobre produccion de mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion, comercializacion yConsumo), p. 19-127. FONDEPESCA,

Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Caceres-Martinez,]., and A. Figueras.

1997. The mussel, oyster, cockle, clam and pectinid fisheries

of Spain. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, Jr., A.

Rosenfield, and W. L. Hobart (eds.), The history, present

condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries of North

and Central America and Europe, Volume 3, Europe, p.

165-190. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 129.

Caceres-Martinez,].,]. A. F. Robledo, and A. Figueras.

1994. Management of blue mussel seed (Mytilus galloprovincialis) for the mussel farming industry in Galicia NW

Spain. In]. Muir and F. Sevila (eds.), Measures for success,

abstracts of Bordeaux Aquaculture '94, p. 236- 237. Europ.

Aquacult. Soc., Spec. Publ. 21.

Cancino,]. L.

1985. Experimentos sobre el cultivo del mejillon Mytilus

calijornianus en la Bahia de Todos Santos, B.C. Mexico.

Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. thesis, 146 p.

Carpizo, 1. E. de].

1983. Acondicionamiento de adultos de Mytilus californianus

(Mollusca: Bivalvia): alimentacion y su efecto en la madurez

sexual.Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. Thesis, 67 p.

Chi, B. G., and P. F. Garcia.

1983. Estudios preliminares sobre la biologia, ecologia y

explotacion comercial de Mytilus californianus en Baja California. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. thesis, 180 p.

1987. Obtencion de semilla de mejillon en laboratorio.

Acuavision 2 (10) :22-24.

Chi, B. G., R. Santiago, and P. Rojas.

1981. Biologia reproductiva de Mytilus californianus. In Bivalvos

de Baja California. Estudios basicos de dos especies en vias

de extincion: Tivela stultorum (almeja pismo) y Mytilus

californianus (mejiIl6n). Seccion mejillon.llI informe 1980-

1981, p. 1-33. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif.-Inst. Invest.

Oceanolog. 2.

Dawson, E. Y.

1951. A further study of upwelling and associated vegetation

along Pacific Baja California, Mexico.]. Mar. Res. 10:39-58.

DEMARSA.

1965. Mejillon vivo depurado. Depuradora Marina, S.A. Ria

de Noya, Galicia, Spain, 20 p.

Dittman, D. E., and C. Robles.

1991. Effect of algal epiphytes on the mussel Mytilus

ralijornianus. Ecology 72:286-296.

Espinoza, A. A.

1992. Los Rosarenos. Memorias del nacimiento y vida de un

pueblo Bajacaliforniano, 1774-1992. Sector pesquero del

Rosario, B.C. Mus. Hist. Ensenada, Mex., 198 p.

Fernandez, E., and]. Aldeco.

1981. Estudio de algunos parametros hidrologicos en una

zona costera del ejido Erendira, Baja California. Univ.

Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S. lhesis, 45 p.

Ferreira, E. P.

1988. Galicia en el comercio maritimo medieval. Fundacion

"Pedro Barrie de la Maza." Colecci6n Doc. Hist., 903 p.

Figueras, A.

1993. Mussel farming: A successful industry. In Abstracts of

the World Aquaculture '93. From Discovery to Commercilizalion, p. 14. Europ. Aquacult. Soc., Spec. Publ. 19.

FilCh,]. E.

1953. Common marine bivalves ofCalifornia. Calif. Dep. Fish

Game, Fish Bull. 19, 102 p.

Garcia, C. A., and M. Reguero.

1987. Conocimienlo actual de los mitilidos tropicales de

Mexico. In Mejillon marisco rico en prOleinas. Memorias

del Encuentro Regional sobre produccion de mejillon

(Cultivo, industrializacion, comercializacion y consumo), p.

139-165. FONDEPESCA, Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Garcia, P. F., and P. L. Garcia.

1987. Cultivo comercial del mejillon (Mytilus edulis) en Baja

California. Acuavision 2(10):27-29.

Garcia, P. L.

1987. Engorda en balsas en Ensenada, B.C. In Mejillon marisco

rico en proteinas. Memorias del Encuenlro Regional sobre

produce ion de mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion,

comercializacion y consumo), p. 181-200. FONDEPESCA,

Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Garza, A. M. del C.

1987. Cicio reproductivo, estructura de la poblacion y

crecimiento del mejillon Modiolus capax (Conrad) (BivalviaMytilidae) en la Bahia de Los Angeles, Ensenada, B.C. Cent.

Invest. Cient. Educ. Superior Ensenada. M.S. thesis, 95 p.

GondaI', O.

1983. La Cofradia de Ribeira inaguro una plantacion de ostras.

Antena Semanal. La Voz de Galicia, 25 de Septiembre, 3 p.

Gonzalez, A. H., and S. R. Guerrero.

1987. Cultivo comercial de mejillon (Mytilus edulis L.) en la Isla

de San Martin. Baja California, Mexico. In Mejillon marisco

rico en proleinas. Memorias del Encuentro Regional sobre

produccion de mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion, comercializacion y consumo), p. 167-177. FONDEPESCA,

Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Gonzalez, V. C.

1992. Analisis del crecimiento y sobrevivencia de larvas de
54 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

mejillon Mytilus galloprovincialis bajo diferentes densisdades

de cultivo y frecuencias de cambio de agua. Univ. Autonoma

Baja Calif.,B.S. thesis, 43 p.

Gutierrez, G., and]. I. Gonzalez.

1989. Predicciones de mareas de 1990, estaciones mareograficas del CICESE. Centro de Investigaci6n Cientifica y de

Educacion Superior de Ensenada, Baja California, Mex. Inf.

Tee. OC-89-01, 129 p.

Haderlie, E. c., and D. P. Abbott.

1980. Bivalvia: the clams and allies. In R. H. Morris, D. P.

Abbott, and E. C. Haderlie (eds.), Intertidal invertebrates of

California, p. 355-411. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif.

Harger,]. R. E.

1970. Compansons among growth characteristics of two species of sea mussel. Mytilw edulis and jV1)tilus calijQmianus.

Veliger 13(1):44-56.

Hernandez, A. A.

J975. Breve resena monografica de Baja California. Bol. Soe.

Mex. Geogr. Est. CXX, Enel o-Marzo.

Hickman, R. W.

1992. Mussel cultivation. In E. Gosling (ed.), The mussel

Mytilus: ecology, physiology, genetics and culture, p. 465-

510. Elsevier Sci. Publ., N.Y.

Hoyos, C. F.].

1988. Fecundidad y esfuerzo reproductivo del mejillon, Mytilus

calijamianus (Conrad, 1837), en Erendira, B~a California,

Mexico. Cent. Invest. Cient. Educ. Superior Ensenada. M.S.

thesis, 127 p.

INEGI.

1987. Estructura economica del estado de Baja California.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica,

PNlJD, 51 p.

Kinne, 0., and H. Rosenthal.

1977. Cultivation of animals. Commercial cultivation (aquaculture). In O. Kinne (ed.), Marine ecology, a comprehensive, integrated treatise on life in oceans and coastal waters.

Vol. Ill, pt. 3, p. 1321-1398.John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

Lagos, C. I. I.

1982. Acondicionamiento del mejillon Mytilus califamianus

en laboratorio y su efecto en el indice gonadal. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif. B.S. thesis, 68 p.

Leon-Portilla, M.

1983. Los primeros califomios: prehistoria y etnohistoria. In

R. D. Pineda (coord.), Panorama Historico de Baja California. Cent. Invest. Hist., Univ. Nac. Autonoma Mex.-Univ.

Autonoma Baja Calif.

1987. Baja California. In R. D. Pineda (coord.), Vision historica

de la frontera Norte de Mexico, p. 243-256. Cent. Invest.

Hist., Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif.

Limk, T. W.

1977. LaJoya natural radiocarbon measurements VII. Radiocarbon 19:19-48.

Lizarraga. S. S.

1987. Antecedentes y experiencias en el programa mejillon

de productos pesqueros mexicanos. In Mejillon marisco

rico en proteinas. Memorias del Encuentro Regional sobre

produccion de mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion,

comercializacion y Consumo), p. 271-278. FONDEPESCA,

Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Mateus, H.

1978. Studies to determine the nutritional value of "uncommon" feedstuffs from Northwest Mexico. Cornell Univ., N.Y.,

Ph.D thesis. llO p.

1985. SemblanLa de la pesca en Baja California, historia y

desarrollo. Secretaria de Pesca, Mex., 31 p.

1986. Los abulones de Mexico. Secretaria de Pesca, Mex., 38 p.

McDonald,]. H., and R. K. Kohen.

1988. The mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and M. trossulus on

the Pacific coast of North America. Mar. BioI. 99: 111-118.

Monje, F.].

1983. Experimentos sobre fijacion de juveniles del mejillon

Mytilus califamianus en colectores artificiales y estudios de

crecimiento para dos especies de mejillon (M. californianus

y M. edulis) en cultivo experimental en la costa de Erendira,

Baja California, Mexico. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif. B.S.

thesis, 165 p.

Moreno, A. R., M. Leon-Portilla, I. Del Rio, M. Mathes, and

R. D. Pineda.

1987. Baja California. InR. D. Pineda (coord.), Vision historica

de la frontera norte de Mexico. U.A.B.C. Mex. 1:444.

Ochoa-Baez, R.1.

1985. Antecedentes sobre el ciclo de reproduccion de Modiolus capax (Conrad, 1837) (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) en la Bahia de

la Paz, B~a California Sur, Mexico. Invest. Mar. CICIMAR

2:86-103.

Olguin, E. I.

1983. Descripcion de la larva del mejillon Mytilus californianus

y estudio de su abundancia y distribucion en la costa del

ejido de Erendira, Baja California. Univ. Autonoma Baja

Calif. B.S. thesis, 73 p.

Orozco, Z. Ma. del S.

1982. Adaptacion de la tecnica espanola en el semicultivo del

mejillon Mytilus edulis y M. califamianus en la Bahia de

Todos Santos. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif. B.S. thesis, 53 p.

Ortega,]., and]. A. Baltasar.

1944. Maravillosa reduccion y conquista de la provincia de S.

Joseph del Gran Nayar. De los principios, progresos y

decaecimiento de la espiritual conquista de la provincia de

la Primeria Alta porIa muerte del P. Eusebio Francisco

Kino. Ed. Layac, Mex., D.F., p. 387-422.

Paine, R. T.

1989. On commercial exploitation of the sea mussel, Mytilus

califamianus. Northwest Environ.]. 5:89-97.

Rangel, D. C.

1990. EI cultivo de moluscos marinos en Mexico. In E. G. De

la Lanza and]. L. Arredondo (eds.), La acuicultura en

Mexico: de los conceptos a la produccion, p. 107- 138. Inst.

BioI., Univ. Nac. Autonoma Mex.

Rico-Mora, R.

1987. Efecto interactivo de la temperatura y la concentracion

de microalgas en la fisiologia alimenticia y la energia

potencial para el crecimiento de Modiolus capax (Conrad)

(bivalvia: Mytilidae). Cent. Invest. Cient. Edue. Superior

Ensenada. M.S. thesis, 91 p.

Ricketts, E. F.,]. Calvin, and]. W. Hedgpeth.

1968. Between Pacific tides. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford,

Calif., 614 p.

Roden, G. I.

1971. Large-scale upwelling off northwestern. Mexico.]. Phys.

Ocean. 2:184-189.

Ruiz, D. M. F.

1978. Recursos pesqueros de las costas de Mexico. Limusa,

Mex., 131 p.

Salas, G. A., and P.L. Garcia.

1987. Estudios basicos y experiencias en el cultivo de mejillon

pOl' el 1.1.0. en Baja California. In Mejillon marisco rico en

proteinas. Memorias del Encuentro Regional sobre

produccion de mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion,

comercializacion y consumo), p. 69-113. FONDEPESCA,

Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Salas, G. A., and P. A. Oliva.

1983. Caracteristicas poblacionales del bivalvo Mytilus
__ Caceres-Martinez: Mussel Fishery and Culture in Baja California, Mexico: History, Present Status, and Future 55

californianus y algunos aspectos sobre su comunidad en la

costa de Erendira, B.C. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif., B.S.

thesis, 184 p.

Santiago, R., and P. Rojas.

1982. Determinacion del cielo reproductivo del mejillon

Mytilus califomianus en el ejido de Erendira, B.C. Univ.

Autonoma Baja Calif. B.S. Thesis, 184 p.

Soot-Ryen, T.

1955. A report on the family Mytilidae (Pelecypoda). Allan

Hancock Pac. Exped. 20:1-175.

Suchanek, H. T.

1978. The ecology of Mytilus edulis L. in exposed rocky intertidal communities.]. Exper. Mar. BioI. Ecol. 31:105-120.

Tellez, D. A.

1987. Los concheros de Baja California y sus perpectivas de

investigacion. Instituto de Invest. Soc. Estudios Fronterizos

5(14):11 1-116.

Torres, M. G.

1982. Algunas propiedades quimicas indicadoras de eventos

de surgencias costeras y de la contracorriente de California

en una area cercana a Punta Colonet, Baja California.Univ.

Autonoma Baja Calif. B.S. Thesis, 73 p.

Velarde, R. A.

1987. Certificaci6n de aguas en zonas de explotaci6n de

moluscos bivalvos. In Mejillon marisco rico en proteinas.

Memorias del Encuentro Regional sobre produccion de

mejillon (Cultivo, industrializacion, comercializacion y

consumo) , p. 385-392. FONDEPESCA, Ensenada, B.C., Mex.

Velazco, B. G.

1994. Fijacion masiva del mejillon M~tilus galloprovincialis en

colectores artificiales bajo condiciones controladas de

laboratorio. Univ. Autonoma Baja Calif. B.S. thesis, 48 p.

Yamada, S. B., and]. B. Dunham.

1989. Mytilus californianus, a new aquaculture species? Aquaculture 81:275-284.

The Shellfish Industry of CaliforniaPast, Present, and Future

WILLIAM N. SHAW

College ofthe Redwoods

Applied Technology Division

Aquaculture/Fisheries Department

Eureka, California 95501

ABSTRACT

The shellfisheries ofCalifornia are relatively small because there are only a few bays and

estuaries suitable for producing mollusks, and no offshore scallop or clam grounds. In the

past, there were fisheries for the native oyster, Ostreola conchaphila; eastern oyster, Crassostrea

virginica; pismo clam, Tivela stultorum; and California mussel, M. californianus. The completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 made it possible to ship C. virginica to San

Francisco for immediate sale or for planting in San Francisco Bay. The highest production

from planted oysters was 335,000 bushels in 1899. By 1920 the bay had become polluted and

the shipments ended. The most important shellfish in commercial landings now is the

Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas; California produces about 16% of these oysters landed on

the west coast of North America. Next are abalones, Haliotis spp., and the blue mussel,

Mytilus galloprovincialis, in relatively small quantities. Farms culture the oysters and most of

the mussels, while divers harvest nearly all the abalones from wild populations. The 1950's

and 1960's were the peak years for abalone fishing, when about 1,000 commercial divers

harvested them, but now only about 15 divers harvest them. There now are substantial sport

fisheries, mainly for the pismo clam, Pacific littleneck, Protothaca staminea, and abalones,

and to a lesser extent for other clams. mussels, and the giant rock scallop, Crassadoma gigantea.

Introduction The Habitat

The molluscan shellfisheries of California are relatively

small because its 5,520 km (3,427 mile) tideline coast

has only a few small bays or estuaries suitable for producing shellfish, with the only exception being San

Francisco Bay (Fig. 1). Offshore scallop and clam

grounds do not exist. The most important shellfish in

commercial landings is the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea

gigas. Next are the abalones, Ratiotis spp., and then, in

relatively small quantities, the bay mussel, Mytilus

trossulus and M. galloprovincialis. Farms culture the oysters and most of the mussels, while divers harvest nearly

all the abalones from wild populations. In the past,

other commercial mollusks were the native or Olympia

oyster, Ostreola conchaphila; eastern oyster, Crassostrea

virginica; pismo clam, Tivela stultorum; and California

mussel, M. califomianus. A substantial sportfishery exists

for the pismo clam; Pacific littleneck, Protothaca staminea;

and abalones, and to a lesser extent for other clams,

mussels, and the gian t rock scallop, Crassadoma gigantea.

The most important shellfishing bays in California have

been San Francisco Bay, Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay,

Drakes Estero, Elkhorn Slough, and Morro Bay. Coastal

upwelling keeps their water temperatures between 10°

and 18°C; temperatures rarely attain 20°C and are too

cool for eastern oysters and Pacific oysters to spawn

(Barrett, 1963).

The predators of eastern oyster seed in San Francisco Bay included the northern oyster drill, Urosalpinx

cinerea, and bat ray, Myliobatis californica. Predators of

the Pacific oyster include the bat ray; red rock crab,

Cancer productus; Japanese drill, TTitonalia japonica; and

several species ofstarfish. Sea otters, Enhydra lutTis, have

preyed heavily on abalone populations in northern California, and abalone and pismo clam populations in

central California (Fig. 2). Other abalone predators

include the California sheepshead, Pimelometopon

pulchrum; several other fishes; and octopi. Predators of

pismo clams also include gulls, sharks, and rays; the

57
58 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

r:-:""~.,.., ..:-:-..:-:-..:-:-.-:-: ...,-, ..-0:-..." . 120·

San Francisco Bay

/

Elkhorn Slough

0···.

-<J

<

Miles

100

160

Kilometers

/ ....

0'·.

'9 ....

l' ".

/ .

-<J

37·

ChannEl Islands _ 0 ...

00 c::?

Los Angeles ....

.San Diego

:~ .. , .

San Diego BaySanta Barbara

... ~.

Morro Bay _ ..:.

PACIFIC OCEAN

Figure I

The State of California.

California corbina, Menticirrhus undulatus; the moon

snail, Polinices spp.; and cancer crabs (Anonymous,

1971).

Olympia Oyster Fishery _

The native Olympia oyster ranges from Sitka, Alaska, to

Cape San Lucas, Baja California, and is most abundant

in estuaries, small rivers, and streams (Korringa, 1976).

It forms oyster reefs in subtidal zones bordered by mud

flats at high elevations, and by eelgrass, Zostera marina,

beds at low elevations (Couch and Hassler, 1989). Its

larvae attach to any firm surface, such as oyster shells

and the undersides of rocks high in intertidal zones

(Fitch, 1953). Olympia oysters thrive at salinities above

25%0 and tolerate occasional short exposures to lower

salinities (Korringa, 1976) but are sensitive to extreme

high or low temperatures (Matthiessen, 1970).

The shell middens of Native Americans date from

3,000 to 4,000 years ago and show early utilization of

Olympia oysters in San Francisco Bay (Fig. 3) They

were also an important food of other coastal tribes

(Barrett, 1963). The middens show a sudden change in

Figure 2

Sea otter offthe California coast. From Anonymous (1971).

numbers of oysters; native oyster shells were abundant

in the basal layers of a few larger mounds but were
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 59

Figure 3

Oyster shell midden left by Yaqui Indians. From Townsend (1893).

scarce in the upper layers of the

same mounds. Siltation was thought

to be one cause for the fluctuations

in abundance.

In the 1840's California had a

small fishery for the native Olympia

oysters which served San Francisco

(Conte and Dupuy, 1982). Beginning in the 1850's, the oysters were

imported from Puget Sound, Wash.,

because local demand exceeded supply. They were transported by sailing vessels in 100-pound sacks or in

baskets weighing 32 pounds. As

many as 32,000 baskets/year were

shipped to San Francisco Bay, where

workers placed them on tidal beds

so the oysters would remain in good

condition until needed (Ingersoll,

1881; Anonymous, 1984).

In the early decades of the 1900·s,

commercial harvests reduced the

numbers of Olympia oysters in

Elkhorn Slough and in Humboldt, Tomales, and Newport Bays. In the 1930's, oystermen attempted to increase populations in Humboldt Bay. but they failed,

and the natural beds became ever more depleted.

A 1930 survey of California coastal waters revealed limited potential for increasing Olympia oyster culture areas.

San Francisco and San Diego Bays were somewhat polluted, and Tomales Bay was infested with oyster drills and

slippersnails, Crepidula spp. The areas rated "good" were

Elkhorn Slough, Drakes Estero, and Humboldt Bay.

The industry attempted to expand Olympia oyster

culture in Humboldt Bay by constructing diked beds

and relying on brood stock from natural beds to provide larvae for the cultch that was spread. Workers

spread cultch near the beds during setting seasons to

collect enough seed so they would not be dependent

on the natural beds. Meanwhile, the natural beds declined in productivity as setting ranged from insubstantial to good, and only small numbers of Olympia oysters

were available for marketing.

In November 1937, the California Fish and Game

Commission finally allowed eastern oysters to be imported to Humboldt Bay; and the imports continued

until the early 1940's. Meanwhile, the Olympia oyster

industry continued to dwindle.

Limited financial resources and a lack of experience

in raising oysters were two causes for failure. But also.

the Olympia oyster did not lend itself to commercial

development: Spat collection was poor, growth from

spat to market size took 5 years, and the meats were

small. The only time oysters were fat was during the

winter, which limited the market season.

Eastern Oyster Fishery _

The completion of the transcontinental Central Pacific

Railroad in 1869 made it possible to ship eastern oysters

from New York City to San Francisco. The first experimental plantings in California were made in about

1870, on the eastern side ofSan Francisco Bay. Though

the oysters grew rapidly and their flavor and meat yield

were good, it was not until 1875 that San Francisco

dealers brought in large quantities, ordering marketsized oysters for immediate sale and seed oysters for

planting. As travel time was about 18 days, about onefourth of the seed died during the trips. The oyster

beds were near the shores throughout much of the bay,

but mainly in its southwestern end (Fig. 4). The seed

remained on the beds for 2-4 years before being sold

(Ingersoll, 1881).

This seed came from bays around New York City,

principally Newark and Raritan Bays, and from the

Hudson and Raritan Rivers. Between 1887 and 1900,

dealers shipped from 69 to 262 (124 avg.) carloads (90

barrels [270 bushels]/carload)/year-roughly an average of 33,480 bushels/year-to San Francisco Bay for

planting (Barrett, 1963).

Growers installed fences of close-set stakes about 3.5

meters (12 feet) long, driven a little more than I meter

(about 4 feet) into the bottom around the beds, to keep

out bat rays (Fig. 5). Since bat rays remained in the bay

from spring until late fall, they would have destroyed

many oysters otherwise (Townsend, 1893). The seed

grew year-round and attained a market size 12 months

earlier in the bay than on the U.S. east coast (Conti and
60 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

I

II

\"

- Lr~INDAaANDOHI:DOV&Tt" BtDS

UISTI"'li

If

I

I

I

i

I

..J

1 I'

!

CHAR'l: OF -I----=-'~~~~~~~~;vI1JI·~.,,,1

SA.""I FR.-\NCISCO A'W SAN PABLO BAYS SHOWtS'Q.THELOCATION 07

OYSTER GROUNDS SZ'.ASD.'II OF 1090,1891.

..'

Figure 4

Areas in San Francisco Bay where e".stern oysters were grown. From Townsend (1893).

Dupuy, 1982). The demand for eastern oysters soon

eclipsed that for Olympia oysters from Washington.

About 100 men were usually employed in the oyster

industry in San Francisco Bay, but the number was

larger at times. The types of boats used were schooners,

sloops, scows, floats, and rowboats. The scows were

used for tonging (Fig. 6), while growers used the floatslarge barges with bottom planks separated to admit

water-to keep culled and cleaned oysters in good condition before marketing them (Fig. 7). Sloops carried
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 61

Figure 5

Bed of eastern oysters growing in San Francisco Bay with a stake fence to

protect beds from bat rays. From Townsend (1893).

Figure 6

Tonging oysters in San Francisco Bay. From Townsend (1893).

oysters between harvest areas and to market. When the

tide was out, all the boats were left high and dry on

tidelands, and workmen wearing rubber boots levelled

or otherwise improved the surface for oyster bedding

(Townsend, 1893).

Between 1888 and 1900, the eastern oyster accounted

for 80% of total California oyster production. Around

1890, they sold for $4.00/box of 200, or about twice

their selling price on the U.S. east coast (Townsend,

1893). The highest production was 2,520,000 pounds

of meats (about 335,000 bushels), in 1899. Production

ranged from 819,000 to 910,000 pounds of meats

(109,000-121,000 bushels) from 1888 to 1891, and from

376,000 to 1,020,000 pounds (50,000-136,000 bushels)

from 1904 to 1915 (Barrett, 1963). Between 1875 and

1900, trial plantings of eastern oysters also were made

in Humboldt and Tomales Bays, but they were later

discontinued (Conte and Dupuy, 1982).

In the early 1900's, deteriorating water quality in San

Francisco Bay caused oyster production to decline. In
62 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 7

Culling oystersin scows with floats between them. From Townsend (1893).

1908, about 100 carloads of eastern oysters were still

being imported, but imports declined soon after, as

oyster growing began to die out in the bay. By 1910 the

large-scale transfer of east coast seed oysters to California had ended. Full-grown east coast oysters continued

to be imported, and many were bedded in San Francisco and Tomales Bays until sold; San Francisco Bay

was abandoned for oyster culture in 1939 and California landings of the eastern oyster ended in about 1960

(Barrett, 1963).

Pacific Oyster Fishery _

Introductions of Pacific oysters to the west coast of

North America from Japan and by coastal transplants

have spread this species from northern British Columbia to Morro Bay, Calif. (Pauley et aI., 1988), and it has

been recently introduced to southeastern Alaska. Because the Pacific oyster fails to reproduce in California,

due to low water temperatures, the industry is entirely

dependent on imported seed.

The first experimental planting of Pacific oysters in

California was made in Tomales Bay in 1928. At that

time, the Department of Fish and Game did not allow

Pacific oysters in Humboldt Bay (Barrett, 1963). The

following year they were planted in Elkhorn Slough;

and. in 1932, small quantities were introduced in Drakes

Estero, Bodega Lagoon, Morro Bay, Mugu Lagoon, Anaheim Creek, and Newport Bay. They were first planted

in San Francisco Bay in 1932-33.

When the purchase of oyster seed from Japan became formalized in 1939, the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers and Dealers Association purchased the entire

amount, with Japanese producers usually shipping the

seed to California between February and March. California growers harvested small quan tities from San Francisco Bay, until World War II interrupted the Japanese

imports. San Francisco Bay is no longer suitable for oyster

culture because of con tamination by many types of pollutants, including organic chemicals (Crosby, 1988).

When the growers introduced large quantities of Pacific oysters to several bays during the 1950's, farming

expanded rapidly. In the 1960's and early 1970's, oysters in a few California bavs suffered severe mortalities.

Losses were highest in Humboldt Bay, affecting oysters

in their second summer, and from 1961 through 1964,

losses ranged from 34% to 56% (Glude, 1975). Studies

between 1966 and 1972 to determine mortality causes

in Humboldt Bay were unsuccessful, but investigators

believed the cause might have been the bacterium Vibrio

sp. A decreasing trend in oyster mortalities was observed during 1972 and 1973, and noticeable mortalities, other than those caused by predators, have not

occurred since.

Currently, two bays, Humboldt and Drakes Estero,

supply over 80% of California's oyster production. The

state has two large companies and 15-20 much smaller

ones producing oysters in Humboldt, Tomales, and

Morro Bays, and in Drakes Estero.

The Coast Oyster Company! in Humboldt Bay produces 48% of the state total; it employs about 120 field

hands and shuckers and about 8 management personI Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 63

nel. Bottom culture is the primary method. Workers

spread shells with attached spat on the bottom, allow

them to grow for 2 or 3 years to a length of about 10 em

(4 inches), and harvest them by suction dredge.

The Johnson Oyster Company of Drakes Estero produces 41 % of the state's oysters, employing 92 field

hands and shuckers and 8 managemen t personnel. The

primary culture system used is offbotlom rack culture.

Workers string spatted shells on lines. the shells being

spaced by a tube. Next they hang the lines over rails of

racks set in the bay (Fig. 8). In selected shallow areas of

the bay, they also practice stake culture: Three spatted

shells separated by spacers are threaded by a stake that

is driven into the bottom. Small California growers

produce the remaining II % of oysters and employ a

total of about 60 people.

From 1980 to 1989, the state's total annual oyster

production was fairly stable at 949,000-1 ,457,800 pounds

of meats (Table 1). Production is limited by available

habitat and markets.

Oyster Hatcheries

In recent years. there have been major changes in seed

sources. Seed imports from Japan were later supplemented by occasional imports from Washington, where

natural sets had occurred. Unfortunately, natural sets

in Washington were erratic and undependable, so west

coast oyster companies built several hatcheries to supply their own seed. Now, almost all Pacific oysters grown

in California come from Washington hatcheries. One

of the largest, owned by the Coast Oyster Company, on

Hood Canal, Wash., supplies all the seed for grounds it

leases in Humboldt Bay. Initially, its workers shipped

the seed to Humboldt Bay on oyster shells similar to the

method used by the Japanese.

A procedure known as remote setting followed. The

Washington hatchery shipped millions of eyed larvae to

Humboldt Bay. Workers poured them into large cement tanks filled with water and bags of oyster shells.

The larvae set within 3 days, and then workers suspended the shells from rafts until the oysters grew large

enough to plant on the bottom. The Coast Oyster Company has since abandoned this method and is now

shipping spat-laden shells from its hatchery. The industry now grows mostly C. gigas (Fig. 9), the smaller

Kumamoto variety of C. gigas, and an insubstantial quantity of the European Oat oyster, Ostrea edulis.

California hatcheries, unlike the one mentioned

above, were constructed to supply a special product

known as cultchless oysters. produced by removing the

seed from cultch shortly after setting. With cultchless

oysters, growers could transfer millions ofseed to growout sites, in small containers such as fine-mesh bags. In

Figure 8

Harvesting a string of Pacific oysters belonging to

Johnson Oyster Company in Drakes Estero, circa 1975.

Photograph by author.

addition, because the cultchless oysters were singles

when they attained market size, they were much less

expensive to cull than oysters in clusters and were ideal

for the half-shell trade.

California once had two large hatcheries, one at Pigeon Point and the other at Moss Landing, producing

cultchless seed. As the seed was minute and extremely

vulnerable to predators (especially crabs), it had to be

grown in cages and then in trays for awhile. But this

type of culture was too expensive, and the market for

cultchless oysters diminished. California hatchery operators had considered producing a variety of oysters,

including C. gigas, C. virginica. C. rivularis, and O. edulis

(Conte and Dupuy, 1982), but both hatcheries have

since gone out of business, and California no longer

has an oyster hatchery.

In the past, the quality of Pacific oysters for summer

eating was poor because they had large gonads. As the

California waters are too cool for oysters to spawn, the

gonads are retained. In recent years, the industry has

been growing sterile triploid Pacific oysters, that are

without gonads. These provide a high quality product
64 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table I

Weight and value of landings of Pacific oysters from California ports, 1980-89.

Humboldt Tomales Drakes Morro Santa San

Yt>ar Bay Bay Bay Bay Barbara Diego Totals

Weight in thousands of pounds of meats

1980 492.2 73.7 360.0 69.7 0.0 0.0 995.6

1981 480.9 61.9 357.4 49.6 0.0 0.0 949.8

1982 492.2 73.7 360.0 69.7 0.0 0.0 995.6

1983 584.2 21.6 440.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,045.9

1984 576.0 61.7 598.1 17.5 0.0 0.0 1,253.3

1985 482.7 23.7 700.1 2.0 0.1 0.0 1,208.6

1986 615.1 34.4 473.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 1,129.8

1987 442.5 60.2 634.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,137.6

1988 445.6 112.7 593.1 5.9 0.0 4.7 1,162.0

1989 682.5 185.U 550.0 38.8 1.5 0.0 1,457.8

Value in thousands of dollars

1980 521.7 189.u 704.5 76.5 0.0 0.0 1,491.7

1981 625.0 175.7 701.6 55.8 0.0 0.0 1,558.1

1982 521.7 189.0 704.5 76.5 0.0 0.0 1,491.7

1983 937.4 56.1 706.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,699.8

1984 1,339.6 143.5 1,390.9 40.8 0.0 0.0 2,914.8

1985 1,221.3 60.1 1,771.2 5.2 0.4 0.0 3,058.2

1986 1,473.4 179.3 1.196.9 0.0 12.9 0.0 2,862.5

1987 1,060.0 313.8 1,606.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,980.1

1988 1,313.7 379.3 1,408.6 17.2 0.0 11.0 3,129.8

1989 1.968.2 622.4 1,306.1 112.7 0.0 0.0 4,009.4

during the summer and will likely

become a major production item.

Figure 9

Oyster racks belonging to Eureka Oyster Farms in Humboldt Bay, in 1970's.

Photograph by author.

Oysters and Pollution

Many oyster-growing grounds in California are classified as "conditional,"

as they are subject to closures when Ecoli counts are high. Areas around

Humboldt Bay are grazed by cattle,

and during heavy rains cattle wastes

wash into the bay, raising E-coli

counts. Public health officials consider E-eoli produced by humans and

cows as similar, and they often close

the bay after extended rains.

In 1979, the Humboldt Bay oyster

industry lost 34 harvesting days after

heavy rains. Oysters are also not harvested from the bay during January,

because bacteria counts are too high.

The industry is interested in depurating oysters to avoid such closures

(Conti and Dupuy, 1982), but although the depuration cost has been

estimated at only three-fourths of a cent/oyster, no company has yet adopted this procedure.
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 65

their breath.Japanese hard-hat divers eventually replaced

them, harvesting from yet deeper waters. Their crews

consisted of a diver with a helmet, a boat operator, and a

line tender (Cox, 1962). Diving usually began in early

morning and continued until late afternoon, unless winds

ended the operations earlier. They dominated the fishery

until World War II. Caucasian hard-hat divers continued

the fishery after the war (Anonymous, 1971).

In the late 1950's, new diving methods were introduced. Divers used hookah gear and wore light-weight

rubber suits and swim fins. They fished from highspeed vessels termed Radon Craft that could withstand

rough seas. Using them, divers were able to harvest

from the remaining virgin abalone stocks around the

Farallon and Channel Islands (Tegner et aI., 1992).

Those areas now constitute the principal abalone harvesting grounds.

The 1950's and 1960's were the peak years for abalone fishing, when about 1,000 commercial divers were

harvesting a daily catch that varied from 10 to 30 dozen

abalones/diver. Since then, the numbers of abalones

and divers have declined and, in recent years, the state

has licensed 120 abalone divers. Several years ago, nearly

all divers (>95%) harvested every good weather day,

but currently, only about 15 divers harvest abalones daily.

The others, also licensed to harvest red sea urchins,

Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, harvest them instead. The

ages of the divers ranges into the late 40's and 50's.

Commercial divers work from boats 9 m (30 feet)

long with 2.7-3.7 m (9-12 feet) beams. The length of

hoses that divers use with their hookah gear is 170 m

Figure 10

Washing and packing meats of Pacific oysters, circa 1992. Photograph by author.

Oysters are sold either in the shell or as

meats in 8- or 10-ounce jars (Fig. 10). In

1988, the landed price for shellstock was

$25-35/100 oysters. Jarred oysters are sold

in many parts of the United States.

Marketing Oysters

The principal abalone species now harvested

is the red abalone, Haliotis rufescens, which

ranges from Sunset Bay, Oreg., to Turtle

Bay, Baja California. It occurs around the

Farallon Islands offSan Francisco, and around

the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, Los

Angeles, and San Diego (Cox, 1962). It prefers open ocean salinities, has a thermal optimum of between 14° and 18°C (Leighton,

1974), and is always attached to rocks.

In northern California, the red abalone

occurs from the lower intertidal zone to a

depth of about 6 m (20 feet). In southern

California, it occurs subtidally to a depth of 40 m (130

feet) (Leighton, 1968), but is most common from 10.5

to 21 m (35-70 feet). Red abalone up to 20 mm (%-

inch) long commonly live under clean boulders with

veneers of inarticulate coralline algae, while those 20-

80 mm (%-3 inches) long often live in crevices. Seams,

cutbacks, and ledges in rock faces with abundant algae

are also optimal habitats. In northern California, abalone longer than 75 mm (3 inches) live in crevices,

under large boulders, and on exposed bedrock, where

sea otters are scarce. Smaller red abalone are cryptic.

Growth rates of red abalones are relatively slow. In

northern California, where only sportfishing is allowed,

it takes them 11.8 years to attain 7 inches (175 mm)-

the minimum length at which fishermen can legally

take them. In southern California, it takes them 15

years to attain the legal minimum length of 7 3

/4 inches

(197 mm) required for both commercial and

sportfishing (Tegner et aI., 1992).

Native Americans gathered abalone for both food

and jewelry, and the shells are common in middens on

coastal California islands and in Native American graves.

Commercial fishing began in the early 1850's, when

the Chinese harvested them from skiffs, using long,

hooked poles (Haaker et aI., 1986). A thriving industry

developed and, by 1879, commercial landings of whole

abalones totaled 4.1 million pounds. As a conservation

measure, California authorities banned inshore commercial harvests, and the Chinese were eliminated from

the fishery. They were replaced by Japanese "sake barrel" divers who worked in deeper waters by holding

Abalone Fishery
66 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

(600 feet). In addition to their rubber suits, divers wear

gloves and knee pads to protect themselves from barnacles and rocks. Most boats have one diver and one

lineman, but some have two divers. Divers usually work

in depths of 7.5-24 m (25-80 feet), but may range to

depths of 6-55 m (20-180 feet). The water where they

harvest has a usual visibility of 9-12 m (30-40 feet). to a

maximum of 30 m (100 feet), and temperatures of

about 12°C in winter to 22°C in summer.

Divers remain underwater harvesting for 4-8 hours a

day. They observe many undersized abalone as they

search for legal ones (7% inches long for red abalone

and 6 inches for other species), which they hold in a

bag. The daily catch, about 3 dozen abalone/diver, has

been stable for about the past 10 years. They used to

put abalones on the boat decks with wet sacks over

them, but because markets now want them alive, the

divers keep them in containers in the water beside their

boats. When the divers and tenders go out to islands

and remain there harvesting all week, they sleep on the

boats at night.

In 1993 divers were paid an average of $260/dozen

abalone, with the highest price being $350/dozen.

State-wide landings averaged over 1.8 million pounds

(whole weight) /year with a high of 3.5 million pounds

in 1935 and a low of90,000 pounds in 1942 (Tegner et

aI., 1992). Catches began declining in south-central

California in the late 1960's. In 1990, total landings of

red abalone were about 169,000 pounds (meat weight).

California landings for all abalones (black, H. cracherodii;

green, H. fulgens; red, H. rujescens; pink, H. corrugata;

white, H. sorenseni; threaded, H. assimilis; pinto, H.

kamtschatkana; and flat, H. walallensis) declined from

nearly 2 million pounds of meats in 1968 to about

233,000 pounds in 1990. The declines were caused by a

substantial commercial effort, heavier predation by increasing numbers of sea otters, more pollution-caused

area closures, and competition with a growing

sportfishery (Haaker et aI., 1986).

In northern California, the catch is restricted to "free"

sport divers (using mask and snorkel), and the season is

split into two parts-April through June and August

through November. In central California, scuba gear

can be used (Fig. 11), and the season lasts for 10 months.

The daily possession limit in California is four red abalone, with a minimum shell size of 7 inches (175 mm).

Abalone can be taken only by tools similar to a tire iron.

and each fisherman must have in his possession an

accurate fixed-caliber measuring gauge.

In northern and central California, the number of

shore pickers and sport divers increased more than

fourfold, and the sport catch from Marin, Sonoma, and

Mendocino counties in northern California increased

twofold between 1965 and 1980 (Ault, 1985).

In southern California, the number of abalone sport

Figure 11

Sport scuba diver gathering abalones at Catalina Island, circa 1960's. From Anonymous (1971).

divers increased fourfold and their catch twofold, from

1965 to the early 1980's (Ault, 1985). The number of

party boats designed for scuba diving has also increased.

The boats now have sufficient range to take sport divers

to all offshore islands in southern California. Considerahle friction exists between commercial and sport divers.

Tegner et aI. (1992) suggest the sport and commercial fisheries may end if the sea otter's range is not

contained. They advocate 1) immediate reduction in

the sport harvest through a reduced bag limit, or seasonal closure coupled with continuing monitoring, or

both; 2) further reduction of commercial effort and

establishmen t ofmechanisms to preven t illegal harvests

on the north coast; and 3) research to refine models for

stock management and to understand the ecological

changes taking place in abalone habitat, caused by the

sea urchin fisherv on the north coast. Enhancement of

wild populations with hatchery stocks has been considered, but this is a slow process
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 67

Management

Besides imposing a minimum size

for abalones, the state is now trying to reduce the number of licensed abalone divers from 120

to 80, and licensed sea urchin

divers from 600 to 400. Any divers

who wish to leave either fishery

can sell their licenses to new entrants. In 1993, the selling price

was $10,000. To reduce the number of divers, the state has ruled

that an entrant has to purchase

two licenses from retiring license

holders.

Mariculture

Collins, R. 1993. Aquaculture specialist, Calif. Department of Fish

Game, Sacramento. Personal commun.

Authorities ruled that, as of 1986, clams must be at

least 5.0 inches (125 mm) long in Monterey County

and north, and 4.5 inches (114 mm) long in San Luis

Obispo County and south, before they can be harvested. On most beaches, pismo clams attain the legal

minimum in 5-9 years, while at Pismo Beach, they do so

between ages 7 and 8 (Collins2).

Pismo clams have been gathered and used over the

past 2,000 years, as shown by their shells in coastal

middens. Native Americans ate the meats and used the

shells as ornaments or as household aids for digging or

scraping (Anonymous. 1971).

In the early 1900's, some fishermen harvested them

commercially, using horse teams to pull plows in areas

from Pismo Beach to Imperial Beach. The clams were

loaded in wagons and fed to hogs and chickens (Anonymous, 1971).

During 1916-47, commercial diggers harvested a total of6.25 million pounds of pismo clams (whole weight)

(Fitch, 1954). This represents 78,000 bushels, assuming

a weight of 80 pounds/bushel. The most productive

year, 1918, yielded about 60,000 pounds (8,000 bushels), but then landings declined sharply (Table 2). To

protect the resource, state authorities have prohibited

commercial digging since 1947.

Figure 12

Newly-designed rectangular cage used to grow abalone from 39 mm to market

size, Crescent City. California (Abalone International, Inc.), circa 1992. Photograph by Chris Van Hook.

Pismo Clam Fishery _

The pismo clam is rare-to-common along the Pacific

coast from Monterey Bay, Calif., to Bahia Magdalena,

Baja California. It occurs from the low intertidal zone,

to a depth of 10-25 m (33-82 feet) (Fitch, 1953), burrowing to depths of 52-156 mm (2-6 inches) in sandy

substrates (Armstrong, 1965). The most productive areas have extensive upwelling of cool oceanic water that

brings nutrients essential for phytoplankton blooms

(Coe and Fitch, 1950).

Because abalone stocks have diminished since the 1960's, and

the market for them is strong and

will probably increase, some abalone farms have recently been

developed. Sixteen abalone

culturists were once registered

(Ebert, 1992), but only three farms are engaged in fullscale production. Hatcheries produce mostly red abalone (95%), with some green and pink abalones, and

they market them at lengths of50-65 mm (2-2.5 inches).

Abalones are grown to 8-10 mm in tanks, then are

transferred to larger tanks or raceways. After 20-28

months, the kelp-fed abalones are 50-65 mm long and

are ready to sell (McMullen and Thompson, 1989; Shaw,

1991) (Fig. 12). In 1989, 315,000 of the 50-65 mm

abalones were marketed alive, and in 1992 the largest

farm produced 120,000 pounds (whole weight). Farms

sell them primarily to markets in Tokyo and Hong Kong

and secondarily to upscale restaurants on the U.S. west

and east coasts. The farms are just beginning to develop a

market for fillets of the small abalones.
68 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Sportfishermen gather pismo clams in several ways,

but the most common digging tool is a six-tined potato

fork (Fig. 13). The digger puts the clams in a sack

attached at the waist. In deeper water, fishermen gather

them by towing long-handled rakes from skiffs; when a

clam is struck, a diver gathers it. In another method, a

skin diver wears a face mask and lies on a paddle board.

When he sees a clam siphon, he digs out the clam with a

short digging bar. Wading fishermen can locate clams

by moving their feet back and forth, and they also find

them by looking for hydroid colonies, which often grow

on the edges of the clam shells. California authorities

reduced the daily state limit from 200 clams in 1911 to

10 clams in 1985.

In the 1960's, on a single weekend at Pismo Beach,

an estimated 150,000 diggers were observed, and over

Table 2

Annual commercial landings of pismo clams in round

weight (in thousands of pounds).

Year Calif. landings Shipments] Total

1916 220.6 220.6

1917 502.1 502.1

1918 665.7 665.7

1919 417.5 417.5

1920 299.0 299.0

1921 219.5 219.5

1922 193.5 193.5

1923 237.9 237.9

1924 293.1 293.1

1925 323.2 323.2

1926 274.3 274.3

1927 133.0 133.0

1928 125.8 125.8

1929 109.7 109.7

1930 108.9 108.9

1931 104.7 104.7

1932 110.3 110.3

1933 106.2 106.2

1934 140.7 104.7

1935 181.9 14.2 196.1

1936 209.8 209.8

1937 224.0 224.0

1938 214.6 214.6

1939 192.7 192.7

1940 167.5 167.5

1941 168.8 86.7 255.5

1942 93.6 727.8 821.4

1943 45.9 4,526.1 4,572.0

1944 34.5 11,719.8 11,754.3

1945 26.1 53,414.2 53,440.3

1946 69.2 11,408.5 11,477.7

1947 60.6 1,279.7 1,340.3

1 From south of the international boundary. Cleaned weights

reported on fish receipts have been multiplied by Rto supply round weights given here (Bureau of Marine Fisheries,

1949).

75,000 pounds of clams (whole weight) (940 bushels)

were harvested. In a 10-week period, diggers gathered 4

million pounds (50,000 bushels) from a 4-mile stretch

of beach (Anonymous, 1971).

Since 1986, sea otter predation has substan tially reduced pismo clam numbers. The current number of

diggers can only be estimated, but in anyone day,

perhaps 1,000 people are digging in the entire state,

with 300-400 at Pismo Beach alone (Fig. 14) (Collins2).

Pacific Littleneck Clam Fishery _

The Pacific littleneck clam ranges from Alaska's Aleutian Islands to Cape Lucas, Baja California. In California, they are common at Malibu Point and San Mateo

Point, south ofSan Clemente, but less so at other points

of central and northern California. They also occur in

Bodega and Tomales Bays. Littlenecks grow in coarse,

Figure 13

Spon digger at Pismo Beach checking the size of a

pismo clam in a measure attached to his fork to determine whether it is legal to keep, circa 1993. Photograph by Sandra Owen, California Dep. Fish Game.
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 69

Other Clam Fisheries

California's clam stocks have never been large (Bureau

of Marine Fisheries, 1949), although before World War

II, a small commercial clam fishery did exist. Besides

the pismo clam and Pacific littleneck, the following

clams once appeared in commercial catches: Pacific

razor, Siliqua patula; softshell, Mya arenaria; California

venus, Chione sp.; fat gaper, Tresus capax; Pacific gaper,

T. nuttalli; Washington clam, Saxidomas nuttalli; butter

clam, S. giganteus; California jackknife clam, Tagelus

californianus; and gourd beanclam, Donax gouldii

(Ritchie, 1977; Schink et aI., 1983). Commercial fisheries for these clams, always small through the 1950's

(Schink et aI., 1983), are now negligible. Pollution,

commercial overharvesting, economics, and increasing

harvests by sport diggers are causes for the decline.

San Francisco Bay, while polluted, is probably the

only area in California with enough clams to support a

commercial fishery. Dense populations of the introduced Japanese littleneck (locally termed "Manila

clam"), Tapes philippinarum, and softshells occur in its

lower intertidal zones and some subtidal areas, as well,

and in the 1970's the state enacted legislation permitting a commercial fishery for them. A private corporation, which owns part ofthe bay's subtidal lands, and an

aquaculture firm have shown interest in pursuing this

possibility. Because the bay is polluted, the clams would

have to be depurated before being sold for human

consumption.

Little potential exists for commercial clam harvesting. While culture is possible, the stringent state regulations and economic factors may be too great to overcome. Though Schink et al. (1983) felt that in many

areas residents would object to use of public land for

private benefit or profit, they advanced two positive

arguments for culture operations, namely that interFigure 14

Sport diggers at Pismo Beach harvesting pismo clams,

circa 1993. Photograph by Sandra Owen, California

Dept. Fish Game.

A major problem of the clam sportfishery is the discharge of sewage and animal wastes into estuaries and

nearshore marine waters (Ritchie, 1977). Although authorities have issued a coastwide warning citing the

dangers of paralytic shellfish poison (PSP) in coastal

bivalves from 1 May to 31 October, the poison has not

been a problem with littlenecks.

No one cultures Pacific littlenecks in California.

Ritchie (1977) concluded that clam farming should be

permitted in California in those areas where no other

endemic clam species are present. Such culture would

involve some form of beach rehabilitation, the planting

of hatchery produced seed, or both. Since residents in

many areas might object to using public lands for private benefit, the potential for littleneck clam culture in

California is low.

sandy mud of bays, sloughs, and estuaries (Fitch, 1953).

On the open coast, they occur in nearly all areas where

rocky poin ts or reefs consist ofsmall cobbles over coarse

sand (Anonymous, 1971), and they often occur on small

beaches that exist in pockets on rocky shorelines, or in

small patches oflarger beaches (Fraser and Smith, 1928).

The best beaches for littleneck clams have coarse sand

or fine gravel mixed with mud, stones, or shells. Apparently, they do poorly in fine sand.

Littlenecks are most abundant in the lower part of

intertidal zones, and subtidally to depths of3 m (Glude,

1978). Their maximum burrowing depth is about 15

cm. In most areas, the clams attain the legal length of

1.5 inches (38 mm) in 2 years (Anonymous, 1971).

Fishermen dug littlenecks commercially before World

War II, but now nearly all beds have been overharvested, and only sport clamming is allowed. San Francisco Bay is the only large area with enough Iittlenecks

to support a commercial fishery (Ritchie, 1977), but

the clams are polluted and none are harvested.

Sportfishermen harvest littlenecks in intertidal areas

at low tide, with hand rakes or shovels (Anonymous,

1971). Authorities limit the catch to 50 clams/person/

day, which yields about 1.5 pounds of edible meat.
70 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

tidal and subtidal lands could be leased from the state,

and that procedures were available to obtain leases for

land-based culture, similar to those to obtain oyster

leases. Farming could be limited to areas where native

clams did not exist.

Two companies have attempted to culture clams in

Humboldt Bay. The Coast Oyster Company grew Japanese littlenecks in cages in intertidal zones on its leased

areas. The clams attained market size and were sold,

but fouling of cages, crab predation, and labor costs

forced the company to quit. The other company, Kuiper

Mariculture, Inc., is currently producing over 70 million seed ofJapanese littlenecks/year in floating net

cages. This is only a nursery operation. The company

sells seed littlenecks, oysters, and mussels to U.S. and

European growers.

Recreational clam fishing is substantial, but is restricted to bays free of pollution, such as Humboldt,

Bodega, and Tomales, and to Humboldt and Del Norte

county beaches with Pacific razor clams. California manages its sport clam fisheries by placing catch limits on

all important species and setting size limits for the

pismo clam, Pacific littleneck, soft clam, and California

venus. Authorities close seasons to conserve the pismo

and Pacific razor clams.

The major problem facing the sport clam fishery is

pollution. In the past, harbor dredging and marina

development have harmed clamming areas, but both

have now been curtailed (Schink et aI., 1983).

The California State Department of Health evaluates

oyster-growing areas for the certification required under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, but usually does not declare areas safe or unsafe for recreational clam harvests. If an area such as San Francisco

Bay is grossly polluted, county health departments establish a permanent quarantine. In other areas, county

health departments post notices on unsafe beaches.

Some localized areas are closed to shellfish harvests

because ofindustrial pollution. For example, the northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, was introduced into

Colorado Lagoon near the City of Long Beach, a few

miles south of Los Angeles, and a reproducing stock

was established (Crane et aI., 1975), but harvesting is

restricted because the lagoon is polluted by lead (Schink

et aI., 1983).

Another problem for the recreational clam fishery is

overharvesting. The number of clam diggers is increasing and the resource is limited.

Mussel Fishery _

The California mussel, which grows to a length of 25

cm, occurs in massive beds on surf-exposed rocks and

wharf pilings on the outer coast, and subtidally to depths

of 24 m from Alaska's Aleutian Islands to southern Baja

California. The bay mussel, which grows to a length of

10 cm, is common in bays and sheltered areas, often in

clusters attached to wharf pilings, in low intertidal zones,

and subtidally to 40 m, from the Arctic Ocean to Isla

Cedros. Baja California (Morris ct aI., 1980). The California mussel differs from the bay mussel in having up

to 12 broad radial ribs; the exterior of the bay mussel is

unmarked by ribs.

The California mussel has a much narrower geographic distribution and is adapted to fewer habitats

than the bay mussel. The bay mussel prefers quieter

water, lives lower in intertidal zones, and is a common

fouling organism on buoys and floats and in seawater

piping systems on ships and in seaside laboratories. On

the California coast, it sometimes grows on coastal rocks

and wharf pilings, but only in mixed populations with

the California mussel. Small individuals can withstand

wave impact about as well as the California mussel, but

larger ones cannot, owing to a weaker attachment (Morris et aI., 1980).

McDonald and Koehn (1988) reported that the bay

mussel in California is not Mytilus edulis as found in the

Atlantic Ocean. Mussels in southern California are similar to M. galloprovincialis from the Mediterranean Sea,

which may have been introduced to southern California. Mussels in Oregon and Alaska are similar to M.

trossulusfrom the Baltic Sea and parts of eastern Canada.

In central and northern California, M. trossulus occurs

with M. galloprovincialisand their hybrids. In Humboldt

Bay, there are two distinct types of blue mussels, one

O\'al and deep cupped and the other wedge shaped and

flatter. Possibly one is M. trossulus while the other is a

hybrid of M. galloprol.incialis and M. trossulus (Richards

and Trevelyan. 1992).

Both the California and bay mussels were once landed

commercially in California. Over 69,000 pounds (1,200

bushels) were landed in 1927, but most areas have since

been closed by the California State Board of Health,

because mussels can carry PSP. After 1927, production

for human consumption declined sharply, but between

1963 and 1976, from 47,336 to 111,799 pounds (785 to

1,900 bushels) were landed, mostly to sell as fish bait

(Table 3). No mussels can now be sold for human

consumption from 1 May to 31 October, because PSP

may be present.

Mussel culture is emerging as a new industry in California, to meet a growing market demand. In Tomales

Bay, four mussel farming companies each employ 5-10

workers. To collect natural sets, workers hang ropes

from longlines supported by floats and they put the

seed in plastic net socks hung from the longlines (Shaw

and Hassler, 1988).

A somewhat similar method is used by Carlsbad

Aquafarms in Aqua Hedionda Lagoon (originally carved
________________ Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 71

Table 3

Annual landings in pounds of mussels in California. A

bushel of mussels weighs about 60 pounds.

, Years 1916-47 from Bureau of Marine Fisheries (1949).

2 Years 1963-69 from Frey (1971).

3 Used for bait.

4 Pinkas (1974).

5 McAllister (1976).

6 Pinkas (1977).

7 Oliphant (1979).

8 2,357 pounds for human consumption; rest for bait.

(Table 4). Total state production was 1,370,000 pounds

(23,000 bushels) (Conte, 1990).

A limited sport fishery for mussels now exists during

the open season, from 1 November to 31 April. People

usually remove the mussels from rocks and pilings by

hand; authorities allow a daily harvest of 25 pounds/

person.

out as a water source for the San Diego Gas & Electric

Co.) near Carlsbad, Calif., 20 miles north ofSan Diego.

The company's three employees fill 8-foot long mesh

socks with mussels of all sizes and hang them from

anchored lines in the lagoon. Empty 2-gallon plastic

jugs keep the lines floating. When most mussels attain

market size, workers take the socks ashore and put

them in sorting machines that separate the commercial-sized mussels from the smaller ones. Mussels ready

for market are depurated in a series of 10 fiberglass

tanks that receive a constant flow of water for 48 hours.

The tanks can hold up to 4,000 pounds (about 65

bushels) of mussels. One problem with this growout

system is that the small mussel seed move around almost like snails, fall off the socks, and are lost (Glenn,

1988). In the past 5 years, the company has been growing M. galloprovincialis, purchasing the seed from Kuiper

Mariculture, Inc., in Humboldt Bay.

Another company, Ecomar, the largest mussel producer in the state, gathers mussels from the legs of oil

drilling platforms in the Santa Barbara channels. The

company harvests wild bay mussels from the legs and

also plants seed Mediterranean mussels on them. It

sends a broodstock ofMediterranean mussels to a hatchery in Oregon, which spawns and obtains seed from

them, and sells it to Kuiper Mariculture, Inc., which

grows it to a length of several mm and then sells it to

Ecomar. Its workers put the seed in socks and wrap

them around the platform legs. When the mussels attain maturity, divers scrape them and any wild mussels

off the legs, using suction hoses to convey them to the

surface. A crew of eight can harvest 3,500 pounds (about

60 bushels) of mussels a day. Workers ashore clean,

package, and ship the mussels fresh to markets (Shaw

and Hassler, 1988). The company usually has two fulltime divers and two workers who pack mussels for sale,

but at peak harvest times it has employed four divers

and six packers.

In 1989, the mussel farms landed 162,958 pounds

(2,700 bushels) of mussels having a value of $153,463

Year

1916'

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1935

Landings

53,799

69,042

49,154

35,095

33,112

9,196

43,872

60,026

49,223

25,942

14,614

29,631

1,610

1,028

325

1,800

230

465

10

Year

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1942

1946

1947

19632

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

19724

19745

19756

19767

Landings

750

1,490

150

1,800

100

50

639

530

105,1183

67,8273

69,4033

102,6443

95,1103

91,4723

101,6683

111,7993

81,6423

53,691 3

47,3368

Table 4

Weight (pounds) and value (dollars) of mussels landed from mariculture. A bushel of mussels weighs about 60 pounds.

Tomales Bay Santa Barbara San Diego Total

Year Weight Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight Value

1986 28,398 22,718 306,219 244,975 0 0 334,617 267,693

1987 22,823 23,736 263,866 274,421 0 0 286,689 298,157

1988 26,802 33,504 41,957 37,437 83,000 90,000 151,759 160,941

1989 19,431 24,290 143,527 129,173 0 0 162,958 153,463

Source: Rob Collins, Aquaculture Specialist, Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Sacramento. Personal commun.
72 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Giant Rock Scallop Fishery _

The giant rock scallop ranges from the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, to Punta Abreojos, Baja

California (Morris et aI., 1980). In California, it is common in rock crevices along exposed outer coasts, on

pilings, underneath floats, and from the low intertidal

zone, to depths of 50 m.

Asjuveniles, rock scallops resemble ordinary scallops

in shape and in their ability to swim by clapping their

valves together. At rest, juveniles usually attach temporarily to hard substrates by byssal threads (Morris et aI.,

1980), but when slightly over 25 mm in diameter, they

attach permanently to substrates (Fitch, 1953).

Rock scallops are not fished commercially in California, but a mariculturist in Drakes Estero cultures them

as a secondary crop. He collectsjuvenile scallops off his

harvested oysters, and then grows them to market size

in pens supported off the bottom (Leighton, 1991).

State regulations limit the catch for sportfishermen

to 10 scallops/day, with no size limit. In northern California, rock scallops usually are found near shore in

shallow water, where abalone fishermen take them at

low tide. In southern California, sport divers usually

harvest them along breakwaters and in rocky areas of

the outer coast (Fitch, 1953). In Humboldt Bay, divers

collect them off bridge pilings (Malachowski, 1987).

The rock scallop has excellent potential for being

cultured. Techniques have been developed to collect

natural sets, and hatchery methods have been developed to produce the seed. Juveniles have been grown

to adulthood in cages or attached to panels or sheets of

asbestos construction board, concrete, and plastic

(Leighton and Phleger, 1977). Adults are sometimes

marketed at $1.00 each. As it takes about 9 adductor

muscles, averaging about 1.75 ounces (50 g) each to

make a pound, scallop meat is valued at about $9.00/

pound (Leighton, 1991).

Shellfish Preparation

In California, Pacific oysters are usually eaten on the

half-shell or barbecued and eaten with barbecue sauce.

Few are eaten in stews, as is common on the U.S. east

coast. In restaurants, abalone meat is sliced into 1/4-

inch steaks, which are pounded with a hammer to

tenderize them, dipped in egg batter and crumbs,

and fried. Small cultured abalones are shucked, then

the meat is tenderized, covered with a mixture of

flour and eggs, sauteed for 10 seconds in butter or

oil, placed back in the shells, and served (Shaw, 1991).

Abalone shells are used in jewelry and as inlays in

musical instruments. Pismo clams are eaten raw, fried,

or in chowders. Mussels are steamed in water or wine.

Sport divers who bring scallops home usually poach or

fry them.

The Future

California produces about 16% of the oysters landed

on the west coast of North America, a consistent percentage since 1977. Although the demand for west

coast oysters has been good because oyster production

in Chesapeake and Delaware Bays has been low, California production will probably not increase in the

near future, since the present growing areas are near

maximum carrying capacity, and no additional space is

available.

Areas where oysters are grown should be maintained

and protected. As the state's population grows and

more people move into coastal zones, the potential for

more domestic pollution, loss of marshlands, and more

harbor development increases. The spread of pollution

threatens the entire shellfish industry. California has

experienced extensive urban growth in this century,

and 85% of its potentially productive shellfish waters

have been closed by pollution. Shellfishing areas are

also being closed due to red tide for longer periods. It is

hoped that the threats can be controlled, and a viable

oyster industry can be maintained in the future.

The mussel fishery has begun to obtain some of its seed

from a hatchery. However, it will likely remain small.

The California shellfisheries will probably remain

fairly stable, as expansion does not look promising.

Possibly, a few more small shellfish farms like the abalone farms might develop, but suitable space with clean

water is becoming harder to find. As competing groups

seek to use such space, shellfish farming permits will

always be difficult to obtain. Although unfavorable publicity related to such problems as PSP and domoic acid

in shellfish may make it more difficult to market shellfish products in California, people will continue to

desire them if assured they are safe to eat.

Literature Cited

Anonymous.

1894. Overland Monthly. 2nd, Ser. 23 (Jan.-June 1894):648-

660.

1971. California's living marine resources and their utilization (H. W. Frey, ed.). Calif. Dep. Fish Game, 148 p.

Armstrong, L. R.

1965. Burrowing limitations in Pelecypoda. Veliger 7(3): 195-

200.

Ault,]. S.

1985. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)-Black, green, and red abalones. U.S. Dep. Inter.,

Fish Wild\. Serv., Bio\. Rep. 82(11.32); U.S. Army Corps

Engr. Rep. TR EL-82-4, 19 p.
Shaw: The Shellfish Industry of California-Past, Present, and Future 73

Barrett, E. M.

1963. The California oyster industry. Calif. Dep. Fish Game.,

Fish Bull. 123, 103 p.

Bureau of Marine Fisheries.

1949. The commercial fish catch of California for the year

1947 with an historical review 1916-1947. Calif. Dep. Fish

Game., Fish Bull. 74, 267 p.

COl", W. R., and]. E. Fitch.

1950. Population studies, local growth and reproduction of

the pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) .J. Mar. Res. 9(3) :188-210.

Conte, F. S.

1990. California aquaculture, growth keyed to diversity and

markets. World Aquacult. 21 (3) :33-44.

Conte, F. S., and]. L. Dupuy.

1982. The California oyster industry. In K. K. Chew (ed.),

Proc. North American oyster workshop. Spec. Publ. 1, Baton Rouge, La.

Couch, D., and T.]. Hassler.

1989. Species profile: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-Olympia oyster. U.S. Dep.lnter., Fish Wildl. Serv., BioI.

Rep. 82(11.124); U.S. Army Corps Engr., Rep. TR EL-82-4, 8 p.

Cox, K. W.

1962. California abalone, family Haliotidae. Calif. Dep. Fish

Game, Fish Bull. 118, 133 p.

Crane,]. M.,Jr., L. G. Allen, and C. Eisemann.

1975. Growth rate, distribution, and population density of

the northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, in Long Beach,

California. Calif. Fish Game 61 (2) :68-81.

Crosby, D. G.

1988. Uptake and fate of contaminants in molluscs. In R.

Amidei (ed.), West coast mollusc culture: A present and

future perspective. p. 44-47. Proc. Calif. Sea Grant Workshop, La Jolla, Calif.

Ebert, E. E.

1992. Abalone aquaculture: A North America regional review. In S. A. Shepherd, M.]. Tegner, and S. A. Guzman Del

Proo (eds.), Abalone of world, biology, fisheries and culture, p. 570-582. Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Abalone, Fish. News

Books, Oxford, U.K.

Fitch,]. E.

1953. Common marine bivalves ofCalifornia. Calif. Dep. Fish

Game, Fish Bull. 90,102 p.

1954. The pismo clam in 1952 and 1953. Calif. Fish Game

40(2):199-201.

Fraser, C. M., and G. M. Smith.

1928. Notes on the ecology of the little neck clam, Paphia

staminea Conrad. Trans. R. Soc. Can., Ser. 3, 22:249-269.

Glenn, R.

1988. European techniques of oyster and mussel farming

applied to southern California coastal lagoon. In R. Amidei

(ed.), West coast mollusc culture: A present and future

perspective, p. 63-64. Proc. Calif. Sea Grant Workshop, La

Jolla, Calif.

Glude,]. B.

1975. A summary report of Pacific coast oyster mortality investigations 1965-1972. In A. Furukawa and W. N. Shaw

(eds.), Proc. Third U.S.:Japan Meeting Aquacult. Tokyo,

Jpn., Oct. 15-16,1974, p. 1-28, Fish. AgencyJpn., Niigata.

1978. The clams genera Mercenaria, Saxidomus, Protothaca,

Tapes, Mya, Panope, and Spisula a literature review and analysis of the use of thermal effluent in the culture of clams.

Aquacult. Consultant Rep., Seattle, Wash., 74 p.

HaakeI', P. L., K. C. Henderson, and D. O. Parker.

1986. California abalone. Calif. Dep. Fish Game. Mar. Res.

Leafl. 11, 16 p.

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. Brown Goode (ed.), The

history and present condition of the fishery industries, p. 1-

251. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D.C.

Korringa, P.

1976. Farming the flat oyster of the genus Ostrea: A

multidisciplinary treatise. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Arnst., 238 p.

Leighton, D. L.

1968. A comparative study of food selection and nutrition in

the abalone, Haliotis rufescens Swainson and the sea urchin,

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Swainson. Univ. Calif., San Diego, PhD. dissert., 197 p.

1974. The influence of temperature on larval and juvenile

growth in three species of southern California abalones.

Fish. Bull. 72(4):1137-1145.

1991. Culture of Hinnites and related scallops on the American Pacific coast. In W. Menzel (ed.), Estuarine and marine

bivalve mollusk culture, p. 99-111. CRC Press, Inc., Boca

Raton, Fla.

Leighton, D. L., and C. F. Phleger.

1977. The purple-hinge rock scallop: A new candidate for

marine aquaculture. Proc. World Maricult. Soc. 8:457-469.

Malachowski, M.

1987. The reproduction cycle of the rock scallop Hinnites

giganteus (Grey) in Humboldt Bay, California. Humboldt

State Univ., M.S. thesis, 68 p.

Matthiessen, G. C.

1970. A review of oyster culture and the oyster industry in North

America. Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst. Contrib. 2528,52 p.

McAllister, R.

1976. California marine fish landings for 1974. Calif. Dep.

Fish Game, Fish Bull. 166,53 p.

McDonald,]. H., and R. K. Koehn.

1988. The mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and Mytilus trossulus

on the Pacific coast of North America. Mar. BioI. 99:111-118.

McMullen,]., and T. Thompson.

1989. Abalone culture in an urban environment. In K. O.

Hahn (ed.), Handbook of the culture of abalone and other

gastropods, p. 227-238. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla.

Morris, R. H., D. P. Abbot, and E. C. Haderlie.

1980. Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford Univ.

Press, Stanford, Calif., 690 p.

Oliphant, M. S.

1979. California marine fish landings for 1976. Calif. Dep.

Fish Game, Fish Bull. 170,56 p.

Pauley, G. B., B. Van Del' Raay, and D. Troutt.

1988. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fisheries and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-Pacific oyster. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., BioI.

Rep. 82(11.85); U.S. Army Corps Engs., Rep. TR EL-82-4, 28 p.

Pinkas, L.

1974. California marine fish landings for 1972. Calif. Dep.

Fish Game, Fish. Bull. 161,53 p.

1977. California marine fish landings for 1975. Calif. Dep.

Fish Game, Fish Bull. 168,55 p.

Richards,]. B., and G. A. Trevelyan.

1992. Mussels. In W. S. Leet, C. M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen

(eds.), California's living resources and their utilization, p.

181-183. Calif. Sea Grant Program, Univ. Calif., Davis.

Ritchie, T. P.

1977. A comprehensive review of the commercial clam industry in the United States. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl.

Mar. Fish. Servo Wash., D.C., 106 p.

Schink, T. D., K. A. McGraw, and K. K. Chew.

1983. Pacific coast clam fishery. Univ. Wash., Sea Grant Tech.

Rep. 83-1, 72 p.
74 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Shaw, W. N.

1991. Abalone farm in northern California. Aquacult. Mag.

17(5):92-97.

Shaw, W. N., and T.j. Hassler.

1988. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)-California sea mussel and bay mussel. U.S. Dep.

Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., BioI. Rep. 82(11.84); U.S. Army

Corps Engs., Rep. TR EL.-82-4, 16 p.

Tegner, M.j.,j. D. DeMartini, and K. A. Karpov.

1992. The California red abalone fishery: a case study in

complexity. In S. A. Shepherd, M. j. Tegner, and S. A.

Guzman Del Proo (eds.), Abalone of the world, biology,

fisheries and culture, p. 370-383. Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Abalone, Fish. News Books, Oxford, U.K.

Townsend, C. H.

1893. Report on observations respecting the oyster resources

and oyster fishery of the Pacific coast of the United States.

U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. XVlI:343372.
Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon:

Past, Present, and Future

ANJA M. ROBINSON

Hatfield Marine Science Center

Oregon State University

Newport, Oregon 97365

ABSTRACT

In Oregon. a number ofsmall rivers enter the Pacific Ocean and form estuaries that are

habitats for most of the mollusks harvested or cultured. The native (Olympia) oyster,

Ostreola conchaphila, once was harvested by Native Americans and later by European settlers

into the 1800's. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, was introduced in 1934. Growers use a

variety of methods for culturing oysters. They usually spread seed on the bottoms of

estuaries, but in soft bottoms they use horizontal lines, sticks, or trays, or lines hung from

rafts. They harvest the oysters by dredging, hand gathering, or hoisting the trays or lines.

Production was highest at 924,800 gallons of meats in 1940, but from 1954 to 1990 it ranged

between 21,000 and 68,000 gallons. A hatchery established at Netarts Bay in 1979 annually

produces several billion eyed larvae of oysters; Manila clams, Tapes philippinarum; and bay

mussels, Mytilus trossulus, for growers from Alaska to Mexico. Commercial and sport fishermen harvest several species of clams. Cockles, Clinocardium nuttalli, account for half of the

clam landings, followed by butter clams, Saxidomus gigantea; littleneck clams, Protothaca

staminea; and gaper clams. Tresus capax. Some razor clams, Siliqua patula, also are harvested.

Recreational clam digging is becoming more important, with between 300 and 900 people

digging them a day. Some 40,000 pounds of sea mussels, M. californianus, are landed each

year, and M. trossulus is cultured in small quantities. Boats began harvesting weathervane

scallops. Patinopecten caurinus, in 1981, using New Bedford, Mass., scallop dredges and

modified shrimp nets, and the stock lasted until 1990. The best year was 1981, when 16.8

million pounds of meats were landed.

Introduction

Mollusks produced in Oregon have included oysters,

clams, mussels, scallops, squid, and octopi. Located on

the U.S. west coast, Oregon is bordered by the State of

Washington to the north and the State of California to

the south. Oregon has about 300 miles ofPacific Ocean

coastline, which varies from steep cliffs and rocky shores

to sandy beaches. The Columbia River, with its large

estuary, forms a natural border between Washington

and Oregon (Fig. 1). A number ofsmaller coastal rivers

meet the Pacific Ocean and form small estuaries that

are important habitats for the majority of mollusks

gathered or cultured in Oregon.

Oysters

Oregon's native oyster, Ostreola conchaphila, commonly

called the Olympia, California, shoalwater, rock, or

Yaquina Bay oyster, once ranged from southeast Alaska

to Baja California, in estuaries, bays, and sounds (Fitch,

1953). Shells found in Native American kitchen middens

show that they were an important food for coastal tribes

(Barret, 1963).

According to old and unpublished letters and newspaper articles from the Oregon Historical Society collection in Portland, white settlers led by Captain Collins

discovered native oysters in Yaquina Bay, Oregon, in

1852. Bancroft (1888), in his history of Oregon, stated:

"On the 28th ofJanuary the schooner 'Juliet', Captain

Collins was driven ashore near Yaquina Bay, the crew

and passengers being compelled to remain upon the

stormy coast until by aid of an Indian messenger horses

could be brought from the Willamette to transport

them to that more hospitable region. While Collins was

detained which was until the latter part of March he

occupied a portion of his time exploring Yaquina bay ...."

On 6 April, 1852, the Oregon Statesman newspaper

reported: "Capt. Collins, of the schooner Juliet, who

75
76 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

125 0

CLA TSOP BEACH

YAQUINA BAY

COOS BAY

42 0 PACIFIC OCEAN

125 0

121 0

WAS H I N G T ON

-:-. '\'+- COLUMBIA RIVER

Astoria ',\ '.

'.\ '

.\

'.. s-.:..:.-

t

Portland

ORE G 0 N 44

0

MILi::S

50

80 KILOMETERS

42 0

CALIFORNIA

121 0

Figure I

The Oregon coastline.

visited Yaquina Bay during his captivity, informs us that

he found there a fine river, navigable for vessels drawing six or eight feet of water a distance of twenty miles.

But from the appearance he deemed the inlet to be a bad

one. He says that the river abounds with oysters, clams,

and fish of all kinds. The land around is level and highly

productive. The timber has been nearly all destroyed by

fire. None of the land in the vicinity is claimed yet."

By 1854 oysters were being harvested in commercial

quantities in Yaquina Bay. By 1864 the harvesting was

organized, and shiploads of oysters were being sent to

California, where the market for them was good. Fishermen in boats harvested them with tongs, the same

method used on the U.S. east coast, and by hand (Fig.

2, 3). Several schooners, operated by a Captain Winant,

shipped oysters from Yaquina Bay to San Francisco

(Bancroft, 1888) (Fig. 4). The Oregonian newspaper

stated on 1 October, 1864: "A handsome little town is

just beginning on Yaquina Bay. The principal trade

now is in oysters with the San Francisco market."

In 1868 several oystermen in the area organized an

association to regulate oystering (Washburn, 1900). The

first indication of oyster depletion in Yaquina Bay was

from a statement in the Oregonian dated March 3, 1882:
Robinson: Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future 77

Figure 2

Fishermen tonging native oysters in Yaquina Bay, late 1800's. Source: Oregon Historical Society.

Figure 3

Fishermen harvesting native oysters from an intertidal flat in Yaquina Bay, turn of the century. Source: Oregon Historical

Society.
78 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Figure 4

Native oysters being transported from Yaquina Bay, turn of the century. Source: Oregon

Historical Society.

'The business of oystering was carried on some years

ago until the native oyster beds were exhausted. A few

years rest, however, allowed the growth of a new crop.

The Yaquina oyster is about double the size of the

Puget Sound oyster."

Toward the end of the century, oyster harvesting was

no longer as profitable as it had been. In 1899, U.S.

Commissioner George M. Bowers reported that Yaquina

Bay had the only oyster grounds in Oregon, and total

production was 591 sacks weighing 100 pounds each,

valued at $1,625.00. Oystermen, who by then were well

organized, imported the eastern oyster, Crassostrea

7.lirginica, from the U.S. east coast. They were taken first

to California by railroad in wooden sugar barrels. According to data on file at the Oregon Historical Society,

25 barrels of eastern oysters were planted in Yaquina

Bay on 7 November, 1896, about 7.5 miles inland from

the ocean. Two varieties were planted-long, slender

oysters from eastern rivers; and oval, fan-shaped, ribbed

oysters from Prince's Bay (in Raritan Bay), New York.

Some C. virginica were spawned artificially in 1897 and

1898. The larvae were released in the Bay but did not

survive.

Fishermen transferred some eastern oysters 9 miles

(14.5 km.) upriver, hoping the warmer water and lower

salinity would induce some recruitment. During the

spawning season, they built a shallow-water float, and

the sun warmed the water in it up to 20°C. The oysters

spawned, but few larvae survived and set. The Prince's

Bay variety grew well and were excellent oysters, but no

natural recruitment occurred, so spat had to be imported every year from the east coast (Washburn, 1900).

The Oregon oyster industry supported few people

from the turn of the century to the introduction of the

Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, from Japan. The areas in

Yaquina Bay producing native oysters were surveyed by

a Mr. Wygant in 1908; 38.8 acres were private oyster

beds, and 102 acres were natural oyster grounds (Fig.

5). Beginning in 1919, commercial quantities of Pacific

oysters were shipped to the west coast. They were first

introduced in Washington, and it was not until 1934

that they were introduced in Oregon (Steele, 1964). A

test planting of 65 cases was successful, and over the

years the number of cases planted increased (Fig. 6). By

1960, a total of 94,951 cases of oyster seed had been

planted in Oregon (Steele, 1964).

In the relatively cool waters ofOregon, with temperatures ranging from 8 to 14°C, Pacific oysters do not

reproduce naturally. In 1968 the first pilot oyster hatchery for artificial spawning and larval rearing was con-
Robinson: Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future 79

I

I

I -10 - - -

I

Or.. ',,, .....,... "., n.....~~J.-,_ .(~-

,

. . .

'-r' ... . "4 9<

.

; 't1' '-11-- , .-A"' I

I

M.. .. V".UINA an

'If_.... ,."....11'. ,.,...~ ......

I, .,.••",.."r- _.,,. ,.. $"r•••• ~J of

r,•••,.,... T~ Y.,,,,,,,. '.1 0/..,..,.""..",

A ...oc,I.f'Ht. A,IJ .. '"'.''''J .".,; .,,.,,,,,,.J

SCA41: J •• 'r. • , lite.

.. ". WY ...NT ••• t ••••••• • ill' _ _. ,..",.. ••..-r

,. - ....

1H(; VA ••OU. OYSTC'" T~AC:T.

.f I Ht

J'"

SMO.IN6 SITUATIO", A_CA ..... O_"'C."'"I'-

I

OYST(~ G~OUNOS' ON YAQUINA ~Y.

MAP Of THE:. SURVEY

..,...~ . \ ,... , ••,••--.. ..u_••••_ ,.......... TAu Jv,.,," If., ..J IrcorJ .."... ,;'.,/" ',7 _.....:I .._'_·-_uT

' ..:"::::":::.~''::'~::::-~~":':":::":':"='~::"'--1r--~;:';;;;';;;rj;;-ni;--;:>;;;;;;;-"J;;;----2 6 ---------1-----------+1 A",.",. ~r "'- ',tI,,,.,

I

I

L

I

•. ;;.'.~; ..!..:::"::'·.--I-- I

I 1--. I I Y I

5-------+---- -""'--i---' NW H I I Q .~. : I N (.Y.. S (.~~

: I

I, .~ ... +~~~

,

.. .!.

i\

o·

M ....... ". " .

I

l 8C1.,.tI of r,JIt.,.,.. ,It .J'I'","H,. ""1

h..-- w ,,-r CE

. ,. # A.-4-.r C~/.1t .,,~ " ""1. , . • I /,. ~----tt--~.:---.f.~..----_,-----_+-----_t-----____H

U

I

I

I

I

I

-r

J

;t

I

t

I

Figure 5

Oyster grounds in Yaquina Bay, according to Mr. Wygant's survey, 1908. Source: Oregon Historical Society.
80 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Figure 6

Pacific oysters growing on a tidal flat in Yaquina Bay, 1935. Source: Oregon Historical Society.

structed at Oregon State University's Hatfield Marine

Science Center, Yaquina Bay. Once the hatchery techniques for conditioning oysters for spawning, rearing

larvae, and remote setting were established, growers no

longer had to depend on the costly importation ofspat

fromJapan (Breese and Malouf, 1975; Breese, 1979).

An oyster hatcheryl constructed by Lee Hansen has

operated at Netarts Bay, Oreg., since 1979 (Fig. 1). The

hatchery, which has been enlarged over the years, currently supplies eyed larvae to oyster growers from Canada

to Mexico. It produces several billion eyed larvae annually, including several species of oysters, Manila clams

(japanese littlenecks), Tapes philippinarum; and bay

mussels, M)ltilus trossulus (formerly Mytilus edulis). It

operates from March to October and is staffed by two

1 Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.

full-time and one part-time employee. The eyed larvae

are sold in lots of one million and cost $100/million

lalvae. The eyed lalvae are shipped to oyster growers,

and each grower has his own setting tanks where the

eyed larvae set on cultch and metamorphose.

Growers use a variety of culture methods, depending

on the type of ground at the oyster farm. Usually, they

spread seed on the bottom of the estuary, but in softbottom areas they use horizontal lines. stick culture, or

elevated culture such as trays or lines hung from rafts.

They harvest oysters by dredging, hand gathering, or

hoisting the trays or lines.

Fresh oysters are sold locally in the shell or shucked,

and if shipped, they are packed into jars or other containers. Oysters are also frozen or smoked. Prices vary

from $2.50 to $3.50/dozen in the shell, depending on

size and type. The price for a gallon of shucked oyster

meat is $24-30. Oregon production hit its peak in 1940,
_________________ Robinson: Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future 81

Table 1

Total oyster meat production and estimated value at

the fisherman's level, 1928-90 (ODFWAnnual Reports).

Oyster meats Oyster meats

Year Gallons $ Value Year Gallons $ Value

1928 432 1960 60,000 546,000

1929 9,000 1961 39,000 355,000

1930 8,177 1962 61,000 555,000

1931 5,993 1963 43,000 396,000

1932 2,476 1964 32,000 294,000

1933 29,750 1965 29,412 271,000

1934 32,300 1966 41,716 382,000

1935 18,800 131,600 1967 71,625 380,000

1936 36.800 257,600 1968 58,034 453,000

1937 97,100 679,700 1969 66,146 451,000

1938 203,800 1,528,500 197u 35,064 274,000

1939 215,300 1,614,800 1971 34,863 319,000

1940 924,800 6,936,000 1972 21,965 351,000

1941 560,800 4,206,000 1973 24,759 379,000

1942 137,500 1,031,300 1974 29,191 526,000

1943 114,970 862,300 1975 26,642 425,000

1944 509,900 3,824,300 1976 20,768 370.000

1945 575,500 4,316,300 1977 29,217 424,000

1946 130,200 976,500 1978 30,146 451,000

1947 78,800 551,600 1979 27,756 46U,000

1948 12,000 90,000 1980 29,398 527,000

1949 64,000 512,000 1981 33,730 607,UOO

1950 135,000 1,080,000 1982 37,085 675,000

1951 95,000 836,000 1983 30,892 575,000

1952 97,000 854,000 1984 48,030 917,000

1953 82,000 723,000 1985 37,434 723,000

1954 51,000 439,000 1986 37,554 736,000

1955 62,000 558,000 1987 40,706 810,000

1956 68,000 612,000 1988 38,449 777,000

1957 50,OUO 450,000 1989 39,985 890,OUO

1958 61,000 549,000 1990 25,293 584,000

1959 74,000 666,000

at 924,800 gallons, but from 1954 through 1990 production has ranged from about 22,000 gallons selling

for $351,000, to 74,000 gallons selling for $666,000

(Table 1).

All oyster-growing areas are leased from the state.

According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture's

annual report, a total of 3,568.63 acres were being used

for oyster production at the end of 1991. Most were in

Tillamook Bay, with 2,521.84 acres, followed by Yaquina

Bay, with 390.86 acres, Coos Bay, with 240.04 acres,

Netarts Bay, with 224.89 acres, and the Umpqua River,

with 191.00 acres. The state collected a total of$7,895.82

in user fees from the leases in 1991. The Tillamook Bay

acres are farmed by five oyster companies, the Coos Bay

grounds by three companies, and Netarts Bay, Yaquina

Bay, and the Umpqua River by two companies each.

The most commonly cultured oyster is the Pacific oyster, butsmall quantities of eastern; Kumamoto, Crassotrea

sikamea; European flat, Ostrea edulis; and Suminoe, C.

ariakensis, oysters are also produced for an annual total

of 16,970 gallons of oyster meats in 1991.

Records kept by the Port of Alsea, and articles in the

Waldport Record newspaper, described oyster farming in

Alsea Bay from 1948 through 1951. According to a 14

April 1948 Waldport Record article, 300 boxes of oyster

seed from Japan were planted on mud flats in Alsea

Bay. One month later, the newspaper reported that the

young oysters were doing well. The Bay City Oyster

Company, holder of the Alsea Bay oyster grounds lease,

planted more seed and hoped to obtain harvestable

oysters in 2-3 years. Logging up the Alsea River, however, exposed soil, and subsequent heavy rains caused

silt to flow into Alsea Bay, thus damaging the promising

oyster growing area. According to a 13 December 1951

Lincoln County Times article, the company surrendered

the lease because silting had killed the oysters.

Some oyster-growing areas have problems with burrowing ghost shrimp, Callianassa californiensis, and blue

mud shrimp, Upogebia pugellensis. Their burrowing activity stirs up mud and the oysters become silted over. To

kill the shrimp, some growers have sprayed Sevin on

oyster grounds during low tides. However, since 1984,

its use on Oregon oyster grounds has been forbidden.

Small oysters are also preyed upon by rock crabs, Cancer

productus, and some waterfowl (scaups and scoters).

With the introduction of Pacific oysters, a flatworm,

Pseudos('1lochus ostreophagus; a copepod, Mytilicola orientalis or "red worm"; and an oyster drill, Tritonalia japonica,

were also introduced and have become pests (Sindermann, 1974). The Atlantic slippersnail, Crepidula fornicata, a fouling organism, was introduced with oyster

shipments from the U.S. east coast at the end of the last

century. Various sponges, barnacles, mussels, and macroalgae also foul the oysters.

As the human population has increased, parts of

estuaries have become polluted with industrial wastes,

especially pulp mill effluents and raw sewage (Gunn

and Saxby, 1982). Dairy farming at Tillamook Bay has

caused high coliform counts in oyster-growing areas

because of runoff from surrounding land, especially

during the rainy season. Since 1952, the Oregon Department of Health has had a coliform monitoring

program in place. When coliform counts exceed 70/

100 ml, the estuary is closed to all commercial shellfish

harvesting until the count falls below that level.

The Department of Health also monitors toxic algal

blooms in areas where shellfish might become toxic.

When a bloom reaches a certain count, the Department issues warnings to inform the public of the health

risk involved in eating contaminated shellfish. Longterm closures can be costly for affected oyster farmers.
82 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Clams _

Commercial and sport fishermen harvest several species of bay clams. The largest are gaper clams, Tresus

capax, that grow in muddy bottoms in subtidal and

intertidal areas of most Oregon bays. Most gaper clams

are harvested from Coos Bay. Mechanical harvesting

has not been allowed in Oregon since 1985, so commercial fishermen use diving equipment. Sport fishermen harvest with shovels during low tides; the state bag

limit is 12 gaper clams/day (Fig. 7).

Butter clams, Saxidomus gigantea; and littleneck clams,

Protothaca staminea, grow in areas of fine sand or mud

mixed with rocks. The bag limit set by the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) for both is 20/day for

sport clammers. Cockles, Clinocardium nuttallii, occur close

to the surface of the mud and are harvested by raking.

The bag limit is also 20/day. The same bag limit applies to

bend nose clams, Macoma nasuta, but they are harvested in

smaller quantities than other types of clams. The softshell

clam, Mya arenaria, originally from the U.S. east coast,

occurs in dense numbers in muddy bottoms in the upper

areas ofbays. Although the bag limit is 36/day, this species

is underutilized in Oregon, even by sport clammers. Nevertheless, they account for more than one-third of all

clams harvested recreationally.

Gapers bring fishermen about $l.OO/pound, while the

other types of clams bring only $0.4O--D.50/pound. Commerciallandings of bay clams from 1941 to 1990 fluctuated

from 306,000 pounds in 1945 to 16,315 pounds in 1974;

the number ofdiggers ranged from 202 in 1948 to 7 in 1976

(Table 2). Cockles usually accountfor halfthe clam landings,

followed by littlenecks, gapers, butters, and others.

Over the years, the number of recreational clam diggers has increased. During good low tides, from 300 to

900 clammers flock onto the mud flats to dig their bag

limit. Bag limits have been cut and size requirements

removed to minimize waste. According to estimates by

the ODFW, the average catch/digger is from 9.2 to 18.8

clams/trip (Gaumer and McCrae. 1990).

The ODFW monitors commercial and recreational

harvests closely and conducts stock surveys to regulate

the harvest when necessary. They have also undertaken

a long-term stock enhancement program. Laboratoryproduced and imported adult Manila clams have been

introduced to several Oregon estuaries over the last 15

years. Their survival, growth. and natural recruitment

have been documented in annual reports prepared by

the Department.

Razor clams, Siliqua patula, occur on open sandy

beaches along the Pacific coast. Their shells have been

found in kitchen middens of Native Americans (McConne1l2). The razor clam industry in Oregon was started

z \1cConnel!. S.J. 1972. Proposed study of the spawning and larval

rearing of the Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula). Unpuh!. Proposal

to Wash. Oep. Fish., Olympia.

Figure 7

Sport fishermen digging clams at Seaside, Oregon, 1910. Source: Oregon Historical Society.
_________________ Robinson: Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future 83

by P. F. Halfarty in 1894 (Nickerson, 1975), when fresh

clams were marketed locally and canned for storage or

shipping. Canning operations later spread to Alaska

(Weymouth et aI., 1925). The largest and most persistent populations of razor clams occur on the northern

beaches, such as Clatsop Beach, just south of the Columbia River (Fig. 1). Clam diggers crowd the sandy

beaches during minus tides to look for the shallow

depressions left in the sand when clams retract their

siphons. Fishermen dig them individually using special

narrow-bladed shovels or tubular suction devices. Sport

fishermen are allowed 24 razor clams/day. Commercial

clam diggers use diving equipment and are not dependent on low tides. Landings of razor clams were reported as early as 1899, when 980,000 pounds were

harvested (Bowers, 1902). Fresh clams were sold locally

for one cent/pound and were also canned and shipped

as far as Chicago.

Razor clams are considered a delicacy. Commercial

fishermen are paid about $3.00/pound for them and

they are sold fresh and frozen for $7.00 to $14.00/

pound in retail markets. Annual landings have varied

widely, ranging from 970,899 pounds in 1956, when

253 licenses were issued, to only 100 pounds in 1983,

when 9 licenses were issued (Table 3).

The razor clam population in Oregon has declined

as the number of sport clam diggers has increased

(Table 4). Some losses were also caused by gill disease

in 1984 and 1985 (Elston et aI., 1986). In November

1991, all Oregon beaches were closed to razor clam

Table 2

Commercial bay clam harvest in pounds, estimated value in dollars at the fisherman's level, number of diggers, and

permits from 1928 to 1990 (ODFW Annual Reports).

No. of Permits $ No. of Permits $

Year Harvest diggers issued Value Year Harvest diggers issued Value

1928 110,000' 3,300 1960 76,000 15,200

1929 57,000' 1,710 1961 68,000 14,280

1930 163,0001 4,890 1962 109,000 23,980

1931 143,000' 4,290 1963 71,000 16,330

1932 132,0001 3,950 1964 61,000 15,250

1933 128,000' 3,840 1965 48,000 12,480

1934 224,0001 11,200 1966 40,000 12,000

1935 469,000' 23,450 1967 27,605 8,282

1936 448,000' 22,400 1968 27,866 8,360

1937 472,0001 23,600 1969 20,860 41 6,258

1938 664,0001 33,200 1970 25,884 40 7,765

1939 608,000' 36,480 1971 28,526 50 8,558

1940 659,0001 39,540 1972 61,505 37 18,452

1941 214,000 131 10,700 1973 17,156 19 5,148

1942 121,000 59 6,050 1974 16,315 23 5,058

1943 178,000 77 8,900 1975 26,550 19 8,231

1944 204,000 110 10,200 1976 88,054 7 27,297

1945 306,000 115 15,300 1977 85,733 29 26,577

1946 265,000 90 13,250 1978 216,962 15 69,428

1947 178,000 106 8,900 1979 94,912 19 30,372

1948 122,000 202 9,760 1980 81,467 36 27,034

1949 135,000 10,800 1981 81,138 30 28,765

1950 149,000 11,920 1982 134,090 46 53,076

1951 155,000 13,950 1983 136,185 41 68,530

1952 149,000 13,410 1984 120,567 30 73,962

1953 135,000 12.150 1985 99,254 44 65 63,865

1954 134,000 12,060 1986 82,609 36 65 48,718

1955 113,000 12,430 1987 46,283 34 121 24,939

1956 124,000 14,880 1988 44,696 28 136 23,578

1957 96,000 14,400 1989 60,482 24 111 33,341

1958 77,000 11,550 1990 72,756 38 92 44,952

1959 65,000 12,350

I Bay and razor clam harvest combined, 1928-40.
84 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 3

Landings, number of licenses issued, and estimated values at the fisherman's level for commercial razor clams, 1941-90

(ODFW Annual Reports).

Razor clams Razor clams

Year Pounds Licenses $ Value Year Pounds Licenses $ Value

1941 123,934 238 18,590 1966 82,852 217 24,856

1942 13,353 192 2,003 1967 120,432 297 38,539

1943 15,697 57 2,355 1968 92,462 340 29,588

1944 57,787 197 8,668 1969 25,142 185 8,799

1945 81,794 242 13,087 1970 14,806 79 5,183

1946 151,477 719 30,296 1971 30,135 134 13,561

1947 166,355 558 33,271 1972 12,550 76 5,020

1948 206,835 505 45,504 1973 16,030 III 6,733

1949 200,486 681 44,107 1974 8,553 58 3,678

1950 335,091 790 77,071 1975 41,412 146 24,019

1951 255,631 574 58,795 1976 118,016 391 76,711

1952 319,165 613 73,408 1977 45,781 269 38,914

1953 264,278 592 63,427 1978 41,455 253 49,746

1954 156,215 430 37,492 1979 36,228 236 47,097

1955 180,818 295 43,397 1980 20,291 145 26,630

1956 970,899 253 233,016 1981 22,516 91 34,967

1957 67,157 193 16,789 1982 26,528 209 42,807

1958 82,140 221 20,535 1983 100 9 189

1959 48,401 118 12,100 1984 5,803 34 10,417

1960 340,126 98 85,032 1985 58,253 340 114,989

1961 17,845 58 4,462 1986 2,906 51 6,058

1962 24,221 79 6,055 1987 29,197 173 64,172

1963 200,822 77 56,230 1988 33,910 178 86,831

1964 35,300 125 9,884 1989 32,177 228 87,963

1965 79.767 213 23,930 1990 13,474 151 39,487

digging because the clams contained domoic acid.

Domoic acid concentrations are monitored by the Oregon State Health Division, which reopens the beaches

when the domoic acid has dropped to a safe level.

Paralytic shellfish poisoning is also a concern to bivalve consumers and problems with razor clams have

been reported (Browning, 1980). The Oregon Department of Health has monitored coastal areas since 1952.

Razor clams appear to be a good species for culture.

They grow relatively fast, have a high price and stable

market, and laboratory spawning and rearing has been

successful.

Mussels _

California mussels, Mytilus califomianus, of all ages form

dense beds on wave-exposed rocky cliffs along the open

coast. Sea mussels have traditionally been harvested for

bait, but since 1975, wild populations have been harvested commercially in designated areas on the Oregon

coast, for human consumption. Landings have increased

from 800 pounds in 1975 to the 40,000 pounds currently landed each year (Yamada and Dunham, 1989).

The bag limit for sport fishermen is 72 mussels/day.

Oregon's only commercial California mussel farm

operates at Winchester Bay. Workers collect juveniles

from wild populations, wrap them onto ropes with gauze,

and hang the ropes from subtidal long lines. Growth

there is twice that of mussels in intertidal wild populations (Yamada and Dunham, 1989).

Bay mussels, Mytilus trossulus and M. galloprovincialis,

are collected and cultured in small quantities. Cultured

and wild-harvested mussels are sold fresh to restaurants

and specialty markets for $1.50/pound. Between 1978

and 1989, annual mussel landings ranged from 818 to

68,821 pounds (Table 5).

California mussels dominate available space when competing with barnacles and sea anemones. The mussels can

exclude barnacles by covering them completely (Paine,

1974). Sea stars and crabs prey on California mussels,

while sea birds and sea otters prey on both California and

bay mussels. Since bay mussels are easier to crush, they are

more vulnerable than California mussels. Mussel beds can

become overgrown by sponges and other epifauna, which

causes a decrease in their tissue weight (Paine, 1976).
Robinson: Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future 85

Table 4

Effort data and annual harvest for commercial and sport razor clam fisheries in Oregon, 1955-90 (ODFW Annual

Reports).

Commercial fishery Sport fishery

No. of o.of No. of Clams No. of

Year diggers clams diggers per trip clams Wastage Total

1955 295 904,000 56,000 22 1,212,000 295,000 2,411,000

1956 253 490,000 60,000 18 1,061,000 295,000 1,846,000

1957 193 336,000 77,000 21 1,646,000 416,000 2,398,000

1958 221 386,000 89,000 19 1,679,000 218,000 2,283,000

1959 118 179,000 54,000 12 646,000 124,000 949,000

1960 93 154,000 48,000 12 596,000 46,000 796,000

1961 58 80,000 51,000 11 583,000 70,000 733,000

1962 79 102,000 56,000 16 892,000 105,000 1,099,000

1963 77 107,000 55,000 13 713,000 70,000 890,000

1964 125 125,000 71,000 16 7,098,000 264,000 1,487,000

1965 213 399,000 76,000 15 1,134,000 186,000 1,719,000

1966 217 282,000 78,000 14 1,052,000 434,000 1,768,000

1967 297 494,000 74,000 20 1,472,000 195,000 2,161,000

1968 340 361,000 64,000 13 831,000 162,000 1,354,000

1969 185 111,000 59,000 14 851,000 155,000 1,117,000

1970 79 61,000 56,000 13 751,000 125,000 901,000

1971 134 123,000 77,000 13 968,000 213,000 1,304,000

1972 76 49,000 69,000 9 636,000 139,000 824,000

1973 111 89,000 76,000 10 725,000 159,000 973,000

1974 58 32,000 44,000 347,000 5,000 384,000

1975 146 171,000 75,000 10 785,000 157,000 1,113,000

1976 391 717,000 119,000 12 1,431,000 63,000 2,211,000

1977 269 143,000 51,000 10 499,000 33,000 675,000

1978 253 205,000 72,000 12 849,000 137,000 1,191,000

1979 236 180,000 90,000 11 958,000 63,000 1,201,000

1980 145 116,000 70,000 11 747,000 143,000 1,006,000

1981 91 128,000 30,000 6 187,000 49,000 364,000

1982 209 165,000 84,000 9 758,UOO 123,000 1,046,000

1983 9 1,000 32,000 3 105,000 12,000 118,000

1984 34 37,000 23,000 15 341,000 15,000 393,000

1985 340 303,000 94,000 10 984,000 147,000 1,434,000

1986 51 18,000 46,000 5 260,000 33,000 311,000

1987 173 236,000 68,000 15 1,010,000 83,000 1,329,000

1988 178 161,000 84,000 11 1,016,000 168,000 1,345,000

1989 228 195,000 97,000 11 1,082,000 136,000 1,413,000

1990 151 75,000 55,000 12 579,000 61,000 715,000

Mussels can accumulate toxic heavy metals and hydrocarbons in their tissues (Roberts, 1976) and can also

ingest algae that makes them toxic to humans,

A great potential exists for increasing mussel production in nonpolluted areas, They are relatively fast-growing, and the market demand for them is good.

Scallops _

Incidental harvesting of weathervane scallops, Patinopecten caurinus, has been common along the Pacific

coast for years, In 1981, two east coast vessels searched

for scallops off the Oregon coast. Investigations conducted by the crew of the R/V John N. Cobb led to the

discovery of beds with commercial quantities ofscallops

off Coos Bay, Sea scallop vessels came from the east

coast to harvest them, They had crews of 12 people and

spent 10-12 days dredging scallops. Crew members

shucked the scallops at sea, stored the meats in cotton

bags (40 pounds/bag), and placed them on ice, Most

local boats had to be converted for scallop fishing.

Scallops were harvested with New Bedford-type dredges,

as well as several modified ones. Shrimp nets were also
86 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Table 5

Landings and estimated values at the fisherman's level

for mussels in Oreon, 1972-90 (ODFW Annual Reports).

Mussel landings

Year Pounds $ Value

1972 588 177

1973 0 0

1974 0 0

1975 728 29]

1976 666 266

1977 312 125

1978 818 327

1979 19,068 7,627

1980 60,629 22,289

1981 17,866 15,642

1982 18,372 24,911

1983 30,752 17,171

1984 40,054 34,773

1985 40,168 30,161

1986 39,872 34,043

1987 52,310 27,432

1988 53,220 20,819

1989 68,821 22,965

1990 54,394 17,273

commonly used. Large vessels over 24 m (80 feet) long

comprised 20% of the fleet, but landed 75% of the

catch. Boats landing scallop meats received more for

their scallops than those landing whole scallops. Initially, the processors at Coos Bay refused to buy the

scallops, because little market existed for them. They

were shipped to Los Angeles, Calif., where they sold

well, before local fishermen and processors became

interested in them. During the fourth week of the fishery, 15 vessels landed scallops; by the ninth week, 60

boats landed 7,500,000 pounds of meats; by the end of

the year, a total of 118 boats had landed scallops. Finally, depressed prices and lower scallop densities forced

most vessels to return to their traditional fisheries, and by

1990, the scallop fishery" was no longer profitable. The

best year for landings was 1981, when 16,853,845 pounds

of meats were landed with a value of $4,671,448. Production then fell steadily and only 1,805 pounds of meats

worth $767 were landed in 1990 (Table 6). Information

about the scallop fishery was obtained from ODFW's yearly

shellfish investigations and progress reports.

Squid

The squid, Loligo opalescens, fishery in Oregon is intermittent, prospering during years when warm currents

sweep northward to the Oregon coast (Table 6). Most

squid are sold for bait.

Table 6

Permits, landings, and estimated value at the fisherman's

level for scallops and squid in Oregon, 1978-90 (ODFW

Annual Reports).

Scallops Squid

Year Permits Pounds $ Value Pounds $ Value

1978 0 0 0

1979 0 3,434 0 0

198u U 0 0 0 0

1981 196 16,853,845 4,671,448 225 45

1982 164 1,487,941 247,292 113,138 9,117

1983 144 2,648.965 778,781 297,410 79,901

19tH 134 3,329,234 1,017,784 946,725 199,941

19R5 113 819,030 327,922 1,751,773 318,577

1986 101 105,523 47,588 26,371 2,684

1987 103 13.590 6.406 29 3

1988 104 29,226 12,U17 5 1

1989 105 220 0 96,025 7,683

1990 100 1,805 767 0 0

Vessels use lampara nets, purse seines, and shrimp

trawls to catch squid. Experimental gear permits were

issued in 1984 to allow trawlers to fish for squid. The

ODFW issued 26 nearshore permits for fishing with

trawl gear inside of 50 fathoms (91 m) in each of four

designated areas ofthe coast. The permits were valid for a

3-week period. Three additional permits were issued for

midwater trawling for the entire coast, outside of 50 fathoms. The vessels did not land squid from deep waters. A

trip limit of 20,000 pounds/day was set for all vessels.

More than 40 vessels expressed an interest in the fishery,

but only 13 vessels landed squid (Annual Progress Reports. ODFW Marine Region). Fishermen sell squid for

about $O.10/pound, $600 to $700/ton for squid weighing

not over lO/pound, and $240 to $300/ton when the

mantle quality is poor and the count per pound is high.

Octopi _

Catches of octopus, Polypus spp., are incidental. Octopi

are caught in crab pots, by groundfish and shrimp

trawls. and by hook and line. Most of the octopus catch

is sold fresh or frozen to specialty markets or for bait.

Fishermen earn less than $1/pound for octopus. Annuallandings have ranged as high as 46,903 pounds in

1988 (Table 7).

Acknowledgments _

The author is indebted to librariansJanet Webster and

Susan Gilmont, who helped to locate both published
__________________ Robinson: Molluscan Fisheries in Oregon: Past, Present, and Future 87

Octopus landings

Literature Cited

Table 7

Landings and estimated values at the fisherman's level for

octopus in Oregon, 1932-90 (ODFW Annual Reports).

Bancroft, H. H.

1888. History of Oregon, 1848 to 188t1. Vo!. II. Hist. Co., San

Franc., Calif., 808 p.

Barret, E. M.

1963. The California oyster industry. Calif. Dep. Fish Game,

Fish Bul!. 123, 103 p.

Bowers, G. M.

1902. Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June

30,1901. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., pt. XXVII.

Breese. W. P.

1979. Eyed larvae and the oyster grower. Proc. Nat!' Shellfish

Assoc. 69:202-203.

Breese, W. P., and R. E. Malouf.

1975. Hatchery manual for the Pacific oyster. OSU Sea Grant

Prog. Pub!. ORESU-H-75-002, Agric. Exper. Sta. Spec. Rep.

443,22 p.

Browning, R.].

1980. Fisheries of the North Pacific. Alaska Northwest Pub!.

Co., Edmonds. Wash., 434 p.

Elston, R. A.

1986. An intranuclear pathogen [nuclear inclusion X (NIX)]

associated with massive mortalities of Pacific razor clam,

Siliqua patula. J. Invertebr. Patho!. 47:93-104.

Fitch,]. E.

1953. Common marine bivalves ofCalifornia. Calif. Dep. Fish

Game, Fish Bul!. 90, 106 p.

Gaumer, T. F.. and]. E. McCrae.

1990. Status of bay clams in Oregon, 1975-1988. Oreg. Dep.

Fish Wild!., Mar. Reg. Spec. Rep.. 22 p.

Gunn, C. R., and D.]. Saxby.

1982. A brief history of the oyster industry in British Columbia. In K. K. Chew (ed.), Proc. N. Am. Oyster Workshop,

March 6-8, 1981, p. 17-27. La. State Univ., Baton Rouge.

Nickerson, R. B.

1975. A critical analysis of razor clam populations in Alaska.

Alaska Dep. Fish Game,Juneau, 194 p.

Paine, R. T.

1974. Intertidal community structure. Experimental studies

on the relationship between a dominant competitor and its

principal predator. Oecologia (Berl.) 15:93-120.

1976. Biological observations on a subtidal Mytilus californianus

bed. Veliger 19(2):1~5-130.

Roberts, D.

1976. Mussels and pollution. In B. 1.. Bayne (ed.), Marine

mussels, their ecology and physiology, p. 67-80. Cambr.

Cniv. Press, U.K.

Sindermann, c.]. (ed.).

1974. Diagnosis and control ofmariculture diseases in the United

States. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Nat!. Mar. Fish. Serv.. Mid.

At!. Coast. Fish. Center, Tech. Ser. Rep. 2:139-183.

Steele, E. N.

1964. The immigrant oyster (Ostrea gigas) now known as the

Pacific oyster. Warren's Quick Print, Olympia, Wash., 179 p.

Washburn, F. 1..

1900. Report of oyster investigations. Oreg. State Dep. Fish.,

Annu. Rep.

Weymouth, F. W., H. C. McMillin, and H. B. Holmes.

1925. Growth and age at maturity of the Pacific razor clam,

Siliqua patula (Dixon). U.S. Dep. Commer., Bur. Fish. Doc.

984:201-236.

Yamada, S. B., and]. B. Dunham.

1989. Mytilus californianus, a new aquaculture species? Aquaculture 81:275-284.

1,039

3,994

o

2,898

6,106

1,741

6,933

10,643

6,180

6,254

8,354

7,065

5.924

4.151

5,861

H,199

31,282

8.625

11,532

Year Pounds $ Value

1932 33

1941 345

1943 261

1944 ~49

1945 169

1946 160

1947 206

1948 379

1972 ~,886

1973 11,095

1974 0

1975 7,244

1976 14,538

1977 4,049

1978 16,122

1979 ~4,1t17

1980 14,013

1981 14,082

1982 18,597

1983 16,780

1984 12,970

1985 7,682

1986 9,540

1987 18,771

1988 46,903

1989 15,318

1990 17,022

and unpublished articles. I also thank Range D. Bayer

for use of his collection of articles from local newspapers. My special thanks go to Susan Mills for editorial

assistance and to Sandy Ridlington for reviewing the

manuscript.

The Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Ostreola canchaphila;

Pacific Oysters, Crassostrea gigas; and

Pacific Razor Clams, Siliqua patula, in the State ofWashington

CEDRIC E. LINDSAY

Washington State Department ofFisheries (Retired)

744 Pt. Mitney Road

Brinnon, Washington 98320

DOUGLAS SIMONS

Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife

48-A Devonshire Road

Montesano, Washington 98563

ABSTRACT

Shellfisheries in the State of Washington include harvests of the Olympia oyster,

Ostreola conchaphila; the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas; and the Pacific razor clam, Siliqua

patula. The oysters occur in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay, while the razor

clam occurs on surf-pounded ocean beaches. Other species harvested have included the

native littleneck, Protothaca staminea; butter clam, Saxidomus nuttalli; geoduck, Panope generosa;

cockle, Clinocardium nuttalli; horse clams, Tresus nuttalli and T. capax; Manila clam, Tapes

philippinarum; mussel, Mytilus trossulus; and softshell clam, Mya arenaria. Before 1900, production ofOlympia oysters was from natural beds and reefs, but afterward most were farmed

in diked grounds. Peak production was 14,500 sacks in 1910; it has since declined and

production is currently small. Pacific oyster culture began in the early 1900's when seed was

imported from Japan. Seed imports reached a peak of nearly 72,000 cases in 1935 but

declined afterward. In recent years, Pacific oyster seed has been produced in local hatcheries. Most commercial oyster culture is practiced on bottoms between 3.5 feet above and 1.5

feet below mean low water. In the beginning, harvesting was accomplished by hand, but as

larger areas were planted, towed and self-powered dredges were used along with hand

harvesting. Washington is the leading producer of Pacific oysters in North America, i.e.,

more than one million gallons/year since 1987. The state once had a commercial fishery for

razor clams and the meats were canned. The commercial harvest decreased steadily from

7.6 million clams in 1946 to 600,000 in 1967. By 1968, the true commercial clam fishery had

ended as commercial digging was prohibited except in small areas. The recreational fishery

peaked at almost 15 million clams and 960,000 digger trips. Numerous challenges complicate future management of the species.

Introduction

Shellfisheries in the State of Washington include harvests of the native or Olympia oyster, Ostreola conchaphila;

Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas; and the Pacific razor

clam, Siliqua patula. However, after the Pacific oyster

became established in the 1920's and 1930's and the

Willapa Bay production of Olympia oysters declined,

Olympia oysters have comprised only a small part of

oyster production. The oysters occur in Puget Sound,

Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay, while the razor clam

occurs on ocean beaches (Fig. 1, 2). Less important

species harvested have included the native littleneck,

Protothaca staminea; butter clam, Saxidomus nuttalli; geoduck, Panope generosa; cockle, Clinocardium nuttalli; horse

clams, Tresus nuttalli and T capax; Manila clam, Tapes

philippinarum; mussel, Mytilus trossulus; and softshell

clam, Mya arenaria.

89
90 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

The bottoms of the bays consist of gravel-sand or

mud, and the Pacific coastal substrate consists of firm

sand. Water salinities in the oyster-growing areas range

from 15-30%0, while water temperatures in them range

from 5°C in winter to 23°C in summer: those on the

coast range from 8-15°C. In Puget Sound, maximum

tidal ranges are at least 6 m (20 feet). In the coastal bays

they are about 4 m (13 feet), and on the Pacific coast

they are about 3.35 m (11 feet).

Olympia Oyster Fishery _

Olympia oysters (Fig. 3) once were found in beds or

reefs throughout Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, and Grays

Harbor. They grew best where salinities averaged 25%0

24 km

PACIFIC

OCEAN

Figure I

The coastline of Washington.

and where they were protected from extremes of heat

and cold. They could not withstand prolonged periods

oflow salinity. The best habitats were natural tidepools,

shallow channels, and some deep channels where predators were scarce. The best bottom types were fine gravel,

shell, or firm mud. Fauna associated with Olympia oysters

were those common to sheltered low intertidal zones and

in tide poolssuch as mussels, native littlenecks, thin-shelled

littleneck, P. tenerrima; Manila clams, butter clams, cockles, horse clams, and Macoma nasuta. Other associated

species are Pandalid and Crangon shrimp, the mud shrimp,

Upogebia sp.; grapsoid and cancroid crabs, annelid worms,

barnacles, nudibranchs, tunicates, bryozoans, and fishes

such as cottids, gobies, and blennies.

Native Americans ate Olympia oysters wherever they

found concentrations of them. Oyster shells have been

found in middens throughout Puget Sound

and coastal bays near places where O.

conchaphila probably grew in the past. The

largest concentrations in Puget Sound occurred in its southern bays. In early times,

Indians traded seafood products including

dried fish and clams (but probably not oysters) to inland tribes. Non-Indian settlers

gathered oysters for food and for sale (Steele,

1957; Taylor!).

Willapa Bay Fishery

In the 1850's the Willapa Bay oyster stocks

were sold to buyers on sailing ships, who

carried them to the large San Francisco market (Swan, 1857). Stocks in northern California and Oregon bays had been quickly depleted, but the Willapa Bay stocks were extensive enough to sustain a much larger fishery. Puget Sound stocks did not share in this

trade due to spoilage problems resulting from

longer voyages. Willapa Bay oysters were gathered from potholes, low intertidal ground,

and shallow sloughs found throughout the

bay. Grays Harbor stocks apparently were

not large enough to sustain extensive harvesting. At first, Indians gathered the oysters

and sold them to non-Indian entrepreneurs,

but as trade increased rapidly more white men

came to gather oysters to sell to the sailing

ships. Harvested oysters were moved to shallow

beds for culling and sacking before the arrival

ofa ship. Once loaded, the sailing ships headed

for San Francisco as fast as possible.

I Taylor, J. 1992. President, Taylor United Inc., S.E.

130 Lynch Road, Shelton, Wash. Personal commun.
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 91

Throughout the fishery's heyday, which lasted from

the late 1850's into the 1870's, the fishermen took all

the oysters they could gather with little conservation or

enhancement (Espy, 1977). By the end of the 1870's,

the beds were depleted, and the fishery had virtually

collapsed. An 1895 U.S. Fish Commission report concerning transplantation of eastern oysters, Crassostrea

virginica, mentions the Willapa Bay Olympia oyster fishery, and contains a map of the bay showing natural and

cultivated (transplanted) beds of the Olympia oyster

(Fig. 4). Over 2,000 acres of transplanted beds were

shown in the vicinity of Tokeland, Bruceport, Bay Center, and Oysterville. The natural beds occupied low

ground from the Willapa River mouth to the south end

of Long Island. In 1895 about 350 persons produced

$66,000 worth of oysters (Townsend, 1895).

Some effort was made to actually cultivate Olympia

oysters in the early 1900's, because several abandoned

and silted oyster dikes south of Long Island have been

found; no information has been verified about how and

when the dikes were constructed. Small numbers of

Olympia oysters in some sloughs and potholes and on

shell reefs are still present in the southern end of the

bay. After the collapse of the Olympia oyster fishery,

oystermen began to import railcar loads of eastern

oysters from the U.S. Atlantic coast for planting. For a

time, the industry revived, but, by the 1920's, an unexplained mass mortality of the eastern oysters caused the

industry to fail.

Puget Sound Fishery

Sporadic populations

on beaches

managed by the

Ouinauh Indian nation

PACIFIC

OCEAN

Long Beach

15 miles

24 km

COPALIS RIVER

The Puget Sound fishery for the Olympia oyster had a

slower beginning. Before the advent of rail service,

markets were mostly local. The pioneers bought Olympia oysters from the Indians and harvested them for

family use as well. At first, the small oysters were gathered by hand, put into baskets or tubs, and brought

ashore for use or sale. It was a free fishery, as oysters

were gathered wherever found. Some beds were fished

by squatters and others by Indians who lived along the

shore.

Before statehood in 1889, all titles of tidelands and

beds of navigable water were vested in the Federal

Government. Upon gaining statehood, however, titles

passed to the State of Washington. In March 1895 the

state legislature passed the Callow Act which authorized the sale of natural oyster beds to individuals who

occupied and cultivated beds before that date (Taylor'). Indians occupying land along the shore beside

the natural beds claimed title to them at that time.

Purchasers would maintain title only so long as they

continued to cultivate shellfish. The Bush Act was also

passed in March 1895 which gave any person the right

Figure 2

The outer coast of Washington, where razor clams occur.

to purchase oyster land whether or not they had previously used it for oystering. However, the Bush Act deeds

still specified the state could reclaim the land if it was

used for any purpose other than growing shellfish. In

1927 a provision was added to the law that allowed for

purchase of the reversionary right. Many tideland owners did get full title, but there are still Bush Act lands for

which the reversionary rights have never been acquired.

Indians as well as non-Indians purchased Bush Act

lands and developed productive oyster farms. One of

the first persons to realize the potential of expanding

the acreage bydiking ground to create artificial tidepools

wasJ. Y. Waldrip (Steele, 1957). Others soon followed.

They found that productive beds could be greatly expanded by installing wooden and later concrete dike

walls at successive levels above the low ground. They

levelled the ground behind the walls so as to retain 10-

15 cm (4-6 inches) of water over the oysters. At first,

they did it by hand, shoveling bottom material onto
92 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 3

Three clusters of Olympia oysters ranging from juveniles, seed, and adults.

scows or floats and unloading it to fill the hollows. Since

excavation had to be done at low tide, the work took

months to complete.

As workers gained experience, they used mechanical

dragline buckets to excavate and self-dumping scows to

unload the fill material. Sometimes, the original mud

was too soft to support the heavier fill material and so

tarpaper, boards, or plywood skins were used as flooring under the fill to stabilize the bottom and to prevent

burrowing shrimp from digging holes under the dike

walls and allowing the water to drain. The cost of diking

even in the 1930's has been reported as high as $5,000

per acre, which seems high except that the yield from

those beds at the peak of the industry easilyjustified the

cost.

Steele (1957) listed names of more than 60 growers

who were in the oyster business about 85 years ago

when diking was getting underway. About this time, the

name Olympia was chosen for the Olympia oyster to

stimulate market demand and sales. Some growers hired

Indians and laterJapanese to build dikes, harvest, cull,

and sack the oysters for market. After the internment

years of World War II, some old country and American

born Japanese came back to work for the companies or

to build beds of their own. Oyster dikes varied in size

with the slope of the beach. Broad flats near the heads

of the bays contained dikes of 10-15 acres, but on

steeper beaches dikes varied from about 1 to 5 acres,

and they were built on several terraced levels (Fig. 5).

Records of the total area of original diked ground do

not exist, but it amounted to more than 1,000 acres.

Seeding the Beds

The normal reseeding practice was to take advantage of

natural sets that attached to live oysters or shells already

in the dike. Growers found that upper-level dikes caught

and grew seed best. Reseeding was adequate in Oakland Bay, and in most of Totten and Little Skookum

Inlets. Parts of Totten and Eld Inlets were less dependable as were other bays and inlets. Growers there had to

obtain seed from locations where good setting was consistent. In fact, as dikes were being completed, some

oystermen went to the State Oyster Reserve in Oakland

Bay, harvested oysters, poled their top floats down

Hammersley Inlet, and over to their beds on Totten

Inlet (about 40 km or 25 miles). In the years that

followed, the state sold thousands of bushels of Olympia oysters to oyster growers for replanting their beds.
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 93

'NrHDDVC~D

N~r"'''AL .£D$

• cu"r'''Ar6D .1""

I~

MAP

WASHINGTON

(

t

"

\

WILLAPA BAY

NATIVE AND CULTIVATED

OYSTER BEDS

EASTERN OYSTERS

PL.Al"ITCD .V THE u.s. fiSh CO.... MISSIO'"

AND ot" THE

-

l

(

J CAPE SHOAuNATER

10-., \j

SCAL[

J i MILfS

Figure 4

Willapa Bay showing oyster growing areas.

The state built dikes to increase the supply ofseed and

sold oysters un til the 1930's when the Oakland Bay

Reserves failed to get a set.

As adequate oyster setting continued in Totten Inlet

during the 1940's, growers with oysters in other bays

brought cultch to Totten and floated it in bins during

June and July, and returned the seed to their own beds

after setting had finished. In Case Inlet, local growers

used concrete-coated wooden lath frames as cultch

(Nelson, 1990). In other bays, they used cemented egg

crate fillers along with shell to catch and grow seed.

These types of artificial cultch were used by Olympia

oyster growers until the early 1960's when oyster survivaI and growth had reached a low ebb In formerly

productive bays.

Growing the Oysters

Olympia oysters ready for market had a shell diameter

of 25-40 mm (1-1.5 inches). It took about 2,000 oyster

meats to fill 1 gallon. On most beds, growth to maturity

took 4 or 5 years. During the growth period, the crop

was usually culled two or three times. Oyster workers

with the close-tined forks lifted all oysters from a portion of the beds onto scows or top floats and towed the
94 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 5

Oyster dikes in Mud Bay, Eld Inlet, showing market-sized oysters growing on top of leveled

and gravelled tidelands, 1910. Photograph by Brenner Oyster Company.

load to the company's nearby culling house (Fig. 6).

The workers removed the market- sized oysters, separated clusters. stockpiled dead shell for cultch, and

dumped pests, including predators and debris, on shore.

They stockpiled the market oysters in sink floats for

later sacking and shipment to restaurants or processing

plants, and rebedded the smaller oysters and seed in

the area from which they had been removed. If the

small oysters were mostly seed, however, they rebedded

on previously cleaned and diked ground. If any beds

contained juveniles as well as seed, the crop was taken

up and culled again. A healthy rapidly growing bed

required culling at least every second year and sometimes more often.

The smaller farms were usually family-sized operations, and one or two persons were hired on a part-time

basis. The small size of oysters and limited acreage of

farms tended to discourage the development of mechanical handling methods. In later years, one or two

larger companies used power-driven portable conveyor

belts to move the harvested oysters onto the deck ofthe

scow. No dredge or mechanical vacuuming system was

found to be practical or economically feasible.

Production and Marketing

Statistics of the Willapa Bay Olympia oyster production

are not available, while records ofthe early Puget Sound

Olympia oyster fishery have been more readily available. Production was first reported in numbers ofsacks,

because in Puget Sound, after culling, market-size oysters were sacked and carried by a boat to processing

plants in Olympia. Oysters were also shipped to restaurants or to out-of-state wholesalers in the sack and

opened at the retail outlets. Later, as new processing

plants were built in Olympia, more oysters were opened

and shucked, refrigerated in glass jars and sent to the

markets in that form, saving the cost ofshipping sacked

oysters as well as the cost of an oyster shucker at the

retail outlet. Besides, the small shells for cultch that was

always in short supply were retained (Taylorl).

Steele (1957) reports that early production may have

been more than 50,000 sacks (100,000 bushels) annually.

Before 1900 the oysters were principally from natural beds

and reefs, which eventually became depleted. With diking

of tidelands and conversion to an aquaculture system,

annual yields increased. Production in 1910 was reported
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 95

as 14,500 sacks. Some fluctuation occurred, but by 1925 yield had increased

to over 20,000 sacks, after which it declined below 10,000 sacks in 1933, and

rose to 12,000 sacks in 1936. Mter 1936,

statistics were collected by the Washington Department ofFisheries (WDF) and

production was reported in gallons. For

comparison, fat oysters yielded 2-2.5 gallons/2-bushel sack, and each gallon contained about 2,000 oyster meats. By 1943

production had declined below 20,000

gallons, and in 1953 below 14,000 gallons except for 1949 when it was over

23,000 gallons. In 1954, 8,000 gallons

were produced, and in 1957, 2,100 gallons. From 1961 to 1970, production fluctuated between 3,500 and 6,000 gallons.

In 1979 less than 1,000 gallons was reported. From 1981 to 1985 annual production was only 3,000 gallons, and, in

the next 5 years, average annual production wasjust under 1,000 gallons.

The prices for Olympia oysters underwent sharp increases from the early

days when a bushel of oysters sold for

$0.25 (Steele, 1957). By the 1950's, oysters were around $25/gallon. In the

1970's, the price was around $125/galIon if one could get them, and, in the

early 1990's, prices were more than

$200/gallon. Even with such high

prices, growers report there is little

profit for a company in growing Olympia oysters (Taylor]).

Fishery Decline

Figure 6

Oscar Zandel, bed foreman for Brenner Oyster Company for 30 years,

holding a handful of market-sized Olympia oysters and a standard Olympia oyster fork. Photograph by Earl Brenner.

The decline of the Willapa Bay Olympia oyster fishery

was due to depletion of the vast natural beds and lack of

success in establishing a culture system. In Puget Sound,

harvest and depletion of natural beds also occurred,

but with the development of progressive diking and

cultural techniques, production increased until 1926

(Steele, 1957). In 1927 a sulfite pulp mill began operating in Shelton and discharging untreated sulphite waste

liquor (SWL) into Oakland Bay. Private and state beds

were adversely affected immediately. Oyster setting

ended and adult oysters died. Between the start-up and

closure of the mill in 1945, due to wartime conditions,

disposal of SWL underwent several changes. A major

change occurred when the liquor was pumped to Goose

Lake west of Shelton and later to settling ponds on

nearby Scott's Prairie. Unfortunately, the groundwater

became saturated, and the SWL leached back to the bay

via Goldsborough Creek (McKernan et al., 1949).

As illustrated by the brief summary of production

statistics, the first major decline in Olympia oyster production coincided with the discharge of pulp mill waste

directly into Oakland Bay. Between 1931 and 1962,

three major investigations were undertaken to try to

ascertain causes for the oyster losses. The first, by the

U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, began in 1931 with A. E.

Hopkins conducting the research under the direction

of Paul S. Galtsoff. With the help of H. C. McMillin,

they studied various aspects of Olympia oyster biology

and culture and the effects of pulp mill operations.

They examined effects of temperature extremes, predation from Japanese oyster drills, and reproduction,

as well as possible effects of pulp mill wastes. They
96 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

concluded that the most likely cause of the decline was

the presence of high concentrations of pulp mill waste

in Oakland Bay, and that even in lower concentrations

it could be affecting survival in other bays of southern

Puget Sound (Hopkins et al., 1931).

A second major study was undertaken by the WDF in

1943. Donald L. McKernan headed this group, which

intensified studies of temperature extremes, pests and

predators, competition with Pacific oysters, oyster reproduction, water transport and circulation out of Oakland

Bay, and also included a laboratory dilution study to test

the effect oflow concentrations ofSWL on adult oysters.

Their drift-bottle studies showed that polluted water

from Oakland Bay could reach adjacent bays in a few days.

The dilution study showed a harmful effect from SWL

concentrations as low as 64 ppm. They concluded that,

although natural factors such as predation had an adverse

effect on oysters, the most probable factor causing the

oyster losses was pulp mill waste (McKernan et al., 1949).

During World War II, the pulp mill closed, but it

reopened in 1945. Before the reopening, the mill officials said the waste liquor was to be evaporated and the

residue burned. This was done, and the mill management claimed that over 90% was burned. However, in

the winter of 1956-57, a severe mortality of Olympia

oysters occurred again. This time, there was the belief

that the mill had substantially increased its production

so that the burners were not eliminating as much waste

as originally claimed.

The WDF investigated further the possible causes for

the severe losses of oysters. C. E. Woelke2 conducted

extensive field work to document the condition of the

oyster stocks and to collect samples for disease analyses.

Woelke later developed the Pacific oyster larvae bioassay technique for assessing toxicity of sea water. R. E.

Westley (1957) undertook extensive water sampling 1O

ascertain whether or not SWL could be detected in

waters ofsouthern Puget Sound, and Clifford Barnes of

the University of Washington provided much help in

working out local water circulation patterns. An elaborate dilution study was set up at the Pt. Whitney Laboratory to determine, if possible, the lower limits of SWL

concentrations that might affect adult Olympias.

Before full-scale studies were well underway, the sulfite

pulp mill closed permanently. However. a few water

samples taken beforehand contained low concentrations ofSWL in the outer part of Totten Inlet (Westley,

1957). The oyster growers again sued the pulp mill, but

the suit was thrown out of court by FederalJudge George

Boldt. The results of this latest group ofstudies demonstrated that water from Oakland Bay could eventually

circulate throughout southern Puget Sound. The conWoelke, C. E. 1956. Adult Olympia oyster mortalities, 1929-1956.

Wash. State Dep. Fish., Olympia Oyster Problems 2., 2 p. (proc.).

centrations of SWL detected in the bays near the commercial oyster beds were not as high as the 8 ppm

indicated by the laboratory dilution study to be deleterious to oysters. No disease, temperature extreme, or

predation was found to have a major effect on the

Olympia oyster stocks. Siltation and the presence of

large plantings of Pacific oysters, which might have

contributed to the problem, could not be demonstrated.

Within 2 years after the pulp mill closed, water quality improved, oyster growth and survival improved, and

good oyster setting occurred again except in Oakland

Bay. In the meantime, most of the growers had planted

Pacific oysters for economic survival, although Olympia

oyster culture was still carried on by a few growers. With

the severe decline in production and lack of product,

markets for Olympias became much reduced.

Prognosis for Future

High labor costs along with inflated costs of supplies

and services, continued predation from oyster drills

and flatworms, the high price for the products, and

limited market availability seem to preclude any largescale revival of the Olympia oyster industry. There are

specialty growers with good diked ground who will continue to culture them while using hand labor, but no

grower is likely to rely on Olympia oysters alone as

growers did in the past. Probably only two companies

and two individuals are currently culturing Olympia

oysters on a small scale. Also an early 1990's report indicated that the Squaxin Indian tribe had received grant

funds to develop oyster dikes on the reservation (Taylorl).

Most productive oyster grounds will also grow Manila

clams successfully. The market for those clams as steamers is good. Furthermore, Manila clam seed can now be

purchased from shellfish hatcheries. Possibly, a small,

well-run farm may be able to grow Olympia and European flat oysters, Ostrea edulis; clams, and mussels, and

provide a good income for one family. The grower

might then concentrate only on culturing, and market

his crops through a larger grower or local processor.

All shellfish growers in Washington face potential

decertification of beds if domestic pollution spreads.

However, there is wide public recognition that shellfish

beds need protection, and perhaps even willingness of

all parties to attempt correction of the problems.

Pacific Oyster Fishery

Pacific oysters grow well in most waters of Puget Sound

and the two coastal bays. Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor,

except where they have prolonged exposure to salinities lower than 15%0 and summer temperatures below
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 97

12°C. They thrive on a variety of bottom types and

conditions of exposure to wind and waves and do well

suspended in the water. Most commercial bottom culture

is practiced between 1 m (3.5 feet) above and 0.5 m (1.5

feet) below mean lower low water (0 tide level), although

in some parts of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor they may

be grown as deeply as 7.6 m (25 feet) below extreme low

tide. They are marketed at lengths of 10-15 em.

Broad tideflats are best for bottom culture, but soft

mud and shifting sand cause burial and smothering.

Where bottoms are soft, the oysters must be suspended

off bottom or the bottom must be hardened. Beds of

rock or coarse gravel are usually less satisfactory since

oysters must be attached to substrate or kept in large

clusters. Fauna associated with these oyster beds include crabs, Olympia oysters, barnacles, snails, hard

and softshell clams, starfish, shrimp, ghost or mud

shrimp, annelid worms, nudibranchs, tunicates, bryozoans, cottids, gobies, and blennies.

Origins of the Pacific Oyster Industry

People in Washington's oyster business began to look

for other species to meet market demand as stocks of

Olympia oysters declined. P. S. Galtsoff (1930) authored

a report to the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries in 1929, which

documented the early negotiations in 1899 between

the Bureau and Tokyo Imperial University. Japanese

scientists suggested that Pacific oysters from northern

Japan might be well adapted for growing on the Pacific

coast of the United States, and during the early 1900's

several shipments ofoysters were planted in Puget Sound

(Hori3). These were apparently market-sized oysters for

the half-shell trade. Some did survive the sea voyage,

but no steady trade was developed.

In April 1919 a shipment of 400 cases of adult oysters

from Miyagi Prefecture was planted in Samish Bay

(Steele, 1964). The adult oysters all died, but spat,

attached to the shells of the large oysters, survived and

grew. This led the grower to believe that since these

spat survived the voyage across the Pacific this was the

way to ship oysters. Subsequent experiments were conducted quietly byJapanese nationals (probably S. Miyagi

and J. E. Tsukimoto), and a successful farm was established in Samish Bay.

In 1921 E. N. Steele andJ. Barnes of Olympia, growers of Olympia oysters, inspected the beds with J. E.

Tsukimoto and observed good survival and rapid growth

of the Miyagi Prefecture oysters. Also, in 1921, the

Washington State Legislature passed an anti-alien law

3 Hori.]. 1947. History of transplantation ofJapanese oysters to the

United States. Tokyo Imperial Fish. Col!., Tokyo, Jpn. Unpub!.

Manuscr.

which prevented ownership ofland by noncitizens. Thus,

Japanese were prohibited from owning oyster land. E.

N. Steele and J. Barnes became interested in growing

Japanese oysters and, after negotiations, purchased the

oyster crop and 600 acres of tidelands. Tsukimoto then

returned to Japan and entered the seed business.

As word ofsuccessful survival ofJapanese seed spread,

other growers of Olympia and American oysters placed

orders with Japanese producers. Due to the general

antipathy for anything from Japan, the name Pacific

oyster was adopted for better market acceptance. Nowadays, the source area names such as Miyagi, Kumamoto,

and Hiroshima are accepted with no especially negative

connotation.

Within a few years of the advent of seed shipments,

regular production ofseed oysters was established, and

the best early spring shipment procedure was worked

out. An extensive seed production system was established in the Sendai Bay area of Miyagi Prefecture about

320 km (200 miles) north of Tokyo. People in villages

in the Matsushima Island area and along the Ojika

Peninsula, southeast of Ishinomaki, were pioneers in

export seed production.

Production Methods

In Japan, oyster shells were strung on 2 m (6.6 foot)

wires and suspended from beach racks, floating rafts, or

longlines in summer just before the anticipated larval

settlement (Fig. 7). As soon as the setting season ended,

strings were overwintered on horizontal racks high in

the intertidal zone to slow growth and to harden the

seed oysters. Packing sites were set up in each village,

and, usually in February, strings were removed from

hardening racks and brought to the site by small sampans. Wires were cut and shells were put in wash baskets. Seaweed and other small debris was then washed

from the loose shells. Clean shells went to selection

tables where individual mother shells were examined

and sorted to determine whether debris, young Japanese oyster drills, Ocenebra inornatum; drill egg cases, or

other snails might be present, or whether there was any

other evidence that the seed might be contaminated.

At the same time, shells were graded to assure adequate

quantities of live spat less than 15 mm (0.6 inches) in

diameter and then placed in 2'l'2-bushel wooden seed

oyster cases or half-sized cases. It was ruled that each

standard case of unbroken seed had to contain at least

12,000 spat and 16,000 spat for broken seed. Some buyers

preferred broken seed. Thus, whole shells were fractured

in to 2-3 pieces before filling the cases.

The filled cases were placed on holding racks just

below high tide to await transfer by lighter boat to the

seed ship. After the war, predator control was exercised
98 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 7

Pacific oyster cultch on catching racks in Mongoku Ura at Watanoha, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, 1934.

Photograph by J. Emy Tsukimoto.

at all levels by responsible growers keeping shell strings

from coming in contact with the bottom on catching

and hardening racks. Inspection was done by buyers'

representatives and inspectors ofthe U.S. andJapanese

governments to certify the seed as acceptable for export. Ships were contracted for by the buyers' organization to load seed in Sendai Bay next to the port of

Shiogama or small bays of the Ojika Peninsula. Cases

were loaded as deck cargo, covered with straw matting,

lashed down, and transported across the Pacific to Washington ports in 9-12 days, arriving in March and April

(Fig. 8). Individual growers collected the cases they had

contracted for and transported them to their planting

beds. Seed imports began slowly, reached a peak of

nearly 72,000 cases in 1935, and then declined. The

imports ceased during World War II, but began again

in 1947 and continued each year except 1978 until

1979. They then ceased because of a high price, $46.40/

case, and the Japanese domestic oyster growers took

the entire supply (Table 1).

Domestic Seed

During the warm summer of 1936, C. gigasspawned and

set in large numbers in Hood Canal, southern Puget

Sound, and Willapa Bay. The resulting adults provided

a large brood stock and were an important source of

market oysters to sustain the industry during World

War II. Other warm years followed in 1942, 1946, and

1958, as well as in some later years, and excellent setting occurred in the same areas. Growers made special

efforts to provide cultch on their beds to obtain domestic seed. The resulting stocks continued to supply the

markets after World War II until the 1947 Japanese

seed plantings grew to market size. Growers also continued to purchase accumulated stocks on private and

state-owned tidelands and State Oyster Reserves. Thereafter, many growers cultched every year as an economical supplement to Japanese seed.

In 1942 the WDF assigned biologists to study spawning and setting of C. gigas in Hood Canal and Willapa

Bay. In a timely manner, they kept growers informed

about the time and intensity of spawning and setting

(Lindsay et aI., 1959). Every summer thereafter, two

WDF Shellfish Laboratories have continued to provide

Hood Canal and Willapa Bay oyster set prediction services to the industry.

Techniques for collection of natural-set oyster seed

has been similar to that done by the Japanese, except

that shells are also suspended in plastic mesh bags or

are spread loosely on the tidelands. No special selec-
__ Lindsay &: Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, &: Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 99

Figure 8

Deckload of oyster seed being wet-down with seawater before departure from Momono Ura,

Sendai Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, enroute to Washington State. Photograph by C. E.

Lindsay.

tion or pest control measures are taken with domestic

seed except to prohibit transfers of infested seed to

clean areas.

Growing Oysters

The private beds upon which oysters were and are

grown in Washington vary in quality. The best growing

ground will produce market-sized oysters in 21/2 years,

medium good ground in 3lj2 years, and the poorest

ground in 5 years or more (Fig. 9). Fatness also varies

greatly. The best fattening grounds are limited in extent, and, in modern practice, they are used mostly to

fatten adult oysters which are taken from growing beds

where they may have been cultured for 1-3 years.

Some farmers use their safest ground for holding

seed. They may hold it for 6 months through the summer after planting or for as long as 12-16 months.

Where a farmer's ground is limited all growing may be

done on a single piece of ground. Better utilization of a

given piece of ground may be to go back to techniques

developed by the Japanese several hundred years ago.

This usually involves longline or stake culture above the

substrate. A newer technique is to place seed in polyethylene mesh bags fastened to racks off bottom or in

bags on firm bottom (Fig. 10). The oysters may be

removed from the bag and marketed as they reach halfshell size, or they may be spread on tidelands for further growth for 1-2 years before opening. Where oysters are cultured intertidally. the farmer observes the

response of the oysters to a particular location and

where possible modifies cultural techniques to improve

survival, growth, and fatness.

Harvesting

In the beginning, many growing and harvesting activities were accomplished by hand, either by the individual farmer or by large bed crews. Oysters were picked

into bushel baskets and put in skiffs, small scows, or

floats and much later into 10 to 20-bushel tubs. Wheelbarrows to carry oysters were also used on firm beds. As

larger areas were planted and deeper ground was used,

towed and self-powered dredges were brought in from
100 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 1

Washington's commercial Pacific oyster seed production.

Standard cases of Standard cases of

seed imported Equivalent cases seed imported Equivalent cases

from Japan Dollars/case of oyster seed from Japan Dollars/case of oyster seed

Japanese produced in Japanese produced in

Year Amt. oyster seed N. Hood Canal Year Arnt. oyster seed N. Hood Canal

1924 400 1954 64,679

1925 840 1955 46,680

1926 1,403 1956 74,059 8.05 1,000

1927 4,050 1957 48,863 8.67 0

1928 ],367 1958 47,862 10.28 2,000

1929 1.500 1959 48,984 2,500

1930 2,750 1960 36,304 9.95 3,500

193] ? 1961 27,479 9.88 3,700

1932 34,741 1962 32,799 ]0.83 5,200

]933 64,550 ]963 42,392 ]1.00 2,700

1935 7],787 1964 30,535 0

1936 42,953 1965 27,283 6,900

1937 29,350 1966 14,922 17.')0 9,200

1938 ]4,705 1967 34,229 ]5,900

1939 ]4,747 1968 28,085 17.00 6,200

1940 ]3,493 1969 33,600 16.50 3,000

1941 10,432 1970 22,~13 19.40 5,000

1942 0 1971 25,486 20.50 32,900

1943 0 1972 7,321 25.50 33,400

1944 0 ]973 8,346 29.00 34,200

1945 0 1974 12,406 29.28 46,700

]946 0 1975 7,866 28.64 0

]947 40,502 5.86 1976 ]5,820 32.50 0

1948 27,369 1977 30,399 32.90 50,000

1949 4],026 1978 0 45,000

1950 36,861 ]979 4,900 46.40 29,000

1951 36,668 1980 0

1952 68,975 7.98 ]98] 0 40,]50

]953 63,815 ]982 6,160

the Atlantic coast Or built locally (Fig. 11). On firm

ground, farm tractOrS were used on beds accessible

from the uplands. As operations grew larger and labor

costs increased. larger companies had to adapt or develop mechanical equipment for increased efficiency.

Depending on the type of ground and type of product

cultured, however, hand harvest is still used where appropriate, even by the largest companies.

Once harvested for processing, the oysters are brought

to a shore plant where they are opened by hand using

knives adapted to the characteristics of the Pacific oyster shell. Other than steam, no mechanical method of

shucking has yet been developed. In the past, one person operated small shucking plants and large plants

had as many as 40 openers. At present, few one-person

plants operate, but even the largest plants use only

enough openers to fill their day-to-day market demand.

Marketing

In the early days, oysters were mostly opened fresh and

retailed in small paper containers or shipped in bulk to

wholesalers or directly to restaurants. As sanitary laws were

adopted, oysters were packed in glass and refrigerated

(Steele, 1964). Larger quantities were sealed in gallon and

half-gallon cans, refrigerated, and used in the institutional

trade. In some instances, oysters were shipped in bulk to

wholesalers in IO-gallon milk cans for repacking. During

World War II, large orders were sold to the military ser-

\ices. After the war, recipes were developed for oyster

stew, and large volumes were produced and marketed. In

addition, small quantities were smoked and canned. With

Federal approval of imports from Japan and Korea. however, canned oysters were imported at prices that undercut local processors. In recent years, small and medium
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 101

Figure 9

Clusters of 2-year-old oysters being separated by bed crew at Tokeland, Willapa Bay, 1948.

Photograph by C. E. Lindsay.

Figure 10

Rack and bag oyster culture in northern Willapa Bay. Photograph by R. Shuman.
102 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 11

The self-powered oyster dredge, Pacific, with load oftransplant oysters for rebedding

on fattening ground in Willapa Bay. Photograph by C. E. Lindsay.

Pacific oysters have found acceptance in the retail and

restaurant trade. Extra small oysters are used for cocktails,

while small and medium oysters are opened as half-shells,

both to be eaten raw. Large oysters are barbecued in the

shell.

Between 1937 and 1993, Washington commercial oyster production ranged from 458,000-1,553,000 gallons.

Production since 1986 has averaged over 930,000 gallons. About 51 % were produced in Willapa Harbor,

36% in Puget Sound, and 13% in Grays Harbor.

The Industry

The numbers of individuals or firms engaged in growing

Pacific oysters before World War II is not well known as no

licensing system was in effect. Steele (1964) reports that

13 companies formed the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers

Association in 1930. Since then, membership rose and fell

as companies were formed, were bought out, or went out

of business. Probably, the largest number of firms operated during World War II. Afterward, larger companies

acquired the assets ofsmaller companies and individuals.

About 1951, the state required that oyster farms have

licenses, and anyone could buy a license regardless of

acreage owned or leased. In 1991 the number of commerciallicenses totalled 253 (Zinicola4). However, most

oysters were produced by less than 20% of the growers.

Production statistics by company are not available.

4 Zinicola, T. 1992. Statistician, Data Manage. Div., Wash. Dep. Fish.,

115 General Admin. Bldg., Olympia. Personal commun.
__ Lindsay &: Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, &: Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 103

Predator Control

Modern oyster farmers control predation by culturing

around the predators wherever possible. If this is not

possible, then direct elimination must be used. One of

the most serious predators is the Japanese oyster drill,

which was introduced with oysters from Japan during

the early imports. It first appeared in Samish Bay and

later in other bays. Most of the rest of the infestations

were the result of transfers of infested oysters or equipment from previously infested locations. Spread ofdrills

is by physical transport as the drill does not have pelagic

larvae. The most serious predation is on seed and thinshelled oysters.

In 1945 regulations were adopted to prohibit transfer of drills among oyster plantings. A permit system

was developed and operated by the WDF for transfers

within and from outside the state and continues to the

present. In 1947 inspection ofJapanese seed was begun

and continued until seed oyster imports ceased in 1979.

Methods for drill control in Japan have already been

described. For many years, the drill quarantine in Washington was successful, but gradually, through carelessness or deliberate violation, additional beds became

infested. Even so, many beds remain uninfested. Considerable research has been directed toward eradication of drills, but no feasible method has been found.

Other predators include several species of cancroid

crabs capable of breaking open seed and adult oysters.

The red crab, Cancer productus, probably causes the

most damage, while the Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, is less aggressive but a substantial predator in Samish

Bay on oysters with thin shells.

Starfish remain serious predators of seed and adult

oysters in some areas of Puget Sound and Hood Canal.

If not controlled, they can wipe out entire oyster crops.

They are not a serious problem in the coastal bays as

their abundance is low. In bays where they are abundant, the only feasible control method is by hand picking as beds are being worked. Growers have found that

with steady removal, starfish damage can be kept to a

minimum. Currently, the only permissible control

method is by picking or trapping.

Additional pests are the ghost shrimp, Callianassa

californianus, and mud shrimp, Upogebia pugettensis. Both

make burrows which riddle the substrate so that oysters

smother. The most effective control is to apply carbaryl

(Sevin5), an insecticide, to discrete infested areas before planting them with oysters. For more than 25 years,

the WDF has carefully controlled and limited applications of carbaryl. Many beds have been rehabilitated in

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor without substan tial dam5 Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, OAA.

age to the Dungeness crab population. Nevertheless,

the use ofcarbaryl is controversial and could be banned

at any time.

Pollution Problems

Sanitary control of oyster production came into effect nationwide in about 1925 following an outbreak of

typhoid fever from eating raw oysters produced on the

U.S. Atlantic coast. In Washington, all tidelands near

cities had long been decertified for direct opening.

Oyster culture on these lands was terminated since

much productive ground was available in certifiable

areas. This situation generally prevailed until the 1960's

when residential and commercial development along

the shores began to increase. The Washington State

Health Department found it necessary to decertify those

places where sanitary surveys and water sampling detected pollution from human and animal sources, seasonally or permanently. The agency did not have the

authority, however, to require correction of the problem at its source.

In areas where growing oysters were affected by pollution, the state allowed growers to relay them to clean

areas in limited instances. However, relaying as a routine depuration method has been discouraged. Thus

far, shoreside depuration plants have not been approved. During the past 10 years, increased surveys

have identified several previously clean areas where

nonpoint source pollution has occurred from failed

septic systems, livestock pastures, and concentrations of

harbor seals. As a result, additional areas have been

decertified.

State legislation resulting from the 1992 sessions of

the legislature has provided funding to assist the counties in correcting some of the pollution sources.

Implementation ofthe 1991 State Growth Managemen t

Act may also result in local ordinances designed to

prevent further degradation of water quality.

Another source of pollution believed to affect oyster

growth and survival has been effiuent from pulp mills

in Bellingham, Anacortes, Everett, and Hoquiam. There

is no question but that effiuent discharged into bays is

toxic (Woelke, 1972). However, proving that mill waste

detrimentally affected oyster beds several km (miles)

away from a discharge has been impossible. Federal

and state action has required mills to reduce effiuent

discharges. Mills in two of the places mentioned have

closed. Oyster growth and fatness on some of the affected beds seems to have improved, but the cause and

effect relationship has not been established.

Pollution resulting from residential development in

the Puget Sound basin also may have negative effects

on water quality, and effort is being directed toward
104 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

reducing uncontrolled storm water runoff, effects of

logging, industrial waste discharge generally, and use

of pesticides and fertilizers. Oysters and other filter

feeders are finally recognized as indicators of water

quality, and their continued cultivation may provide

impetus for avoiding further water quality degradation

as well as helping to reverse the trend.

In some bays, mass mortality of oysters has occurred

occasionally, mostly among 2-year-olds. After 5 years of

research, the WDF failed to identify disease or pollution as a direct cause. The conclusions were that lack of

spawning in warm years at the heads of some highly

productive bays contributed to the mortality.

Oyster Hatcheries

Oyster hatcheries in Washington have a history nearly

as long as Pacific oysters have been imported. Professor

Trevor Kincaid, University of Washington, Seattle, recognized early on that summer water temperatures ill

Washington were too cold for C. gigas to reproduce. In

1925 he attempted to spawn C. gigas adults artificially,

grow larvae to setting size, and obtain a set at Samish

Bay (Steele, 1957). That effort failed, and 2 years later,

with the help of some oyster growers, Kincaid built

ponds near Naselle on Willapa Bay, again without success. During the 1950's, Kincaid and others had a large

covered concrete pond at Nahcotta on Willapa Bay. A

roof served to keep out the frequent rains and to control solar radiation much as with an agricultural greenhouse. For several years efforts were made to achieve

commercial setting of C. gigas, but these too were unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, the desire to develop regular domestic

seed supplies remained strong, and during the 1960's

several efforts by oyster growers were tried, using information developed by V. L. Loosanoff and H. C. Davis of

the Milford Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries (Loosanoff and Davis, 1963). A small hatchery

was operated for several years by the Engman Oyster

Co., but it closed eventually due to lack of a suitable

permanent site. However, one of Engman's former employees, Lee Hanson, moved to Netarts Bay, Oreg., and

has operated a hatchery there since 1979 to produce

setting-sized larvae which were then shipped to growers

who placed the larvae in tanks with cultch in warm

seawater (Robinson, 1997). This technique resulted in

successful commercial setting by many people who

bought larvae from him and from others who got into

the business. Lee Hanson's operation continues, but in

the meantime the Coast Oyster Co. set up hatcheries at

Nahcotta and later at Quilcene in 1978 (Fig. 12). The

Quilcene hatchery succeeded and has since expanded

substantially. Biologists working at the Coast Co. hatchery developed a viable system to produce seed consistently for planting and culture. Much research went

into the eventual success through growing suitable food

for larvae and learning effective handling techniques.

Coast uses 90% of its hatchery production to seed its

own beds and sells the rest (Donaldson6 ). Another

shellfish hatchery has been built by Taylor United Oyster Co. on Dabob Bay. This hatchery began producing

oyster and clam seed in 1990.

Other smaller hatcheries are being operated by

Dahman Oyster Co. at Totten Inlet, R. Wilson at Bay

Center, R. Poole at Lummi Island, Westcott Bay Oyster

Co. on San Juan Island, and the WDF on Hood Canal.

The capacities ofshellfish hatcheries range from several million, to 5 billion, and to as high as 20 billion

setting-size larvae per year. As the larvae are set on

different kinds and sizes of material, such as whole

shell, crushed shell, and plastic tubes, it is difficult if

not impossible to compare the quantities of hatcheryproduced seed with case equivalents ofJapanese seed.

However, a goal that seems to be reachable is to produce all the seed the industry needs and not have to

depend on natural reproduction which is often variable among years.

The apparent success of modern shellfish hatcheries

has resulted from exchange of information between

university, government, and private researchers worldwide. Even inJapan, much hatchery research has been

conducted with the objective of stabilizing supplies of

oyster seed. Natural variations of weather and hydrography result in variations in seed supply of natural

stocks even with native species in their native areas. An

interesting developmen t in late 1992 was the receipt of

orders in Washington for Pacific oyster seed from buyers in Japan. The orders were the result of a spatting

failure in Miyagi Prefecture, the location of the original

U.S. seed source. The first report to reach one of the

authors (Lindsay) was from the Lummi Island shellfish

hatchery (Poole7). Later it was learned that several

other Washington hatcheries and private collectors of

natural catch seed had also received orders for shipment in early 1993. Occasional spatting failures in Japan had occurred in the past as well but the increased

domestic demand for seed apparently caused Japan

growers to seek an outside source. If the seed from the

e.s. Pacific Northwest survives and grow well, future

orders can be anticipated. Successful aquaculture requires a dependable seed supply, and it would appear

that economics may now be favorable for further hatchery development.

6 Donaldson, J. 1992. Manager, shellfish hatchery, Coast Seafood

Inc., Quilcene, Wash. Personal commun.

7 Poole, R. 1992. Owner, Sound Sea Farms, Lummi Is., Wash. Personal commun.
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 105

Figure 12

Interior of Coast Seafood Co. shellfish hatchery at Quilcene, showing algae culture tanks.

Photograph by Coast Seafood Co.

Future Problems

Washington oyster farmers have been successful because, with the advent of statehood, tidelands were

transferred from Federal ownership to the new state.

Several laws passed by early state legislatures allowed

private individuals to purchase and own tidelands. Ownership rights made certain that oyster farmers could

prohibit trespass and protect their crops from unauthorized removal. Owners were then able to plan cultural

activities and be assured that their investments could

not be arbitrarily taken away from them. The entire

system of culture has been built on the basis of these

ownership rights and which are generally recognized

by the state's citizens. Oysters have also been legally

identified as personal property. In recent years, there

have been attempts to abridge ownership rights on

tidelands, but so far they are in tact, subject to state laws

and local ordinances which may affect some aspects of

culture or use of tidelands and beds in navigable waters. Nevertheless, the state's Shoreline Management Act

defines aquaculture as a primary use of aquatic areas.

When oyster farmers expand beyond the tidelands

and seek to lease subtidal bottoms, upland owners and

others have an opportunity to intervene in the leasing

process. Some objections or proposed limitations to

the use of the leases may be considered legitimate

where matters of aesthetics or navigation are concerned.

Some objections are nevertheless unreasonable since

objectors do not own the bed land. At times, different

elements of the management agencies themselves object to some aspects of culture, contending that young

salmon or tideland inhabitants are impacted. As a result, the oyster farmers may have to accept environmental requirements imposed by management agencies,

but once granted the farmer is free to operate within

the imposed limitations for the term of his lease or

permit.

The future of the Pacific oyster industry in Washington seems fairly bright. If the pollution threat is brought

under control, if oyster economics remain competitive,

and if markets continue to expand, then oyster farmers

will be willing to continue to invest time and money to

help the industry grow.
106 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Pacific Razor Clam Fishery _

The Pacific razor clam inhabits surf-pounded beaches

on the Pacific coast from the Aleutian Islands in Alaska

to northern California (McMillin, 1924). In Washington, razor clams occur on four major beach areas from

the Columbia River to the Moclips River (Fig. 2), on the

Quinault Indian Reservation north of Moclips, and on

various scattered, remote beaches on the northern coast

including beaches at Kalaloch. The clams inhabit the

intertidal surf zone from about the +1 m (+3-foot) level

to extreme low water and in some subtidal areas. This

zone has a high oxygen concentration. Subtidally, divers

have found large amounts of wood-chip detritus which

greatly depletes the oxygen needed by this species.

Another species of razor clam, Siliqua sloati, is located

subtidally (Hertlein, 1961). Larger numbers of S. patula

occur subtidally in Alaska than further south because

the water is colder and has more dissolved oxygen.

Because the surf zone environment is dynamic, few

animals survive there. The only mollusks present besides razor clams are scattered tellins and mussels on

nearby rocks. However, amphipods and isopods abound

along with various species of annelids. Sand dollars in

large numbers, Dungeness crabs, various species offlatfishes, and the red-tailed surf perch, Amphistichus

rhodoterus, occur just seaward of the surf zone. The

Dungeness crabs, flatfishes, and surf perch are predators of razor clams, as are gulls and ravens which prey

mostly on theirjuveniles (Lassuy and Simons, 1989).

Human use of razor clams dates from before the

Caucasian settlements as the Indians used them for

food and later for trading with the settlers. Evidence of

their use had been found in middens (McConne1l8).

The commercial razor clam industry began in Oregon

in 1894 when P. F. Halfarty first developed a method

for canning the clams using glass jars. He later substituted tin cans for the jars. In 1902 he moved the operation to Grays Harbor, Wash. (Schaefer, 1939). Soon,

other companies began canning operations there, and

the commercial fishery expanded very rapidly. The razor clams were harvested by specialized hand-shovels,

the same method used currently (Fig. 13).

The rapid expansion of the unregulated fishery led

to a decline in the number ofrazor clams, however, and

in 1902 the Fish Commissioner reported, "Our long

wide, sandy seabeaches are the home of the much

prized razor clam, once so abundant but now fast decreasing in numbers on account of overfishing and lack

of protection" (Lassuy and Simons, 1989). In 1905 the

first regulation was passed which set dates for the commercial season, but the commercial fishery continued

to increase. In that year, 8 million pounds of clams were

8 McConnell, S. J. 1972. Proposed study of the spawning and larval

rearing of the Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula). Unpuh!. proposal

to Wash. Dep. Fish., Olympia.

Figure 13

A sport digger with his shovel and catch of razor clams; other diggers are in background. Photograph by D. Simons.
__ Lindsay &: Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, &: Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 107

harvested and processed into 3.2 million I-pound cans

(Schink et al., 1983). At this time, sport digging began

taking an additional quantity of clams, and in 1917,

separate seasons were established for commercial and

recreational clam digging. People became more aware

that the numbers of clams were declining, as individual

catches and total harvests declined noticeably. Finally,

in 1929 the state adopted the first substantial restriction

on sport digging by setting a daily limit of 36 clams for

each digger. In addition, a minimum length limit of 31/2

inches (9 cm) was established for the commercial and

recreational fisheries. The length limit was in effect for

13 years before it was determined that it was ineffective

and had actually contributed to more clams being wasted

by discarding undersized clams.

The commercial fishery remained unchanged until

1942 when annual quotas were established. They were

adopted to help reduce the harvest from the combined

commercial and sport fisheries. The quota system had

limited success and contributed to a growing feud between commercial and sport fishermen. Each blamed

the other for the decline of the razor clams. Both had

strong enough support to convince the WDF to adopt

stricter regulations to preserve the clams.

From 1946 through 1967, quotas became steadily

smaller or people were allowed to dig in smaller areas.

The commercial harvest decreased steadily from 7.6

million clams in 1946 to 600,000 in 1967 (Table 2)

(Tegelberg and Magoon, 1969). By 1968, the true commercial clam fishery had ended as all commercial digging in Willapa Bay ceased; however, a separate commercial fishery continued on the Quinault Indian Reservation (Table 3). The fishery on the "Willapa Spits" as

they are called, remained small with landings of 7,000-

25,000 pounds each year. The clams from those sand

bars were used mostly for crab bait as they were usually

small and in poor condition. In sum, the demise of the

commercial industry on Washington beaches was a combination of: 1) The establishment of a quota system, 2)

a large increase in the sport fishery, 3) a decline in

recruitment of year classes of clams, 4) the introduction of less expensive clams from the U.S. east coast to

local markets, weakening the market for razor clams, 5)

Widespread illegal sales of sport-dug clams or bootlegging, and 6) increased use of razor clams for Dungeness crab bait (Schink et al., 1983).

In the late 1970's, the number of people buying a $5

commercial clam license increased suddenly. The inI Note: 36-cJam limit 1946 and 1947; 24-cJam limit 1948 through 1959, except 18 in 1950; 18-clam limit 1960 through 1967.

Season closed after 2 days owing to a petroleum spillage.
108 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

crease was related to a depressed local economy, and it

was also a means for sport diggers to bypass the existing

sport limit of 15 clams. Many of the true commercial

diggers urged the WDF to request that the legislature

adopt an increased license fee of $50 to discourage the

"sport-eomm" digger. It worked. The number of licenses decreased from a high of 1,700 in 1982 to about

350 currently. During this time, the commercial fishery

on the Indian reservation actually increased. Most of

the clams were exported to Japan. But clams on the

reservation, similar to others, were over-harvested and

Table 3

Razor clam production by the Quinault Indian Tribe,

1970-82.

Pounds Pounds

Year landedl Year landed'

1970 750,000 1976 294,952

1971 678,838 1977 373,142

1972 379,086 1978 890,161

1973 179,818 1979 645,389

1974 201,139 1980 373,581

1975 135,033 1981 84,030

1976 294,952 1982-91 2

lOne pound = about 4.2 clams.

2 Fishery closed; it opened in 1992 but landings data are not

available.

the fishery began to collapse in the early 1980's. Overharvesting, combined with apparent failures in spawning or recruitment and a clam disease, has not allowed

the reservation clam fishery to recover until recently.

Meanwhile, the recreational fishery on state beaches

became so huge (Fig. 14) that more clams were landed

by sport diggers than by combined commercial and

sport diggers in the mid-1940's. Mter the first sport

limit was set in 1929, there followed a succession of

decreased limits and seasons to conserve the clam population in spite of increasing numbers of diggers. The

major limit changes of the sport fishery were: 1929,36

clams allowed; 1948, 24 clams; 1960, 18 clams; 1973 to

present, 15 clams.

The WDF found it difficult, however, to manage the

clam fishery properly because the number of users was

large and vocal and the fishery was extremely visible.

Public meetings to discuss regulation recommendations

turned unruly with angry clam diggers demanding their

"rights." For over 40 years, motel/trailer park operators

and chambers of commerce banded together to form

powerful lobbies, which influenced the setting of regulations. Meanwhile, most biologists who worked with

razor clams recommended more conservative regulations than were adopted. The annual harvest peaked at

almost 13 million clams and over 950,000 digger trips

in 1977 (Table 4) (Ayres and Simons, 1991). Besides

the actual harvest, additional millions of clams were

lost as people broke them while digging and discarded

them and small ones as well (Fig. 15). In response, the

Figure 14

Razor clam sport diggers. Photograph by D. Simons.
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 109

WDF issued warnings to clam diggers that continual

high wastage would lead to early closures. The warnings

were mostly ignored and seasons had to be shortened.

This resulted in a tremendous upheaval, however, in

the tourist industry that had relied on the clam digging.

People who had reservations for motels cancelled them,

and as the closures were often made without much

notice, people were hesitant to make reservations for

the following year. The impact to the local economy

was severe, as many of the businesses depended heavily

on tourists digging razor clams. The pattern of abuse

and declines of the razor clam resource, caused in part

by recruitment failures and restrictive closures, became

serious in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Seasons were

open only 4-5 months. But while this saved many clams

that would have been wasted. it did not lead to recovery

of the resource.

Beginning in 1983, the razor clam resource was severely damaged by a new disease now known as NIX or

Nuclear Inclusion Unknown (Elston, 1986). After a 5-

month closure of the digging season, biologists surveying the razor clam resource found the clams substantially scarcer than they ever had been. Further investigation revealed that almost 25 million razor clams of all

sizes, representing over 90% ofthe razor clams in Washington, were missing and most likely had died. The

Battelle Marine Laboratory in Sequim found that a

previously unknown gill parasite was infecting the razor

clams. This bacteria-like organism infected the epithelial cells of the gills and preven ted the clams from

respiring (Lassuy and Simons, 1989).

The WDF responded by closing the entire fishery for

2 years to allow for some recovery. Fortunately, a good

spawning and recruitment from surviving clams did

provide enough clams to allow some digging in the fall

of 1985. This became a turning point for the management of razor clams in Washington. Where previously

the capacity of the WDF to manage the resource properly was often compromised by lobbying of user groups,

new management plans were put into place that reduced the seasons to as short as 17 days and the harvest

to only 2.5 million clams. For the most part, the plans

were supported by the clam diggers who hoped it would

bring the clam resource back to historic quantities.

Unfortunately, the clams continue to be infected with

NIX, and an increased mortality rate has kept the popuFigure 15

Sport diggers break and leave to die many razor clams while harvesting them. Photograph by D. Simons.
110 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 4

Seasonal summary of razor clam sport digging on the ocean beaches, 1949-91. 1

Long Beach Twin Harbors Copalis Mocrocks2 Totals3

Year Effon epeE Wastage Effon CPUE Wastage Effon CPUE Wastage Effon CPUE Wastage Effon Harvest

1949 84,000 28.2% 62,000 15.2% 87,000 233,000 5,466,000

1950 86,000 63,000 88,000 237,000 4,571,000

1951 161,000 11.5% !l0,000 9.9% 151,000 12.7% 422,000 10,004,000

1952 154,000 12.8% 90,000 10.0% 122,000 13.3% 366,000 8,123,000

1953 163,000 5.5% 144,000 4.5% 161,000 8.7% 468,000 11,768,000

1954 186,000 6.5% 17l,000 4.3% 165,000 4.4% 522,000 12,447,000

1955 158,000 20.4 8.1% 151,000 20.8 6.6% 165,000 22.9 8.0% 474,000 11,315,000

1956 150,000 17.8 7.8% 154,000 20.0 6.5% 155,000 22.7 3.0% 459,000 10,119,000

1957 172,000 17.3 Y.6% 186,000 17.7 9.1% 188,000 20.8 7.7% 546,000 11,625,000

1958 174,000 19.9 9.0% 247,000 19.7 3.5% 263,000 20.3 5.7% 684,000 14,946,000

1959 197,000 20.6 6.1% 162,000 12.2 3.0% 166,000 16.3 4.9% 14,000 17.0 539,000 9,765,000

1960 149,000 12.6 5.0% 128,000 6.7 2.0% 205,000 15.9 5.0% 17,000 13.9 499,000 6,656,000

1961 157,000 13.5 5.3% 100,000 ]1.3 11.0% 278,000 14.0 2.6% 26,000 15.0 ,,61,000 8,054,000

1962 183,000 14.3 8.2% 172,000 15.7 4.9% 272,000 15.2 5.7% 45,000 16.4 672,000 10,886,000

1963 192,000 13.6 19.7% 213,000 14.7 14.9% 293,000 14.0 12.1% 52,000 14.8 6.3% 750,000 13,044,000

1964 120,000 13.7 17.8% 208,000 14.1 13.5% 261,000 14.7 6.5% 41,000 16.2 8.0% 630,000 10,712,000

1965 127,000 15.1 4.0% 154,000 14.2 4.6% 252,000 13.6 7.9% 50,000 15.3 2.7% 583,000 9,201,000

1966 185,000 14.2 14.9% 159,000 12.0 12.1% 288,000 14.2 13.5% 50,000 16.4 4.0% 682,000 11,554,000

1967 215,000 16.3 9.1% 173,000 13.0 4.1% 275,000 11.8 6.9% 86,000 14.5 4.8% 74Y,000 11,478,000

1968 159,000 12.4 18.7% 120,000 8.8 9.2% 240,000 12.8 8.6% 115,000 15.5 8.0% 634,000 9,420,000

1969 104,000 10.7 19.2% 100,000 II.! 10.4% 248,000 13.4 8.8% 103,000 15.1 6.5% 555,000 8,358,000

1970 120,000 9.9 9.4% 87,000 8.8 5.9% 274,000 9.2 4.4% 142,000 11.8 6.1% 623,000 6,795,000

1971 154,000 12.9 7.6% 104,000 9.4 3.1% 213,000 8.9 2.4% 145,000 11.6 1.0% 616,000 6,966,000

1972 87,000 8.2 12.2% 58,000 6.2 6.1% 130,000 7.8 10.1% 88,000 10.9 12.9% 363,000 3,495,000

1973 106,000 9.3 2.5% 67,000 11.5 4.9% 257,000 14.0 5.8% 105,000 13.6 9.4% 535,000 7,487,000

1974 99,000 8.1 5.1% 92,000 11.5 3.5% 321,000 12.1 3.7% 93,000 2.2 2.2% 605,000 7,505,000

1975 107,000 9.7 2.9% 101,000 11.9 4.8% 332,000 13.2 3.7% 171,000 14.5 4.4% 711,000 9,746,000

1976 142,000 9.4 2.5% 106,000 12.5 1.8% 354,000 11.5 3.0% 205,000 13.9 2.5% 807,000 11,652,000

1977 ]75,000 9.0 9.1% 160,000 10.0 8.4% 353,000 12.7 6.5% 262,000 14.8 1.0% 950,000 12,600,000

1978 115,000 11.3 13.0% 101,000 9.3 7.0% 177,000 11.5 9.5% 275,000 12.8 5.9% 668,000 8,787,000

1979 231,000 11.3 2.0% 158,000 10.5 3.1% 306,000 13.6 5.7% 272,000 13.7 4.0% 967,000 13,025,000

1980 149,000 6.8 3.4% 94,000 9.2 6.7% 274,000 12.7 4.0% 185,000 12.8 5.5% 702,000 8,304,000

1981 73,000 9.7 6.0% 97,000 9.0 3.6% 298,000 7.2 8.0% 81,000 5.5 4.7% 549,000 4,549,000

1982 126,000 10.5 1.9% 79,000 9.2 5.4% 281,000 11.9 5.6% 135,000 13.5 8.3% 621,000 7,823,000

1983 106,000 9.6 4.2% 52,000 10.9 7.8% 203,000 11.3 10.7% 112,000 12.5 8.2% 473,000 6,026,000

1984 0 0 0 0 0 0

1985 0 0 0 0 0 0

1Y86s 61,000 11.4 0.0% 54,000 ll.5 0.0% 113,000 11.3 0.0% 44,000 ]3.1 0.0% 27~,000 3,169,000

19861' 1,000 4.3 4.7% 1,000 7.8 9.0% 3,000 13.3 11.0% 1,000 13.6 10.0% 6,000 75,000

1987s 43,000 12.0 6.6% 22,000 9.6 6.2% 89,000 10.8 9.8% 36,000 6.5 6.5% 1\10,000 2,477,000

IY88s 79,000 13.1 5.0% 27,000 10.8 4.0% 106,000 9.9 1.0% 39,000 12.2 00% 2:Jl,000 2,754,000

1985f 23.000 13.3 0.0% 20,000 12.1 0.0% 0 0 43.000 550,000

198Ys 79,000 11.7 2.9% 32,000 11.4 8.3% 57,000 12.4 9.1% 27,000 13.7 4.4% 195,000 2,524,000

19891' 26,000 12.4 0.0% 13,000 12.2 0.0% 16,000 13.0 0.0% 0 55,000 700,000

1990s 64,000 10.2 11.7% 24,000 10.9 4.0% 82,000 14.2 4.8% 34,000 14.8 2.5% 204,000 2,580,000

lY90f 0 0 25,000 13.7 0.0% 7,000 14.2 0.0% 32,000 440,000

1991s 115,000 11.6 5.6% 0 93,000 8.8 2.2% 66,000 13.4 1.2% 274,000 3,233,000

1991f 22,000 13.3 0.0% 0 0 0 22,000 299,000

Total 5,579,000 12.0 8.4% 4,616,000 11.5 6.6% 8,680,000 13.0 6.5% 3,124,000 12.8 5.0% 21,999,000 343,073,000

I Seasonal summary from fall of previous year through spring of year listed; annual summaries beginning in 1987.

Area between Copalis River and Moclips River.

3 Includes wastage.
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington III

lations from increasing as expected. For example, on

Twin Harbors Beach, a major management area, lack

of recruitment for 3 years coupled with continued digging and losses from NIX has left this area with its

lowest clam population since population estimates were

begun. The WDF hopes that an extended closure of

this area will allow this population to recover.

In the late 1970's, it was recognized that the razor

clam fishery needed additional help. In 1979, the state

legislature proviped for a razor clamming recreational

license. This provided funding for additional enforcement, enhancement, and public education (Schink et

al., 1983). Initially, clam enforcement efforts were

doubled, but those were reduced in the subsequent

years as personnel were reassigned to other areas. In

addition, a twofold enhancement program was also

initiated. The first part involved rearing juvenile razor

clams in a hatchery located at the WDF Nahcotta Laboratory on Willapa Bay. For 7 years, hatchery personnel

attempted to develop methods to raise millions of clams

to augment the declining populations. But over that

period it produced only 1.8 million clams for transplant. Poor water quality, mortalities of clams, and funding cuts led to the closure of the hatchery in 1987

(Creekman9).

The second part of the enhancement program involved transplants ofjuvenile razor clams from a subtidal

area to intertidal beaches. The clams were dredged

from the subtidal area offshore from the razor clam

beaches with a hydraulic airlift suction device operated

from a boat. It could dredge clams in 4.5-15 m (15-50

feet) of water (Rickard and Newman lO). In 1985, over

100 million razor clams, from 3-6 mm (YS-Y4 inches)

long, were transplanted to poor production beaches on

Long Beach and Twin Harbors, and in 1988, over 30

million clams were transplanted (Rickard et al.l!).

It became important to know how much of a contribution the transplants made to existing clam stocks.

This was nearly impossible to determine, however, as

the clams, being small, were both difficult to mark and

to monitor their survival. As a result, and because funds

were cut, the transplant program was discontinued in

1992.

The only remaining program originally funded by

the license is the public education program. It specifi9 Creekman, L. 1987. Razor clam hatchery in Washington State.

Wash. Dep. Fish., Draft Rep.

10 Rickard, N. A., and R. A. Newman. 1986. Development of technology for harvesting and transplanting subtidal juvenile Pacific razor clams, Siliqua patula Dixon, along the coast of Washington

State. Abstr. presented at Nat!' Shellfish. Assoc. Annu. Meet.,

Seattle, Wash.

II Rickard, N. A., M. Peoples, and D. Simons. 1992. The history and

development of the subtidal transplant project. Wash. Dep. Fish.,

Montesano. Unpub!. tech. rep.

cally targets razor clam diggers and attempts to teach

them a conservation ethic to help balance effort with a

declining resource. It appears to be successful in making people more aware of the necessity to conserve this

valuable resource.

The razor clam resource is subject to pollution, but

much less so than some other shellfish-producing areas

in the United States. Petroleum spills, with refined

petroleum products, have been the most serious source

of pollution. In 1964, a barge containing aviation gas

grounded on the coast near Moclips, Wash., leaking

thousands of gallons of fuel and killing over 200,000

razor clams (Tegelberg, 1967). Other spills, mostly of

bunker-C type oil, have resulted in limited impacts on

clams while killing many large and small birds.

In November 1991, a new problem surfaced when a

rare, but naturally occurring marine toxin, domoic acid,

infected the razor clam populations in Washington and

Oregon. While it does not harm the clams, humans

who consume shellfish contaminated with domoic acid

develop symptoms such as vomiting, cramps, diarrhea,

dizziness, permanent loss ofshort-term memory, and in

severe cases, death. A total of 23 people soon suffered

symptoms of domoic acid poisoning after eating razor

clams.

In fall 1991, the Washington State Department of

Health had to close the razor clam fishery owing to

domoic acid concentrations. Testing through spring

1992 showed continued high concentrations ofdomoic

acid in razor clams along the entire coast of Washington. As a result, all recreational and commercial harvesting was prohibited until concentrations dropped to

below 20 ppm, i.e., the acceptable safe concentration

listed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In fall

1992, domoic acid concentrations rose again on beaches

south of Grays Harbor, causing a digging closure there.

An additional problem occurred in the fall of 1992,

with concentrations of paralytic shellfish poisoning

(PSP) that were higher than any found before in razor

clam tissue. Concentrations were high on all beaches

from August through September, but finally fell to acceptable quantities on the beaches north of Grays Harbor to allow for some harvesting. The combination of

two marine toxins in the razor clams created much

anxiety and uncertainty for the clam diggers. As a result, digging effort was less than expected.

The future of Washington's razor clam resource remains clouded because clam abundances are low and

digging effort can be high. Even though studies are

currently being conducted on NIX and domoic acid,

important questions about the resource will probably

remain unanswered for many years, especially if funding cuts continue to reduce research. In the future, the

managing agency must have full control to regulate the

razor clam resource for the safety of the public and the
112 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

resource. In the next 10 years, we anticipate limited

harvests as efforts continue to cope with disease, toxin,

and management issues.

Clam, Mussel, and Scallop Fisheries _

Commercial fisheries for clams (other than razor clams)

exist in Puget Sound, Strait ofJuan de Fuca, and the

coastal bays. Before the accidental introduction of Manila clams sometime before 1940, the fisheries were

primarily for the native littleneck and butter clam. The

geoduck was commercially dug intertidally before the

1930's, but fear of overdigging caused the legislature to

prohibit commercial harvests in 1931. In 1969, after

diver surveys demonstrated that abundant subtidal stocks

were present, the legislature authorized commercial

harvests of geoducks lying below low tide only. Lesser

numbers of cockles and horse clams supplied a limited

market for bait and food.

The Manila clam did not become commercially important until after World War II. However, by the 1970's

the commercial demand for Manila clams as steamers

increased substantially, while demand for native littlenecks slowed. Demand for butter clams, cockles, and

horse clams, formerly used for canning, virtually ceased

due to competition from clam imports from the Atlantic coast. The excellent market for Manila clams has

resulted in the development of sources of hatchery

seed to expand culture of the species.

Mussel culture is being carried on in Puget Sound

but is somewhat limited due to undependable natural

reseeding, adult mortality, and high production costs.

Experiments to produce hatchery seed from various

species of mussels are being conducted by commercial

hatcheries.

Three species ofscallops are commercially harvested

in Washington. Natural stocks have been too small to

sustain extensive trawling. A small-scale diver harvest

exists where scallop beds are sufficiently dense, as well

as incidental catches while shrimp trawling and smallscale scallop trawling.

The fishery for subtidal geoduck stocks increased

substantially following the 1967 passage of laws authorizing commercial diver harvest from Puget Sound

bedlands leased from the state. This closely regulated

fishery continues and its yield is largely based on stock

assessments designed to limit the harvest to the rate of

replacement through natural setting, artificial seeding,

and growth.

The softshell clam commercial fishery expanded

briefly during the decade of the 1970's, but as a result

of limited stocks, harvest cost, and severe sociological

problems, the dredge fishery died and has not resumed.

Limited harvests by hand digging occurs.

Shellfish Preparation

In Washington, most Pacific oysters are marketed fresh.

Fresh oyster meats are fried, made into stew by the user,

wine broiled, sauteed, baked in casseroles or as oysters

Rockefeller, and incorporated in poultry dressing. A

small percentage are sold in the shell, with the small

ones served as cocktails, the mediums as half-shells, and

the large are barbecued.

In the past when still abundant, Olympia oysters were

used as cocktails, fried, or made into stew. The small

numbers currently available are used as cocktails or tiny

half-shells.

In restaurants or homes, razor clams are most frequently prepared by frying. Some may be minced and

used in chowder by recreational diggers.

The geoduck siphon and breast (mantle) are cut into

steaks and fried, minced and fried as patties, or made

into chowder. People of Asian heritage and a few Caucasians eat tender parts raw. The visceral mass, when

used, is blanched and minced in chowder.

Manila and native littleneck clams are usually steamed

in the shell and with the meats frequently dipped in

melted butter. Recreational diggers may also put them

in chowder.

Large butter clams are usually minced for chowder

and a few are split open and fried with the shell attached. Small ones are usually steamed along with the

other steamers.

Mussels are steamed in the shell and eaten with sauces

or melted butter.

Small eastern softshells, M. arenaria, are steamed and

large ones are usually fried. Only limited numbers are

harvested commercially. Recreational diggers take them

from beds where abundant, but the fishery is very small.

A small commercial scallop harvest occurs and the

muscles supply a gourmet half-shell market. Recreational

divers usually fry the whole meats.

Literature Cited and

Selected References _

Anonymous.

1989. Washington oyster production by area. Wash. Dep. Fish.,

Fish. Stat. Rep., p. 66.

AYres D. A., and D. Simons.

1991. The spring and fall 1990 recreational razor clam fisheries and status of the razor clam stocks. Wash. Dep. Fish.,

Prog. Rep. 293.

Chapman, W. M., and A. H. Banner.

1949. Contributions to the life history of the Japanese oyster

drill Tritonalia japonica with notes on other enemies of the

Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida. Wash. Dep. Fish., BioI. Bull.

49A: 169- 200.

Elston, R. A.

1986. An intranuclear pathogen [nuclear inclusion X (NIX)]
__ Lindsay & Simons: Fisheries for Olympia Oysters, Pacific Oysters, & Pacific Razor Clams in the State of Washington 113

associated with massive mortalities of the Pacific razor clam,

Siliqua patula. j. Invertebr. Pathol. 47:93-104.

Espy, W. R.

1977. Oysterville. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., .Y.

Galtsoff, P. S.

1930. The oyster industry of the Pacific coast of the United

States. Rep. U.S. Bur. Fish. 1929, App. XIII, p. 309-324.

Glude,j. B.

1975. A summary report of Pacific coast oyster mortality investigations, 1965-1972. Proc. Third U.S.-Jpn. Meet.

Aquacult., Tokyo,Jpn., Oct., 1974, 28 p.

Hertlein, L. G.

1961. A new species of Siliqua (Pelecypoda) from western

orth America. Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 60(1):12-19.

Hopkins, A. E., P. S. Galtsoff, and H. C. McMillin.

1931. Effects of pulp mill pollution on oysters. Bull. U.S. Bur.

Fish. 47:125-186.

Kincaid, T.

1951. The oyster industry of Willapa Bay, Washington. The

Tribune, Ilwaco, Wash., 45 p.

Lassuy, D. R., and D. Simons.

1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest). U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wild!. Serv., Bio!. Rep. 82(11.89)

TR EL-82-4.

Lindsay, C. E., R. E. Westley, and C. S. Sayce.

1959. Prediction of oyster setting in the State of Washington.

Proc. Nat!. Shellfish. Assoc. 49:59-69.

Loosanoff, V. L., and H. C. Davis.

1963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks. In F. S. Russell (ed.), Advances in marine biology, p. 1-36. Acad. Press, .Y.

McKernan, D. L., V. Tatar, and R. Tollefson.

1949. An investigation of the decline of the native oyster

industry of the State of Washington with special reference

to the effects of sulphite mill waste on the Olympia oyster

(Ostrea lunda). Wash. Dep. Fish., Bio!. Bul!. 49A:117-165.

McMillin, H. C.

1924. The life history and growth of the razor clam. Wash.

Dep. Fish., 34th Annu. Rep.

Nelson, H.

1990. The little man and the little oyster. Mason Co. Hist. Soc.,

Belfair, Wash., and Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Wash., 88 p.

Robinson, A. M.

1997. Molluscan fisheries in Oregon, past, present, and future. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, Jr., Andrew

Rosenfield, and Willis L. Hobart (eds.), The history, present

condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries of North

and Central America and Europe, Vo!. 2. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA Tech. Rep. 128, p. 75-87.

Schaefer, M. B.

1939. The present status of the razor clam stocks in the State

of Washington. Wash. Dep. Fish., Bio!. Rep. 37B.

Schink, T. D., K. A. McGraw, and K. C. Chew.

1983. Pacific coast clam fisheries. Univ. Wash. Rep. HG-30.

Scholz, A.j., C.Jones, R. E. Westley, D. F. Tufts.

1984. Improved techniques for culturing Pacific oysters

(Crassostrea gigas): A summary of studies conducted by the

Washington Department of Fisheries since 1955: and also

financed in part by funds from U.S.B.C.F. Tech. Assist. Proj.

627, and Proj. 14-17 (oyster mortality); and by NMFS

Commer. Fish. Res. Devop. Act PL 88-309, Proj. 1-142-R.

Steele, E. N.

1957. The rise and decline ofthe Olympia oyster. Falco Pub!.,

Elma, Wash., 126 p.

1964. The immigrant oyster (Ostrea gigas). Warrens Quick

Print, Olympia, Wash., 179 p.

Swan,j. G.

1857. The Northwest coast; or, Three year's residence in

Washington Territory. Harper and Bros., N.Y.

Tegelberg, H. C., and E. Finn.

1967. The 1963 and 1964 razor clam fisheries. Wash. Dep.

Fish., Olympia, Prog. Rep.

Tegelberg, H. C., and D. Magoon.

1969. The 1967 razor clam fishery. Wash. Dep. Fish., Prog. Rep.

Townsend, C. H.

1895. Report to the Commissioner for the year ending June

30,1895. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. XXl:193-199.

Westley, R. E.

1956. Retention of Pacific oyster larvae in an inlet with stratified waters. Wash. Dep. Fish., Fish. Res. Pap. 1(4):25-31.

1971. The oyster producing potential of Puget Sound. Proc.

Nat!. Shellfish. Assoc. 61:20-23.

Woelke, C. E.

1957. The quality of seed oysters from Japan. Wash. Dep.

Fish., Fish. Res. Pap. 2(1):35-42.

1972. Development of a receiving water quality bioassay based

on the 48-hour Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryo.

Wash. Dep. Fish., Tech. Rep. 9,93 p.

Molluscan Fisheries of British Colwnbia

N. F. BOURNE

Department ofFisheries and Oceans

Biological Sciences Branch

Pacific Biological Station

Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9R 5K6

ABSTRACT

Mollusks have long been important to Native Americans, being used for food, decoration, and money. They also were important to early settlers. Commercial fisheries for

mollusks are relatively small, but they form an important part of the heritage and economic

viability of many coastal communities. In addition to the commercial fisheries that began in

the late 1800's, mollusks provide important recreational fisheries. The only gastropod

harvested commercially is the northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana. In 1990,97.5% of

mollusks landed were comprised of bivalves. Three species of oysters have been harvested:

Olympia, Ostrea conchaphila; eastern, Crassostrea virginica; and Pacific, C. gigas. Four species

of clams comprise nearly all the intertidal clam landings: Razor, Siliqua patula; butter,

Saxidomus giganteus; littleneck, Protothaca stamina; and Manila, Tapes philippinarum. A recent

development is a fishery for subtidal clam stocks, primarily geoducks, Panope abrupta, but

also for two species of horse clams, Tresus capa:>. and 1'. nuttallii. There is considerable

interest in clam culture. Four species of scallops have been or are harvested commercially:

Weathervane, Patinopecten caurinus; rock, Crassoderma gigantea; and pink, Chlamys rubida and

C. hastata. Landings of mussels, Mytilus edulis and C. califomianus, have been minor. In

recent years, mollusk landings have been increasing as markets have expanded. In 1990, the

total landed weigh t of mollusks in commercial fisheries was 11,258 metric tons. The future

of these fisheries appears promising.

Introduction

Mollusks have long been important to the native people

of British Columbia (Clark, 1963; Quayle and Bourne,

1972; Schink et al., 1983). Based on evidence in many

middens along the British Columbia coast, species used

were mainly the same as those used in present fisheries.

Mollusks were important also to the early settlers and

frequently provided a major food source during winter

months.

Commercial molluscan fisheries were established before the turn of the 20th century. These molluscan

fisheries are relatively small when compared to total

fisheries landings in British Columbia, but they form an

important part of the heritage and economic viability

of many communities along the coast. Besides commercial fisheries, mollusks are an important resource in native food and recreational fisheries (Bourne et al., 1987).

Molluscan fisheries have changed greatly since their

inception, and landings have fluctuated widely owing

to both biological and socioeconomic factors. Erratic

recruitment, local depletion of some stocks, and the

widespread occurrence of PSP (paralytic shellfish poisoning) have all contributed to inconsistent landings.

but socioeconomic factors probably have been the major factor (i.e., lack of markets, transportation problems, harvesting and processing economics, and frequently, the availability of more attractive employment

elsewhere).

In the last 10-15 years. however, the situation has

begun to change. Transportation facilities have improved and other more lucrative fields of employment

no longer exist. A major reason for the change is that

shellfish are now widely accepted as delicacies in the

North American diet. Their increasing popularity is

creating a stronger market for them. In addition, mollusks are now being harvested to a greater extent in the

valuable recreational fishery. There is little data on the

extent of this fishery, but now that people have more

free time, these landings are increasing (Bourne et al.,

1987). These factors have led to increased interest by

scientists, managers, and the general public in molluscan resources and the need for better management

practices to insure their optimum use.

115
116 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

British Columbia Molluscan Fisheries

The coastal waters of British Columbia have a rich

molluscan fauna. Bernard (1970) estimated there were

over 500 species along the coast which included representatives from the five classes in the phylum mollusca:

29 polyplacophora, 283 gastropoda, 180 bivalvia, 5

scaphopoda, and 21 cephalopoda. Molluscan resources

from three of these classes support valuable commercial fisheries (Quayle and Bourne, 1972; Ketchen et al.,

1983; Jamieson and Francis, 1986; Quayle, 1988). In

1990 molluscan resources comprised 55.7% of total

landed weight of all invertebrate fisheries in British

Columbia and 49.3% of the landed value (Table 1).

Less than 30 of the 500 species of mollusks on the

British Columbia coast are utilized in commercial fisheries, and probably the same number are used in recreational and native food fisheries. In 1990, total landed

weight of mollusks in commercial fisheries in British

Columbia was 11,258 t (metric tons) with a value of

about C$21.4 million (Tables 2,3).

Commercial fisheries for mollusks in British Columbia began in the late 19th century. Landings of butter

clams, Saxidomus giganteus, were reported in 1882, and

landings of native or Olympia oysters, Ostrea conchaphila,

were made in 1884 (Thompson, 1913, 1914; Quayle

and Bourne, 1972; Quayle, 1988). Since then landings

have varied greatly, and molluscan fisheries are currently enjoying a period ofincreased landings and market value.

Table 1

Landings from commercial fisheries for invertebrates in British Columbia, 1988-90. Landings in metric tons (t, whole

weight) and value in thousands of dollars (Can.). Data from annual statistics, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

1988 1989 1990

Resource Weight Value Weight Value Weight Value

Echinoderms 3,378.3 2,081.7 3,870.5 3,105.3 4,311.5 3,726.9

Crustaceans 4,267.2 13,303.4 3,885.5 13,325.6 4,655.0 18,282.0

Mollusks 12,895.5 22,160.9 11,567.9 24,379.2 Il,258.0 21,432.0

Total 20,541.0 37,546.0 19,323.9 40,810.1 20,224.5 43,440.9

Table 2

Landings of molluscan shellfish (t, whole weight) in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1982-90.

Landings (t)

Species 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Intertidal clams

Razor 68 31 101 90 142 142 155 117 114

Butter 103 77 131 252 159 69 83 92 93

Littleneck 241 325 295 192 285 373 288 42Y 462

Manila 597 1,049 1,677 1,914 1,894 3,608 3,839 2,72Y 1,452

Mixed 155 280 409 478 369 87 27 159 148

Subtotal 1,164 1,762 2,613 2,926 2,849 4,279 4,392 3,526 2,269

Geoduck 3,135 2,636 3,483 5,370 5,006 5,734 4,553 3,964 3,991

Horse clams 321 21 7 6 96 355 328 243 127

Oysters 2,366 2,977 3,542 3,420 2,394 3,751 3,667 3,672 4,518

Scallops 8 11 18 53 68 66 57 66 69

Mussels Tr 1 2 I 3 Tr Tr

Abalone 54 56 58 42 52 49 48 49 50

Octopus 37 25 34 53 130 205 169 185

Squid Tr 14 III 79 132 1 35 49

Grand total 7,048 7,500 9,760 11,962 10,599 14,497 13,254 11,724 11,258

I Tr=trace
________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 117

In the following sections, the history, present status,

and future of these fisheries are discussed. Only mollusks in the classes cephalopoda, gastropoda, and bivalvia

are considered. Tusk shells, class scaphopoda, were

used by natives for decoration and money but are no

longer harvested (Clark, 1963). Amphineurans, particularly the gumboot chiton, Cryptochiton stelleri, are

used occasionally in native and recreational fisheries

but don't enter commercial fisheries.

Physiography of Coastal British Columbia

Some knowledge of the geography of British Columbia

is necessary to understand the nature and problems of

its molluscan fisheries. British Columbia has a long

coastline that is heavily indented with many islands and

inlets, giving a total coastline of about 27,000 km

(Thomson, 1981) (Fig. 1). There is much protected

water between the many islands and the mainland,

between the islands, and in numerous sheltered bays

and inlets. Waters along the coast are temperate and

open throughout the year; ice formation is rarely a

problem except under local conditions. The waters are

productive and relatively free of pollution outside a few

areas in the southern part of the Province. The rugged

coastline makes local oceanographic conditions complex and there can be significant variations in oceanographic conditions within a distance of 5 km.

Intertidal areas are limited, owing to the steep mountainous coastline, and the continental shelf area is also

limited. Much of the coast drops precipitously to great

depths within a short distance ofshore. Most intertidal

beaches are small, steep-sloped and very rocky. Much of

the exposed outer coast is also rocky and there are few

sandy beaches. Harbo1 estimated that in the south coast

district (from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to

the U.S. border) about 800 beaches are used in commercial, recreational or native food bivalve fisheries.

Total area ofthese beaches is about 8,100 ha (hectares)

but the actual clam-bearing parts of these beaches is

probably about 40-50% of the total area.

The mountainous nature of the coast makes communications difficult and often expensive. There are few

roads, and travel must frequently be by boat or air. Most

of the Province's population of3,000,000 live in the southwestern corner and this is also the major local market.

One further important factor in molluscan fisheries,

particularly for bivalves, is the occurrence of paralytic

shellfish poisoning (PSP) (Quayle, 1969). The entire

north coast area (from the northern tip of Vancouver

Island to the Alaska border) has been closed to the

harvest of bivalves since 1963 because of chronic low

levels of PSP and there are periodic seasonal closures in

other locations along the coast. A monitoring system is

in place to ensure only good quality shellfish reach

consumers but outbreaks ofPSP can cause serious problems in supplying a consistent product to the market.

I Harbo, R. M. 1990. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 3225

Stephenson Point Road, Nanaimo, B.C. Canada. V9T lK3. Personal commun.

Table 3

Landed value of molluscan shellfish (C$I,OOO) in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1982-90.

Landed value (C$I,OOO)

Species 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Intertidal clams

Razor 55 24 123 95 127 126 137 124 129

Butter 36 33 55 138 75 40 40 44 46

Littleneck 263 329 311 202 327 474 357 580 703

Manila 611 1,043 1,813 2,278 2,762 6,003 7,023 5,919 3.748

Mixed 169 293 455 575 510 132 36 196 217

Subtotal 1,134 1,722 2,757 3,288 3,801 6,775 7,593 6,863 4,843

Geoduck 2,814 1,818 2,937 4,777 4,294 6,184 9,762 12,570 10,580

Horse clams 235 12 5 6 63 309 300 109 136

Oysters 1.229 1,554 2,000 2,600 2,354 3,851 3,572 2,800 3,545

Scallops 17 45 56 139 212 244 285 275 316

Mussels 1 3 2 4

Abalone 457 464 530 442 734 973 1,076 1,170 1,347

Octopus 80 56 82 136 381 629 543 611

Squid 17 183 123 132 1 47 54

Grand total 5.886 5,713 8,341 11,517 11,720 18,851 23,222 24,377 21,432
118 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

54°

52°

48°

a 50 100

PACIFIC

OCEAN

200

KILOMFTRES

132°

300 400

128°

Figure 1

Coastal British Columbia.

BRITISH

COLUMBIA

Cephalopoda _

The class cephalopoda includes octopus and squid, and

there are minor fisheries for both in British Columbia

(Tables 2, 3).

Octopus

Three species of octopus occur in British Columbia,

but only the giant Pacific octopus, Octopus dofleini, is

harvested commercially (Jamieson and Francis, 1986).

This species occurs commonly throughout British Columbia waters, although there are no population estimates. Growth is rapid and animals over 25 kg have

been recorded (Hartwick, 1973; Hartwick et aI., 1981).

For many years most of the catch was taken incidentally

in shrimp and groundfish fisheries, and landings were

small at about 50 t (Table 2). Attempts were made to

harvest octopus commercially with traps similar to those

used in Japan (Mottet, 1975), but they were not successful. In the past few years there has been a directed dive

fishery for octopus, mostly in the Strait of Georgia and

landings have been around 150 t with a value of about

$0.5 million (Tables 2, 3).

The octopus resource in British Columbia is probably underutilized, and the fishery could be expanded.

Future expansion will depend on the extent of the

resource, the economics of harvesting, and markets.

Squid

Squid probably form a substantial part of the biomass

in the northeast Pacific (Jefferts, 1986). Four species

have been exploited commercially in British Columbia:

opal, Loligo opalescens; nail, Onychoteuthis borealijaponica;

red, Berryteuthis magister; and flying, Ommastrephes

bartrami, but to date landings have been minor.

Most of the fishery has been for opal squid, and

landings have been mainly from by-catches in groundfish and shrimp trawling operations. The species is

common in British Columbia waters, although large

concentrations rarely occur. There have been directed
________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 119

1979 1984 1989

Year

1974

o-'+-"I"'--"'l"'-... ...........'I"_",...."-"P'~~'I"_"~.........

1969

Figure 2

Landings, in metric tons (whole weight) of northern

abalone in British Columbia commercial fisheries,

1969-90.

100+-------•..,.........-----------1

500,-----------------------,

Metric tons

200+------__' -----------1

300+-------'.'__-----------1

400 +--------a1.------------j

Gastropoda _

small seine fisheries for this species, but since a 1982

peak in annual landings of 132 t. catches have been

small (Table 2).

Minor attempts have been made to harvest nail and

red squid in experimental fisheries. There was an experimental joint fishing venture with the Japanese for

flying squid using floating drift nets. However, there

were serious problems with the by-catch, and the fishery has now been forbidden within Canadian territorial

waters (Jamieson and Heritage, 1988).

Large squid stocks undoubtedly exist in British Columbia waters. The problem in developing a sizeable

commercial fishery is the lack of biological knowledge,

an extended breeding season, and erratic occurrence

of spawning concentrations. Since it is impossible to

predict when and where schools will occur it makes the

fishery unprofitable (Bernard, 1980).

Most species of mollusks in British Columbia are gastropods and about 300 species have been identified (Bernard, 1970). However, only one species, the northern

abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana, is harvested commercially. Occasional attempts have been made to harvest

such other gastropods as Astrea gibberosa, Tegula sp., and

Fusitriton oregonensis, in small experimental fisheries.

but they have not been successful.

Northern abalone occur throughout coastal British

Columbia in exposed or semi-exposed habitats, although

distribution is patchy (Sloan and Breen, 1988). They

occur from the lowest part of the intertidal zone to

subtidal depths of 100 m, although most of the adult

population is found at depths <10 m. Growth is slow,

and it requires 6-10 years for abalone to attain the legal

commercial size of 100 mm shell length.

Abalone were harvested by native people in British

Columbia, as seen from evidence in middens. They

were used both for food and decoration. Artisanal commercial fisheries developed in the early 1900's. and

reference is made to canning abalone in some parts of

the northern area in the early part of the 20th century

(Quayle, 1962). Production from those fisheries was low.

The advent of scuba and hookah gear changed the

abalone fishery. Landings from 1951 to 1971 fluctuated

widely but were generally low, under 50 t (Sloan and

Breen, 1988). This was probably due to lack of established markets and to socioeconomic factors. In the

1970's the fishery expanded rapidly, and peak landings

of over 400 t were made in 1977 and 1978 (Fig. 2).

Landings were from the entire outer coast, but since

the early 1970's most of the commercial catch was from

the north coast district. The large increase in landings

was due primarily to extremely strong markets, mostly

Japanese. Quota management and effort (boat) restrictions were introduced and annual landings declined to

around 50 t annually. Landings remained at that level

until 1991 when the fishery (both commercial and recreational) was closed because of conservation measures.

In 1979 the fishery was restricted to 26 vesse Is and the

quota equally divided among the boats (Sloan and Breen,

1988). Each boat employed 2-4 divers and the quota

was generally harvested in 25-30 diver days per vessel.

Strong interest continues in abalone fishing in British Columbia owing to demand. At present, the market

price is about $30.00 per kg (whole weight), but the

future of the fishery is uncertain. Abalone are slow

growing and recruitment appears to be erratic; hence,

populations will probably require a lengthy period to

attain levels observed in the early 1970's. Whether populations can recruit to support commercial fishing, even

at reduced levels, is unknown.

Because wild populations of abalone are limited, there

is great interest in abalone culture using technology

developed in Japan and California (Mottet, 1978; Uki,

1984; Hooker and !v1orse, 1985; Hahn, 1989). One commercial culture operation existed in British Columbia

for most ofthe 1980's (Calderwood, 1985). Techniques

were adapted to breed adults, raise and set larvae in a

hatchery, rear juveniles in a nursery, and grow out

juveniles to adult size. A major problem was slow growth

rate; however, markets for small "cocktail size" abalone

exist. These abalone are about 5 cm in shell length and

could be produced within 2-3 years. A second and

devastating problem was disease. A protozoan parasite

that may be widely distributed in the natural environment was found in juveniles in the hatchery (Bower
120 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

1987a, b). Although it did not appear to affect adults, it

was lethal to almost all juveniles (animals <6 months

old).

The future of the abalone industry in British Columbia is uncertain. Undoubtedly, build-up of natural stocks

to commercial levels of abundance will be slow. Establishment of a culture or enhancement industry will

depend on continued research to improve culture technology to produce faster growth and higher survival of

abalone in either the culture or natural environment.

Bivalvia _

Almost 200 species of bivalves occur in British Columbia waters (Bernard, 1970, 1983) but less than 20 have

been used in commercial fisheries. Bivalves comprise

the major portion of mollusk landings in British Columbia. In 1990,97.5% ofthe landed weight and 90.6%

of the landed value of molluscan shellfish in commercial fisheries were bivalves (Tables 2, 3). For convenience in this paper, bivalves are divided into four

groups: oysters, clams (intertidal and subtidal), mussels, and scallops.

Oysters

The oyster industry is a culture operation, and oysters

have been cultured for a longer period in British Columbia than any other organism. Pseudo culture was

carried out early in the 20th century, but the oyster

industry is considered to have begun in 1925 with the

first importation ofseed (juveniles) fromJapan (Quayle,

1988).

Three species of oysters have been harvested in the

British Columbia industry: Olympia or native, Ostrea

conchaphila; eastern, Crassostrea virginica; and Pacific, C.

gigas (Quayle, 1988). At present there is minor experimental culture of the European flat oyster, O. edulis,

but commercial landings have been miniscule.

Native oysters occur throughout British Columbia in

scattered locations low in the intertidal zone or in lagoons. Commercial landings of this species began before the turn of the century and continued to about

1930 (Quayle, 1988). Native oysters were never actually

cultured in British Columbia, as in the State of Washington, and the fishery was for wild stock. The fishery

was small, and annual landings probably never exceeded

300 t. The fishery ended in about 1930 because of

overfishing and a very severe cold winter which caused

extensive mortalities. For reasons that are unknown,

stocks have never returned to previous levels of abundance. Growth of native oysters is slow, requiring about

4 years to attain commercial size, and mortalities are

high unless they are grown submerged in water. Although market price is high, slow growth, high mortalities, small size, and high labor costs preclude commercial culture of this species in British Columbia. Native

oysters are used to a limited extent in the recreational

fishery.

Eastern oysters were first imported into British Columbia about 1895 and put out in several areas in

southern British Columbia (Bourne, 1979; Quayle,

1988). They did poorly except in one area, Boundary

Bay, south of Vancouver. In 1900, annual importations

of eastern oysters began into Boundary Bay. At first

seed was imported and grown to commercial size, but

mortalities were high and the industry then began bringing in boxcar loads of 3- to 4-year-old oysters and holding them for 1 or 2 years. They were imported from

several locations along the Canadian and U.S. east coasts

and used mainly for the half-shell trade on ocean liners

travelling to the Orient. The trade stopped in about

1940 and no further introductions were made since

then. Widespread breeding of this species did not occur in Boundary Bay, but sufficient breeding has occurred to maintain a small relict population (Bourne,

1979).

The Pacific oyster is the only species used commercially at the present time in British Columbia (Quayle,

1988). Itwas first introduced fromJapan into Ladysmith

Harbour and Fanny Bay in 1912. Low-level introductions continued after 1913. In 1925, the first substantial

introduction of oysters, both adults and juveniles, was

made into British Columbia and this marked the beginning of the industry. Pacific oysters spread rapidly

throughout the southern part of the Province as a result of general breedings in 1942 and 1958 and are now

one ofthe dominant intertidal organisms in many areas

there. Culture methods for Pacific oysters in British

Columbia have been well described (Quayle, 1988).

In British Columbia, virtually all intertidal and subtidal

areas are owned by the Provincial government and

open to the public; they are referred to as "Crown

Land." To obtain sole rights to an intertidal area for

oyster culture, it is necessary to lease it from the Provincial Government. This is done through the Lands Branch

of the Ministry of Lands, Parks, and Housing.

Intertidal bottom culture is the primary method of

culture in British Columbia. Seed (juveniles) is obtained and either spread directly on growing areas or

held on seed ground which has firm substrate and is

high in the intertidal area. After the seed is held for a

year to harden, it is spread in the lower part of the

intertidal area; harvest is at least 2 years later. Oysters

are generally harvested by hand picking at low tide and

placed in scows or large containers which are then

buoyed and hoisted into boats at high tide for transport

to processing plants.
________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 121

Dollar value (millions)

In recent years, other oyster culture methods have

been tried. Stake culture has been practiced to utilize

areas with marginal (soft) substrate (Quayle, 1988).

Although production has been satisfactory, the added

costs of this type of culture have prevented widespread

acceptance. Rack culture has likewise been tried but

discarded.

Floating, hanging, or raft-type culture, like that used

exclusively in Japan (Ventilla, 1984), is now becoming

more widely accepted in British Columbia. Quayle

(1988) estimated the amount of suitable substrate for

intertidal oyster culture in southern British Columbia

was only about 1,000 ha, but ideal conditions exist for

floating culture. Experimental work has shown that

floating culture is feasible throughout the Province,

although most operations will probably occur in the

southern regions since growth is faster and markets are

closer. Floating culture operations will undoubtedly

continue to expand.

Most British Columbia oyster culture operations are

small family enterprises, and the majority of leases are

under 10 ha. In 1990 there were 437 lease holders with

a total of 1,003 ha in intertidal culture and 710 ha in

floating culture.

A major problem for the industry in the initial years

was acquisition of seed Uuveniles). Beginning in 1925,

seed was imported annually from Japan via shipments

made to the State of Washington. The amount of seed

imported gradually increased over the years and reached

a maximum of 5,400 cases (minimum of 70 million

juveniles) in 1951 (Bourne, 1979). Since then, importations of seed from Japan declined and ceased in 1977

because of high cost and development of other seed

sources. It is estimated that over one billion juvenile

Pacific oysters were imported from Japan into British

Columbia during this 50-year period (Bourne, 1979).

The Pacific oyster is living at the edge of its range in

British Columbia, and breeding is erratic. There have

been only four large or general breedings of Pacific

oysters in British Columbia (1936, 1942, 1958, and 1961).

The first significant breeding in 1936 was in Ladysmith

Harbour, and larvae were spread as far away as 70 km in

the Strait of Georgia. The 1942 breeding spread Pacific

oysters throughout the Strait of Georgia. The 1958

breeding was the largest experienced in British Columbia, and with the reinforced breeding in 1961, it supplied oysters to the industry for a period of about 10

years.

Such erratic breedings were not sufficient to supply

the industry wi th a consisten t source ofseed for culture

purposes. In 1948 an area was found in British Columbia, Pendrell Sound, where consistent breeding occurred. Considerable work was undertaken to establish

a spatfall forecasting service for the industry to insure a

seed supply. Also a few other local areas were found

where Pacific oyster breeding was consistent, and they

can be used to supply the industry with seed.

In addition to obtaining seed from natural sets, the

practice of remote setting has become established in

British Columbia (Roland and Broadley, 1990). Mature

larvae are obtained from hatcheries and set on cultch at

a grower's facility. This has become the main method

for the British Columbia oyster industry to obtain their

seed supply.

The British Columbia oyster industry now has sources

for a consistent, reliable, and inexpensive supply of

seed for the present, and even for greatly expanded

production.

The industry is centered in the Strait of Georgia,

although some production occurs in inlets along the

west coast of Vancouver Island. Experimental oyster

culture has been tried in the northern area. Although

these have been successful, slower growth rate and distance for markets have prevented commercial operations.

British Columbia oyster production gradually increased from 1940 and peaked at 6,195 t (whole weight)

in 1963, mainly because of extensive natural breedings

(Fig. 3). Production declined after 1963 and from the

mid 1970's to mid 1980's it was generally between 2,000

and 3,000 t. In the last 5 years production has gradually

increased and in 1990 it was 4,518 t. Most of the production is shucked and sold fresh or frozen.

The extensive 1942, 1958, and 1961 breedings altered oyster farming practices to some extent. Large

quantities of oysters became available to growers on

much of the intertidal crown area in southern British

Columbia. These oysters were called "wild oysters." Many

growers began to harvest these wild oysters in addition

to, or instead of, oysters from their leases. This resulted

in increased production in the late 1940's and the peak

Thousand metric tons (whole weight)

7,-----------------------,

o 0

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Year

_ Landings - Value

Figure 3

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) of Pacific oysters

in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1940-90.
122 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

production in 1963. Many growers no longer bothered

to plant seed on their leases, and when the supply of

wild oysters fell below commercial levels, production

began to decline. There was little seed on leases to give

previous levels of production. The practice of harvesting wild oysters has continued to some extent but production from this source is low. The bulk of production

is now from oyster culture operations on leased areas.

In 1974 the industry began to produce single oysters for

the half-shell restaurant trade. These are generally grown

in trays that are either suspended from floats or held on

racks. Production of half-shell oysters has gradually increased since 1974 and in 1990 it was 786,000 dozen

(Fig. 4).

The general increase in oyster production in the last

5 years is due to several factors. Introduction of a "Diligent Use" policy by the Provincial Government has

forced growers to actively use their leased areas for

oyster production or face the penalty of losing their

leases. Most growers now have active seeding practices,

and leases are now being seeded much more heavily

than before. Several new people have entered the industry and are approaching it as a business operation.

Emphasis on quality and a decline in production elsewhere has meant that markets have been strong.

The potential for oyster production in British Columbia is substantial, and the future is promising. There

are no major biological problems preventing increased

production. Devastating diseases have not been a problem for B.C. oyster culture, although diseases are important in some local areas (Quayle, 1961, 1988; Bower,

1988). As noted, suitable areas for intertidal bottom

culture in southern British Columbia are limited, but

ideal conditions exist for floating culture. Production

Dozens

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0

1974 1979 1984 1989

Year

Figure 4

Production in dozens of single oysters in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1974-90.

from floating culture could be 25 times greater per unit

area compared with bottom culture (Quayle, 1988),

and annual production from a 610 ha area in the Strait

of Georgia using floating culture could be 70,000-

110,000 t. Clearly this type of culture would have to be

adopted to achieve maximum production levels.

Recent developments in genetics are encouraging

for expansion of the British Columbia oyster industry.

Triploid oysters can now be produced on a commercial

scale, and they provide a high quality oyster during

summer months (Allen and Downing, 1986; Allen and

Chew, 1989). With the advent and Widespread use of

hatcheries, further advances in oyster genetics are possible, and this could lead to breakthroughs and increased production.

Major problems for the British Columbia oyster industry are guaranteed sites for oyster culture (tenured

leases and good quality water) and low-interest capital

funding. Encroachment of civilization is a major threat

to continuing expansion of the industry because it will

reduce the area for culture, make acquisition of new

growing sites difficult, and spread pollution. However,

with continued research, close cooperation between

industry and government, and an aggressive aquaculture policy, it should be feasible to continue expansion

of the oyster industry.

Clams

Clam resources have always been important to the native people ofBritish Columbia, as can be seen from the

numerous middens along the coast. Clam resources

have also supported important commercial fisheries for

over 100 years (Quayle and Bourne, 1972). In 1990

clam landings were 56.7% of the landed weight and

72.6% of the landed value of British Columbia molluscan fisheries (Tables 2,3). Clams are also widely used in

the recreational fishery, where an estimated 30,000

people harvest them annually (Bourne et aI., 1987). For

convenience, clam fisheries are divided into intertidal

and subtidal fisheries.

Intertidal Clam Fisheries-Four species of clams comprise virtually all the intertidal clam fishery landingsrazor, Siliqua patula, and three species from the family

Veneridae; butter, Saxidomus giganteus; littleneck,

Protothaca staminea; and Manila, Tapes philippinarum.

Occasional minor landings of cockles, Clinocardium

nuttallii, and softshell clams, Mya arenaria, have been

reported. In the past, small landings of horse clams,

Tresus capax and T. nuttallii have been recorded.

Razor Clams-Razor clams occur on surf-swept sandy

ocean beaches along the west coast of North America

from the mid intertidal zone to subtidal depths of 20 m
________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 123

(Lassuy and Simons, 1989). They can attain a shell

length of 15 cm. Growth varies with geographic location but is fairly rapid in British Columbia and a shell

length of 10 cm is attained in 3-4 years (Bourne and

Quayle, 1970; Lassuy and Simons, 1989).

Razor clams have been recorded from several isolated locations along the British Columbia coast, but

there are only two centers of concentration, one on the

west coast of Vancouver Island (Long Beach) and the

other on beaches that extend from Masset to Rose Spit

on the north coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Commercial fishing at Long Beach was never extensive

and has not occurred in the last 15 years, although the

resource is used by recreational diggers. A small fishery

has existed in the Queen Charlotte Islands since 1924

(Quayle and Bourne, 1972). Landings have never been

large and have fluctuated over the years. They reached

a peak of 765 t in 1925. In the past 5 years, annual

landings have been about 140 t (Table 2, Fig. 5). Harvest is by locating individual clams and digging is by

hand using a thin bladed short-handled shovel. In the

early 1970's an attempt was made to harvest razor clams

at Masset with a mechanical harvester but it was unsuccessful because of mechanical problems. Initially, razor

clams were canned and used as human food but in the

past 20 years most of the catch has been used as bait in

the Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, fishery.

The fishery at Masset will never be large because the

resource is limited. One study indicated that an annual

sustained yield of 250 t was possible, and double that if

the subtidal population could be harvested (Bourne,

1969). Although the fishery will remain small, it will

continue to be important to local people, particularly

native people, in the Queen Charlotte Islands. There

are no data on the exact number of diggers employed

in the fishery, but 25-50 people probably participate in

the fishery. The value of the fishery would be greatly

increased if efforts were made to use the clams for

human food rather than crab bait.

Butter Clams-Butter clams are common intertidal

British Columbia bivalves which are found on protected

beaches throughout the Province (Quayle and Bourne,

1972). They occur from the lower third of the in tertidal

zone to subtidal depths of 10 m, most frequently in

mud-gravel-shell substrate. They can attain a shell length

of 110 mm, but growth is slow. It requires 5 years to

attain a shell length of63 mm (the minimum legal size

in the commercial fishery) under optimum conditions

in the southern part of the Province and as much as 8

years to attain this size in northern areas.

Harvest is by hand digging usually with a long-handled

potato fork, and generally only during winter months.

Attempts were made to use mechanical harvesters, such

as one-man hydraulic rakes (Bourne, 1967) and escalator harvesters (Quayle and Bourne, 1972), but they

failed for various reasons.

For many years, butter clams were the main clam

species harvested in the commercial fishery (Fig. 6).

Commercial landings began in the late 19th century

and reached a peak of 3,000 t in 1938 (Quayle and

Bourne, 1972). Since then, landings have fluctuated

greatly while gradually declining. The reasons for these

fluctuations and decline are many, but they are due

mostly to socioeconomic factors. Part ofthe decline was

due to PSP (Quayle, 1969). Formerly, about half the

landings were from the north coast district, but this was

closed in 1963 because of chronic low levels of PSP in

butter clams from some localities. Although a proce4

3

_Butter Littleneck 0 Manila _ Razor Mixed

o

1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1961 1986

Year

Thousand metric tons 5-rc~--'-----------------___,

2

Metric tons

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986

Year

Figure 5

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) of razor clams

in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 195]-90.

Figure 6

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) of intertidal

clams, razor. butter, littleneck, Manila, and mixed, in

British Columbia commercial fisheries, ]951-90.
124 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

dure was devised to allow harvesting under a controlled

permit system, little harvest of butter clams has occurred in the north coast district since 1963. In the last

10 years, butter clam landings have declined to very low

levels (Fig. 7) due to vagaries of the market (which

began to demand fresh clams for the steamer market)

and high processing costs. Butter clams are usually

canned, and it became prohibitively expensive to can

clams. Canadian processors could no longer compete

with imports of cheaper canned clams.

The butter clam fishery could be expanded, because

the resource has been underutilized in recent years. A

sustained coastwide production of 3,000 t is feasible but

expansion of the fishery will depend on markets and

the economics of harvesting and processing. Although

the butter clam resource will never support large landings, it could provide needed employment and income

to coastal communities.

Littleneck and Manila Clams-In the late 1970's, the

British Columbia clam fishery shifted from harvesting

primarily a canned product (butter clams) to harvesting a live or "steamer clam" product. Two species are

harvested for this market: littleneck, P. staminea, and

Manila, T. philippinarum, clams (Fig. 6).

Littleneck clams are one of the most common intertidal bivalves in British Columbia, occurring throughout the Province on protected and semiprotected

beaches. They are smaller than butter clams and rarely

attain a shell length over 70 mm (Quayle and Bourne,

1972; Chew and Ma, 1987). They are found frequently

with butter clams but are more abundant in firmer

gravel substrate from about the mid-intertidal zone to

subtidal depths of 10 m. Growth varies with geographic

distribution and location on the beach. Under optiMetric tons 3000 ,I--------------------,

2500

2000 ~-11-----

1500

1000

500

1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986

Year

Figure 7

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) of butter clams

in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1951-90.

mum conditions in the southern part of the Province, a

shell length of 38 mm (minimum size in the commercial fishery) is attained in about 3.5 years. In the north

it takes about 5 years.

Littleneck clams have been harvested since the commercial clam fishery began, but they were mostly for

local markets. Landings were generally low until the

mid 1970's (Fig. 8). Transportation and distribution

systems had not been developed to handle large quantities of fresh product for distant markets. However, in

the 1970's. extensive markets for steamer clams began

to develop. Landings began to increase, and during the

1980's they ranged from 200 to 400 t annually (Table 2,

Fig. 8). Landings could have been higher, but the market preferred Manila clams to littleneck clams. In the

last 2 years, littleneck landings increased because Manila clam landings declined due to reduced populations, and people began to accept littleneck clams as a

good replacement for Manila clams. Although littleneck clams occur throughout the Province and large

populations exist in the north coast district, all landings

have been from the south coast district. This is due to

PSP, transportation costs, and the price, which does not

make harvest of littlenecks in the north coast district

economically attractive.

Digging is by hand, although attempts were made to

harvest littleneck clams with mechanical harvesters along

with butter clams. Littleneck clams are harvested along

with butter clams using potato forks. More frequently

they are dug by pulling rakes or scrapers through the

substrate and turfing out the clams.

The British Columbia fishery for littleneck clams could

be expanded, if by nothing more than harvesting this

species in the north coast district. A sustained yield of

Metric tons 700 ~----------------------,

600

500

400

300

200

100

1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986

Year

Figure 8

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) oflittleneck clams

in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1951-90.
________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 125

500 t from both the south and north coast districts is

not unrealistic. The future ofthe fishery will depend on

development of markets and the efficiency of harvesting and transporting littleneck clams from more remote areas of the Province to markets.

Manila clams are an exotic species that were accidentally introduced into British Columbia from Japan with

Pacific oyster seed (Quayle, 1964). They were first discovered on the west coast ofNorth America in Ladysmith

Harbour in 1936, and their dispersal throughout British Columbia is well documented (Bourne, 1982). They

spread quickly throughout the Strait of Georgia and

along the west coast of Vancouver Island, and by the

mid 1960's they had reached the northwest tip of

Vancouver Island. Further dispersal northward was

thought to be impossible because of cold-water barriers

at the northern end of the Strait of Georgia and in

Queen Charlotte Sound. In 1980 Manila clams were

found to have spread to the central coast area, and

surveys in 1990 and 1991 showed that large populations

were present in this area. Manila clams have also spread

to the Queen Charlotte Strait area, but populations are

not extensive. Manila clams now occur as far north as

lat. 500 34'N (Bourne and Cawdell, 1992).

Manila clams occur in firm sand-gravel substrate from

about the 1 m intertidal level to well above the mid

intertidal beach, although they are most abundant in

the mid intertidal zone. No subtidal populations are

known in British Columbia. Growth is moderately rapid,

and a shell length of 38 mm (minimum size in the commercial fishery) is attained in about 3 years under optimum conditions in the southern part of the Province.

Until the mid 1970's, landings of Manila clams were

minor due to lack of markets and remoteness of many

harvesting areas (Fig. 9). In the late 1970's and continuing through the 1980's, strong markets developed for

steamer clams, particularly Manila clams. This coincided with a large influx of dedicated clam diggers.

This combination led to a large increase in effort in the

Manila clam fishery, and landings increased sharply to

a peak of 3,833 t in 1988 as accumulated stocks on many

beaches began to be harvested (Table 2, Fig. 9). Since

then, landings have declined because ofreduced stocks.

Manila clams are now the dominant species in intertidal clam fisheries, and they have comprised as much

as 90% of in tertidal clam landings; in 1990 they were

64% of the landed weight of intertidal clams and 72%

of the value (Tables 2, 3). All Manila clam landings

have been from the southern part of the Province.

Minor landings have been reported from the northern

area, but they are believed to be in error.

Harvest is by hand, although attempts were made to

use mechanical harvesters. Rakes or scrapers are pulled

through the substrate, and clams are turfed out, sacked,

and taken to processors.

Thousand metric tons

4-,---------------------,

3 ---

2

oJ,lJm.~r_r'l'_'~~'_'ffi~~LmLf 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986

Year

Figure 9

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) of Manila clams

in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1951-90.

For many years the principal management method in

intertidal clam fisheries was a size limit, a minimum of

90 mm shell length for razor clams, 63 mm for butter

clams, and 38 mm for littleneck and Manila clams. The

great increase in effort in the Manila clam fishery caused

a change in management policy. A personal clam digging license began in 1989; in 1989 there were 1,879

and in 1990 there were 2,068 licensed commercial clam

diggers. The entire coastal area was divided into six

regions and diggers could only harvest clams in one

region. Opening times and in-season monitoring were

introduced for each area, but the excessive effort led to

short, intense fisheries that created gluts on the market. Opening times have been greatly reduced and now

are down to 1-2 days a week. These new management

policies have attempted to reduce effort and spread

landings over as long a period as possible so a consistent supply of clams is available.

The fishery for Manila clams has probably reached its

peak in the southern part of the Province. The recent

decline in landings is the result of accumulated stock

being harvested from most of the south coast district.

Digging has occurred in many areas where there was no

history of previous harvest because these areas had

great quantities of rock that made digging difficult.

The fishery must now rely primarily on the strength of

incoming year classes. The central coast can probably

sustain a limited fishery, but recruitment may be erratic, which will lead to restricted harvests. The limited

populations of Manila clams has led to considerable

interest in clam farming which is discussed below.

Cockles and SoftsheU Clams-Cockles, Clinocardiurn

nuttalli, occur throughout Provincial waters, generally

in areas with soft muddy substrate, but they are not
126 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

5 I------

Thousand metric tons 6.-------------------------,

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990

Year

Other Species-Many sUIV'eys have been undertaken

throughout British Columbia to assess intertidal bivalve

-f------

.1

2 f--

3 f--

4 r--

o

Initially most of the catch was from the south coast area

but in recent years almost half the catch has been from

the north coast district. Geoducks were processed, but

now much of the catch is sold fresh for the sushi market. Management is by total and area quotas, restricted

entrance, and recently by individual boat quotas. The

fishery is now limited to 51 licensed vessels, and the

quota is equally divided among the boats. Each vessel

employs 2 or 3 divers.

The geoduck fishery will probably continue at about

the same level as in the past few years because of management policies. Extensive populations of geoducks

probably exist in deeper waters than are now haIV'ested,

but the technology is not yet available to haIV'est them

economically.

Attempts have been made to enhance geoduck stocks

in the State of Washington, but results have not been

encouraging (Goodwin and Pease, 1989). There is interest in trying geoduck enhancement or culture in

British Columbia but it remains to be seen whether

such ventures would be economically viable.

Horse Clams-As mentioned, minor landings of the

two species of horse clams have occurred in intertidal

fisheries. In recent years there has been a small fishery

for subtidal stocks of horse clams and annual landings

have fluctuated from 0 to 355 t (Table 2, Fig. 11).

HaIV'est is mostly by geoduck divers after the geoduck

quota has been met, using similar haIV'est methods as in

the geoduck fishery. The future of the fishery depends

partly on the extent of subtidal populations and the

availability of divers and markets.

Figure 10

Landings in metric tons (whule weight) of geoducks in

British Culumbia commercial fisheries, 1977-90.

Subtidal Clam Fisheries-Fisheries for subtidal clam

species are recent, but they have gained significance

and are now of major importance. The fisheries involve

three species: geoduck, Panope abrupta, and the two

horse clams, Tresus capax and T. nuttallii.

Geoducks-Geoducks are the largest bivalve on the

west coast of North America and may attain a shell

length of 212 mm and weigh 3.25 kg (Goodwin and

Pease, 1989). They occur throughout British Columbia

coastal waters from the lowest part of the intertidal

zone to subtidal depths of 120 m (Bernard, 1983). They

are generally found in mud-sand-gravel substrate and

can burrow to depths of 1 m in the substrate. Initial

growth is rapid, and geoducks attain a shell length of

140 mm, the major part of their growth in shell length,

in about 10 years (Goodwin and Pease, 1989; Breen and

Shields, 1983). After this, growth in shell length slows

greatly. Geoducks are long lived, and animals 150 years

of age have been found.

The fishery began in Washington State in 1970

(Schink et 0.1., 1983; Goodwin and Pease, 1989) and

spread to British Columbia in 1976 (Harbo and Peacock, 1983). The fishery is for subtidal stock and carried out by divers equipped with hookah or scuba.

Hoses with high pressure water jets, called "stingers,"

are used to wash the substrate away from the clam

which is then haIV'ested. Landings in British Columbia

increased sharply after the fishery began to a peak of

5,735 tin 1987 but declined since then to about 4,000 t

because of management restrictions (Fig. 10). Geoducks are now the most valuable species in British Columbia invertebrate fisheries. In 1990, landings were

3,991 t with a value of C$10.58 million (Tables 2, 3).

found in sufficient abundance in anyone locality to

support a commercial haIV'est. Occasionally they are taken

in small numbers in commercial fisheries and are used to

some extent in the native and recreational fisheries.

The softshell clam, Mya arenaria, is also an exotic

species that spread throughout the Province (Quayle,

1964). It generally occurs in soft substrate high in the

intertidal area but does not occur in sufficient abundance in any locality to support a commercial fishery. It

is used to a limited extent in the recreational fishery.

Horse Clams-Both species of horse clams, Tresus

capax and T. nuttallii, occur throughout the Province,

generally in the lower third of the in tertidal area to

subtidal depths of 20 m (Bernard, 1983). They occllr

deep in the substrate, down to depths of 70 em. Both

species have been haIV'ested in intertidal commercial

fisheries. The problem in intertidal fisheries is that

because they have a soft brittle shell and live deep in

the substrate, they are generally badly broken in digging and hence cannot be processed. In recent years

they have been harvested in the subtidal fishery.
________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 127

Mussels

able. Littleneck clams have a faster growth rate, but

there is also no seed available except from experimental research laboratories, and the market prefers Manila clams.

Considerable work has been done to determine the

economic viability of Manila clam culture in both the

State of Washington and in British Columbia (Anderson et aI., 1982; Bourne, 1989; Roland and Gubbels,

1990; Roland et aI., 1990). Seed of varying sizes can be

supplied from commercial hatcheries, spread in prepared areas, and then covered with mesh. The mesh

covering not only protects the seed, but it also enhances greater natural sets.

Results to date have been encouraging, and it appears that Manila clam production can be increased

per unit of area by either planting seed or using other

enhancement techniques (Toba et aI., 1992). By planting the correct size ofseed at the proper time of year, it

may be possible to produce a crop within a 2-year period. Commercial Manila clam operations have been

underway in Washington for several years and have

begun recently in British Columbia. There are now 75

lease holders who are licensed for Manila clam farming

in British Columbia.

Aquaculture probably presents the only practical

method to increase clam production consistently in

British Columbia. Whether Manila clam farming will be

widely practiced in the future will depend on the availability of seed at reasonable cost, the economics of

culture operations, and markets. At present, the only

clam species that appears to offer any potential for

culture in British Columbia is the Manila clam. Current

technology has not developed sufficiently to permit

culture of other clam species.

1985 1987 1989

Year

1979 1981 1983

o

400 -,-----------------------,

Figure II

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) of horse clams

in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1979-90.

200+-----

300+-----

100

Metric tons

resources. No large unknown resources that could support con tinuing fisheries have been found. In 1960 and

196I extensive surveys were undertaken to assess subtidal

bivalve resources in British Columbia and determine if

commercially harvestable quantities of any subtidal species existed (Quayle. 1961, 1963). Geoducks were taken

in a few areas but no large commercially harvestable

quantities of any other bivalve species were found.

Populations of the deep-water clam. Compsomyax

subdiaphana, were found in a few locations during the

1960 and 1961 surveys. A small experimental fishery for

this species began in 1991. The future of the fishery will

depend on extent of stocks, economics of harvesting,

and markets. There may be extensive populations of

geoducks in deeper waters, but otherwise future B.C.

bivalve fisheries will depend on known resources.

Clam Culture-There is considerable interest in the

development of clam culture in British Columbia for

several reasons: limited natural stocks, the success of

longstanding oyster culture operations, the apparent

success of clam culture operations reported from other

parts of the world, and the strong markets that exist for

a consistent supply of good quality clams (Anderson et

al. 1982; Bourne, 1989; Manzi and Castagna, 1989;

Roland et aI., 1990). The amount of intertidal area

suitable for mollusks is limited in British Columbia, and

culture could provide a method to maximize production per unit of area, as well as assist in stabilizing

production to provide markets with a consistent supply.

Experimental attempts were made to culture the three

intertidal venerid clams-butter, littleneck, and Manila

(Bourne, 1989). Butter clams grow too slowly to permit

economically viable culture, and there is no seed availTwo species of in tertidal mussels occur throughout the

British Columbia coast: the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis

(M. trossulus) , and the sea mussel, Mytilus califomianus.

The former is found along the entire coast, whereas the

latter occurs in more oceanic conditions. Attempts have

been made to harvest natural populations of both species, but landings have been minor because of harvesting economics and poor quality. It is doubtful that a

fishery for wild stocks of either species can be established in British Columbia.

Attempts have been made to culture blue mussels

experimentally and commercially in British Columbia

(Quayle, 1978; Heritage, 1983). Commercial production has been small, under 10 t annual1y, and operations are largely in abeyance at present. Major difficulties, including culture economics, fouling, predation

by wintering ducks, and summer mortality problems
128 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

Scallops

must be solved before large-scale commercial mussel

culture can be successful.

Figure 12

Landings in metric tons (whole weight) ofweatheIVane,

pink, and spiny scallops in British Columbia commercial fisheries, 1982-90.

The Future

The future of British Columbia molluscan fisheries appears promising. The industry will never be large, at

least compared to molluscan fisheries in other parts of

North America or in other parts of the world, but it will

continue to be important to many British Columbia

coastal communities and provide much needed employment. It is unlikely that new species will greatly

expand landings, and the future of the fishery will thus

depend on known resources. However, as discussed,

increased landings are capable from these resources,

and further, active culture operations are capable of

significantly increasing landings of some species. The

future of the industry depends to some extent on markets, the economics of harvesting operations, and solutions to some problems.

The occurrence of PSP is an intermittent but recurring problem in British Columbia. Although the industry has learned to live with such outbreaks, it will continue to be a major problem for bivalve fisheries. Not

only does it restrict use of the resource, but it can cause

serious difficulties in assuring the market of a continuous supply of product. Installation of an improved monitoring system for PSP would greatly alleviate the situation and permit wider harvest of bivalves in the north

coast district.

(Bourne, 1991). A commercial fishery began in 1982,

but landings have never been large, under 70 t (Table

2, Fig. 12). Most of the landings have been spiny scallops, and they have resulted from scuba diving operations. There is a small boat drag fishery that has landed

mostly pink scallops. Generally only the adductor muscle

of scallops is marketed in North America. The entire

scallop is marketed in the British Columbia pink and

spiny scallop fishery, and this makes the fishery economically viable.

The scallop fishery will never be large. Small

unexploited populations of pink and spiny scallops probably exist along the coast, but they are not substantial.

The future of the fishery will depend on the extent of

populations, economics of harvesting, and markets.

Natural scallop resources are too small to permit

development of a large scallop industry. If such an

industry is to develop, it will have to depend on culture

operations. During the 1980's, a program at Canada's

Pacific Biological Station studied the feasibility ofscallop

culture in British Columbia using the Japanese scallop,

Patinopecten yessoensis (Bourne et aI., 1989). As a result of

this work, a private company built a scallop hatchery in

1989 and began operations in 1990 (Bourne and Bunting,

1995). Culture to commercial size will use similar methods to those used in Japan (Ventilla, 1982).

_ Pink and Spiny Weathervane

Metric Tonnes

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989

Year

Thirteen species of scallops have been recorded from

coastal British Columbia waters, but most are small or

rare (Bernard, 1983). Four species have been or are

harvested in commercial fisheries: weathervane,

Patinopecten caurinus; rock, Crassadorna gigantea; pink,

Chlamys rubida; and spiny, Chlamys hastata (Bourne,

1991) .

Populations of weathervane scallops are small and

local in British Columbia, and commercial landings

have been minor (Fig. 12). There has been no fishery

for this species in the last 5 years.

Rock scallops have an interesting life history. Until

they are 2-3 cm in shell height, they are free swimming.

At that time they attaeh themselves to a rock and remain there for the rest of their lives, frequently becoming large (up to 20 em shell height) and massive. Rock

scallops do not lend themselves to a dragging fishery,

but must be chiseled off rocks by divers. Attempts to

harvest them commercially were unsuccessful. At present

rock scallops can only be harvested in the British Columbia recreational fishery.

Pink and spiny scallops are small, rarely larger than

80 mm shell height. They occur throughout British

Columbia coastal waters in subtidal depths to 150 m,

although distribution is sporadic and no large beds of

either species have been located. Growth is slow, requiring about 4 years to attain a shell height of 60 mm
___________________________ Bourne: Molluscan Fisheries of British Columbia 129

Pollution, domestic or industrial, will be an increasing problem for shellfish fisheries, particularly for bivalve fisheries. Although British Columbia is relatively

free of pollution when compared with other parts of

the world, nevertheless it is a serious problem. Over 40

areas in southern British Columbia are closed to the

harvest ofshellfish because of pollution. Human populations are increasing steadily in coastal areas of southern British Columbia, and pollution threatens to become worse. More shellfish areas will be affected unless

measures are taken to stop it and even clean up and

reclaim areas that are presently polluted. Depuration

facilities can be built which will permit use of bivalves

from mildly polluted areas. However, this adds to cost

and sometimes makes utilization of shellfish from polluted areas unprofitable. The only solution is to control

pollution and preserve shellfish growing areas.

Probably the most promising area for expansion of

the British Columbia molluscan fishery is in the field of

aquaculture. Considerable interest continues in abalone culture, but current technology does not appear

to be sufficient t.o permit economically viable culture

operat.ions. However, aquaculture could be widely practiced wit.h bivalves and it provides an excellent method

to increase yields.

The British Columbia oyster industry is essentially a

culture operation, and production could be greatly

increased with application of new technology. Manila

clam and scallop culture has begun in the Province,

and future landings could expand greatly. The advent

of hatcheries assures a continuing supply of seed for

culture operations. Continued research in all phases of

bivalve culture could improve culture technology and

lead to greater production at lower costs. Developments

in the field of genetics could produce bivalves that are

more suited to British Columbia growing conditions

and hasten development of bivalve culture.

The future of the British Columbia molluscan industry is promising. With ongoing research and proper

management ofthe resource, molluscan fisheries should

continue to remain an important part of the life of

many British Columbia coastal communities.

Note added in proof: This manuscript was submitted

for publication in October 1991.

Literature Cited

Allen, S. K., and S. L. Downing.

1986. Performance of triploid Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas. !. Survival, growth, glycogen content, and sexual maturation in yearlings.]. Exper. Mar. BioI. Ecol. 102:197-2u8.

Allen, S. K., and K. K. Chew.

1989. Hatchery manual for producing tnploid oysters. lTniv.

Wash. Sea Grant Rep WSG 89-3, ""27 p.

Anderson, G.]., M. B. Miller, and K. K. Chew.

1982. A guide to Manila clam aquaculture in Puget Sound.

Univ. Wash. Sea Grant Rep. WSG-82-4, 45 p.

Bernard, F. R.

1970. A distributional checklist of marine mollusks of British

Columbia based on faunistic surveys since 1950. Syesis 3:75-94

1980. Preliminary report on the potential commercial squid

of British Columbia. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 942,

51 p.

1983. Catalogue of the living bivalvia of the eastern Pacific

ocean: Bering Strait to Cape Horn. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 61, 102 p.

Bourne, N.

1967. Digging efficiency trials with a hydraulic clam rake.

Fish. Res. Board Can., Tech. Rep. 15,24 p.

1969. Population studies on the razor clam at Masset, British

Columbia. Fish. Res. Board Can., Tech. Rep. 104,60 p.

1979. Pacific oysters, CrassostTea gigas Thunberg, in British

Columbia and the south Pacific islands. In R. Mann (ed.),

Exotic species in mariculture, poo I-53, MIT Press, Cambr.,

Mass.

1982. Distribution, reproduction and growth of Manila clams,

Tapes philippinarum (Adams and Reeves) in British Columbia.]. Shellfish Res. 2(1):47-54.

1989. Clam fisheries and culture in Canada. In].]. Manzi and

M. Castagna (eds.), Clam mariculture in North America, p.

357-381. Elsevier Sci. Publ., Develop. Aquacult. Fish. Sci.

19.

1991. Scallops of the west coast of North America. In S. E.

Shumway (ed.), Scallops: Biology, ecology and aquaculture, p.

925-942. Elsevier Sci. Pub!., Develop. Aquacult. Fish. Sci. 21.

Bourne, N., and B. Bunting.

1995. The potential for scallop culture in British Columbia,

Canada. In P. Lubet,]. Barret, and]. C. Dao (eds.), Proc. 8th

Pectinid Workshop, p. 75-77. IFREMER and Universite de

Caen.

Bourne, N., and G. Cawdel!.

1992. Intertidal clam survey of the north coast district of

British Columbia - 1990. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

1864,151 p.

Bourne, N., and D. B. Quayle.

1970. Breeding and growth of razor clams in British Columbia. Fish. Res. Board Can., Tech. Rep. 232,42 p.

Bourne, N., R. A. Carmichael, and B. Bishop-Lowen.

1987. Recreational clam harvest survey - 1984. Can. Tech.

Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1570,61 p.

Bourne, N., C. A. Hodgson, and]. N. C. Whyte.

1989. A manual for scallop culture in British Columbia. Can.

Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1694,215 p.

Bower, S. M.

1987a. Lal7yrinthuloides haliotidis n. sp. (Protozoan: Labyrinthomorpha) a pathogenic parasite ofsmall juvenile abalone

in a British Columbia mariculture facility. Can. ]. ZooI.

65: 1996-2007.

1987b. Pathogenicity and host specificity of Lal7yrinthuloides

haliotidis (Protozoan: Labyrinthomorpha) a parasite ofjuvenile abalone. Can.]. Zoo!. 65:2008-2012.

1988. Circumvention of mortalities caused by Denman Island oyster disease during mariculture of Pacific oysters.

Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Pub!. 18:246-248.

Breen, P. A., and T. L. Shields.

1983. Age and size structure in five populations of geoduck

clams (Panope geneTosa) in British Columbia. Can. Tech.

Rep. Aquat. Sci. 1169,62 p.

Calderwood, G.

1985. Technological advances in the field of abalone mari-
130 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

culture. Pac. Trident Maricult. Ltd., Victoria, B.C. Final

Rep., 125 p.

Chew. K. K., and A. P. Ma.

1987. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-common littleneck clam. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish. Wildl.

Serv., BioI. Rep. 82(11.78) TR EL-82-4, 22 p.

Clark, R. B.

1963. The economics of Dentalium. Veliger 6(1):9-19.

Goodwin, C. L.. and B. Pease.

1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-Pacific geoduck clam. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish. Wildl.

Serv., BioI. Rep. 82(11.120), TR EL-82-4, 14 p.

Hahn, K. O.

1989. Handbook of culture of abalone and other marine

gastropods. CRC Press, Boca, Raton, Fla., 348 p.

Harbo, R. M., and S. D. Peacock.

1983. The commercial geoduck cl~m fishery in British Columbia 1976-]981. Can. Manu,cr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

1873,59 p.

Hartwick, E. B.

197:\. Ot.topus dOJleini. In P. Boyle (ed.), Cephalopod life cycles.

1, p. ~77-291. Acad. Press, Lond.

Hartwick, E. B., L. Tulloch, and S., MacDonald.

1981. Feeding and growth of Octopus dofleini (Wulker). VeIiger 24:129-155.

Heritage, G. D.

1983. A blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, Linnaeus, pilot culture

project in south coastal British Columbia. Can. Tech. Rep.

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1174, 27 p.

Hooker, N., and D. E. Morse.

1985. Abalone: The emerging development of commercial

cultivation in the United States, In]. V. Huner and E. E.

Brown (eds.), Crustacean and mollusk aquaculture in the

United States, p. 365-413. AVI Publ. Co., Westport, Conn.

Jamieson, G. S., and K. Francis.

1986. Invertebrate and marine plant fishery resources ofBritish Columbia. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 186,79 p.

Jamieson, G. S., and G. D. Heritage.

1988. Experimental flying squid fishery off British Columbia,

1987. Can. Ind. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 186,79 p.

Jefferts, K.

1986. Cephalopod fisheries of the north Pacific and their

management. In G. S.Jamieson and N. Bourne (eds.), North

Pacific workshop on stock assessment and management of

invertebrates, p. 34-56. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 92.

Ketchen, K. S., N. Bourne, and T. H. Butler.

1983. History and present status offisheries for marine fishes

and invertebrates in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia.

]. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40(7):1095-1119.

Lassuy, D. R., and D. Simons.

1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest). Pacific razor clams. U.S. Dep. Inter.. Fish. Wild!

Serv., BioI. Rep. 8~(11.89), 16 p.

Manzi,].]., and M. Castagna (eds.).

1989. Clam mariculture in North America. Elsevier Sci. Publ.,

Develop. Aquacult. Fish. Sci., 461 p.

Mottet, M. G.

1975. The fishery biology of Octopus doJleini (Wulker). Wash.

Dep. Fish., Res. Rep. 16, 3Y p.

1Y78. A review of the fishery biology of abalones. Wash. Dep.

Fish. Res. Rep. 37, 81 p.

Quayle, D. B.

1961. Denman Island oyster disease and mortality, 1960. Fish.

Res. Board Can .. ~'!anuscr. Rep. 713,9 p.

1962. Abalones in British Columbia. Fish. Res. Board Can.,

Prog. Rep. Pac. Coast Sta. ] 14:9-12.

1963. Deep water clam and scallop survey in British Columbia, 1961. Fish. Res. Board. Can. Manuscr. Rep. 746, 39 p.

1964. Distribution of introduced marine mollusca in British

Columbia waters.]. Fish. Res. Board Can. 21 (5):1l55-1181.

1969. Paralytic shellfish poisoning in British Columbia. Fish.

Res. Board Can., Bull. 168,69 p.

1978. A preliminary report on the possibilities of mussel culture in British Columbia. Can. Fish. Mar. Serv., Tech. Rep.

815,37 p.

1988. Pacific oyster culture in British Columbia. Can. Fish.

Aquat. Sci., Bull. 2] 8,241 p.

Quayle, D. B., and N. Bourne.

1972. The clam fisheries ofBritish Columbia. Fish. Res. Board

Can., Bull. 179,70 p.

Roland, W. G., and T. A. Broadley.

1990. A manual for producing oyster seed by remote setting.

Provo B.C., Minist. Agric. Fish., 58 p.

Roland, W. G., and P. M. Gubbels.

1990. Estimated costs and returns for a clam grow-out enterprise that supplements an existing oyster farm. PrOVo B.C.,

Minist. Agric. Fish. ISBN 0-77~6-1214-5, 11 p.

Roland, W. G., K. A. Albrecht, and T. Pobran.

1990. Manila clam culture - pilot scale site and husbandry

assessment. Provo B.C., Minist. Agric. Fish. Factsheet, Bull.

34, 12 p.

Schink, T. D., K. A. McGraw, and K. K. Chew.

1983. Pacific coast clam fisheries. Univ. Wash., Sea Grant

Rep. WSG 85-4, 57 p.

Sloan, N. A., and P. A. Breen.

1988. Northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana, in British

Columbia: Fisheries and synopsis of life history information.

Can. Spec. Pub1. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 103, 46 p.

Thompsoll, W. F.

1913. Report on the clam beds of British Columbia. Rep. B.C.

Comm. Fish. 1912, p. 37-56.

]914. Reporron the shell-fish beds ofBritish Columbia (clams,

mussels, and scallops). Rep. B.C. Comm. Fish. 1913, p. 103-

125.

Thomson, R. E.

1981. Oceanography ofthe British Columbia coast. Can. Spec.

Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 29] p.

10ba, D. R., D. S. Thompson, K. K. Chew, G.]. Anderson, and

:\1. B. Miller.

1992. Guide to manila clam culture in Washington. Univ.

Wash., Sea Grant Rep. 92-14055, 80 p.

Uki, N.

1984. Abalone culture in Japan. In Carl]. Sindermann (ed.),

Proceedings of the ninth and tenth U.S.:Japan meetings on

aquaculture, p. 83-88. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech

Rep. NMFS 16.

Ventilla, R. F.

1982. The scallop industry ofJapan. Acad. Press, Lond. Adv.

Mar. BioI. 20:308-382.

] 984. Recent developments in the Japanese oyster culture

industry. Acad. Press, Lond. Adv. Mar. BioI. 21:1-57.
The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska

NORA R. FOSTER

Aquatic Collection

University ofAlaska Museum

907 Yukon Drive

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-1200

ABSTRACT

Alaska's long coastline and broad continental shelf support large populations of mollusks. Commercially harvested mollusks are abundant on the south coast of the Alaska

peninsula and further south, but they are scarce on western coasts facing the Bering Sea.

Weathervane scallops, Patinopecten caurinus, and razor clams, Siliqua patula and S. alta, have

dominated the landings, but others such as butter clams, Saxidomus giganteus; cockles,

Clinocardium nuttalli; oysters, Crassostrea gigas; abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana; geoducks,

Panope abrupta; and mussels, Mytilus edulisor M. trossulus, have also been important. Between

the 1970's and 1987, the Japanese potted large quantities of whelks (Neptunea pribilofensis,

Buccinum angulosum, B. scalariforme, and other species) in the Bering Sea. The fisheries for

butter clams, cockles, and Bering Sea whelks have since nearly disappeared. Alaska's earliest

inhabitants harvested the abundant bivalves, snails, and chitons along with other sea life,

and Native residents today continue to harvest mollusks in intertidal zones as subsistence

foods. Weathervane scallops are harvested by large sea-going vessels using dredges and

modified beam and otter trawls. Fishermen once dug large quantities of razor clams on

beaches using shovels and took them to canneries for sale, but that fishery has become

much smaller because of contamination by parlaytic shellfish poison (PSP). In 1991 the

value ofscallops, oysters, mussels, clams, abalone, and whelks wasjust over $3 million, most

from the scallop fishery. The culture of oysters, mussels, and scallops has some promise as

Alaska's waters are productive and relatively free of pollutants.

Introduction

Alaska's long coastline (over 6,000 miles; 9,675 km)

and broad continental shelf (Fig. 1) support large populations of mollusks. Nine species are harvested commercially and some others have economic potential. Of

the species that have been or are now harvested, only

the most valuable fisheries, those for weathervane scallops, Patinopecten caurinus, and razor clams, Siliqua patula

and S. alta, and the cultured Pacific oyster, Crassostrea

gigas, will be considered in detail in this chapter.

The major fishing grounds for mollusks in Alaska are

in the Alexander Archipelago of southeastern Alaska,

Kodiak Island waters, Cook Inlet, the Alaska Peninsula,

and the Bering Sea shelf. Principal mariculture areas

are the Alexander Archipelago, Prince William Sound,

Cook Inlet, and Kodiak Island.

Alaska fisheries are characterized by boom-and-bust

cycles, and those for scallops and razor clams are no

exceptions. Scallops and razor clams have dominated

the landings, but others such as butter clams, Saxidomus

giganteus; cockles, Clinocardium nuttallii; oysters; abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana; geoducks, Panopea abrupta;

and mussels, Mytilus edulis or M. trossulus, have also had

some importance (Table 1). Fisheries for butter clams,

cockles, and Bering Sea whelks (Neptunea pribilofensis,

Buccinum angulosum, B. scalariforme, and other species)

have nearly disappeared.

In 1991, the value ofscallops, oysters, mussels, clams,

abalone, and whelks from Alaska was just over $3 million, most from the scallop fishery (Johnson, 1990).

Four reasons account for the low value of Alaskan mollusk fisheries, especially when compared with the Pacific halibut, Pacific salmon, groundfish, and crab fish131
132 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

CANADA

\'

\

300 ili1es

400 km.

Unalaska Island

50°

164 0.-1

BERING SEA f SHELF . ALASKA Prince William Sound "

58°, \:J L Cook Inlel / !

\

}-'. ~.s~K;'"-,~"'I~ .., ~cordovaI 0> • xv·r:i1. . Prlbliot Island' ~. ~""'·~.r tl 1_/".

tfi0a~Y; ~aehemak Bay-'""'""\ ~a;,utal \ Admiralty Island

BRISTOL SAY '*-,?" 6 '--.. ~'"\V ......\. I Don Moller tr-C:J .~......Afogna~ Island ~~..9~~Petersburg

"0 ~,'v" S\:'/Xlli / GULF OF '. ~)\t Dulell Harbo~"? .. ' "e\\"'~ /r ALASKA Slika .i ~Elol.n Island •...-" e,·n../ / \ ~1;!11 f q~O"_ '" "d..:. j KJdlak Chlehagol IslJnd /\I'J ,;~~ Ketchikan

..-- ZOO m • '.'~ \ KodiaK island 13aranof Island ·);~''':'::/.

PrJnc~ of Wales Island "1/ §l"~'" o+~ ..,J -~

"O'~r' J:\

"\:$ (~i

'">5l/,..

9~

I'

I

\

1

o

ARCTIC

WEATHERVANE SCALLOPS

A. 5 scallop and mussel farms

8. 20 oyster, mussel, clam, and sC3110p ;arms

C. 1 oyster ;arm

D. 17 oyster, mussel. clam, and scallop farms

E. 27 oyster, mussel, and scallop rarms

Figure I

Localities, shellfish beds, and shellfish farms in Alaska. Figures for the number of aquatic farms

are from MAP. (1992).

eries that were valued at over $1 billion. First, transportation from the often remote growing and harvesting

areas is expensive. Second, paralytic shellfish poisoning

(PSP) is present and time-consuming testing is required

to verify a safe product. Third, the cost of starting a

mariculture venture is high, and finally, shellfish grow

slowly in Alaska (Smiley, 1992).

The culture of oysters, mussels, and scallops has some

promise as Alaska's waters are productive and relatively

free of pollutants (Ballentine and Ostasz, 1987). Oyster

growing in Alaska dates from 1910 (Yancey, 1966), but

has developed slowly.
____________________________ Foster: The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska 133

Table 1

Representative catch and dollar value figures (in thousands) for Alaska molluscan fisheries, 1950-90. Datal were not

available for all fisheries and all years.

Scallops Razor clams Butter clams Cockles Oysters Abalone Other

Year Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value

1950 2,200 264 73 4

1955 2,000 265 6 0.5

1960 81 10 5 0.9

1965 87 40 1.5

1970 1,505 1,505 196 58

1975 436 609 32 58

1980 6u7 2,221 154 121 279 1,116

1985 313 1,2~8 206 406 1.5 1.5 56 238 150 75

1990 898 3.17U 232 232 16 73.5 1.7 3

I Data from ADFG, 1986, 1990b, 1992a, 1992b;]ohnson, 1990; and Nosho, 1972.

Origins

Evidence that Alaska's earliest inhabitants harvested

the abundant bivalves, snails, and chitons along with

other sea life is seen in prehistoric coastal middens of

southcen tral and southeastern Alaska (de Laguna, 1972;

Emmons, 1991). The earliest midden, at least 8,000

years old, is at Chuck Lake on Hekta Island (Dixon1).

Aleut, Pacific Eskimo, Eyak, Tlingit, and Haida cultures

were based on marine resources, but compared with

sea mammals, Pacific salmon, Pacific halibut, and other

fishes, mollusks were a minor part of people's diets

(Josephson, 1974; Blackman, 1990; de Laguna, 1990).

Mollusks were gathered by hand in the intertidal zone,

year-round by men and women. They were usually consumed fresh, although it is reported that the Tlingits

occasionally dried or smoked clams for winter (de Laguna, 1990). Mollusk shells were fashioned into tools

and were highly valued for decoration (Stewart, 1973).

Subsistence living was and is deeply involved with the

culture of the Natives. Almost no intertidal harvesting of

mollusks ever took place in Bristol Bay and along the

northern coasts, because ice in the Bering Sea scours the

shorelines and intertidal mollusks are scarce along them.

Today, Native residents of coastal villages continue to

harvest mollusks in intertidal zones as traditional subsistence foods (Emmons, 1991; Blackman, 1990; de

Laguna, 1990). People other than Natives also harvest

them. The mollusks include Pacific littlenecks, Protothaca

staminea; butter clams, Saxidomus gigantea; fat gapers,

Tresus capax; razor clams; mussels; pinto abalone;

gumboot chitons, Cryptochiton stelleri; black katy chitons,

Katherina tunicata; and octopus.

I Dixon, E.]. 1992. Curator, Archaeology, University of Alaska Museum. Fairbanks. Personal commun.

Natives harvest mollusks using ordinary garden shovels and forks. They get the razor clams with a standard

shovel designed for them; its blade is about 35 em (14

inches) long, 15 em (six inches) wide at the top and 10

em (4 inches) wide at the bottom, and it has aim (3-

foot) handle. Natives pick mussels off rocks by hand

and pry off chitons with a knife. The clams are usually

prepared by frying or steaming, or are canned or frozen for later consumption (Cooperative Extension Service, 1991), but the older Natives commonly eat clams

raw. Chitons are usually eaten raw at collection sites;

only the foot is eaten 2•

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning

The problem of PSP in the mollusk fisheries is substantial, as it often largely influences their history, economics, and current status. In Alaska, PSP in humans is

caused by consuming bivalves that have fed on the

dinoflagellate Alexandrium sp. The dinoflagellates synthesize neurotoxins, which cause paralysis of skeletal

2 Ed. note: Gmelch and Gmelch (1985) conducted a survey of resource use by residents of the city of Sitka (population, 7,803: 74%

white; 21 % Natives [Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut]; and 5% others).

Their observations about shellfishing, mostly intertidally, are summal"ized below. During 1982, a total of 50% of all households

harvested butter and littleneck clams; 19%, cockles; 19%, razor

clams, 32%, abalone; 12%, gumboots; 6%, scallops; 4%, mussels;

and 4%, limpets. Intertidal gatherers harvested an average of 7.4

times. The butter clams, which average about 100 mm (4 inches)

long and the littleneck clams about 50 mm (2 inches) long, are

found in gravel and rock beaches. Both were harvested with a

pitchfork and taken home in a bucket. The average annual quantity of butter and littleneck clams taken by harvesting household

was just under 1 bushel (338 clams). The total annual harvest for

the population of Sitka was 800 bushels. The Natives took clams in

Footnote 2 continued on next page
134 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

muscles in warm-blooded animals. Neurotoxins accumulate in clam tissues when the dinoflagellates are

sufficiently concentrated in the surrounding water. Different bivalve species accumulate the toxins at different

concentrations and for different lengths of time

(Ballentine and Ostasz, 1987; Foster, 1991). PSP outbreaks in Alaska are not necessarily correlated with the

dinoflagellate blooms commonly called "red tides."

2 continued from previous page

the fall and winter and rarely in the summer and early autumn to

avoid PSP poisoning that is prevalent then. Many residents took

precautions when preparing and eating clams by carefully cleaning

them before cooking. They discarded the dark digestive organs,

the dark tip of the siphon, the gills, and the broth in which they

were cooked. Most meats were grilled or fried but large clams were

usually cut or ground up and used in chowder.

Natives dried clams to preserve them and pulverized some into

powder which was later used like a soup stock. Today, excess clams

are frozen, either in the shell or cleaned and packaged. Some

people also put up canned clams.

The average annual quantity of cockles taken by a harvesting

household was 0.29 bushels (80 cockles). The total annual harvest

for Sitka residents was 75 bushels. Cockles, like clams, were harvested in the winter and spring. They may occur with butter and

littleneck clams, but are often found in separate beds, preferring

fine sand or mud to coarse gravel. Historically, Natives smoked and

dried cockles in contrast to clams which were usually eaten immediately. First, they were boiled, then split open, strung, and smoke

dried. They lasted for long periods. Today, households that collect

cockles prepare them like abalone, pounding them to tenderize

and then frying them.

The average annual quantity of razor clams taken per harvesting

household was 0.7 bushels (86 razor clams). The total annual

harvest for the population of Sitka was 275 bushels. Razor clams

may also become contaminated with PSP, but they accumulate the

toxin less readily and are safe to eat once the siphons, gills, and

digestive tract have been removed. With other clams, any part may

contain a high concentration of toxin.

The average quantity of abalones taken per household that

gathered was 0.65 bushels (104 abalones). The population of Sitka

harvested a total of 375 bushels. Abalone can be taken throughout

the year. They were pried off rocks with a knife or prying bar in the

intertidal zone and by diving usually in depths of 6-7.6 m (20-25

feet). Some people wore wet sui ts and snorkled around rocks.

Intertidal harvesting is best in fall and winter when tides are minus

and the water is clear. Some 65% of abalone harvesters picked

them intertidally, 17% used scuba, 2% used snorkles, and 16%

used a combination of methods.

Abalone are a highly prized delicacy. Shucked meats are grilled

and fried and most Native households also freeze some for winter

use. Natives have long used abalone as a supplemental food and

trade item, and the shell makes iridescent decoratiuns for their

carvings, ceremonial dress, and fi,h lures.

Gumboots are a special occasion food. They are served at feasts,

celebrations honoring an individual, and holidavs. Gumbouts are

eaten raw, sauteed quickly, or gently simmered.

Limpets are easily pried off rocks. The edible portion is easily

popped out of its shell, and can be eaten raw. steamed, fried, or

added to chowder. Like abalones and chitons, they do not carry

PSP.

Mussels are harvested intertidally. Like clams, they are harvested

only in winter or spring and are susceptible to PSP. Mussels can be

prepared the same way as clams and mussels.

Intertidal resources were used primarily as food, but shells,

starfish, and seaweed are used in craft art.

So far, the toxin can be detected only by mouse

bioassay, and under the provisions ofthe National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) clams intended for human consumption can be shipped interstate only after

they have been found safe by a state testing program. The

only laboratory in the state with that capability is located

in Palmer, north ofAnchorage (Orth et al., 1975; Ballentine

and Ostasz, 1987). Testing for the presence of the toxin

hinders the shellfishery, as the turnaround time to process

a sample ofshellfish is 7-10 days, during which time the

shellfish's quality is likely to degrade (Smiley).

The Regulatory Environment _

Molluscan fisheries in Alaska are regulated by the NSSP,

State of Alaska Shellfish Program, Alaska Department

ofFish and Game (ADFG), and applicable tax statutes.

The NSSP regulates filter-feeding bivalves and is intended to ensure a product free of bacterial contamination, PSP, and pollutants, by regulating sanitation, growing areas, handling, and processing. The Alaska Shellfish Program ensures compliance with Federal standards. The ADFG and Alaska Department of Health

and Social Services jointly control shellfish harvesting

(Orth et aI., 1975). Other regulations include commercial fishing licenses, vessel licenses, and entry or interim-use permits (Schink et aI., 1983).

Alaska's Aquatic Farm Act of 1988 is intended to

encourage aquaculture in the state, contribute to the

economy, and strengthen the competitiveness ofAlaska

seafood in the world market. Through the Act's provisions, the Commissioner of the ADFG is authorized to

issue permits for the construction and operation of

aquatic farms for shellfish and aquatic plants only. Oysters and mussels have the most commercial potential,

although pinto abalone; rock scallops, Crassadoma

gigantea; weathervane and pink scallops, Chlam)'s spp.;

littleneck and butter clams; sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus

spp.; and aquatic plants show promise and are under

development (Cochran, 1991). Subsistence and personal use fisheries are also regulated by the ADFG.

Scallop Fishery _

The weathervane scallop (Fig. 2) supports the most

valuable molluscan fishery in Alaska. Nationally, the

Alaska harvest accounted for only about 2.5% of scallops, i.e., 1 of the 40 million pounds taken in the

United States in 1991 (NMFS, 1992). Weathervane scallops occur on sand substrates from the Pribilof Islands

3 Smiley, S. T. 1992. Biology and Wildlife Department, University of

Alaska, Fairbanks. Personal commun.
___________________________ Foster: The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska 135

Figure 2

WeatheI\'ane scallop, Patinopecten caurinus: 16.5 em anterior to posterior and 15.5 em high.

in the Bering Sea to Point Reyes, Calif., in 2-300 m

depths (Foster, 1991). The species has been found in

abundance at 73-100 m depths from Cape Spencer to

Cape St. Elias in the northeast Gulf of Alaska, around

Kodiak Island, and along the Alaska Peninsula (Fig. 1)

(Kaiser4). The fishery is limited to offshore waters in

the Yakatut area, near Kodiak Island, along the Alaska

Peninsula, and in the eastern Aleutians (Johnson, 1990).

For statistical purposes, the ADFG divides the fishing

grounds into three Regions: Southeast, Prince William

Sound, and Westward (Kaiser4).

The value of the scallop fishery has varied with demand, market price, and alternative opportunities for

scallop vessels. Like many other fisheries, the scallop

fishery has seen extreme fluctuations in landings, market demand, and value of the catch. Landings vary

among regions: as stocks are dredged out in one area,

the boats move to another. Boats land most of the

scallops at Kodiak and Seward, and the remainder at

Juneau and Cordova (Kaiser4).

Alaska's scallop fishery began in 1967, when commercial scallop stocks were found at the same time the

king crab, Paralithodes spp., fishery was declining in the

Gulf of Alaska (Kaiser4). By 1968, 19 vessels had entered the fishery; they made 125 landings totalling

4 Kaiser, R.J. 1986. Characteristics of the Pacific weathervane scallop

(Pecten [Patinopecten) caU1inus, Gould, 1850) fishery in Alaska. 1967-

1981. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Div. of Commer. Fish. Unpub!. Rep.

Catalog RUR-5J86-01. 29 p.

1,777,268 pounds ofshucked meats (the central muscle).

In 1969, the fishery peaked when 1,850,187 pounds

were landed. Between 1968 and 1973, the catch averaged 1,370,000 pounds/year, but it declined sharply

from 1973 to 1978 when no landings were recorded.

The decline is attributed to regulations restricting the

dredging areas and seasons, to a limited distribution of

the commercial beds, and to increasing fishing costs

(Kaiser4). In the Kodiak area, particularly, some vessels

switched from the scallop fishery to the more lucrative

king crab fishery (ADFG, 1988).

The fishery was reestablished during 1978-81, particularly due to nonresident fisherman interest. In 1981,

18 vessels made 98 landings totalling 890,000 pounds of

meats (Kaiser4). The Westward Region, and especially

the Kodiak Island waters, has accounted for most of the

recent harvests. In 1991. 7 vessels made 75 landings totalling 683,261 pounds of meats, valued at $3.91/pound

(ADFG, 1992a). The total scallop catch for 1991 was

1,006,332 pounds valued at $3,773,745 (Kruse et al., 1992).

The Cook Inlet scallop fishery began in 1983 with

beds near Augustine Island, and they were quickly depleted (Johnson, 1990; ADFG, 1990c). The last scallop

landings reported for the area were in 1985, when 4

vessels made 11 landings totalling 21,836 pounds of

meats. In recent years, scallop harvests from southeastern Alaska and Prince William Sound have been insubstantial (ADFG, 1990c).

Fishermen harvest weathervane scallops with a standard type of dredge, similar to that used on the U.S.

east coast. A mesh bag of metal rings, at least 4 inches

(10 em) in diameter. is attached to a frame, 3-4.9 m

(10-16 feet) wide. Halibut, shrimp, and crab vessels

were converted for the scallop fishery during its peak

years in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The fishermen

also modified beam and otter trawls for scallop fishing.

Between 1967 and 1970, the more efficient east coast

scallop vessels, using dredges, accounted for most scallop landings. By 19t1l, about equal numbers of converted

shrimp or bottomfish vessels and more conventional scallop vessels were involved in the fishery (Kaiser4).

Recently, vessels operating as catcher-processors have

entered the fishery, and in 1991 they accounted for

most of the catch in the Kodiak area (ADFG, 1992a).

Fishermen shuck the scallops aboard their dredging

vessels. Some crews freeze the meats aboard, while others bring the meats to processing plants ashore, where

they are washed, packaged, and frozen (Kaiser4).

Scallop dredging may also adversely affect associated

benthic organisms (Kruse et al., 1992; Kaiser4). Three

impacts have been described: 1) The physical disruption of soft-bottom communities, which include food

organisms for commercially important groundfish,

shrimp, and crabs, 2) destruction of some younger

scallops, and 3) incidental catches in the dredges of red
136 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

king crabs, Paralithodes camtschatica; Dungeness crabs, Cancer oregonensis; and tanner crabs, Chionoecetesspp. (Kaiser4).

The ADFG through the Alaska Board of Fish and

Game currently regulates the fishery within the state's

territorial waters and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

under miscellaneous shellfish regulations. Since 1969, it

has regulated time and area closures and gear requirements. The main concern of management is to prevent

conflicts with the shrimp and crab fisheries, especially in

Kodiak Island waters. Fishing gear is limited to dredges,

and the dredges must have rings at least 4 inches (10 em)

in diameter to allow small scallops to escape (Kaiser4).

In 1992, new management regulations were proposed

for the scallop fishery and subjected to public comment. The regulations are intended to address: 1) conservation of the stocks, 2) bycatch and alteration of the

habitat by dredging gear, 3) long-term benefits of a

sustainable fishery, 4) availability of the resource to

subsistence users, and 5) research for future management of the fishery (Kruse et aI., 1992).

Razor Clam Fishery

The Pacific razor clam, S. patula (Fig. 3), is abundant in

exposed sand beaches in the intertidal zone to depths

up to 55 m from Cook Inlet, Alaska, to California (Foster, 1991). Alaskan beaches supporting razor clam populations extend from the outer coast ofChichagof Island

Figure 3

Pacifie razor clam, Siliqua patula: 14 em anterior to

posterior and 5.5 em high.

in southeastern Alaska to Unalaska Island in the eastern

Aleutian Islands and Port Moller on the north side of the

Alaska Peninsula (Fig. 1) (Schink et al., 1983). The Alaska

razor clam, S. alta, which accounts for some ofthe Kodiak

Island fishery, has a more restricted distribution from

Bering Strait to Cook Inlet (Foster, 1991). Cook Inlet

beachessupport the larger oftwo razor clam fisheries, and

the Cordova area supports a smaller clam fishery at Kanak

Island west ofCordova (Savikko, 1989;Johnson, 1990).

The commercial razor clam harvest on the Pacific

coast began in Oregon in 1894 (Nickerson, 1975).

Alaska's razor clam fishery grew out of successful canning ventures of razor clams in Washington, Oregon,

and British Columbia. Alaska razor clams showed economic promise because the supply was apparently abundant and the demand could not be met by the Washington and Oregon production of razor clams. Clam beds

in the sand beaches in the western Copper River Delta

and Orca Inlet near Cordova were first exploited commercially in 1916. At least two firms employing a total of

76 people were canning clams on a full-time basis by 1916.

They packed 10,093 cases (of 48 half-pound cans each)

valued at $35,622 (Orth et al., 1975; ADFG, 1990b).

Fishermen dug the clams by hand with razor clam

shovels. A skilled digger could harvest 200-400 pounds

and even up to 500 pounds of clams during the 3-5

hours that the clam beds were exposed at low tide. He

then weighed and cleaned the clams and took them to

the cannery (Orth et aI., 1975).

Clams were canned whole or minced, and were

shipped to Seattle, Wash., for west coast distribution. In

1917, production reached a high of 93,343 cases. The

Alaska pack declined after 1917, when the clams became scarce in the Cordova beds and economic conditions were poor, and, in 1921, only 1,600 cases were

produced. Since then, production and value of razor

clams has varied widely as supply and demand changed.

Discovery of unexploited clam beds has led to increases

in production until those beds were depleted.

In the early 1920's, fishermen harvested razor clams

in beds west of Cordova, Snug Harbor in Cook Inlet,

Kukak Bay on the Alaska Peninsula, and Alitak on Kodiak

Island (Fig 1). In 1924, Federal regulations set a minimum size limit of the clams of 4.5 inches (11.4 em),

and, in 1933, harvest seasons, restricted areas, and pack

limits were established (Orth et aI., 1975). In the early

1930's, razor clam production increased, and Alaskan

beaches supplied more than half the pack of the entire

U.S. west coast (Orth et aI., 1975). Clam production

from the 1930's to the mid-1950's averaged between 1

and 2 million pounds/year. By the mid-1950's, however, the high cost of production compared with that of

dredged surfclams, Spisula solidissima, and mahogany

quahogs, Arctica islandica, from the U.S. east coast led

to a sharp decline in production (Orth et aI., 1975;
___________________________ Foster: The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska 137

ADFG, 1990b). Changes in the sediments of the Copper River Delta also led to low survival ofjuvenile clams

in the 1950's (ADFG, 1990b).

In 1954, PSP was detected in the stocks of Alaska

hardshell clams, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew Alaska's membership in the

NSSP, because the territory could not comply with provisions of the program. As a result. razor clam harvests

were sold increasingly as bait for Dungeness crabs

(Schink. et al., 1983).

Natural disasters also affected the razor clam fishery.

In 1964, a massive earthquake severely impacted the

razor and other clam fisheries in southcentral Alaska.

The Prince William Sound and Copper River area was

raised about 2 m (6 feet), causing considerable mortality to clams and loss of their habitat. In Cook Inlet, clam

beds subsided, making them inaccessible to clam diggers (Schink et al., 1983; ADFG, 1990b). In the 1970's

nearly all the razor clam catch was processed for crab

bait (Orth et al., 1975).

Beginning in the 1970's, interest in potential clam

fisheries increased. Alaska regained NSSP status in 1971,

but areas from which clams may be harvested for human consumption are limited (Fig. 1). Bait clams may

be harvested from unapproved areas, but must be

marked with a dye to designate them as not for human

consumption (Schink et al., 1983;Johnson, 1990). Data

for the value of the bait clam fishery are not available.

Floating dredges, used to harvest razor clams in Cook

Inlet in recent years, were prohibited in 1990, and the

clams are now dug only by hand. The Cook Inlet fishery

is sporadic, because effort and market opportunities

vary (ADFG, 1992b). In 1991 the Cook Inlet fishery had

24 diggers, whose harvest was 210,320 pounds valued at

about $100,000 (ADFG, 1990a, 1992a, 1992b). Since

1986, no commercial harvests have been reported for

the Kodiak Island region, and the Cordova area had a

2.903-pound subsistence harvest.

Razor clams also provide a popular recreational and

personal-use fishery. The most popular and accessible

clamming areas are on the east side of Cook Inlet and

in Prince William Sound (Schink, et al., 1983). Use of

the clams grew with the construction of the Sterling

Highway from Anchorage to Homer in 1958-59 and with

construction of access roads down steep bluffs on the east

side of the inlet. The ADFG regulates the fishery; it allows

fishermen to dig the clams year-round (ADFG, 1990a).

Other Mollusk Fisheries _

Whelks

Whelks occur throughout the continental shelf off the

Alaska coast, but are especially numerous on the Bering

Sea shelf (MacIntosh and Somerton, 1981). From the

1970's until 1987, the Japanese fished them in the

eastern Bering Sea with pots strung at intervals on a

groundline (Fig. 4). They processed them on their

catcher vessels by cooking them briefly, separating the

meats from the shells by crushing, and then cleaning,

grading, and freezing them (Fig. 5). In the years 1972-

78, for which data are available, the fishery had as many

as 21 vessels and annual harvests of edible meat ranged

from 808,000 to 907,400 pounds (MacIntosh, 1980).

Currently, there is no foreign fishery for the whelks

(NMFS, 1991). Alaska boats occasionally land minor

quantities ofwhelks in other pot fisheries or when they

catch shrimp. The Bering Sea has a large stock ofwhelks,

but Alaskan fishermen have not harvested them beFigure 4

Whelk (snail) pots were baited, then conveyed to stern

where they were stacked before setting. These three

men 1) removed old bait, 2) put new bait (Pacific

sardine, Sardinops sajax) in the bait bag and on the

"hanging bag" hook (usually small pollock, Theragra

chalcogramma) , and 3) pursed up the bottom of the pot

(web). Photograph by R. MacIntosh.
138 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 5

Feeding whelks (snails) onto a conveyor that led to the crusher. Stacks of bait

fish in the background are Pacific sardine. Photograph by R. MacIntosh.

cause the market is poor and they are engaged in other

more lucrative fisheries (MacIntosh, 1980).

Pinto Abalones

A minor fishery for pinto abalones (Fig. 6) exists in

southeast Alaska, the wave-exposed west coasts of

Baranof and Chichagof Islands, and the south and west

coasts of Prince of Wales Island (Fig. 1). Divers using

hookah or scuba gear harvest the abalones in waters

about 15 m (50 feet) deep by prying them from rocks.

The abalones are frozen on the catcher vessel or by shore

processors. The minimum legal size for the abalone, a

much smaller species than those harvested off California,

is 3 inches (76 mm). The fishery begins 1 October and

continues till harvest quotas are met (Johnson, 1990).

In 1989, the abalone fishery employed 68 divers, who

harvested a total of 61,800 pounds of abalone meats

that sold for an average of $4.01/pound for a total

value of $248,000 (Johnson, 1990). Prospects for abalone culture are not especially good owing to a lack of

adequate seed animals from wild stocks, slow growth

rates, and a high cost of regular feeding and tending of

the animals (ASGA. 1991).

Geoducks

Geoducks occur from Sitka, Alaska, to San Diego, Calif., in the intertidal zone and to a depth of 70 m. They

Figure 6

Pinto abalones, Haliotis kamtschatkana.
___________________________ Foster: The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska 139

burrow deeply into mud flats in protected bays (Foster,

1991). The bivalves are found in abundances considered adequate for commercial harvesting near Gravina,

Noyes, and Kah Shakes, and Biorka islands near

Ketchikan in southeastern Alaska. Divers using hookah

gear and high-pressure water jets harvest geoducks in

6-15 m (20-50 feet) of water. The fishery was developed in the late 1970's, and commercial harvesting was

begun in 1985 (Johnson, 1990). In 1989,203,700 pounds

ofgeoducks were landed and sold for $0.50/pound, for

a total value of $100,000 (Johnson, 1990).

Butter Clams

Before 1916, butter clams were canned in southeastern

Alaska, incidentally to salmon processing. In 1930,

25,000 pounds were harvested, and the harvest remained

low until 1942 when wartime demand increased production. In 1946, PSP was discovered in the canned

product, and that, along with increased Federal regulation and competition from the U.S. east coast clam fisheries, led to the end of this fishery (Schink et aI., 1983).

Cockles

The history of the cockle fishery parallels that of the

butter clam fishery (Orth et aI., 1975). The modern

fishery for butter and other hardshell clams is small;

data on their value are not available.

Arctic Surfclams

In 1977, exploratory fishermen found extensive stocks

of the Arctic surfclam, Mac/romeris polynyma (locally

called the pink-neck clam), in the southeastern Bering

Sea between Ugashik Bay and Port Moller north of the

Alaska Peninsula (Fig. 1) (Hughes and Nelson, 1979;

Hughes and Bourne, 1981). As stocks of the Atlantic

surfclam declined on the U.S. east coast, it was believed

that a fishery for Arctic surfclams could be established and

yield as many as 19-25 million pounds ofmeats/year. The

fishery never became active after the initial research, possibly because the financial climate was poor. Besides, people

with environmental concerns have had reservations about

the impact of the fishery on marine mammals and the

food chain of the southern Bering Sea (Stoker, 1977).

Mollusk Culture

Alaska oyster farms and other mariculture ventures are

usually small-scale operations run to supplement seasonal incomes from fishing, trapping, or other occupations (Fig. 1) (Yancey, 1966; Else and Paust, 1987).

From 1937 till statehood in 1960, tidelands were leased

from the Federal government under the Oyster Bottom

Leasing Act. Before 1937, use was by right of occupancy. In 1960, the State ofAlaska assumed responsibility for tideland leases.

Oyster Culture

Pacific oysters (Fig. 7) were introduced from Japan in

the early 1900's and grown in southeastern Alaska and

Prince William Sound. Since then, small-scale.

underfunded oyster culture ventures have been attempted and have met with limited success, partly because the growers lacked experience.

Oyster culture was first attempted in 1910, with

plantings made near Ketchikan, first in George Inlet

and later at Coon Cove and Carroll Inlet. Growers have

since attempted to raise oysters in various localities

from Kachemak Bay (Fig 1) to southeastern Alaska at

various times between 1910 and 1961, but by 1961

success was limited to the Ketchikan area (Yancey, 1966).

Details of the first commercial oyster growing ventures are lacking; however, from 1938 till it went out of

business in 1953, the Alaska Oyster Company> marketed oysters grown in Coon Cove in the local Ketchikan

area. The beds were nearly exhausted by 1945, because

no Japanese seed oysters were imported between 1941

and 1947. Growers used beach culture methods, the

oysters needed 3 years to grow to maturity, and total

mortality in that time was abot 60% (Yancey, 1966; Else

and Paust, 1987).

In 1955, the North Gem Oyster Company ofKetchikan

began planting spat and also experimenting with raft

culture. Oysters grown on rafts matured in 2 years. In

1960, this company was taken over by the Alaska Oyster

Company. That year, it was leasing 227 acres, and it

produced 100 gallons of shucked oysters.

Experimental culture of oysters is currently under

way in Cook Inlet and Kodiak Island (Dick and Hatrick,

1987; Cochran, 1991). In 1986,7 of20 permitted oyster

farms were producing commercial quantities of oysters

(Else and Paust, 1987; House Research Agency, 1987).

They sold 30,000 to 32,000 individual half-shell oysters.

The oysters grow to market size in 2 seasons, and sell for

$0.50 each, or about $3.00/pound in the shell (House

Research Agency, 1987).

As oysters do not reproduce in the cold Alaskan

waters, growers depend on imported seed. Seawater

temperatures in southeastern Alaska average 6.5°C in

'\ Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
140 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Figure 7

Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas. Photograph courtesy of the Alaska Shellfish Growers

Association.

February and 13.3°C in July (Brower et aI., 1988). Although warmer temperatures are common in oyster

growing areas, they rarely remain at 21°C long enough

for the oysters to spawn (House Research Agency, 1987).

The Board of Fisheries permits the importation of seed

oysters, but only from the west coast of North America

(Else and Paust, 1987). Oyster hatcheries in Washington

and British Columbia supply most of the spat. Oyster

growers purchase seed oysters attached to bits of oyster

shell or other cultch and are considered as cultchless spat

(Else and Paust, 1987; House Research Agency, 1987).

Surface trays made from plastic nets floated by salvaged logs from beaches have been the standard type of

raft used in southeastern Alaska (Fig. 8). The trays are

placed 15-30 em (6-12 inches) below the water surface

where the oysters are held in the warmest temperatures. This method is inexpensive but requires more of

the grower's attention than others, and the trays are

susceptible to wave damage. Several Alaskan growers

are moving away from the surface trays and adopting

net systems to hold oysters in multiple layers from rafts,

buoys, or longlines (Fig. 9) (Else and Paust, 1987).

Oyster farms in Prince William Sound are using or

intend to use longlines (Else and Paust, 1987; ASGA,

1991).

In 1990, 24 farms in southeastern Alaska, 9 in Prince

William Sound, and 3 in Cook Inlet were growing oysters. Sales valued at $73,537 came from 10 farms: 2 in

Prince William Sound and 8 in southeastern Alaska. In

southeastern Alaska, the oysters were sold to a processing plant that has been responsible for processing, PSP

testing, and marketing. The market for Alaska oysters is

underdeveloped; most are sold to local restaurants and

food stores (Else and Paust, 1987). The average price

for southeastern Alaska oysters was $3.29/dozen. The

two growers in Prince William Sound sold most of their

oysters directly to restaurants and retail stores. The

average price of these oysters was $5.79/dozen (ASGA,

1991).

Mussel Culture

Mussels inhabit rocky coasts throughout the state. Nine

commercial growers have had an interest in culturing

and harvesting them (ASGA, 1991). Growers easily col-
___________________________ Foster: The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska 141

Figure 8

Surface trays were used by Alaska's first oyster growers. The trays consist of plastic mesh

hung between two logs. Photograph courtesy of the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association.

lect mussel spat from lines in the water or from cliffs

and rocks at low tide. They hold the spat in sock nets

until they attach; then the spat are grown on lines

suspended from rafts where they take 12-18 months to

reach market size. When workers harvest the mussels,

they grade them by size and pack them in onion bags,

10-20 pounds/bag. Mussels sell for $1.45/pound wholesale in Anchorage and retail for $2.99/pound (House

Research Agency, 1987).

In 1987, Alaska had 5 permitted mussel farms in

1987: 3 in Kachemak Bay and 1 each on Kodiak Island

and in Prince William Sound. Of these, one was producing mussels in commercial quantities (10,000 pounds

[165 bushels] in 1986) (House Research Agency, 1987).

In 1991, the value ofthe mussel crop was $3,718 (ASGA,

1991) .

Scallop Culture

The Japanese scallop, Patinopecten yessoensis, has been

raised successfully in Japan for years, and there is considerable interest in adapting Japanese culture methods to the weathervane scallop in Alaska. Attempts to

develop such enterprises have been centered in Kodiak

Island waters that are regarded as favorable for scallop

culture (Fig. 10). But in 1987, 4 projects targeting

weathervane scallops met with little success in collecting larvae or in artificially spawning the scallops (House

Research Agency, 1987; Anonymous, 1989).

In 1989, larvae of pink scallops were collected successfully, however, and in response to a growing market

for small scallops, research on the feasibility of culturing this species continues. The Kodiak Island Mariculture Feasibility Project seeks to develop new or adapt

old technology to growing the pink scallops, and to

overcome problems posed by their slow growth and

short shelf life (Anonymous, 1989).

The Future _

Projections of the value of oyster and mussel culture in

Alaska, based on development plans by permitted farms,

show possible growth to $1.9 million in 1993, and to

over $2.5 million by 1994 (ASGA, 1991). Kachemak

Bay, Prince of Wales and Etolin Islands in southeast

Alaska (Fig. 1), and several areas in Prince William

Sound are developing as the principal oyster and mussel growing areas (ASGA, 1991). Mariculture ven tures

may become a source of much-needed income for rural

communities. Alaska Native corporations in Klawok,

Angoon, and Yakutat in southeast Alaska, Akhiok on

Kodiak Island, and Tatitlik, English Bay, and Port Gra-
142 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

...... ;: ;.~ ,l':.::": ~~.:

... . ~~.""i~'.j;:~ • • • r

/

Figure 9

Preparing a lantern net for deployment by lacing closed

the opening, allowing access to 10 tiers where oysters

are planted. Visible in the background is a longline

grid. Each float supports a lantern net or stack of

plastic trays. Photograph courtesy of the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association.

ham (Fig. 1) in southcentral Alaska are developing

mariculture projects (Cochran, 1991).

Research Needs

An inexpensive, easy-to-use test for the presence ofPSP

is the most important need for molluscan fisheries and

culture to prosper in Alaska (Smiley, 1992; Else and

Paust, 1987). Currently, the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation and the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation fund research to develop the

technology for a monoclonal antibody test for the presence of saxitoxin and neosaxitoxin (Smiley3).

Mariculturists need ways to predict when fouling organisms. such as bryozoans, hydroids, annelids and other

worms, and barnacles will attach to oysters or culture

gear. Controlling fouling organisms and predators is

important to oyster growers (Dick, 1987). Research on

oyster genetics and an oyster breeding program are

needed to develop an oyster stock adapted to regional

Figure 10

Weathervane scallops, Plactinopecten caurinus, grown in

a lantern net. In 1992, Yakutat Mariculture, Inc. was

testing the feasibility ofgrowing undersize scallops gathered by dredging in Yakutat Bay. Photograph courtesy

of the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association.

conditions. Research on oyster diseases and parasites is

also needed (Else and Paust, 1987). Other mariculturerelated research seeks to adapt new techniques for growing scallops and venerid clams, and practicing mixed

mariculture in Alaska.

For other molluscan resources such as scallops. Arctic surfclams, snails, and venerid and softshell clams

(Mya spp.), basic research to determine the age structure of stocks, life cycle, and impact of the fisheries on

stocks is needed.

Development

Aquatic farmers have identified several ways that State

ofAlaska programs can benefit the developing mollusk

culture industry. Constraints on development include

the lack of investment capital, transportation logistics

for setting up aquatic farms on the sparsely settled

Alaskan coast, time spent in holding shellfish samples

for PSP testing, and the lack of hatcheries to produce

spat (Cochran, 1991). The high cost of site permits
______________________________ Foster: The Molluscan Fisheries of Alaska 143

from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources is

regarded as a deterrent to investment in new aquaculture ventures (House Research Agency, 1987). It has

also been suggested that incentives and disincentives

might be better documented through a test farm and

pilot program to answer technical questions and provide encouragement (Else and Paust, 1987).

Specific needs brought to the attention of the Alaska

State Legislature in 1987 (House Research Agency,

1987) were: an oyster hatchery to produce spat, a PSP

testing facility near the growing areas of southeastern

Alaska, and a loan program to help meet the cost of

setting up mariculture ventures. Mariculture may also

be encouraged by establishment of cooperatives (Else

and Paust, 1987) and by targeting the enterprises to

benefit rural coastal communities (Anonymous, 1989).

Acknowledgments _

I wish to thank all the people who contributed information, literature, photographs, and encouragement when

I approached them for help in trying to tell the complex story of molluscan fisheries in Alaska. Brian Paust,

from the Marine Advisory Program in Petersburg, was

generous with his time and helpfully supplied names,

addresses, and phone numbers of other experts. Ray

RaLonde, with the Marine Advisory Program, and

Rodger Pain ter of the Alaska Shellfish Growers Association provided much information on mariculture, and I

especially thank Rodger for the photographs. Charlie

Trobridge supplied me with information on the scallop

fishery development from the Alaska Department of

Fish and Game. Peggy Murphy also compiled data from

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I also thank

Richard MacIntosh and Dave Baker for information on

the Bering Sea snail fishery, Scott Smiley for information on research on PSP toxins, Dinah Larsen for ethnographic references, andJim Dixon for a discussion of

prehistoric shellfisheries. Finally, I extend thanks to

Clyde MacKenzie for inviting my chapter.

Literature Cited and

Selected References

Anonymous.

1989. Final report of the scallop mariculture feasibility study,

Kodiak Island, Alaska 1987 to 1988. State Gov. Alaska, Kodiak

Area Native Assoc., Overseas Fishery Coop. Found.Jpn., 126 p.

ADFG.

1986. Alaska 1985 catch and production commercial fisheries statistics. ADFG Commer. Fish. Stat. Leafl. 38, 61 p.

1988. Westward region shellfish report to the Alaska Board of

Fisheries. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Reg. Inf. Rep. 4K88-I, 384 p.

1990a. Personal use razor clam fishery on the Kenai Peninsula. Alaska Dep. Fish Game. Pamphl. (unnumbered), 12 p.

1990b. Prince William Sound Management Area shellfish report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska Dep. Fish

Game, Reg. Inf. Rep. 2C90-1, 57 p.

1990c. Shellfish report to the Board of Fisheries 1989/90

Region 4 shellfisheries. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Reg. Inf.

Rep. IJ90-3, 133 p.

1992a. Annual management report for the shellfisheries of

the Westward Region, 1991. Alaska Dep. Fish Game Reg.

Inf. Rep. 4K92- 9, 92 p.

1992b. Cook Inlet annual shellfish management report. Alaska

Department ofFish and Game, Reg. Inf. Rep. 2A92-11.

ASGA.

1991. Profile of Alaska's aquatic farm industry. Alaska Shellfish Growers Assoc. Rep. prep. for Alaska Dep. Community

Reg. Aff., 50 p.

Ballantine, K., and M. Ostasz.

1987. In P. V. Else and B. Paust (eds.), Alaska oyster grower's

manual. Third ed. Univ. Alaska, Sea Grant Mar. Advis. Program, Bull. 17,215 p.

Blackman, M. B.

1990. Haida traditional culture. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians. Smithson. Inst., Wash.,

D.C., p. 240-260.

Brower, W. A.,Jr., R. G. Baldwin, and C. N. Wiliiams,Jr.

1988. Marine and coastal climate atlas, Section II. In W. A.

Brower,Jr., R. G. Baldwin, C. N. Wiliiams,Jr.,]. L. Wise, and

D. L. Leslie (eds.), Climate atlas of outer continental shelf

waters and coastal regions of Alaska. Vol. I, Gulf of Alaska.

• Arctic Inform. Data Ctr., Univ. Alaska, Anchorage, 519 p.

Cochran,]. O.

1991. Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries on aquatic

farming activities. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Div. Fish. Rehabilitation, Enhancement, Develop. Rep., 4 p.

Cooperative Extension Service.

1991. Alaskan shellfish, clams. Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. Alaska,

Fairbanks, 8 p.

de Laguna, F.

1972. Under Mt. St. Elias: The history and culture ofthe Yakutat

Tlingit. Part 1. Smithson. Contrib. Anthropol. 7,547 p.

1990. Tlinget. In W. Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians. Smithson. Inst., Wash., D.C., p. 203-228.

Dick, M. H.

1987. The problem of fouling. In P. V. Else and B. Paust

(eds.), Alaska oyster grower's manual. Third ed., p. 21-30.

Univ. Alaska Sea Grant Mar. Advis. Program, Bull. 17.

Dick, M. H., and]. Hartick.

1987. The potential for oyster culture in the northern Gulf of

Alaska. In P. V. Else and B. Paust (eds.), Alaska oyster grower's

manual. Third ed., p.12l-l23. Univ. Alaska, Sea Grant Mar.

Advis. Program, Bull. 17.

Else, P. V., and B. Paust (eds.).

1987. Alaska oyster grower's manual. Third ed. Univ. Alaska,

Sea Grant Mar. Advis. Program, Bull. 17,215 p.

Emmons, G. T.

1991. The Tlingit Indians. Edited by G. T. Emmons, with

additions by F. de Laguna and a biography by ]. Low.

Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 70,488 p.

Foster, . R.

1991. Intertidal bivalves, a guide to the common marine

bivalves of Alaska. Univ. Alaska Press, Fairbanks, 152 p.

Gmelch, G., and S. B. Gmelch.

1985. Resource use in a small Alaskan city-Sitka. Div. Subsistence, Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Tech. Pap. 90, 215 p.

House Research Agency.

1987. Aquaculture in Alaska. Alaska State Legislature House

Res. Agency Rep. 87-B, 99 p.
144 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Hughes, S. E., and N. Bourne.

1981. Stock assessment and life history of a newly discovered

Alaska surf clam resource in the southeastern Bering Sea.

Chapt. 67. In D. W Hood and]. A. Calder (eds.), The eastern

Bering Sea shelf: Oceanography and Resources. vol. 2, p. 1205-

1214. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Off. Mar. Pollut. Assess.

Hughes, S. E., and R. W. Nelson.

1979. Distribution, abundance, quality, and production fishing studies on the surf clam, Spisula polynyma, in the southeast Bering Sea, 1978. NWAFC Proc. Rep. 79-4. Northwest

Alaska Fish. Cent., Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, 31 p.

Johnson, T. (ed.).

1990. Alaska fisheries handbook. SEATIC Publ., Sitka, Alaska,

123 p.

Josephson, K.

1974. Alaska and the law of the sea: Use of the sea by Alaska

Natives-A historical perspective. Alaska Environ. Info. Cent.,

Anchorage, 95 p.

Kruse, G. H., P. R. Larson, and M. C. Murphy.

1992. Proposed interim management measures for commercial scallop fisheries in Alaska. Alaska Dep. Fish Game, Div.

Commer. Fish., Reg. Inf. Rep. 5J92-08, 29 p.

MacIntosh, R. A.

1980. The snail resource of the eastern Bering Sea and its

fishery. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(5):15-20.

MacIntosh, R. A., and D. A. Somerton.

1981. Large marine gastropods of the eastern Bering Sea.

Chapt. 68. In D. W Hood and]. A. Calder (eds.), The ea,tern

Bering Sea shelf: Oceanography and resources, vol. 2, p. 1205-

1214. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Off. Mar. Pollut. Assess.

MAP.

1992. Is aquatic farming in Alaska for you? Alaska\ Mar.

Resour.7(4):I1.

NMFS.

1991. Our living oceans. U. S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-l, 123 p.

Editors' Addendum

The following paper was published in the Journal of

Shellfish Research, Volume 14, No. 1. pages 71-78,

1995, while this chapter on Alaska's mollusk fisheries

was in press. We herewith publish its title, author's

names and affiliations, and abstract.

"Development of the Fishery For Weathervane Scallops, Patinopecten caurinus (Gould, 1850), in Alaska," by

Susan M. Shirley* and Gordon H. Kruse**

Abstract: The Alaska scallop fishery harvests

weathervane scallops, PatinlfjJerten caurinus (Gould 1850),

in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, although small

quantities of Chlamys spp. were harvested in recent

years. The fishery began in 1967 and evolved from a

sporadic, low-intensity fishery to one characterized by a

*Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109

Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079

**Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Division

P.O. Box 25526

Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526

1992. Fisheries ofthe United States, 1991. U.S. Dep. Commer..

NOAA, Curro Fish. Stat. 9100. 113 p.

Nickerson, R. B.

1975. A critical analysis of razor clam populations in Alaska.

Alaska Dep. Fish Game,Juneau, 194 p.

Nosho, T. Y.

1972. The clam fishery in the Gulf of Alaska. In D. H.

Rosenberg (ed.), A review of the oceanography and renewable resources of the northern Gulf of Alaska, p. 351-360.

Univ. Alaska, Inst. Mar. Sci.

Orth, F. L., C. Smelcer, H. M. Feder, and]. Williams.

1975. The Alaska clam fishery: A survey and analysis of economic potential. Inst. Mar. Sci., Rep. R75-3; li'niv. Alaska,

Sea Grant Rep. 75-5, 148 p.

Savikko, H.

1989. 1988 Preliminary Alaska commercial fisheries harvests

and values. Alaska Dep. Fish Game. Reg. Inf. Rep. 5J89-03,

148 p.

Schink. T. D., K. A. McGraw, and K. K. Chew.

1983. Pacific coast clam fisheries. Univ. Wash. Sea Grant Rep.

WSG 83-1, 102 p.

Smiley, S. T.

1992. Development of simplified tests for paralytic shellfish

poisoning (PSP) toxins. Pap. read at 43rd Alaska Sci. Con£..

Valdez, Alaska, 11 September, 1992.

Stewart. H.

1973. Indian artifacts of the northwest coast. Univ. Wash.

Press, Seattle, 171 p.

Stoker, S. W.

1977. Report on a subtidal commercial clam fishery proposed

for the Bering Sea. U.S. Mar. Mamm. Comm., Rep. MMC77/01,43 p.

Yancey, R. M.

lY66. Review of oyster culture in Alaska, 1910-61. Proc. Natl.

Shellfish. Assoc. 56:65-66.

highly specialized fleet by 1993. An influx of larger,

more efficient vessels from 1990 through 1993 increased

harvests and altered the character of the fishery. Vessel

length increased 85% [rom a mean of 18.5 m to 34.3 m

in 1991, and crew sizes doubled. The number ofscallop

landings increased significantly from 65.9 per year during 1980 through 1989 to 140.7 per year during 1990

through 1993, although the mean number of vessels

did not change significantly between the two periods.

Scallop harvests averaged 667.1 t of shucked meats

from 1990 through 1993, three times the average harvest of 216.7 t from 1983 through 1989. The percentage

of the fleet's total Alaskan fishing income derived from

the scallop fishery increased from 57.7% in 1983 to

100% by 1990. The decreased diversification ofscallop

vessels into other fisheries represented a shift from a

part-time fleet to a dedicated, full-time scallop fleet

with greater harvesting efficiency. New management

measures were adopted to address the changing nature

of the fishery and included altered fishing seasons, observer coverage, area, harvest limits, ceilings on catch of

incidental species, restrictions on crew size, and a moratorium on vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone.
The Importance of ShelliIsheries to Coastal Communities

BONNIE]. McCAY

Department ofHuman Ecology

Cook College

Rutgers, the State University ofNewJersey

New Brunswick, NewJersey 08903

WILLIAM P.JENKS, III

134 South Beverly Drive

Brick, NewJersey 08724

ABSTRACT

It is difficult to generalize about the importance of shellfisheries to coastal communities, owing to the variation in the shellfisheries and the coastal communities and in their

ecological, cultural, and political settings. Shellfishing is a difficult and not always remunerative way to make a living. In bay fishing, almost anyone can enter it. In digging for hard

clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, all one needs is a rake, a rowboat, and a small outboard motor.

If a person harvests hard clams or soft clams, Mya arenaria, in shallow water, one needs only

a scratch rake or hack and a bag for his harvest. Success depends on much more. Some

people see shellfishing as unskilled labor that "anyone" can do, but the required skills are

not easily acquired. The ones who are unskilled quit. Most of the learning is trial and error

and learning from the older men. Anyone familiar with shellfishing knows that freedom or

independence is one of the most important personal and social values. Shellfishing is

selective for people who are capable of working on their own and who are "self-starting," in

contrast to those who lack motivation or direction unless it is imposed by others. Security is

gained from experience and acquired knowledge. Most people will not trade the security of

a job ashore for shellfishing but like the extra money they can make doing it, and so there

are part-timers who work at shellfishing as a second job. And shellfisheries are important

hedges for someone who loses a land job. Health insurance and other benefits and a steady

income are not available to most shellfishermen. Shellfishing is partly a gamble, as are other

activities dependent on wild and unpredictable resources. When shellfish are scarce and

seem to be on the verge of extinction, there remains the possibility of a good set and hence

good times for the shellfishermen.

Introduction

It is very difficult to generalize about the importance of

shellfishing to coastal communities, except to say that

by and large, shellfish are among the most accessible

and valuable food resources available and thus tend to

be heavily exploited where they exist. Beyond that generalization, time and space, and culture defy easy theorizing or generalizing.

Time and the change it portends pose major obstacles to saying anything simple about shellfishing and

human communities. For example, shellfisheries were

probably far more central to the econom~ and diet of

residents of New York City in the 18th and early 19th

centuries than later (Kochiss, 1974). Taking even larger

leaps backward in time we would have to explore the

roles of shelIfish consumption and trade in the development of Mesolithic and Neolithic societies as well as

in the development of early states and empires.

Shellfish middens are major features of coastal archaeological sites throughout the world, testifying to

the critical role of this source of food and trade for

human communities as welI as the comparatively lower

rate of decomposition of shells than bones and other

organic matter. The Maglemosians who lived on the

margins ofthe Baltic Sea some 10,000 years ago, during

145
146 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

the Mesolithic area, are known as the world's first "maritime" people (Clark, 1948, 1952); they were able to live

a relatively sedentary way of life, supported by a high

reliance on shellfish. Maritime communities utilizing

shellfish were well established in Africa as early as 8,000

years ago (Clark, 1970), Baja California, Mex., around

8,000 years ago (Hubbs and Roden, 1964), and in Japan by 5,000 years ago (Nishimura, 1973). In the case

of coastal Peru, human settlements dependent on shellfish and fish appeared on the coast about 5,000 years

ago (Moseley, 1975); the shellfish resources of the

coast-as well as periodic crises of resource depletion

and the ways people responded to them-contributed

to the development of more diversified forms of social

organization, leading the way to the Incan civilization

(Moseley, 1975; McGoodwin, 1990). Middens (archaeological dump-heaps) also provide evidence for changes

in the abundance of different species which can be

used to make conjecture about the effects of human

activities on shellfish populations in the distant past

(Swadling, 1976; Braun, 1974).

Although harvest technology may not have changed

very much over the millenia since humans began exploiting shellfish, the early fisheries took place in

sociopolitical and cultural contexts far different from

those of the industrialization and urbanization that has

transformed the world in the past century or more. Even

within modern industrial and urbanized societies, it is

difficult to generalize about the role of shellfisheries for

coastal communities. There is great variation in the shellfisheries, in the coastal communities where they are found,

and in their ecological, cultural, and political settings.

For example, how can we weigh the importance of

shellfisheries to urban, coastal communities-where the

industry is close to markets but also to sources of pollution

and competing jobs (the list of communities like this gets

longer all of the time, with coastal population growth

[Maiolo and Tschetter, 1981])-against their importance

to rural coastal communities, where shellfishing may be

one ofthe few ways to make a living? There are also strong

differences in rural shellfishing. In some rural coastal

communities people are involved in a broad spectrum of

land- and/or sea-based activities, such as the watermen of

the Chesapeake Bay (Warner, 1976; Peffer, 1979) the

baymen ofthe Pine Barrens region of NewJersey (Berger

and Sinton, 1985; Lund, 1987) and the North Fork of

Long Island (Matthiessen, 1986), and the fishermen of

Raritan Bay, NJ. (MacKenzie, 1991; McCay, 1985). There

are also communities where the shellfishermen and

-women are highly specialized producers for markets, such

as the oystermen of Great South Bay, Long Island, N.Y.,

including hard-working Calvinist immigrants from Holland (Taylor, 1983), those of the Delaware Bay, NJ.

(Moonsammy, 1987; Del Sordo!) and the Chesapeake Bay

(McHugh, 1972); the oystermen and mussel growers of

Zeeland and other parts of the Netherlands (van Ginkel,

1988, 1989), and the marisquadoras or female clammers

of Galicia, Spain (Meltzoff and Broad2).

The technology and ecology of modern shellfisheries

also differs enough to forestall easy generalization. For

example, some shellfisheries take place in the open

ocean, using large, costly, and technologically sophisticated enterprises: hydraulic dredging for surf clams

and ocean quahogs in the North Atlantic is one example, dredging for sea scallops is another, and setting

pots for conch is yet another. Each has its own structures of linkages to markets, types of work and labor

relations, and traditions. Other shellfisheries (historically most of them) take place in inshore waters, lagoons, bays and estuaries, and within that domain there

is great variety in the methods used, ranging from hands

and toes (as in "treading" for clams in the U.S. Mid

Atlantic states) to mechanized and powered dredges.

The ecology ofshellfisheries also has obvious geographic

differences. Some are tropical, some temperate, some

sub Arctic. Finally, every species and population has its

own biological patterns, responsiveness to environmental conditions and harvesting pressures, and so forth.

In this essay we have chosen to avoid the risks of

generalizing by narrowing our focus to the bay shellfisheries, mostly for northern quahogs (hard clams),

Mercenaria mercenaria, mostly in NewJersey, and even there,

mostly in central and northern NewJersey (Fig. 1). We try,

nonetheless, to offer generalizations about the meaning

and human values of shellfishing that could be tested or

weighed against other experiences and settings.

Our essay focuses on the positive side of bay

shellfishing, so it is appropriate to include in this introduction a brief comment on the other side of this

difficult, risky, and not always remunerative way to make

a living: "I lived it and that's all I can say. It's all a

memory, a bad memory" (the wife of a New Jersey

dammer, when asked to con tribute to this essay). Although women are far more likely to be involved in shellfishing than other kinds of marine fisheries (Nadel-Klein

and Davis, 1988), as harvesters, processors, and marketers,

time and space do not allow us to give proper attention to

questions about either gender or the hard times.

The Baymen's Perspective: " ... a maverick sort of life," _

One thing clear about bay shellfishing3 is thatjust about

anybody can get into it. As far as hard clams go: "The

I Del Sordo, S. G. 1985. Oysters and bayshore towns. Pap. pres. to

"Man & Bay Together," cosponsored by Lehigh Univ. and Wetlands Inst., Newark, Del., May 18,1985.

t Meltzoff, S. K., and K. Broad. 1992. The rise of women in fisheries

management: the marisquadoras of IlIa de Arousa, Galicia. Pap.

pres. to World Fisheries Congress, Athens, Greece, May 1992.
______________ McCay and Jenks: The Importance of Shellfisheries to Coastal Communities 147

Atlantic Ocean

New York

I New Jersey /

,

////////

., /----,

\ / I

\ /'

\ / l_ / \,/ ..............

\

\ Ocean County

\

\

\

\

\

\ ,- \~aretown if

I " £

I QY I

I

I

Goose Bar .,:

TUCk.rto~. : /,' Little Egg Harbor

Marshelder Chan~~/

Greal Bay "

.. ' :-.' : ': '. Beach Haven Inlet

Figure I

The east coast of New Jersey with place names mentioned in the text.

capital outlay is not like buying a dragger. All you need

is a clam rake, a rowboat, and a small used outboard,

and you're a businessman" (William Jenks, hereafter

the author of the quotations in this paper). In fact, if

one wants to "tread" for clams (use one's toes to find

and retrieve them from the bottom), he or she needs

little more than some protection for feet and a wire

basket or some other device to hold the clams, and if

3 As distinct from ocean shellfishing, which in the Eastern United

States means using large, expensive vessels and gear to capture sea

scallops, surf clams, and ocean quahogs.

they are content to take hard clams, or soft clams, Mya

arenaria, in shallow waters at low tide, they need only a

little scratch rake and a bag for the harvest,

SheUfishing and Common Property Rights

Success as a shellfisherman has historically depended

heavily on the right to use shellfish beds freely, a right

that has disappeared in some areas because of other

claims to property. either industrial (i.e. dockage or

wharfage) or aesthetic (residential property owners'
148 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

claims to exclusive riparian property to keep a view

pure). This is the "common property" right that is so

important to the nature of shellfishing at a particular

junction of time and place: where it exists, shellfishing

is an activity open to many people, who may freely move

in and out of it. Where it does not exist, where the

shellfish beds have become either privatized or "condemned," as we say in NewJersey, because the state has

evidence that they are publiC health hazards, shellfishing

becomes a specialized activity open to only a few, and

increasingly it may become the specialization of shellfish mariculturists.

The notion of a "tragedy of the commons" (Hardin,

1968) appears appropriate to many shellfisheries: because they are open access, there are typically too many

people in them for the resource to be sustainable

(Valliant, 1985, on the Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery as

a case oftragedy of the commons; Brooks, 1891, for the

same theory for the problem of declining oysters in the

Chesapeake Bay). Moreover, economic efficiency would

be gained by privatizing the resource, as Agnello and

Donnelley (1975a, b; 1984) have argued for the oyster

fisheries ofthe Mid-Atlantic region ofthe United States.

When shellfish beds are privatized, or the government imposes limits to entry, there are major social

costs in losses of opportunity (van Ginkel, 1988, 1989;

McCay and Creed, 1990). This is an important reason

why there has been strong political and private resistance to privatization in many of the shellfisheries of

the world, including some of the states of the United

States (Santopietro and Shabman, 1992). The concept

of a "public trust" in tidewater resources, including

shellfish, is very well entrenched in U.S. culture and has

parallels in the "common property" law in other nations. For shellfish, in particular, this has meant recognition of the dependence of many people on the resource for food and income. It also can be interpreted

to suggest that the shellfishermen themselves may have

interest in effective management of the shellfish "commons," as will be suggested below in a discussion of

attempts at cooperative management.

Apprenticeship, Knowledge, and Success

Success at shellfishing depends on much more than the

right and ability to enter. Some people see shellfishing

as unskilled labor that anyone can do. But the fact that

capital requirements might be low does not mean that

skills are as easily acquired. "The ones that are unskilled quit. ... Most ofit's trial and error, following the

older men, not literally following them, but learning

from them. It's almost an apprenticeship....The intelligent young man who goes into clamming doesn't

follow the dullard, he follows the expert." Jenks, for

example, went into clamming when he was a young

boy, from about 1939 on, to make money for his school

clothes. He was "kind of adopted" by two older clammers

who were treaders in Shark River on the northern New

Jersey coast.

"It's always a challenge to see another clammer, usually an older person, with an expertise that you don't

have. I remember , from Chincoteaque, Virginia; he was 43, I was 27 then [the mid 1950's]. I

approached him in Barnegat Bay, where he was diving

for clams.4 There was this old guy with two front teeth

missing, and doing something that I didn't know about.

So I introduced myself, said 'How are you doing?,' and

he said 'Pretty good.' I hinted around at the question of

how much he was catching-no one wants to answer

that question-and he said 'I have 1,500 [clams] in the

boat.' So I adopted him, or rather he adopted me."

Freedom and Clamming

"Clamming gives you pride, in your body, your abilities,

your knowledge, and the pride of being free." Just

about anyone familiar with fishing and shellfishing will

mention "freedom" as one of the important personal

and social values. A large study ofjob satisfaction among

New Jersey fishermen found that freedom or independence is particularly important to bay shellfishermen in

contrast with ocean shellfishermen and other fishermen (Gatewood and McCay, 1988, 1990).

Shellfishing is selective for people who are capable of

working on their own, who are "self-starting," in contrast with people who lack motivation or direction unless it is imposed by others. Even more, is the American

notion of the freedom to work hard, the freedom of

deciding how hard you want to work and then doing it.

This is not to be confused with laziness because it

includes 'The freedom of [putting in] all the overtime

4 Diving is one among many of the specialized ways to harvest hard

clams. The first time Bill ever did it was in 1955, when he learned

how from the Chincoteague clammer. It was the end of a summer,

when the bay cabbage, or sea lettuce, had gone down, but another

grass was growing, softening the bottom so that it was difficult to

"toe" the clams (the technique used in treading, involving slipping

one's toes under a clam and lifting it, with the foot, until one can

reach it by hand). The place they were working was too deep to

pick up the clams by hand or to scratch-rake. It was chest high

water. This man from Chincoteague had a Canton flannel slipper,

\vith a stainless steel diaper safety pin, and finger stalls on two

fingers. He'd feel the clam with his heel, then go straight down,

head underwater, to pick it up by hand. Bill learned that you didn't

hold your breath, but breathed out on the way down and breathed

in once your head came up. Mter a while you could catch a clam

every time you took a breath; he remembers coming close to 500-

700 clams an hour. And this might involve as many as 4,700

kneebends in one day. Diving might be done, depending on the

water depth, in hard bottom or semi-hard bottom. You can cover a

lot of ground that way.
______________ McCay and Jenks: The Importance of Shellfisheries to Coastal Communities 149

you want until you drop in your tracks." Another way

fishermen describe this is, "What you make is up to

you." Bill Jenks remembers times in the past when he

worked long days, tonging (using pincers-like iron

rakes), sunup to sundown in the winter months, and

then still had to "count off' (cull and bag the clams).

This freedom is partly the freedom to control many

of the conditions, including the hours, of your work.

It's the freedom to determine how long you work or

whether you work: "... the freedom to take time off

when you want it, too." But it's more than that. It is the

freedom to pursue something that, while hard, can

bring the joy and pride and income from discovering a

good "spot" of clams or mussels.

"Freedom, that's the main thing. It's not so much

freedom to take days off, but more freedom to work

where you want, as long as you want, and of course the

excitement of finding a new spot, when you find it

yourself, and protecting that spot ... it'sjust ajoy. That

spot that you find, you measure it, by eye, you approximate what is there, and as long as you can keep that to

yourself, that's money in the bank."

Pride ofaccomplishment and competition are involved,

as are pressures to work beyond normal endurance.

"We would clam until we were ready to drop, me and

Oenks' partner for a time]. And when we

were finished, I'd say, ' , now let's make a

pound of hamburger ... it's 3 pounds for a dollar (it

was in those days), should we make that extra pound?'

Percentage wise, it wasn't much, a day's pay was about

$25. It was that little extra you'd work for. Like treading

in the water up to your neck, when everybody else is

gone [from the clamming grounds], you stay, it's up to

you, and you can make that pile [of clams on your boat]

much bigger, you get another hour and a half."

Security and the Value of

Knowledge and Experience

Most people want some degree of security, and to outsiders occupations like clamming are unattractive because they seem to offer very little. Returns are dependent on vagaries ofwind, tide, shellfish biology, government regulation, much like farming, but without even

the security of owning land (or holding large mortgages). However, some clammers have a strong sense of

security because they know how to clam. No matter

what the vagaries of the larger economy or their personal lives, "nature" and the clams are always there

(one hopes). Thus, Jenks argues, "There's as much or

more security in knowing how to clam as there is to

having a job."

"The more you know about it, a wide area to clam,

that's your security ... It's the ability to read a chart and

navigate, trial and error, and a lot oflooking and listening all your life.

"You don't get Blue Cross/Blue Shield5 [health insurance] ... but you are never broke, as long as you

know how to clam. ["poor but not broke," Bill's wife

Vivian added]. Within 2 hours I could have a hundred

dollars ... And in better times, prior to '61 [when

northern New Jersey's bays were largely closed], if you

were broke you were only, say, 5 hours away from a

day's pay. Which cannot be said for a job. In the first

place they would withhold a lot ofyour pay. Remember,

clamming is a cash business, it's immediate money, like

piecework. Piecework, but with knowledge and skill."

Security is part of the value of experience and acquired knowledge in clamming, but there are more

intrinsic values too.

"And the more of these spots that you know, and you

can go back to, like a chessboard-it's like a game of

chess-the better c1ammer you are. That's what

shellfishing means to me, or did."

On the other hand, health insurance and other benefits and a steady income are definitely not available to

most shellfishermen, and thus "security" might mean

finding another kind of work and working only parttime on the bays. Many people do not want to trade off

the security of a job but like the extra money they can

make. Hence there are quite a few part-time clammers

on this their second job, clamming, wherever clammel's

live in areas with good job opportunities. This second

job has real attractions: if they miss a day on the water,

they don't get fired; and they have the pride of boat

ownership while being able to make some money with

it. Yet they won't break the tie with that secure job and

the benefits attached to it.

Clamming as the Center of Coastal Adaptations

Clamming is often part of a diversified coastal way of

making a living, part of the seasonal round, or the life

experience, of a "waterman," a "bayman," an "inshore

fisherman." who adjusts to variation and unpredictability

in abundance and markets by doing whatever can be

done with the equipment and knowledge at hand.

For example, in northern New Jersey commercial

clammel's have often done other things, such as crab

dredging, which can be done with a small boat and

dredge (e.g. a 3-foot dredge), to help eke out a living in

the winter months.

"If clamming was poor, and eeling or crabbing was

more lucrative and could use the same vehicle or boat,

we would jump right into that. It could make the differ5 Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service; NOAA.
150 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

ence between survival or defeat as a bayman, especially

in the winter time. It's tough. Occasionally, about every

third winter, the men will be frozen in for approximatelya month; this is very hard on the men. Of course,

they don't always have to go into other fisheries. I've

seen them in Barnegat Bay having their boats lifted out

and trucked up the road, to Waretown, where the plume

from the Oyster Creek plant [a nuclear generating

station] kept it open, to make a few bucks."

This aspect of shellfishing is particularly vulnerable

to government management programs that involve restrictions on entry or limited licenses. In NewJersey, for

example, proposals to regulate crab dredging in the

bays threaten the adaptability ofsome baymen, because

of a provision in a preliminary draft that only those who

crabbed for a certain number of years prior to the new

regulations will be eligible to continue. Some baymen,

including some who introduced important technological innovations such as the Maryland crab pot, have not

crabbed for many years, but did and had counted on

being able to do so in the future. This kind of regulation strikes at the core of the "bayman" or "waterman"

strategy, which requires some freedom to move among

fisheries.

In the NewJersey region, though, "the real backbone

of working on the bay has always been the hard clam.

It's the most steady and dependable money that there is

on the bay. Other things can come and go, but the

clams are always there-or were always there, and legally available, until 1961. The hard clam, in particular,

he lives a long time out of water, almost like cash,

negotiable; is it any wonder they call it Mercenaria

mercenaria. "

Generally there is a large difference between people

who fish in the open ocean and the "baymen" who clam

and perhaps harvest eels, crabs, and other species in

estuaries and embayments. But shellfisheries can be

important to the former, too, as an alternative, par-ticularly when times are bad. Very recently in New Jersey a

few captains, mates, and owners ofoffshore sea clammer

dredge boats or finfish draggers have entered bay clamming. In some cases, this is a case of reen try: the young

clammers are children and grandchildren of people

who clammed, particularly in the pre-1961 days oflargescale, deep-water clamming in Raritan Bay. The context

includes regulatory changes, including individual transferable quotas, that have made it difficult for smaller

operators to remain in the sea clam fishery, as well as

fish scarcity and regulations, including limited entry,

for summer flounder and other species, hurting the

offshore dragger fishery. The relatively low costs of

entry, as well as family traditions and the fact that

clamming is still a way to work on the water, even if it is

not at sea, contribute to this pattern, which may intensify in the future.

The Goose Bar Story

and Promises of Good Sets

Gambling is part ofshellfishing, as it is part of any other

activity dependent on wild and hence unpredictable

resources. The sporadic and essentially unpredictable

nature of recruitment in most shellfish populations

makes it clear to shellfishermen, excepting those engaged in mariculture (who are not, however, free ofthe

challenges of dealing with nature, and, indeed, may be

even more at its peril, having invested so much and

constricted their ranges of options).

Some might call it just plain optimism. Even when

the clams, mussels, scallops, or oysters seem scarce

enough to be on the verge of extinction, there is always

the possibility of a good set. Awareness of this possibility

is made even more vivid by the telling and retelling of

stories about the great sets of the past. Stories are

among the ways that humans make sense of their experiences and provide direction for their behavior. They

are thus central to an understanding of the human

ecology of shellfishing.

For example, hope of good sets in the future is fueled

by reports of better conditions elsewhere. In 1993

clammel's in New Jersey talked about tremendous sets

of oysters in Galveston Bay, Tex., that were reportedly

helping keep the shucking houses of the Chesapeake

Bav and NewJersey alive by shipments of oysters (Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay oyster populations are

suffering from oyster diseases). In New Jersey itself

there have been phenomenal although rare and localized sets ofshellfishes that keep hopes up. For example,

in 1974 mussels, otherwise sparse in New Jersey's estuaries, were "so thick, it was not a matter of how many

you could catch with tongs but how many you could

sell" in Marshelder Channel, which leads from the town

of Tuckerton to the Atlantic Ocean via Beach Haven

Inlet.

In NewJersey hard clamming, there have been a few

exceptional sets of hard clams that, for a short while,

helped to revitalize the industry and, for a longer period, keep hopes alive. Among these were two in the

1930's, one in Raritan Bay, northern New Jersey, the

other in an area known as the Mile Stretch, near Atlantic City, southern New Jersey. The sets were quickly

noticed, and brisk, somewhat illicit, trade in "seed"

clams or "buttons" developed, helping to provide more

capital for the industry. But in some cases, the sets also

promoted experiments in hard clam husbandry, in the

kind of "planting" long known for oysters.

The best example, and the last biggest "set" of hard

clams in the state, was the Goose Bar set of 1972. The

Goose Bar is a very shallow bar in the Great Bay region

of New Jersey. Jenks' ledger provides the details. In

early 1972,Jenks, who was a part-time clammer then in
______________ McCay and Jenks: The Importance of Shellfisheries to Coastal Communities 151

waters to the north ofthe Goose Bar, had heard rumors

of the set and tried to convince his buddies to go with

him to check them out. "Guys said they had bushels of

these little bitty seeds, beautiful, like corn." He went on

his own, rigged up a garden rake for the purpose, and

on the first day, April 6, caught a large number of

bushels from the Goose Bar. The next day he caught 6

bushels, the next one and a half. And so it went. Each

bushel was of very small, seed clams. At first, he, like

most others, was selling these bushels to local dealers

(or to out-of-state dealers) for $18 or $20 a bushel.

Although the clams were under minimum size, the

state allowed a restricted harvest. Social allocation is a

major issue in the clam fisheries, as it is with all others

(McHugh, 1972). Here the issue was whether the "true"

commercial clammer, the full-timer, should have the

benefit of this instance of the largesse of nature or

whether he should share it with recreational and parttime clammers. Leaders of the commercial industry

pushed for permission to harvest the undersized clams

because of the shallowness of the bar and hence the

probability that this phenomenal set would die during

low water in the winter months. Moreover, leaders of

the SouthJersey Shellfishermen's Association, the most

influential shellfishermen's group at the time, argued

that the set should be restricted to commercial harvesters, and thus that the Goose Bar should be closed

during the summer months when recreational clamming is popular. However, some of the tributaries to

the Goose Bar were outside the staked closed area and

also full of seed clams, enabling some clammers to continue this fishery during the summer. Moreover, illegal

clamming was, as always, very tempting: "guys were sneaking onto the Goose Barjust because it was illegal. ..."

The money was good.Jenks noticed another clammer

with a rake apparently designed for the purpose, so he

asked who made it, and was told to talk to an older man,

a welder who was out there on the Goose Bar too.Jenks

walked over to him-it was only knee-deep water on the

bar-and asked him if he could buy a rake and if so for

how much. Said the welder, "Yes, for $60, but you'll

have to wait six weeks." Jenks was desperate and asked,

"How fast could I get one for $1OO?" The welder/ clammer

said, ''Tomorrow morning." The next day, with his new

rake,Jenks was able to catch 9 bushels, worth $180, clearing $80 for the day. That wasn't bad at all.

After the initial excitement and quick money coming

in,Jenks, like others, began thinking about the future,

about planting the seed clams to take them up later,

when they were at minimum size for the high-priced

"necks." The idea came at least partly because Jenks

remembered an older clammer who had "run seed,"

planting in the spring and taking up in the fall. "Knowing this, I thought, my God, here we have a fortune

before our eyes." That older clammerjust dumped the

seed in public grounds, "the wilds," but it seemed wiser

to use shellfish leases and thus have some legal protection. The State of New Jersey leases shellfish beds for

clam and oyster cultivation if they are not naturally

productive.

Through a fellow clammer, Jenks and his sons got

access to reaches in a lease in the area, and they started

planting some seed, selling the rest. By May 5th, his

family had 294,000 clams on the lease. By June 3rd.

when they had stopped selling and were just planting as

well as tonging for legal sized clams nearby, they had

about 350,000 "buttons" in each of two places.

There was a lot of uncertain ty based on fear that the

seed clams would just disappear, and thus most people

continued to sell the seed. "The lure of the immediate

dollar forced many clammers to sell to dealers out of

state, which was a shame for New Jersey because there

hasn't been a good set there since." Dealers were also

cautious about how much they bought to plant on their

leases. But for some clam planters, the payoffs were

tremendous. The clams grew well.

Jenks found that one year they were 4,000 to the

bushel, but the next, in Parker Run, they had grown to

a count of between 800 and 1,000 to the bushel. Jenks'

ledgers show the high production, two years later, of

the leases where he and his son had planted their seed:

July 2,1974, "took up 21,500 necks off lease $837";July

3rd, 10,000 for $500, and so forth. For that weektypically the best of the year in terms of marketing-he

and his sons made $1,760, an otherwise almost unheard

of income from hard clamming at the time.

As Jenks notes, "This is what keeps us going, in the

mind: $1,760 for the week." He also remembers this

from the first day, when in 5 hours he and his boys took

up 21,500 saleable clams: "When I left Parkertown Dock

... I didn't have a clam in the truck; my wallet was so

thick, I had to put it into my pocket unfolded. But a lot

of planning went into it." The point is not so much the

bonanza as the fact that with planting, the clammers could

plan for their future, an otherwise almost impossible task

unless one is engaged in full-scale mariculture.

Clammers and ex-elammers still talk about how much

they regret their caution about taking risks with the Goose

Bar clams. One who was a major dealer at the time told

Jenks that when he was cleaning up his oyster house in

south Jersey, many years later, he found a sign from 1972

reading "I will not buy any more Goose Bay seeds," and

almost cried, remembering the lost opportunity.

Goose Bar stories are also stories about another sorry

reality of clamming: Pollution. The lease thatJenks and

others obtained was condemned because of poor water

quality by the next year. The men had to move the

clams they'd planted, as best they could, to another

lease in Parker Run, in a state-supervised "relay" program in which they were required to leave the moved
152 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

clams untouched for at least 30 days in the new, approved waters. In addition, some of the clams that were

planted by baymen were planted in already condemned

waters, in part to experiment, in part to help provide

"sanctuaries" for general production in the bays.

Clam Relays and the Business of Clamming

Much of the story of clamming in urbanized regions

like New Jersey is the story of condemned (closed)

waters and illegal clamming, which contribute to the

maintenance of a culture of "piscatorial piracy" (McCay,

1984) against the odds posed by sharp restriction of

what were once free and common resources. The story

is also of the development of relay and depuration

programs to help provide safe clams for the markets.

Depuration involves the use of ultraviolet-treated water

in controlled conditions to encourage clams to pump

out contaminating bacteria. The relay programs involve the use of nature to do the same thing, by moving

shellfish to clean waters where, over a longer period of

time, they will cleanse themselves of bacterial and viral

contaminants. Clam relays are almost as old as the

official condemnation ofshellfish waters in NewJersey.

They involve the harvest of clams in public waters and

their transplantion to private leaseholds, supervised by

the state, where they remain for a designated period of

time (e.g., 30 days) before legally harvested.

The first hard clam relays in NewJersey took place in

northern New Jersey in 1920 and in southern New

Jersey in 1925 and 1926. Their major purpose was to

deplete clam stocks in polluted waters to reduce the

risk of shellfish-borne disease epidemics. They were

short-lived, but were revived during the Depression

years for a time because of strong social pressure to

provide more opportunities for the unemployed of the

state-a second important goal of relays and depuration. The closure of almost all the waters of Monmouth

County, northern New Jersey, in 1961-62 in response

to an epidemic of viral hepatitis led to experimentation

in hard clam depuration and a new hard clam relay

program, which began in 1970 in the Atlantic City area,

south Jersey. In 1980 the relay accounted for 20% of

total hard clam landings in New Jersey; in 1993 relay

and depuration clams were 50% of the total. In 1983, a

second major relay program was begun in northern

Monmouth County, in conjunction with a depuration

operation (Jenks and McCay6), Since 1983 these programs have provided income-generating opportunities

6 Jenks, W. P., III, and B. J. McCay. 1984. New Jersey's hard clam

relay program. Pap. prep. for Hard Clam Management Alternatives

Working Group, Suffolk County and SUNY Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, N.Y., October 30, 1984, 14 p.

for varying numbers of men, especially those of traditional fishing and shellfishing communities.

BillJenks worked as hard as anyone for the northern

Monmouth County relay program, and in the process

he generated a set ofreasons why a relay would be seen

as advantageous to clammers, including the ability to

get access to clams. We recount these here (McCay,

1985) because of the continuity some of them show

with the reasons Jenks and others tried to plant the

Goose Bar clams, which can be summed up as the

opportunity to plan for and influence the future.

"Seven advantages of a hard clam relay from a

clammer's perspective:

"I) Makes a businessman out of a clamdigger, because he has an inventory of clams on his lease. He is

more dependable and valuable to a dealer or a fish

market.

"2) He can continue clamming when the market is

oversupplied (glut),

"3) He has access to better clamming, in a situation,

increasingly the case in NewJersey, in which clams are

scarce in unpolluted waters [at the time, in the "wilds"

ofSouthJersey, 400-500 clams were considered a 'good

day's take'; on the northern Monmouth County hard

clam relay 2,000-3,000 were seen as a 'good day'].

"4) He is depleting the thick clamming in condemned

waters, making pirating unprofitable.

"5) He is utilizing a renewable resource that is otherwise wasted or marketed through piracy.

"6) Mter a day of relaying he is just too darn tired to

think about pirating that night!

"7) It is endorsed by the Federal Government (FDA,

EPA)."

Cooperative Management

The story ofthe depuration plan ts and hard clam relays

is also a narrative about relationships between baymen

and state agencies. The supreme paradox about choosing fishing as a way of life is that it promises freedom

and independence, but a condition is that public resources are used, hence public laws and bureaucracies

have immediate effects on the lives and attitudes of

shellfishermen. The hard clam relay program in New

Jersey brought clammers and state officials together in

uneasy but ultimately working relationships (McCay,

I985;Jenks and McCay6), some ofwhich laid the groundwork for an experiment in using the principle of transplantation to rehabilitate a depleted bay in southern

New Jersey. Following the spirit of MacKenzie's work

with oystermen of Prince Edward Island (MacKenzie.

1975; 1989), and with stimulus from a hard clam

"spawner sanctuary" program taking place in Great

South Bay, Long Island (Kassner, 1988), an unusual ex-
______________ McCay and Jenks: The Importance of Shellfisheries to Coastal Communities 153

periment in cooperation among scientists, shellfishermen,

shellfish dealers, and state officials was undertaken.

Although our "spawner sanctuary" program apparently did not result in major new sets of clams in the

area (Barber et aI., 1988), it was an important case of

both cooperative management (Pinkerton, 1989) and

"adaptive managemen t" (Hilborn, 1987), or trying to

make decisions in a setting of high degrees of ignorance and uncertainty by trying to learn while doing

(McCay, 1988; McCay7). The experience also underscored for those of us who were cen tral to it the importance of recognizing that "the shellfishing community"

is a very diverse, often conflicted, sometimes consensual, group of people ranging from harvesters (from

different areas, with different objectives), to their family members, to dealers, to scientists (academic, state,

federal, social, biological), to bureaucrats from different agencies with different objectives and degrees of

authority and responsibility.

Regulating Inefficiency and Social Relations

"This clamming, hand clamming, is the thing for the

people of the earth. I don't believe it's meant to be

mechanized.... The resource is finite; we only have so

many tens ofthousands of acres, it's not like the ocean."

The bay shellfisheries are notorious for what economists, and some biologists, see as inefficient, if not

foolish, regulations. Most obvious in North America is

the proliferation of regulations, at the level of municipalities, counties, and states, forbidding the use of certain tools, such as motor-powered dredges, or forbidding or sharply restricting private property claims in

shellfish beds. From the 19th century (Brooks, 1891) to

the recent past (McHugh, 1972; Agnello and Donnelley,

1975a, b, 1984; Hargis and Haven, 1988), people have

observed, studied, and lamented the situation. New

Jersey provides one example among many: Except in

the oystering regions of Delaware Bay, and, until the

1960's, in the deep-water clamming areas of Raritan

Bay, dredges cannot be used for clamming or oystering,

and motor-powered dredges can be used only in the

Delaware Bay. What this means is that most bay

shellfishermen can use only rakes, tongs, and their toes

in their pursuit of clams and oysters. NewJersey is more

liberal about property than some other states in the

region. Today, leaseholds from the state are allowed

and numerous, but they must be in areas of the bays

that are shown not to be naturally productive of shellfish. Otherstates vary in these regulations; Maryland tends

7 McCay, B.J. 1989. Why the oysters aren't all private property. Pap.

pres. to Annual Meetings of the American Ethnological Society,

Santa Fe, N.M., 5-8 April 1989.

to be against leasing and power dredging, Virginia for,

and New York State has had its ups and downs.

The social meaning and community implications of

the regulations are fairly clear-cut but should be underscored. They are about the distribution of access to

shellfish resources, and they support the populist and

utilitarian view that as many people as possible should

be able to benefit (McHugh, 1972; Santopietro and

Shabman, 1992). Over the past 200 years these regulations were articulated-or challenged and then reinstated-in the context of attempts by local entrepreneurs as well as outsider firms to "develop" the industry

along more industrial lines, where efficiency of production, in the short-term, is what counts the most. Hovering around and sometimes entering these arguments is

the English and American common-law idea of "public

trust," the idea that there is something very special

about property rights in navigable rivers and tidewaters. In some readings this is little more than a statement that public rights offishing, navigation, and maybe

recreational bathing can't be curtailed without some

justification that doing so is in the public interest. But in

other readings, one can find the notion that the poor are

particularly deserving of protection from privatization of

public trust waters, or that the public trust rights are

absolutely inalienable (McCay, 1993). The freedom ofthe

shellfishermen is founded upon those rights.

Baymen usually express their opinion about these

matters in a way that makes no distinction between

conservation and social goals. For example,Jenks spoke

to the issue of power-dredging in Newjersey's bays this

way: "I feel very strongly about it. ... It's a conservation

measure. Our bays are limited in size, and if power was

ever used, only the big outfits would survive, and then

not for long. It would wipe out the resource." In competition for a limited resource, only the "big outfits," the

ones able to use advanced technology or to make it

through a competitive scramble, will survive; the smaller

operations will disappear. That is the "chain-store" vs.

"Mom-and-Pop" grocery store problem, or the industrial factory vs. artisan problem (the "Luddite" problem

in 19th century English history), and no small one at

that. But the argument goes farther, claiming that bigness is not better for shellfish conservation: "It would

wipe out the resource."

Neither argument has been thoroughly addressed in

research or policy for U.S. shellfisheries, even though

the issue is central to most shellfish policy. It may be

that the conservation part of the argument is really a

"front" for the social distribution part, as it has been

very difficult for people to raise social questions of this

sort at least since the onset of the industrial revolution

in the early 19th century.

For example, in debates in NewJersey about whether

one should be able to use a powered dredge on one's
154 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

own lease (to take up clams that have been planted in a

hatchery or "grow-out" aquaculture operation or perhaps from a relay from polluted waters), it is difficult to

make a conservation argument against the practice.

One concern expressed is that it may be a way for

leaseholders to illegally use a dredge on "natural" rather

than "planted" clams if the former are in the leasehold.

But that is really a distribution issue: The leaseholder is

not supposed to have exclusive rights to "natural" clams

(or oysters). For broader conservation issues, it is possible to argue that those "natural" shellfish should stay

on the lease, or be taken up more slowly, because they

provide a "sanctuary" that helps replenish the waters of

the larger bay. But that seems forced. The only direct

biological conservation argumen t concerns effects of

dredging on the bottom, another contentious matter.

More likely, the concerns behind the argument are

grounded in fears about changes in competitive position (i.e. being able to "take up" large quantities and

hurt local and regional markets in the short term); and

a stubborn insistence that having more employed than

fewer is better. The act of taking up clams on leased

grounds has social meaning in the community. If the

leaseholder's practice is, as it often is or was, to pay

people to take up planted clams, then forbidding the

use of powered dredges is, as Bill Jenks concluded in

our conversation, a way to "keep the money local: if the

dealer had a rig to take them up, he would do it himself

and these guys would not make any money."

One way or the other, regulations for natural resource management affect both ecological and social

relationships. This point could have been made about

other shellfisheries as well, including the more highly

industrialized and offshore U.S. surf clam and ocean

quahog fisheries, where the social dimensions of regulation have very strong roles in scenarios overtly dominated by economic and biological concerns (McCay

and Creed, 1990; McCay et al., 1990).

Regulations are only part ofthe pressures for change.

As Jenks notes, there have been profound changes in

Newjersey's clamming industry even in the past decade.

"For years, even to ten years ago, you could go to

Waretown, Little Egg Harbor, places like that [in southern NewJersey], and you'd know the boats; the clammel's

kept their garveys in the same slips, and had the same

garveys, for years, 40 years. You knew where, say,

____ 's boat was, and ifit wasn't there, you knew he

was out on the water. ow it's different; it's "trailerized,"

the clammers move [and get new boats, and move into

and out of the business]. Dock space is more costly,

too." Nonetheless, a person can still make a living from

shellfishing, ifhe's smart enough, strong enough, lucky

enough, and optimistic enough. Even in urbanized,

industrial regions like New Jersey a shellfisherman has

a chance, and sometimes an unexpected one. A

shellfisherman may join up with wealthier residents of

coastal communities to help protest development activities that will degrade the natural environment, as

was the case for the hard clam relay fishermen and a

group of citizens concerned about a planned marina

development in Barnegat Bay in the late 1980's and

early 1990's. Someday there may be advertisements in

the telephone book, under "Environmental Protection,"

for "rent-a-clammer." Shellfishermen are nothing if not

adaptable.

Acknowledgmen~ __

Bonnie J. McCay is an anthropologist who has specialized in the study of fishing communities, fisheries, and

natural resource management. She is Professor in the

Department of Human Ecology, Cook College, Rutgers

the State University of NewJersey, New Brunswick, NJ.

WilliamJenks is a retired bayman who has also served in

the U.S. Merchant Marine and as a shellfisheries enforcement officer for the State of New Jersey. McCay

wrote the overall narrative. Jenks is the source of the

quotations used in the paper, based on extended conversations and interviews; he is also first reviewer and

critic of the narrative. The research was supported by

NOAA, Office ofSea Gran t, Department ofCommerce,

under Grant No. NA85AA-DI-SG084 (Project No. R/F19), and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, as well as numerous contributors to the Spawner

Sanctuary Program (listed in McCay, 1988:339). This

article is a publication of the Agricultural Experiment

Station. Views or opinions expressed or implied are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the

position of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.

Literature Cited

Agnello, R.J., and L. P. Donnelley.

19753. Property rights and efficiency in the oyster industry.

Land Econ. 18:521-533.

1975b. Prices and property rights in the fisheries. S. Econ. J.

4~:~53-262.

1984. Regulatiun and the structure of property rights: the

case of the U.S. oyster industry. Res. In Law Econ. 6:165-172.

Barber, B.. S. Fegley, and B. McCay.

191'1:\. The Little Egg Harbor hard clam spawner sanctuary: a

reproductive e\·aluation. Rep. NJ. Fish. Develop. Comm.,

Trenton.

Berger,J., andJ. W. Sinton.

1985. Water, earth and fire: land use and environmental

planning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Johns Hopkins

Cniv. Press, Baltimure.

Braun, D. P.

1974. Explanatorv models for the evolution of coastal adaptation in prehistoric eastern New England. Am. Antiquity

39 (4) :58~-596.
_______________ McCay and Jenks: The Importance of Shellfisheries to Coastal Communities 155

Brooks, W. K.

1891. The oyster; a popular summary of a scientific study.

Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

Clark,]. D.

1970. The prehistory of Mrica. Praeger, N.V.

Clark,]. G. D.

1948. The development offishing in prehistoric Europe. AntiquariesJournal 28:45-85.

1952. Prehistoric Europe: the economic basis. Methuen, Lond.

Gatewood,]. B., and B.]. McCay.

1988. Job satisfaction and the culture of fishing: a comparison of six New Jersey fisheries. MAST: Marit. Anthropo!.

Stud. 1(2): 103-128.

1990. Comparison ofjob satisfaction in six NewJersey fisheries: implications for management. Human Organ.

49(1):14-25.

Hardin. G.

1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1234-1248.

Hargis, W. ].,Jr., and D. S. Haven.

1988. Rehabilitation of the troubled oyster industry of the

lower Cheapeake Bay.]. Shellfish Res. 7(2):271-279.

Hilborn, R.

1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management.

Am.]. Fish. Manage. 7(1):1-5.

Hubbs, C. L., and G. I. Roden.

1964. Oceanography and marine life along the Pacific coast

of Middle America, p. 143-186. In R. C. West and R.

Wauchope (eds.), Natural environment and early cultures,

vo!. I of Handbook ofMiddle American Indians. Univ. Texas

Press, Austin.

Kassner,].

1988. The baymen of the Great South Bay, New York: a preliminal)' profile. MAST: Marit. Anthropo!. Stud. 1(2):182-195.

Kellam, S.

1985. Fish farming: a clash of cultures. Environ. Action Marchi

April:21-27.

Kochiss,]. M.

1974. Oystering from New York to Boston. Wesleyan Univ.

Press, Middletown, Conn., 251 p.

Lund,].

1987. Danger and delight: environmental-experience narratives in southern NewJersey. N.J. Folklife 12:26-31.

MacKenzie, C. L.,Jr.

1975. Development of a program to rehabilitate the oyster

industl)' of Prince Edward Island. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(3):21-35.

1989. A guide for enhancing estuarine molluscan shellfisheries. Mar. Fish. Rev. 51(3):1-47.

1991. The fisheries of Raritan Bay. Rutgers Univ. Press, New

Brunswick, N.J.

Maiolo,]. R., and P. Tschetter.

1981. Relating population growth to shellfish bed closures: a

case study from North Carolina. Coast. Zone Manage. ].

9(1):1-18.

Matthiessen, P.

1986. Men's lives; The surfmen and baymen of the South

Fork. Random House, NY

McCay, B.].

1984. The pirates of piscary: ethnohistory of illegal fishing in

NewJersey. Ethnohistory 31 (1):17-37.

1985. Socioeconomic evaluations of innovations in commercial

fisheries--the hard clam relay program of NewJersey: history,

evaluation, and recommendations. N.J. Sea Grant Tech. Rep.

1983-1984, p. 5-8. N.J. Mar. Sci. Consort., Fort Hancock.

1988. Muddling through the clam beds: cooperative management of New jersey's hard clam spawner sanctuaries. ].

Shellfish Res. 7(2) :327-340.

1993. The making of an environmental doctrine: public trust

and American shellfishermen. In K. Milton (ed.), Environmentalism; The view from anthropology, p. 85-96. Routledge,

Lond.

McCay, B.]., and C. F. Creed.

1990. Social structure and debates on fisheries management

in the Mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery. Ocean Shoreline Manage. 13:199-229.

McCay, B.].,]. B. Gatewood, and C. F. Creed.

1990. Labor and the labor process in a limited entry fishery.

Mar. Res. Econ. 6:311-330.

McGoodwin,]. R.

1990. Crisis in the world's fisheries: people, problems, and

policies. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif.

McHugh,]. L.

1972. Jeffersonian democracy and the fisheries. In Brian ].

Rothschild (ed.), World fisheries policy, p.134-155. Univ.

Washington Press, Seattle.

Moonsammy, R.

1987. Smart boats, able captains: The schooner as metaphor.

NJ. Folklife 12:38-44.

Moseley, M. E.

1975. The maritime foundations of Andean civilization.

Cummings, Menlo Park, Calif.

Nadel-Klein,]., and D. L. Davis (eds.).

1988. To work and to weep: women in fishing economies.

Inst. Soc. Econ. Res., Mem. Univ. Newfoundland, St.John's.

Nishimura, A.

1973. A preliminary report on current trends in marine anthropology. Occas. Pap. Cent. Mar. Ethno!. 1. Waseda University, Tokyo.

Peffer, R. S.

1979. Watermen.Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

Pinkerton, E.

1989. Introduction: Attaining better fisheries management

through co-management - prospects, problems, and propositions. Chapter 1. In E. Pinkerton (ed.), Co-operative management of local fisheries: New directions for improved

management and community development, p. 3-33. Univ.

B.C. Press, Vancouver.

Santopietro, G. D., and L. A. Shabman.

1992. Property rights to the Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery:

history and implications. Soc. Nat. Resour. 5(2):165-178.

Swadling, P.

1976. Changes induced by human exploitation in prehistoric

shellfish populations. Mankind 10:156-162.

Taylur, L.

1983. Dutchmen on the Bay: the ethnohistory of a contractual community. Univ. Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Valliant,].

1985. The tragedy of the Chesapeake commons. Waterman's

Gaz.. March 1985:4, 6, 8, 9.

van Ginkel, R.

1988. Limited entry: panacea or palliative? ]. Shellfish Res.

7(2):309-314.

1989. 'Plunderers' into planters: Zeeland oystermen and the

enclosure of the marine commons. In].F. Boissevain and].

Verrips (eds.), Dutch dilemmas: anthropologists look at the

Netherlands, P.89-105. Van Gorcum, Assen.

Warner, W. W.

1976. Beautiful swimmers; watermen, crabs and the Chesapeake Bay. Lillie, Brown, Boston.

Environmental Challenges Facing the Shellfishing Industry

THOMAS E. BIGFORD

Office ofHabitat Conservation

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

ABSTRACT

North American molluscan fisheries have been traditions since colonial times, but few

specifics have been learned about effects of molluscan harvesting and culture on habitats.

The relative effects of fishing gear on the seafloor remain an open question, except that

government surveys of the benthos have shown that invertebrate populations are abundant

and species compositions are diverse in areas where shellfish harvesting has taken place for

at least 50 years. Effects of fishing gear are temporary, because even if numbers of associated

invertebrates are slightly reduced they rebound when new generations settle. From an

environmental viewpoint, oyster culture has modified habitats in a positive way. The presence of transplanted oysters on previously unplanted bottoms has provided much more

surface area and a larger number of niches for various invertebrates to inhabit. The washing

of silt off beds of shells to clean them for receiving sets of oyster spat injects silt into the

water, but accounts for an inconsequential amount compared with the quantity lifted

during every lengthy wind storm. Mussel culture using rafts has brought about large

changes in the ecosystem of the Ria de Arousa in Spain. The infauna macrobenthos is

depauperate, but the biomass ofthe megafauna has increased due to the food contribution

provided by the mussels and their associated epifauna. Similar effects probably have taken

place in areas of North America and Europe where mussels are grown on suspended lines.

Consumer interest in shellfish products is growing and more shellfish will be grown by

culture enterprises in the future. Facilities designed for shoreside construction are likely to

elicit concerns about habitat degradation, particularly if the locations are undeveloped. The

shellfish industry needs to be wary of secondary impacts of construction and operation on

water quality, but the industry can expect to be allied with other coastal enthusiasts arguing

for water and sediment quality standards that will support shellfish culture.

Introduction

Cave drawings and shell middens suggest that mollusks

have been a staple food for millennia. In North America,

molluscan fisheries and culture have been traditions

since colonial times. The earliest North American settlers learned well from the Native Americans. Besides

finfish, their diet included wild populations of oysters,

Crassostrea virginica; softshell clams, Mya arenaria; northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria; and other shallowwater species such as bay scallops, Argopecten irradians.

By the 1800's, coastal waters also supported commercial enterprises to culture oysters as the demand for them

was great. The other species were simply harvested.

In the early 1900's, waters began to show the effects

of coastal population growth. Water pollution and shellfish quality were bona fide concerns. Shortly after World

War II, ocean-going vessels began to harvest Atlantic

surfclams, Spisula solidissima; ocean quahogs, Antica

islandica; and sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, on a

large scale, thereby broadening the public's taste for

molluscan foods and establishing the basis for an expanding aquaculture industry which included blue

mussels, Mytilus edulis. Shellfish production now is gain157
158 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

ing emphasis along our coasts as wild-caught harvests

are slumping and aquaculture gains in appeal.

The Need for Shellfish Culture _

Consumer interest in shellfish products is increasing

while existing, traditional sources (domestic and imported) are often unable to meet those needs. As a

result, the United States needs a viable culture industry

and an accepting seafood consuming public.

Culture of marine organisms has existed for centuries, but in the United Stat~s it is still embryonic compared with global norms and domestic possibilities. In

1988, U.S. marine aquaculture production was about

75,000 t, of which about 80% were oysters. Culture of

other marine species is in the early stages of development (NRC, 1992). Current trends suggest that the

culture industry might be better equipped than ever

before to meet consumer needs. Problems with habitat

quality and ecosystems persist, but supporting sectors

are stronger than ever, and skilled workers usually

abound in coastal communities.

While U.S. per capita consumption of fishery products continues to grow (now 14.8 lb/person) (NMFS.

1993), the culture industry can add to the molluscan

shellfish portion. Culture firms are supported by an

infrastructure that now spans from feeds to marketing,

and they are benefiting from the global expertise in

shellfish culture.

Shellfish Culture and Harvesting Effects__

Few specifics have been learned about effects of molluscan harvesting and culture on habitats. An accounting

of the effects of fishing on the environment has gained

attention since the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act amendments through 1990 required

fishery management regimes to do so.

The effects of gear on some shellfisheries have been

observed by researchers at the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Woods Hole Laboratory. A

videocamera has been towed in front of a hydraulic

dredge to observe the effects of mid-Atlantic surfclam

and ocean quahog gear. Sediment disruption appeared

minimal, few clams seemed to be crushed by the gear,

and most clams appeared to be harvested. The gear left

a perceptible furrow that was too shallow to disrupt

trawls or other gear.

Fears remain owing to the lack of documented information about bottom harvest impacts. When a new

fishery for Arctic surfclams, Mactromeri.s polynyma, developed in Massachusetts in the late 1980's, bottom finfish

trawlers had serious concerns about troughs left by the

hydraulic clam dredges. Finfishermen submitted testimonials about losing gear in the troughs. Complaints

ended only when the clam fishery collapsed owing to

dwindling supplies and sporadic markets.

The relative effects of all fishing gear (shellfish and

finfish, i.e., dredges and trawls) on the seafloor remain

an open question. Finfishermen fear that any amount

of ocean mining or disposal of sediments and sewage

may increase turbidity, decrease habitat suitability, or

otherwise compromise the ecosystem, but the effects of

those activities have never been compared with gear

impacts, storm events, and natural sediment transport.

Side-scan sonar traces reveal that in some areas bottom

fishing gear can leave noticeable scars for at least several months. The fishing industry possibly disturbs more

bottom habitat with its gear than other ocean users

disturb with mining and disposal operations. Of course,

such comparisons are often complicated because

dredged materials from urban harbors frequently are

contaminated with a suite of chemicals and sewage

discharges may include heavy metals.

Surveys of the benthos using Smith-McIntyre grabs

have shown that invertebrate populations are abundant

and species compositions are diverse in areas where

shellfish harvesting has taken place. In Long Island

Sound (Reid et al., 1979) and on the eastern continental shelf of the United States (Rowe, 1971; Steimle and

Stone, 1973; Pearce et al., 1977; Reid et aI., 1982),

invertebrates were abundan t and diverse in areas where

mollusks have been harvested for many years, including

about 50 years on the continental shelf. Effects of fishing gear are temporary because even if invertebrate

numbers are slightly reduced, they soon rebound when

new generations settle.

Oyster Culture _

From about 1825 to the early 1900's, around 2-3 million bushels ofoysters/year were transplanted by schooners from beds in Chesapeake Bay to beds in Delaware

Bay; Raritan Bay, .Y. and NJ., Long Island Sound, and

Wareham, Mass., for growth and ultimate sale. Within

Chesapeake Bay, transplants of seed oysters were made

from especially Virginia'sJames River (at least 2 million

bushels/year) to beds where salinities were mostly above

20%0. The seed oysters in the northern bays and Chesapeake Bay were grown for 1-2 years before being harvested.

In the late 1800's and thereafter, oyster companies

spread 2-3 million bushels of shells on Connecticut

beds. The seed that set on the shells was transplanted

for growth and harvesting to Narragansett Bay, R.I.,

and bays on Long Island and in Massachusetts, besides

other beds in Connecticut. There were also transplants

of oysters within Great South Bay, Long Island.
Bigford: Environmental Challenges Facing the Shellfishing Industry 159

Additional shelling ofseed beds and transplants took

place in Delaware Bay and along the U.S. Gulfof Mexico.

In nearly every area, the initial transplants of seed

oysters were to bottoms that rarely had oysters growing

on them. The oysters were spread at rates of 500-750

bushels/acre. From an environmental viewpoint, the

presence of the oysters provided much more surface

area and a large number of niches for a variety of

invertebrates to inhabit. The bottoms were changed,

mostly in a positive way, though a few species which

were adapted to smooth bottoms probably declined.

Oyster culture today is practiced in several areas on

the east coast of North America. In all areas, shell

planting is involved. After collecting a set of oysters, the

shells are transplanted to growing grounds. The most

complex culture takes place on leased grounds controlled by the Tallmadge Oyster Companyl in Connecticut. Connecticut grounds would be barren of oysters without any culture as was true in the early 1800's

(MacKenzie, 1981). Grounds containing oysters have a

much larger variety and biomass of associated invertebrates and also more fish than similar grounds without

oysters. The actions the company takes on its grounds

are:

1) Before spreading shells, suction dredges clean the

grounds of old shells that are fouled with various invertebrates, oyster drills (mainly Urosalpinx cinerea), and

starfish, Asteriasforbesi. (The drills are dumped alive off

the oyster grounds, whereas the starfish are destroyed.)

2) In July, shells are spread at a density of about 1,000

bushels/acre. (The shells had been dredged from old

oyster beds and put on docks for storage which cleans

them; they then are taken from the docks and spread

directly on the beds.)

3) If the shells collect a set of oyster spat, they are left

in place until the following spring; during this time, the

shells also collect sets of many additional species.

4) In the spring, shells with spat are transplanted to

other grounds; in the process, some spat are broken

loose from the shells as singles or doubles. On the new

grounds, the oysters continue to grow and act as hosts

for more invertebrates and fish.

5) The oysters are similarly transplanted and grow

two additional seasons before they are harvested and

sold. When the oysters are harvested, many associated

invertebrates are taken with them to a processing plant

and are not returned to the bottom.

6) The company also uses two boats to tow 3.5 m wide

cotton mops over the bottom to remove starfish from

its beds.

The Tallmadge Company has about 10,000 acres of

ground planted with oysters and shells at anyone time.

I Mention of commercial firms or trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.

Besides harboring a great many invertebrates and fish,

the oysters also remove large quantities of plankton

from the water. The effect of the latter in Connecticut

waters is unknown, but reduction in turbidity is one

likely result. From an environmental viewpoint, oyster

culture by the company has a positive effect on the

habitat.

Oysters are also cultivated on public beds in eastern

North America. From north to south, the most notable

examples are in Prince Edward Island, Maryland,

Florida, and Louisiana. Shells are mined from fossil

deposits in rivers and bays and spread on oyster setting

grounds and the spat that set on them are often transplanted to growing grounds before they are harvested.

If the spread shells do not collect a set of oysters, they

commonly collect a layer of silt that reduces setting in

the following years. In Prince Edward Island and Maryland, silt sometimes is washed off the shells by boats

towing planning boards or bagless dredges to recondition them for oyster setting. Silt washing injects silt into

the water, but probably accounts for an inconsequential amount of silt compared with the quantity that is

lifted during every lengthy wind.storm.

Mussel Culture _

On the east coast ofNorth America, blue mussels, Mytilus

edulis, are cultured by growing them suspended from

lines in the Canadian Maritime Provinces, and by transplanting mussel seed from wild grounds onto leased

growing grounds in Maine. In California, M. edulis is

cultured on suspended lines, and M. galioprovincialis on

legs of oil drilling platforms. The environmental effects

of intensive mussel culture have been studied in Spain

where the mussels, M. edulis, are suspended from rafts.

The Ria de Arosa in northwestern Spain has about

2,000 rafts. The excrementfrom the musselsrains through

the water onto the seafloor where it accumulates.

Mussel culture has brought about great changes in

the ecosystem of the Ria de Arosa. The total biomass of

the epifauna of the rafts is extremely high. In contrast,

the infaunal macrobenthos in the area of the rafts is

depauperate and is dominated by species typical of

eutrophic environments (Lopez:Jamar, 1982). The infauna is scarce because the quantity of organic detritus

settling from the rafts cannot be utilized entirely by the

infaunal organisms, resulting in anoxic sediments

(Tenore et aI., 1982). On the other hand, production

and biomass of the megafauna have increased considerably (Iglesias, 1981; Olaso, 1982; Romero et aI., 1982)

due to the food contribution provided by the mussels

and their associated epifauna (Chesney and Iglesias,

1979; Lopez:Jamar et aI., 1984; Gonzalez-Gurriaran,

1978; Gonzalez-Gurriaran et aI., 1989, 1990; Freire et
160 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

aI., 1990). Demersal fishes (Chesney and Iglesias, 1979)

and crabs (Gonzalez-Gurriaran, 1982) use the epifauna

as food. One effect of the mussel culture has been to

change the food habits of at least 3 fishes from a predominantly infauna to a raft epifauna diet (Lopez:Jamar

et aI., 1984). Somewhat similar effects presumably have

taken place in the areas of North America where mussels are cultured on suspended lines.

In Maine, some lobster fishermen have objected to

the dredging of seed mussels from beds, believing the

habitats for lobsters are damaged. But observations by

the State of Maine Department of Marine Resources

have shown that lobsters have low densities in mussel

seed beds, and damage to the lobster habitat by the

dredging is slight. Live lobsters can evade the dredges.

In 1994, private companies grew mussels on about

100 acres ofMaine's bottom. Invertebrates, mainly crustaceans and polychaetes, collect in the beds of growing

mussels. When the mussels are harvested, most associated invertebrates probably are taken ashore with the

mussels and die as they do when oysters are harvested.

Raking Northern Quahogs _

Northern quahogs have been raked from sandy and

muddy bottoms in bays along the eastern seaboard of

North America since probably the 1600's. For many

decades, the fishermen raked at wading depths, but

since the mid-1800's they have done so mostly from

boats in depths up to about 7 m. The teeth of the rakes

penetrate about 5 em as fishermen pull them through

the bottom. Such raking probably releases gasses trapped

in the bottom into the water besides stirring the sand.

The only known study ofraking effects was conducted

in clam beds in Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay (Glude

and Landers, 1953). The beds had been dug for many

years and contained many invertebrates including several species of clams and polychaetes. In the study, one

bed was fished with bull rakes, another with a dry dredge

towed from a boat, and a third was used as a control.

Mterward, the upper layers of sediment were mixed

somewhat and the bottoms were softer in the raked and

dredged bottoms. The raking and dredging reduced

the numbers of invertebrates, especially the associated

polychaete Cistenides gouldi, somewhat. The authors concluded that the biological effects of the raking and

dredging were slight.

Ocean Clamming with Hydraulic Dredges__

The water jets of hydraulic dredges used to harvest surfclams and ocean quahogs penetrate about 15 em into

the bottom. Trapped gasses are released, the sediments

are resorted, and tracks are left in the bottom. Immediately after a dredge passes over the bottom, a track is

left about 20 em deep, the tracks have softer sand than

areas alongside, and they may have shell fragments.

polychaetes, and small bivalve mollusks in them. In

bottoms that previously had a mixture ofsand particles,

the largest sediments are at the bottom of dredged

tracks and the finest sediments are at the top (Medcof

and Caddy, 1971). Hydraulic dredging for ocean quahogs does not significantly alter the abundance and

species composition of associated benthic invertebrates.

Many polychaetes and bivalves presumably are moved

to the bottom surface by the dredging but later are able

to reburrow and survive (MacKenzie, 1982).

Harvesting Softshells _

From the Canadian Maritime Provinces to northern

Massachusetts, fishermen dig softshell clams on intertidal flats with short-handled rakes or "hacks." They

turn over the sediments and pick out the clams. The

digging probably has only a minor effect on associated

invertebrates.

Since the 1950's, fishermen in Maryland have been

using hydraulic escalator dredges to harvest softshell

clams in bottoms at depths from 4.6 to 6 m. Water jets

penetrate about 15 em into the bottom and wash the

softshells onto an escalator belt. The associated invertebrates probably are washed into the water, fall onto the

bottom, and reburrow with little mortality or permanent alteration of their habitat.

Dredging Bay Scallops _

The primary grounds where bay scallops occur along

the Atlantic coast are in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

New York, and North Carolina. Nearly all scallops are

harvested with light-weight dredges, about 90 em wide,

in the fall and winter. The dredges are towed across

sand bottoms where eelgrass, Zostera marina, and other

plants grow. Besides the scallops, the dredges also pick

up some eelgrass, other plants, and crabs.

Harvesting of the scallops would seem to do little

environmental harm. While some eelgrass blades are

torn loose from their roots, nearly all blades wither and

break loose by winter's end where dredging does not

take place. Eelgrass grows new blades the following

spring.

Based on current understanding ofsubmerged aquatic

vegetation value to scallops and other species, this type

offishery is under greater scrutiny. Stephan and Bigford

(1987) summarized information on how such grasses

are affected by coastal fisheries.
Bigford: Environmental Challenges Facing the Shellfishing Industry 161

Dredging Sea Scallops _

Sea scallops are harvested off the east coast of Canada

and the United States by boats towing dredges made of

a heavy 3-4 m wide metal frame and a bag made ofsteel

rings. The effects ofsea scallop dredging in the Gulf ofSt.

Lawrence, Canada, have been reported by Caddy (1973):

1) Dredging lifts fine sediments into suspension, buries gravel below the sand surface. overturns large rocks

embedded in the sediment, and appreciably roughens

the bottom.

2) Dredging kills some scallops and causes considerable

sublethal damage to scallops left in the track, the damage

being greatest on a rough bottom. Mortalities to scallops

with a standard dredge were at least 13-17% per tow.

3) Predatory fish and crabs are attracted to dredge

tracks and had densities 3-30 times greater inside than

outside the tracks soon after the dredging.

The possible effects of scallop dredging on finfish

habitats have not been examined.

Lobster fishermen in Maine and Massachusetts have

concerns about the impacts on lobster habitats of sea

scallop dredging in inshore waters. Those state fishery

departments have studies unden\'ay to document any

possible damage to them.

Hatchery and Growout Systems _

Each culture facility or hatchery demands sufficient

and regular flow of clean water. Beyond the usual salinity and temperature requirements, shellfish need waters

devoid of unusual concentrations of chemical contaminants and other unnatural additions, algae, and turbidity.

All plans for construction of coastal facilities capture

public attention. Physical location is the primary concern, and related effects depend greatly on whether the

site is pristine or already developed. Culture systems

may be placed in or over water, which may attenuate

natural lighting. The effects ofshading usually are minimal unless the overall facility footprint is sizable and

consistent. Typical floating systems swaying with the

currents and lacking the mass ofa fixed platform should

pose little risk. A facility designed for shoreside construction is more likely to elicit concerns about habitat

degradation, particularly if the location is undeveloped.

Those problems can be minimized by selecting a preexisting site with waterside access.

Some hatcheries seek improved growth by adding

chemical or food supplements. Some of those additives

escape the culture operations and are released into

adjacent waters. The effects of specific releases are often illusive, especially in waters already subject to other

uses. Environmental quality should be monitored to

ensure full accountability.

The effects of excess nutrients and shellfish excrement on nearby habitats must be considered. Culture

facilities often stock shellfish in trays or strings or in

other arrangements at organism concentrations far

above those observed in nature. Any negative environmental effects would hinge on facility size and operations and hydrographic conditions.

Excess nutrients from all sources have been blamed

for water quality degradation in estuaries and coastal

waters. With a more direct route than agricultural runoff, shellfish culture could be implicated as a type of

waterborne nonpoint source pollution or even as a

point discharge. State and Federal water quality agencies now require discharge permits as well as construction permits before most aquaculture facilities are permitted for operation.

The shellfish industry should be wary of secondary

impacts of construction and operation on water quality.

Like any other coastal facility, whether located on coastal

lands, astride the coastal fringe on a raised platform, or

floating in coastal shallows, there will be discharges,

overwash. byproducts, and other evidence of commercial operations. Each must be addressed thoroughly in

facility design, permit procedures, and public review.

Shellfish culture can affect waters in several ways,

ranging from the obvious to the nearly imperceptible

and from beneficial to negative. The size and operations of each culture facility are among the major determinants of effects. Some effects may be associated with

facility construction rather than operations.

Other effects could be secondary to culture operations. All must be considered in the total environmental equation.

One positive effect is also among the least well-recognized impacts of shellfish on the marine environment.

Cultured shellfish are excellen t biological fiI tel's of

minute particles suspended in coastal waters. Since a typical adult oyster may filter about 24 I of water per hour

of active feeding (Galtsoff, 1964), a shellfish bed could

have a substantial benefit to overall water quality. That

point has been emphasized in Chesapeake Bay, where the

demise of natural stocks will not ease efforts to improve

water clarity and submerged vegetation. Cultured shellfish would provide some measure of filtration benefits.

Impacts of Storms _

The impacts of storms on benthic habitats have been

little studied. Because benthic animals are found alive

in bottoms following severe storms, including hurricanes that churn surficial sediments, it is clear that they

can survive severe bottom upheavals. Few comparisons

have been made of precise numbers of animals immediately before and after storms.
162 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

A Negative Thrust from

Local Governments _

A disquieting note to the possibility of expanded shellfish culture recently has taken place in southern New

England. Some local governments there have come to

regard shellfisheries in a negative way when they regulate the uses of estuaries and their borders.

Traditional shellfishing activities and aquaculture

operations usually generate small revenues, and they

compete for space with other users (i.e. especially industry, restaurants, and recreational boating) that all

generate much more revenue. Legal actions over noise

from shellfishing boats, potential degradation of water

quality, and concern over introductions of shellfish

believed to be carrying disease have stimulated feelings

of resentment. Another issue is the use of public bottoms in estuaries by private culturists. The frequency

and ferocity of confrontations over the issues has increased (Ludwig, 1994). In the future, biologists are

going to be concerned about effects on ecosystems if

culturists introduce exotic shellfish and manipulate the

genetics ofshellfish.

Discussion _

Biologists would like to obtain precise information on

the effects of the various shellfish harvesting methods.

For now, however, they are satisfied that harvesting

mollusks in estuaries and bays and on the continental

shelf has some effect on benthic habitats, but they are

minor compared with the effects ofstorms.

Methods will be developed in future years to advance

the state of shellfish culture sufficiently to greatly expand the quantity of shellfish now grown in the estuaries and bays of North America. At the same time, recreational use of water bodies and population growth

around them will increase, and they will add further

stresses to the fragile habitats on which culture operations depend. Will society decide to sacrifice the needs

ofsome groups to allow marine areas to be used mostly

for growing shellfish? This question may often be answered through regulatory channels or via court action.

On the positive side, aquaculture can expect to be

allied with other coastal enthusiasts arguing for water

and sediment quality standards that will support culture. Society has not yet met this challenge, and the

multimillion dollar aquaculture industry could shift the

balance from other development interests.

Acknowledgments _

The author thanks Clyde L. MacKenzie,jr. ofthe NMFS

JamesJ. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sandy

Hook, N.J., for his great contributions to this paper.

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Much of this

work was completed in the early 1990's and could be

supplemented with evolving research and management

experience.

Literature Cited

Caddy,]. F.

1973. Underwater obseIVations on u'acks ofdredges and trawls

and some effects of dredging on a scallop ground.]. Fish.

Res. Board Can. 30:173-180.

Chesney, E.]., and]. Iglesias.

1979. Seasonal distribution, abundance and diversity of demersal fishes in the inner Ria de Arosa, Northwest Spain. Est.

Coast. Mar. Sci. 8:227-239.

Freire,]., L. Fernandez, and E. Gonzalez-Gurrieran.

1990. Influence of mussel-raft culture in the diet of Liocarcinus

arcuatus (Brachyura: Portunidae) in the Ria de Arousa

(Galicia, NW Spain).]. Shellfish. Res. 9(l) :45-57.

Galtsoff, P. S.

1964. The American oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Fish.

Bull. 64, 480 p.

Glude,]. B., and W. S. Landers.

1953. Biological effects on hard clams of hand raking and

power dredging. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Set"\'., Bur.

Commer. Fish., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 110,43 p.

Gonzalez-Gurriaran, E.

1978. Introduccion al estudio de la alimentacion de la necora,

Macropipus puber (L.)(Decapoda, Brachyura). Bol. Inst. Esp.

Oceanogr. 4:81-93.

1982. Estudio de la communidad de crustaceos decapodos

(Brachyura) en la Ria de Arousa (Galicia-NW Espana) y su

relation con el cultivo de mejillon en batea. Bol. Inst. Esp.

Oceanogr. 7:223-254.

Gonzalez-Gurriaran, E.,]. Freire, and L. Fernandez.

1990. Feeding activity and contribution of mussel raft culture

in the diet of crabs in the Ria de Arosa (Galicia, NW Spain).

ICES 1990 Shellfish Symp. 53:1-6.

Gonzalez-Gurriaran, E.,]. Freire, L. Fernandez, and E. Poza.

1989. Incidencia del cultivo de mejillon en la dieta de

Liocarcinus depurator (L.) (Brachyura: Portunidae) en la Ria

de Arosa (Galica, W Espana). Cah. BioI. Mar. 30:307-319.

Iglesias,J.

1981. Spatial and temporal changes in the demersal fish communityofthe Ria de Arosa (NW Spain). Mar. BioI. 65:199-208.

Lopez:Jamar, E.

1982. Distribucion espacial de las communidades bentonicas

infaunales de la Ria de Arosa. Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr.

7(2) :255-268.

Lopez:Jamar, E.,]. Iglesias, and].]. Otero.

1984. Contribution of infauna and mussel-raft epifauna to

demersal fish diets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 15:13-18.

Ludwig, M.

1994. Regulatory landscape for shellfishermen (Abstr.).].

Shellfish. Res. 13(1) :317.

MacKenzie, C. L.,Jr.

1981. Biotic potential and environmental resistance in the

American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in Long Island Sound.

Aquaculture 22:229-268.
Bigford: Environmental Challenges Facing the Shellfishing Industry 163

1982. Compatability of invertebrate populations and commercial fishing for ocean quahogs. N. Am.]. Fish. Manage.

2(3):270-275.

Medcof,]. C., and]. F. Caddy.

1971. Underwater observations on performance of clam

dredges of three types. Presented at the Gear and Behavior

Committee of the 59th Annual Statutory Committee Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the

Sea, Helsinki, Finland. ICES C.M. 1971/B:I0.

NMFS.

1993. Fisheries ofthe United States, 1992. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 9200, 115 p.

NRC.

1992. Marine aquaculture opportunities for growth. Natl. Res.

Counc., Wash., D.C., 290 p.

Olaso, I.

1982. Ecologia de los equinodermos de la Ria de Arosa. Bol.

Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. 7:3-29.

Pearce.]..]. Caracciolo, M. Halsey, and L. Rogers.

1977. Distribution and abundance of benthic macrofauna in

the New York-New Jersey outer continental shelf. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA Data Rep. ERL-MESA 30, 80 p.

Reid, R. N., A. B. Frame, and A. F. Draxler.

1979. Environmental baselines in Long Island Sound, 1972-73.

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-738, 31 p.

Reid, R. N.,]. O'Reilly, and V. Zdanowicz (eds.).

1982. Contaminants in New York Bight and Long Island Sound

sediments and demersal species, and contaminants effects

on benthos, summer 1980. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA,

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-16, 96 p.

Romero, P. E., E. Gonzalez-Gurriaran, and E. Penas.

1982. Influence of mussel rafts on spatial and seasonal abundance of crabs in the Ria de Arousa, North-West Spain. Mar.

BioI. 72:201-210.

Rowe, G. T.

1971. The effects of pollution on the dynamics ofthe benthos

of ewYork Bight. ThalassiaJugoslavica 7(1):353-359.

Steimle, F. W.,Jr., and R. B. Stone.

1973. Abundance and distribution of inshore benthic fauna

off southwestern Long Island, N.V. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA, Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-673, 50 p.

Stephan, C. D., and T. E. Bigford.

1997. Atlantic coastal submerged aquatic vegetation: A review of its ecological role, anthropogenic impacts, state

regulation, and value to Atlantic coastal fish stocks. Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management

Series #1, 78 p.

Tenore, K. R., L. F. Boyer, R. M. Cal,]. Corral, C. Garcia-Fernandez,

N. Gonzalez, E. Gonzalez-Gurriaran, R. B. Hanson, ]. Iglesias,

M. Krom, E. Lopez:Jamar,]. McClain, M. M. Pamatmat, A. Perez,

D. C. Rhodes, G. deSantiago,]. Tie0en,]. Westrich, and H. Windom.

1982. Coastal upwelling in the Rias Bajas, N. W. Spain: contrasting the benthic regimes of the Rias de Arosa and

deMuros.]. Mar. Res. 40:701-772.

U. S. Regulatory Strategies for

Ensuring the Safety of Molluscan ShellilSh

GEORGE P. HOSKIN and SCOTT R. RIPPEY

Office ofSeafood

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

200 C Street, S. W.

Washington, DC 20204

ABSTRACT

Seafood consumption carries potential health risks from chemical compounds, including natural toxins, and from infectious organisms such as bacteria and animal parasites. In

1924, a typhoid outbreak causing many illnesses and deaths was traced to sewage-contaminated oysters. The severity of the outbreak prompted state and local health officials and

members of the shellfish industry to request the development of control measures by the

Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service to protect the public. A conference held

in 1925 made several recommendations for the sanitary control of the shellfish industry and

established a committee to further develop control practices for that industry. This conference marked the beginning of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, which the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to administer. One of the recommendatons of

the 1925 conference was that the beds on which shellfish are grown must be determined,

inspected, and controlled by some official state agency and the Public Health Service. The

first growing-water standards, adopted in 1944, stipulated that total coliform bacteria

concentrations not exceed 70 MP 1100 ml for approved water and 700 MPN/IOO ml for

restricted waters. The concept of avoiding contaminated oysters by not harvesting them

from contaminated growing waters has been the cornerstone of the U.S. shellfish safety

program ever since. The first Shellfish Sanitation Workshop held in Washington, D.C., in

1954 might be regarded as the beginning of the modern program. The Federal and state

governments share the responsibility for ensuring that shellfish are harvested from safe

waters and that a raw product can be marketed immediately after harvesting. Sanitary

harvesting, processing, and distribution are required to prevent subsequent contamination

and deterioration. A substantial portion of mollusks consumed in the United States is

imported, and the same concepts of shellfish sanitation apply to these products. When the

FDA is satisfied that a foreign shellfish is at least equivalent to the U.S. program, the agency

enters into a bilateral agreement with that government. In 1991, the Office of Seafood was

established in the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, to centralize FDA

headquarters seafood policy, including the shellfish program.

Introduction

The consumption of seafood, as with many foods, carries potential health risks from chemical compounds,

including natural toxins, and from infectious organisms such as bacteria and animal parasites. Most of

these hazards, and particularly those from foodborne

bacteria and parasites, are eliminated by cooking. This

is not necessarily true for toxins. In spite of this knowledge, some people continue to consume both raw and

lightly cooked molluscan shellfish and finfish.

Consumers ofraw shellfish have always been at risk of

disease from both toxic and infectious agents. As coastal

development has expanded and estuaries have become

increasingly fouled with contaminants of human origin, the threat ofillness from consumption ofuncooked,

contaminated shellfish harvested from these waters has

increased significantly. One of the earliest recorded

episodes ofshellfish-related illness occurred in 190I in

Boston, where public health officials were faced with an

outbreak of typhoid fever. With considerable insight,

they set microbiological standards for molluscan shell165
166 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

fish based on an indicator bacterium (not the pathogen) that demonstrated a relative level of fecal contamination in either the shellfish meats or their harvest

waters. Shellfish were tested for the presence of what

was then described as the colon bacillus. The theory

held that the shellfish did not have to be shown to carry

the pathogen. However, the indicator organism demonstrated the potential for the shellfish to be contaminated with the typhoid bacterium.}

History of the National ShelllIsh

Sanitation Program through 1968 _

In 1924 the American Public Health Association (APHA)

established a standard for waters and shellfish based on

a bacterial organism known at the time as the colon

bacillus. The standard is equivalent to the modern most

probable number (MPN) of not more than 2,400

coliforms/lOO g in shucked and shell oysters and not

more than 70 MPN/I00 ml in waters.2 That year, a

typhoid outbreak was reported in New York and over

1,500 cases and 150 deaths were traced to sewage-contaminated oysters. The severity of the outbreak

prompted state and local health officials and members

of the shellfish industry to request the development of

control measures by the Surgeon General of the U.S.

Public Health Service (PHS) to protect the public. The

Surgeon General convened a meeting with state and

municipal health authorities, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture's Bureau of Chemistry, now the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Bureau of

Commercial Fisheries, now the Commerce Department's

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The conference, held 19 February 1925 in Washington, D.C., made several recommendations for the sanitary control of the shellfish industry and established a

committee to further develop control practices for that

industry. The conference resolved that:

1) The states were directly responsible for the regulation of the sanitary practices of the shellfish industry,

2) Producing states would issue certificates to shellfish shippers that met their sanitary requirements,

3) The PHS would systematically review the progress

of state efforts to accomplish their responsibilities,

4) The PHS would make the results of these evaluations known to the other states, and

5) The PHS would continue to provide support, including scientific investigations, and serve as a clearingI Furfari, S. A. 1968. History of the 70 MPN/I00 ml standard. U.S.

Food Drug Admin., Wash., D.C. Unpub!. rep., p. 1-6.

2 Miescier,j. 1990. Brief history of U.S. shellfish meat market guidelines and standards. U.S. Food Drug Admin., Wash., D.C. Unpub!.

rep., p. 1-8.

house for the exchange of information on technical

matters, policy, and the effectiveness of state control

programs.

This conference marked the beginning of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), which FDA

continues to administer.

The APHA had considered the use of shellfish growing-water standards as early as 1910 and viewed the

growing area sanitary survey of equal importance to

that of the quality of meat. By 1925 officials were pressing for the use of growing water criteria to respond to

one of the recommendations of the February 1925

conference: "The beds on which shellfish are grown

must be determined, inspected, and controlled by some

official state agency and the Public Health Service."

However, various criteria continued to be used by

individual states un til the adoption of the first growingwater standards in 1944 (PHS, 1946). These standards

stipulated that total coliform bacteria levels not exceed

70 MPN/lOO ml for approved water and 700 MPN/I00

ml for restricted waters. The concept of avoiding contaminated oysters by not harvesting them from contaminated growing areas has been the cornerstone of

the U.S. shellfish safety program ever since.

During the 1960's the Federal shellfish program expanded under the PHS. By 1963, three laboratories

provided shellfish-related research and technical assistance to the states. The major research work was on

depuration, the process of placing marginally contaminated shellfish in land-based facilities and giving them

a sufficient amount of time to purge themselves of

potentially infectious biological contaminants.

The Purdy, Wash., Laboratory, a cooperatively owned

Federal-state facility, was originially established in 1948

at Woods Hole, Mass. The laboratory was moved to

Pensacola, Fla., in 1953, and finally to Gig Harbor,

Wash., in 1959, where William Beck served as director.

A second laboratory, located on the Davisville Naval

Construction Battalion Base in North Kingstown, R.I.,

was headed by Ronald G. MacComber. A third laboratory, at Dauphin Island, Ala., opened in 1963 under the

direction of Richard J. Hammerstrom. The newest research laboratory in the shellfish program opened in

Narragansett, R.I., in 1964 on property adjacent to the

then fledgling University of Rhode Island School of

Oceanography. Carl N. Shuster, Jr. was the first director. The neighboring Davisville facility was retained as

the field unit and state technical support group for the

eastern seaboard shellfish producing states.

By the late 1960's the Federal component of the

NSSP was decreasing in size as parts of the PHS programs were assigned to other organizations within the

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or, in

1970, within the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The shellfish program became the
_______ Hoskin and Rippey: U.S. Regulatory Strategies for Ensuring the Safety of Molluscan Shellfish 167

Shellfish Sanitation Branch in the FDA Bureau ofFoods.

The Purdy facility functioned under EPA from 1970

until it closed in 1973. The Dauphin Island laboratory

was assigned to several PHS organizations between 1967

and 1970 and to the EPA from 1970 to 1973, when it

was reassigned to FDA. In 1970 the Narragansett laboratory was acquired by EPA with the subsequent termination of all NSSP responsibilities. The FDA's Shellfish

Sanitation Branch retained the Davisville facility. This

facility was closed in 1995 with the technical assistance

capability moved to Washington, D.C., and the microbiological research capability relocated to Dauphin Island, Ala.

The Current National Shellfish

Sanitation Program _

The philosophy and structure of the Federal component of the NSSP were established at the 1925 PHS

Conference, although the first Shellfish Sanitation Workshop held in Washington, D.C., in 1954 might be regarded as the beginning of the modern program. The

Federal and state governments and the shellfish industry share the responsibility for ensuring that shellfish

are harvested from safe waters and that a raw product

can be marketed immediately after harvesting. Sanitary

harvesting, processing, and distribution are required to

prevent subsequent contamination and deterioration.

Shellfish must come from a clean environment with a

minimum of human fecal wastes, other hazardous contaminants of human origin, and hazardous levels of

marine toxins. The greatest threat to the public health,

other than that from marine biotoxins, comes from

human-associated contamination, including sewage

treatment plant effluents, combined sewer/stormwater

overflows, failing septic systems, and boat and marina

wastes.

The first step in the classification of a harvest area

under NSSP is a sanitary survey (FDA, 1977). This includes a shoreline survey to identifY and evaluate pollution from point (e.g. sewer outfalls) and nonpoint (e.g.

cattle or pig farms) sources of fecal contamination to

shellfish beds. It also includes water sampling to test for

indicator bacteria which show the potential presence of

fecal wastes. Because ofvariability among samples, meat

tests on shellfish are unreliable as a principal factor for

assessing the quality of the growing waters. Meat tests

are used to support the decision to reopen an area after

closure, to evaluate waters to which shellfish may be

relayed, and to judge the effectiveness of relaying and

depuration operations. The surveys may include hydrographic studies in which dyes are used to evaluate the

dilution/dispersion characteristics of waste effluents as

well as to track the movements of waste effluents within

the receiving waters. The effectiveness and reliability of

wastewater treatment facilities are routinely evaluated.

Under the NSSP, the FDA (1990) produces and publishes a "Manual of Operations" that describes the principles to be followed for the classification of growing

areas and for the performance of laboratory tests. The

manual also describes the general sanitary procedures

for handling, processing, and shipping shellfish. In producing and revising the manual, the FDA seeks the

advice and technical expertise of the NSSP members.

The FDA also uses information from the states to publish a monthly list of certified shellfish shippers. This

list is available to states that receive shellfish and want

to know whether a shipper is adhering to the procedures in the manual.

To provide a mechanism for dialogue among the

FDA, the states, and industry, FDA formally recognized

the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC)

under a 1982 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

This annual conference discusses ways to improve shellfish sanitation and better protect the public health.

Participants in the ISSC include other Federal agencies

with responsibilities in areas affecting shellfish waters

and industry. Meetings are attended by non-voting industry and consumer representatives. A major aim of

the ISSC is the timely and uniform adoption of periodic

revisions in the NSSP operations manual.

Although the Federal government has not set the

NSSP requirements into Federal law by issuing the requirements as regulations, many states have codified all

or parts of the manual into their regulations and guidelines. Provisions from retail food protection model codes

have also been adopted in whole or in part into the

regulations of many states. They require that shellfish

sold at retail (i.e. stores and restaurants) be obtained

from certified sources. The Procedures for the Safe and

Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish and Fisheries Products: Final Rule (the "HACCP regulation") which

becomes mandatory 18 December 1997, requires that

all shellfish be harvested from waters approved for harvesting by a shellfish control authority. Processors are

required only to accept shellfish properly tagged with

information on the harvester and the date and place of

harvest.

Enforcement of the provisions of the NSSP rests primarily with the states. Until the HACCP regulation goes

into effect, in order for the FDA to take regulatory

action against a shipment of shellfish, the agency must

demonstrate that the specific lot contains pathogenic

microorganisms or toxins at hazardous levels.

States with the requirements of the NSSP encoded

into their laws need only demonstrate that provisions of

those requirements have not been met in order to

declare the shellfish in violation of their laws. Also,

states may condemn shellfish at the retail level that are
168 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

not from certified sources of origin (i.e. suppliers listed

on the shellfish shippers' list) in conformance with

state regulations based on codified portions ofthe model

retail food protection codes.

Occasionally, the Federal law is used to reinforce

state shellfish regulations. The Lacey Act makes violation of state or foreign wildlife laws a Federal offense.

This authority has been used in combined Federal-state

undercover operations to take Federal action against

harvesters and shippers of shellfish obtained in violation of state or foreign laws. Under the Lacey Act,

Federal resources and Federal penalties are brought to

bear against criminal offenders.

A substantial portion ofmolluscan shellfish consumed

in the United States is imported, and the same concepts

of shellfish sanitation apply to these products. When

the FDA is satisfied that a foreign shellfish program is at

least equivalent to the U.S. program, the agency enters

into a bilateral agreement or an MOU with that government. Reliance is placed on the foreign government to

ensure that provisions of the NSSP are met much as the

state governments provide this assurance for domestically produced shellfish. Also, the FDA monitors foreign shellfish programs in much the same way that it

reviews state shellfish programs. Under the agreements

of the MOU, FDA specialists and laboratory scientists

regularly visit the participating countries to evaluate

their programs. They visit growing areas, examine the

results and conclusions ofsanitary surveys, and evaluate

laboratory equipment, procedures, and staff qualifications. They also inspect shellfish processing plants. Visits are made annually and have resulted, in some countries, in removal of processors from the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List (ICSSL). Most states require

that fresh or frozen molluscan shellfish imports originate from a dealer certified by a program that meets

FDA/NSSP criteria.

Recent Changes in the Program _

The abbreviated history of the NSSP described above

does not do justice to the complexity of the program,

but is intended to set the context for discussions of

current issues and of the current FDA role in issues

regarding shellfish sanitation.

Although many changes of historical interest have

occurred since 1968, the most significant changes affecting FDA happened during 1991. On 19 February of

that year, a new organization, the Office of Seafood,

was established in the FDA Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition (formerly the Bureau of Foods). The

Office of Seafood is presently organized into two divisions: the Division of Programs, Enforcement, and

Policy, which has responsibility for policy development

regarding shellfish, and the Division of Science and

Applied Technology, which is responsible for developing shellfish research programs. The present staff of

the Office of Seafood includes about 50 research, technical, and support staff. Research is conducted by the

Washington, D.C., Seafood Laboratory Branch and the

Gulf Coast Seafood Laboratory Branch on Dauphin

Island, Ala. Other laboratories within FDA, but not

directly linked to the Office of Seafood, conduct research relevant to shellfish issues. These include the

microbiology, chemistry, and physical sciences laboratories in the Washington, D.C., area; laboratories at

several of the regional FDA field offices; and the Seafood Products Research Center, which is part of the

District Laboratory in Bothell, Wash. Trained shellfish

specialists in the FDA Regional Offices routinely evaluate state programs within their jurisdictions and provide reports to the Regional Directors and to the Office

of Seafood. The laboratory research conducted or supported by FDA comprises a significant part of the

agency's total food research work.

With the establishment of the Office of Seafood, a

major effort has been initiated to enhance shellfish

safety. This initiative includes strengthening FDA research efforts, promoting state efforts to conform more

closely to the requirements of the NSSP, and encouraging states to better meet their responsibilities under the

cooperative program.

ShelliIsh-vectored Hazards and

Government Responses _

Diseases associated with the consumption of raw or

partially cooked molluscan shellfish have been, and

continue to be, a worldwide public health problem

(Fig. 1). Since the late 1800's, over 400 outbreaks and

14,000 cases of shellfish-associated infectious disease

have been reported in the United States (Table 1).

Typhoid fever was a serious public health problem that

alone accounted for nearly 25% of all shellfishborne

disease outbreaks. However, the derivation and institution of a bacterial water quality standard were effective in

resolving the typhoid problem. This disease has not been

reported among shellfish consumers for four decades.

Current Problems

The new public health concern faced by the NSSP is

that of enteric viral pathogens and bacteria of the Vibrio

genus. The sanitary indicator organisms (total and/or

fecal coliforms) currently used for assessing estuarine

growing area water quality do not index the possible

presence of naturally occuring marine vibrios and may
_______ Hoskin and Rippey: U.S. Regulatory Strategies for Ensuring the Safety of Molluscan Shellfish 169

Table I

Cases and outbreaks of shellfish-vectored infectious disease from

microorganisms associated wi th sewage wastes (1890-1993).

not reliably index the potential presence of

enteric viruses. This assessment poses a problem in safeguarding the public health.

Other emerging problems, which include

newly described toxins produced worldwide

by marine dinoflagellates, range from relatively mild neurologic and gastroenteric intoxications (i.e. neurotoxic and diarrhetic

shellfish poisons, respectively) to a poison

with potentially much more serious neurological effects (i.e. amnesic shellfish poison).

Reports of paralytic shellfish poison (PSP)

are still prevalent; however, the relatively

rare occurrence ofPSP in the United States,

despite frequent coastal blooms of the causative dinoflagellate, attests to the success of

the NSSP in preventing illness from that toxin.

Viral Diseases

Disease or agent

Unknown (no agent Identified)

Typhoid fever

Hepatitis A

Cholera (all serotypes)

Several (more than one agent isolated)

Shigella spp.

Salmonella spp.

Norwalk virus

Snow Mountain virus

Campylobacter

Staphylococcus

Bacillus cereus

Escherichia coli

Totals

No. of outbreaks

(% of total)

238 (59.2)

78(19.4)

44 (109)

16 (HI)

10 (2.5)

4 (1.0)

3 (0.7)

3 (0.7)

2 (0.5)

1 (0.2)

1 (0.21

1 (0.2)

1 (0.2)

402

No. of cases

(% of total)

8293 (58.1)

3270 (22.9)

1845 (12.9)

171 (0.1)

168(1.2)

III (0.8)

130 (0.9)

175(1.2)

71 (0.5)

27 (0.2)

5 (0.0)

4 (0.0)

2 (0.0)

14,272

Viral pathogens, including the Norwalk and

Norwalk-like viruses, are associated with human fecal

waste and sewage discharges. The pathogens are accumulated by filter-feeding shellfish from waters containing these contaminants. The consumption of raw or

lightly cooked shellfish harvested from these waters

presents an elevated (and, so far, nonquantifiable) risk

of mild gastroenteritis. An overwhelming number of

case reports involve incidents ofshellfish-associated disease attributable to, or suspected to be caused by, viral

agents (Fig. 2). Hepatitis A virus is another shellfishvectored pathogen that is associated with human fecal

waste and sewage. This pathogen's onset ranges from 2

to 8 or more weeks and frequently follows common source

outbreaks (Fig. 3). The extended incubation period

makes it very difficult to categorically implicate a given

food source except in those instances of multiple case

reports for a single outbreak. Illnesses have not been

confirmed from areas meeting all NSSP criteria; however,

improper classifications are more likely to be made if the

fecal coliform standard does not index the poten tial presence of both viral and bacterial pathogens.

Autochthonous Bacterial Species

Vibrio pathogens are native to a wide variety of marine

and estuarine environments, including shellfish, and

are found in widely fluctuating densities therein. The

factors that influence their occurrence and density are

not well understood. Current sanitary fecal indicator

organisms are of no use in indexing the presence of

these naturally occurring bacteria in marine waters.

Pathogenic organisms include v: vulnificus, v: cholera

250

en

.0< 200 0

t:

..0

:J 150 0

a

L 100· <1J

..0

E

:J 50 z

0

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Decade

Figure I

Shellfish-associated disease outbreaks by decade for all

infectious agents, including illnesses for which no agent

was identified.

(both toxigenic and nontoxigenic), v: parahaemolyticus,

and several other less notorious, naturally occurring Vibrio

species.

In general, the diseases caused by these bacterial

organisms are considerably more severe than those

caused by viral pathogens of the Norwalk and orwalklike group, although some illnesses from v: parahaemolyticus may be mild. v: vulnificus is often fatal in medically compromised individuals. Fortunately, few incidents are reported annually (Fig. 4). How will the NSSP

deal with these new and emerging pathogens and toxin

producers? Program responses will have to be creative,

innovative, and strongly supported to effectively protect public health.
170 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

5000

-o

1960 1970 1980 1985

Five-year period

500

400

"'

Q) 300 "'

0

...:"

'":;:; 200 :;:;

0

a.

Q)

I 100

0

1950 1940 1960 1980

Decade

1900 1920

3000 -"

E

2000

6000 Bacterial Agents + Hepatitis A

Unidentified Agents

'"

Q)

8"' 4000

Figure 2

Shellfish-associated disease cases by decade for all infectious agents, including cases for which no agent was

isolated or identified.

Figure 3

Shellfish-associated hepatitis Acases by 5-year intervals,

1950-85.

Better Illness Data Needs

Public health problems associated with shellfish consumption are well documented. However, more reliable,

quantitative information on the principal health problems is needed to ensure that regulatory and research

efforts are directed to the most significant hazards in

the most effective manner. Epidemiologists recognize that

foodborne illnesses generally are under-reported. Illnesses

with a rapid onset and dramatic manifestations are more

likely to be reported than those with mild or generalized

symptoms and a delayed onset. The latter are more difficult to associate with a specific food vehicle because ofthe

time delay between exposure and clinical illness.

Cases of marine intoxications and V. vulnificus septicemia are more likely to be recognized, reported, and

attributed to the causative food than are episodes of

mild gastroenteritis. Individual cases are less likely to

come to the attention of authorities because it is difficult to implicate a specific food source and because

illness reporting is geared toward outbreaks rather than

isolated or sporadic cases. Although certain diseases

are designated by the Centersfor Disease Control (CDC)

as reportable by the Council of State and Territorial

Epidemiologists. they are not reported unless there is

an outbreak. which is defined as two or more cases

resulting from the same food source. Even when outbreaks are reported, the food vehicle is frequently not

identified. In past years, shellfish-related illness information was collected by the FDA Northeast Seafood

Laboratory in Rhode Island. Health authorities were

contacted periodically to determine if any single cases

had been reported at the state level or to follow up on

any cases that have come to the agency's attention.

Although this effort provided considerable insight into

the types of illnesses associated with shellfish consump12

10

"' :5

0 8 Q)

"

'0 6 ...

Q)

-"

E 4 :J

Z

2

0

1975 77 79 81 83 85 87

Year

Figure 4

Vibrio vulnificus deaths by year (with a shellfish vector).

tion and a rough estimate ofthe magnitude ofshellfishrelated illnesses, a more effective approach is needed

for obtaining better estimates on types and numbers of

cases. This information will provide a basis for the risk

assessment studies necessary to develop effective risk

management strategies.

The FDA is currently funding a study designed to

gain a better understanding of the relationships among

several important foodborne pathogens, foods as vehicles, and particularly susceptible segments ofthe population. This Sentinel Surveillance Project, which is being conducted by CDC, investigates the role ofseafood

in human illnesses caused by Campylobacter, Salmonella,

and Vibrio species among residen ts in preselected counties. A concurrent but separate project is the Behavioral

Risk Factor Survey with questions targeted to profile

those persons who consume raw molluscan shellfish

and their perceived risk associated with that practice.
Hoskin and Rippey: U.S. Regula~ory Strategies for Ensuring the Safety of Molluscan Shellfish 171

These two surveys will provide a clearer understanding

of who is at greatest risk of becoming ill from the

consumption of various types of foods (including seafood) and an assessment of the risk related to the

consumption ofraw molluscan shellfish relative to other

foods.

Marine Intoxications

Illnesses resulting from the ingestion of toxic shellfish

have been recognized for over two centuries. As early as

1790, explorers on the west coast of North America

reported illnesses and deaths that rapidly followed the

consumption of molluscan shellfish.

The most common toxin reported in the United

States, paralytic shellfish poison, is only one of several

shellfish-associated toxins. Outbreaks of amnesic shellfish poison (ASP), caused by domoic acid, were reported for the first time in North America on Prince

Edward Island in 1987. An outbreak of neurotoxic shellfish poison (NSP), which is endemic to the U.S. Gulf

Coast, wreaked havoc on the commercial fishery in

North Carolina in the late 1980's. A major toxin producing bloom forced closure of virtually all Gulf coast

shellfish harvests from November throughJanuary 199&-

97. A fourth toxin, diarrhetic shellfish poison (DSP),

has not appeared to be a problem in the United States

but is a major source ofshellfish-related illness in Japan

and certain other countries. The sources of these various toxins are species of phytoplankton, which, when

concentrated from overlying waters by the filter-feeding mollusks, cause the shellfish to become toxic.

In late 1991, ASP was iden tified for the first time on

the west coast ofthe United States in razor clams, crabs,

and finfish. Anchovies were the first discovered source

of the toxin. Rapid state and Federal action, with the

cooperation of Canada, was effective in preventing all

but a few illnesses in some recreational razor clam

harvesters. The quick response of the various agencies

was exemplary; the occurrence, however, served to illustrate the need for monitoring systems to predict

occurrences of marine toxins and to prevent toxic food

organisms from reaching the consumer. Such a system

is in place for PSP and NSP under the national program. Despite the large potential for illnesses from

these toxins, effective control measures have made them

rare. However, the domoic acid episode illustrates the

need for a broader approach to identify marine toxins.

The FDA has been working with several interested states

to establish an early warning system based on environmental monitoring to detect the beginning of toxic

algal blooms.

Some shellfish are harvested from waters outside state

jurisdiction. In the past 2 years, some offshore shellfish

beds have been found to be contaminated with PSP.

The FDA and the NMFS have been successful in defining the geographical regions affected and, at FDA's

request, the NMFS has used its authority, under the

Magnuson Act, to close Federally controlled waters to

harvest. Similar cooperation and joint agency action

were carried out after a spill of drums containing arsenic off NewJersey during a storm in early 1992.

Conclusions

Through the combined efforts of government agencies, industry, and consumers, the health risks associated with the consumption of molluscan shellfish can

be minimized. Effective regulation and sound industry

and consumer practices, all based on scientific knowledge, must be instituted and observed. An environment

clean enough to supply wholesome shellfish as well as

an effective monitoring system to ensure that shellfish

from unacceptable sources do not enter the marketplace must be available. These basic needs fall into five

categories:

1) Consumption and illness data that are accurate

and complete and will aid in targeting and developing

effective consumer education programs.

2) Uniform enforcement by states of the provisions

of the NSSP manual and any derived model code.

3) An improved indicator system.

4) Sufficient state and federal resources to carry out

their risk assessment and risk management responsibilities.

5) Control and elimination of the contamination of

our marine and estuarine coastal environments from

which our shellfish and other seafoods are harvested.

Acknowledgments _

The authors thank the following persons who contributed information and/or reviewed portions ofthe manuscript: Santo Furfari, Mary Jo Garreis, John Miescier,

David Dressel, Ron Varsaci, and Morris E. Potter.

Literature Cited

FDA.

1977. Sanitary control ofshellfish; training course manual. U.S.

Public Health Serv., Food Drug Admin., Wash., D.C., p. 1-75.

1990. National sanitation program manual ofoperations, parts

1 and 2. U.S. Dep. Health Human Resour., Public Health

Serv., Food Drug Admin., Wash., D.C., p. 1-210.

1995. Procedures for the safe and sanitary processing and

importing of fish and fishery products; final rule. U.S. Dep.

Health Human Serv., Food Drug Admin., Wash., D.C., 21

CFR pt. 123, 1240.
172 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

PHS.

1946. A manual of recommended practice for the sanitary

control of the shellfish industry. U.S. Public Health Serv.,

Wash., D.C., p. 1-44.
Resource Economics Issues Concerning

Molluscan Fisheries in the United States

CHARLES M. ADAMS

Florida Sea Grant College Program and

Food and Resource Economics Department

Institute ofFood and Agricultural Sciences

University ofFlorida

Gainesville, Florida 32611

ERIC M. THUNBERG

Food and Resource Economics Department

Institute ofFood and Agricultural Sciences

University ofFlorida

Gainesville, Florida 32611

WALTER R. KEITHLY

Coastal Fisheries Institute

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, Lousiana 70803

ABSTRACT

A growing demand for molluscan shellfish products and a perpetual pursuit of enhanced gear efficiency has generated an imposing array of socioeconomic issues confronting state and Federal management agencies. As a result, economic considerations have

begun to play an important role in guiding management decisions, particularly regarding

the economic and social consequences of imposing alternative allocation rights among

competing user groups. Serving as a link between habitat and demand considerations,

recent changes in consumer perceptions of mollusk safety and quality extends into the

marketplace and increases the range of topics to be considered by resource managers. In

molluscan fisheries, biological equilibrium is a function of the underlying relationships

governing recruitment, growth rates, and fishing effort. By contrast, economic equilibria

are a function of the biological relationships, institutional context, and incentives under

which harvest takes place. Economic incentives affecting an economic equilibrium consist

of input and output prices. The Federal management efforts for Atlantic sea scallops and

surf clams highlight the disparate set of objectives under which some of the nation's major

molluscan resources are managed. The management histories for each of these species

suggest goals that are similar in a biological sense, yet potentially divergent in terms of

ultimate socioeconomic goals and the strategies employed to achieve those goals. Uncertainty in safety of mollusk consumption, as measured by perceived risk, can be introduced

by a reduction in demand for mollusks at all prices, i.e., a downward shift in the demand

curve. The issues that confront managers of U.S. molluscan resources are numerous and

complex. The resources themselves are extremely dynamic from a biological perspective,

with the harvest activities being further influenced by a varied complement of political and

socioeconomic factors. Managers of estuarine molluscan shellfish stocks must be cognizant

of the economic consequences that arise from the deterioration of habitats, both humaninduced and otherwise, because the economic losses that can occur from reductions in

estuarine mollusk shellfish production and decreased consumer confidence have been

shown to be substantial.

173
174 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Introduction

Commercial mollusk fisheries comprise an important

component of the North American seafood industry.

Although many species of the phylum Mollusca are

indigenous to the continent, the most important classes

of commercial interest are the bivalves (oysters, clams,

scallops, mussels) and gastropods (conchs, whelks, abalones, periwinkles). For the purposes ofthis paper. cephalopods (octopi, squids, cuttlefish) will not be emphasized.

The wide geographic distribution of mollusks, their

varied habitats, and their economic importance has

resulted in an interesting set of domestic resource management issues from both biological and economic perspectives. For example, the relatively sedentary nature

of most molluscan stocks renders them particularly vulnerable to the effects of human-induced or natural

short-term variations in the quality of nearshore marine

waters and bottom habitats. This characteristic brings

into the realm of resource management a multitude of

issues which result from a rapidly urbanizing coastal

population.

In addition, a growing demand for molluscan products and the perpetual pursuit for enhanced commercial gear efficiency have generated an imposing array of

socioeconomic issues confronting state and Federal

management agencies. As a result, economic considerations have begun to play an important role in guiding

management decisions, particularly regarding the economic and social consequences of imposing alternative

allocation rights among competing user groups. Serving as a link between both habitat and demand considerations, recent changes in consumer perceptions of

mollusk safety and quality extends into the marketplace

and increases the range of topics to be considered by

resource managers.

This paper addresses some of the resource economics issues relevant to the utilization and management of

the domestic molluscan stocks. An overview of the relative importance of these fisheries in North America,

eventually focusing on trends in the U.S. industry, is

provided. l Changes in supplies and dockside value are

I The discussion draws upon data from several sources. Landings

data by country within the North American region were obtained

from annual fisheries landings documents published by the U.N.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Landings and value

data spe::ific to the United States were taken from National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) published annual fisheries landings and

dockside value documents. In certain cases, FAO and NMFS landings data (when converted to standardized units) do not agree in

terms of relative or absolute magnitude oflandings volumes. These

differences are likely inherent in the varying methods of collecting

and presenting the data. Bureau ofLabor Statistics (BLS) (USDOL)

information was utilized for indices necessary to adjust nominal

price data. Views or opinions expressed or implied are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the National

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.

briefly addressed with respect to the major commercial

species groups-clams, oysters, and scallops. Resource

economics concepts influencing molluscan fisheries

management decisions are discussed within a generalized conceptual framework, followed by discussions specific to the management ofmajor domestic fisheries for

sea scallops and surf clams. Finally, the economic relevance of considering exogenous factors, such as mollusk aquaculture and habitat degradation, in molluscan

fisheries management decisions is stressed.

North American Regional Production Trends _

Molluscan shellfish are harvested commercially in virtually every country within North America which, for the

purposes ofthis discussion, encompasses Canada, United

States (excluding Hawaii), Mexico, Central America,

and the various island nations and possessions that

comprise the West Indies. Within this region, total molluscan landings during the 1985-89 period represented

12% of the total landings (live weight basis) of all

commercial species landed in North America (FAO,

1985-89) .

Canada

Mollusks represented an average 6% of Canada's total

commercial fishery landings by weight during 1985-89.

Canadian landings of all mollusk species increased from

72,545 metric tons (t) in 1985 to 125,614 t in 1989

(Table 1). Canadian mollusk landings represented an

average of 9% of the total annual North American

landings of all mollusks (Fig. 1). The most important

species group targeted by the Canadian industry in

Table 1

Canadian mollusk landings, 1985-89, live-weight basis. I

Landings (1,000 t)

Year Oysters Scallops Clams Other2 Total

1985 5.5 47.2 15.8 4.1 72.6

1986 5.2 56.9 16.1 5.7 83.9

1987 5.8 73.8 18.4 4.1 102.1

1988 6.5 77.8 16.4 7.5 108.2

1989 6.0 91.6 20.0 8.1 125.7

Avg. percent

of total 6% 70% 18% 6%

1 Source: FAO fishery statistics, 1989, vol. 68.

2 Includes squid, mussels, periwinkles, octopus, abalone, etc.
______ Adams et al.: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 175

Figure 1

North American mollusk landings by FAG region, in thousands of metric

tons.

terms of volume was scallops, averaging 70% of the

total volume of mollusk landings. Landings of scallops

in 1989 were 91,553 t, with sea scallops, Placopecten

magellanicus, being the dominant single species. Over

the 5-year period, scallop landings increased almost

twofold. Also during the same period, clams represented 18% of total mollusk landings, followed by various species of oysters (6%) and other assorted species

groups, such as squid, mussels, periwinkles, octopi,

whelks, etc. (6% in aggregate).

Mexico

Mexico accounted for an average 8% of the total North

American mollusk landings during 1985-89. Mollusks

represented an average of 6% of Mexico's total fisheries landings. Mexican landings of mollusks increased

almost 50% during the same period. Total landings of

all species increased steadily from 72,598 t in 1985 to

107,117 t in 1989 (Table 2). The dominan t species

group was oysters, averaging 57% of total mollusk landTable 2

Mexico's mollusk landings, 1985-89, live-weight basis.}

Landings (1,000 t)

Year Oysters Clams Octopus Conch Other2 Total

1985 42.7 9.5 6.7 5.7 8.0 72.6

1986 42.4 15.3 9.8 5.2 6.0 78.7

1987 50.7 15.0 8.4 5.1 4.5 83.7

1988 56.1 20.5 8.3 5.2 7.2 97.3

1989 56.3 25.2 13.1 6.2 6.4 107.1

Avg. percent

of total 57% 19% 11% 6% 7%

I Source: FAO, fishery statistics, 1989. vol. 68.

2 Includes abalone, squid, mussels, etc.

ings. Crassostrea vzrgtmca. the eastern oyster, was the

most important single species of oyster harvested in

Mexico. Clams constituted the second most important

species group, comprising an average 19% of the 5-year
176 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

total. Clams belonging to the family Veneridae (Venus

clams) represent the most important commercial species group of clams. Octopus and conch averaged 11

and 6% ofthe total mollusk landings, respectively. Other

species and groups of species, such as abalone, squid,

mussels and others collectively contributed about 7%

of the total.

ings increased from 17,516 t in 1985 to 29,922 t in 1989

(Table 3). The major countries in terms of landings

volume include Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras,

Panama, and St. Vincent.

United States

Landings 0,000 t)

Other Regions

Table 4

U.S. mollusk landings, 1985-89, live-weight basis. I

1 Major single country producers: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Panama, St. Vincent.

2 Source: FAO, fishery statistics, 1989, vol. 68.

The majority of mollusks landed in this North American region is harvested by the United States. During the

1985-89 period, U.S. landings averaged 81 % of the

total volume of mollusks produced in North America.

Mollusk landings represented an average 16% of the

total annual U.S. landings of finfish and shellfish during the 5-year period. Although the United States has

maintained regional dominance in mollusk production, landings have trended downward since 1985. Landings decreased from 954,144 tin 1985 to 852,346 tin

1989, a 2.4% average annual rate of decrease.

Most of the decline is attributable to decreases in the

landings of two major bivalve groupS-clams and oysters. Landings of various species of clams accounted for

an average of 47% of total U.S. mollusk landings (Iiveweight basis) during 1985-89 (Table 4). Oysters represent the second most important species harvested on a

live-weight basis, accounting for 23% of mollusk landings. Oysters, however, exhibited the most dramatic

decline in landings. The live-weight equivalent of harvested oysters steadily declined from 260,449 t in 1985

to 158,425 tin 1989, a decrease of about 40%. The third

most important U.S. species group on a live-weight

basis is scallops. Scallop landings were extremely erratic

during 1985-89, with landings ranging from 97,617 t in

1986 to 240,862 t in 1988.

Annual mussel and squid landings averaged 3 and

5%, respectively, of the total landings of U.S. mollusks

during 1985-89. Lesser landings of mollusks, including

octopi and such gastropods as whelks, periwinkles, abalones, conchs, and others, represented only about 1% of the total mollusk landings. A more detailed discussion

ofspecies specific trends for the U.S. mollusk industry is given below.

17.5

22.6

22.5

21.3

29.9

Landings (1,000 t) of

squid, cuttlefish, octopus,

conch, oysters, clams

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

Year

Table 3

Mollusk landings from other North American regions],

1985-89, live-weigh t basis. 2

Mollusk landings in the remaining non U.S. regions of

North America accounted for an annual average of

only 2% of the total during 1985-89. The dominant

species groups included squid, cuttlefish, octopi, conch,

and oysters. Lesser volumes of other molluscan species

accounted for the remainder. The overall production

from this region, though a small proportion of the

total, has steadily increased over the 5-year period. LandYear Oysters Mussels Scallops Clams Squid Other' Total Clams-The total supply of clam meats

1985 260 16 192 454 ~6 6 954

remained fairly steady during recent years,

1986 234 21 98 426 38 ." 824 with total supply declining only about 8% I

1987 218 22 211 403 41 \J 904 from 1985 to 1990. The most important

1988 168 36 241 392 58 II 906 clam species were the surfclam, Spisula

1989 158 24 185 417 59 10 853 solidissima; ocean quahog, Arctica islandica;

Avg. percent and hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria. The

of total 23% 3% 21% 47% 5% 1% distribution oflandings across species has

I Source: FAO, fishery statistics, 1989. vol. 6R. remained about the same, with surfclams

2 Includes whelks, periwinkles, abalone. conchs, etc. representing 52% of the total supply in

1990, followed by hard clams (7%) and
______ Adams et aI.: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 177

soft clams (4%) (Table 5). Ocean quahogs make up the

majority of the remainder, accounting for 35% of the

total clam landings. Landings of ocean quahogs increased in 1976 as effort was redirected from dwindling

stocks of surfclams (MAFMC, 1990). Hard clam landings decreased substantial1y since 1985, with landings

decreasing by an annual average of 9% during 1985-

89. Soft clam landings also decreased by an average

annual rate of about 4% during the same period, while

surfclam and ocean quahog landings remained about

steady.

In terms of nominal ex-vessel value, the distribution

across species is somewhat different. Hard clams account for the largest share of total dockside value among

the four major species, representing 37% of the total in

1990. Surfclams, soft clams, and ocean quahogs accounted for 29, 20, and 14% of the tota!. respectively.

These percentage distributions have remained about

steady since 1985. Real ex-vessel prices per pound of

meats (adjusted for inflation using the Producer Price

Index for al1 foods, 1982 base year) for ocean quahogs

and surfclams have declined by 7 and 31%, respectively, during 1985-90 (Table 6). Alternatively, real

prices for hard and soft clams have increased by 17 and

20%, respectively, over the same period.

Scallops-The total U.S. supply of scal10p meats increased overal1 during 1985-90 by 40%, from 29.6 million pounds in 1985 to 41.5 mil1ion pounds in 1990

(Table 7). The most important species landed in terms

of volume were the sea scal1op; calico scal1op, Argopecten

gibbus; and bay scal1op, A. irradians; with lesser landings

of other species, such as Icelandic scallop, Chlamys

islandica; and giant Pacific scal1op, Pecten caurinus. Suggesting just a general increase in U.S. scallop landings,

however, tends to mask substantial variability during

that period. Most of this variability is linked to calico

scal10p production. Supplies of calico scal10p meats

fluctuated dramatically during 1985-89, exhibiting production levels ranging from 12.5 and 11.9 million

pounds in 1985 and 1988, to 1.6 and 1.1 mil1ion pounds

in 1986 and 1990, respectively. In contrast, supplies of

sea scal10p meats increased steadily from 15.8 million

pounds in 1985 to 39.9 million pounds in 1990. During

this same period, however, supplies of bay scal10p meats

declined to 500,000 pounds, a decrease of over 60%.

The distribution of dockside value for al1 scal10p

species mirrors their respective landings totals. During

1990, bay and calico scal10ps in aggregate represented

only 3% of the total scal10p dockside value (Table 8).

The remaining 97% was accounted for by sea scal1ops.

Table 5

U.S. supply of clam meats (meat weight).1

Commercial clam landings

(million pounds)

Ocean

Year Hard Soft Surf quahog Other Total Imports

1975 15.0 9.2 86.9 1.0 1.3 113.4 2.4

1980 13.4 8.9 37.7 33.8 1.5 95.3 6.9

1985 16.7 7.9 72.5 51.9 1.6 150.6 13.0

1986 11.8 5.9 78.7 45.4 3.6 145.4 16.9

1987 11.4 7.5 60.7 50.3 4.4 134.3 17.6

1988 12.4 6.8 63.5 46.3 2.7 131.7 14.9

1989 9.3 6.8 67.1 46.7 8.3 138.2 13.3

1990 9.8 5.!) 71.8 49.1 2.7 139.2 15.8

I Source: Fisheries of the United States, val'. iss.

Table 6

U.S. ex-vessel value/price for clams.'

Hard clams Ocean quahog Soft clams Surfclams

Year y2 p3 y2 P~ y2 p3 y2 p3

1975 $20.4 $1.98 $7.7 $1.26 $12.6 $0.20

1980 44.1 3.57 $10.2 $0.32 15.4 1.86 19.1 0.55

1985 51.3 2.93 15.9 0.30 21.5 2.61 38.9 0.52

1986 46.8 3.70 15.7 0.32 18.4 2.92 42.6 0.50

1987 49.6 3.96 16.6 0.29 19.8 2.42 28.0 0.42

1988 67.8 4.87 14.9 0.28 18.7 2.43 29.2 0.41

1989 44.9 4.08 16.4 0.27 19.9 2.45 30.7 0.39

1990 41.9 3.42 16.2 0.28 22.4 3.12 32.2 o.36

I Source: USDOC and USDOL data.

2 Y=Million dollars U.S. (nominal).

3 P=Real price per pound meats (1982 = 100, adjusted with the Producer Price Index, all foods).
Table 9

U.S. supply of oyster meats (meat weight).

) Source: Fisheries of the United States, var. iss.

Commercial landings

(million pounds)

I Source: USDOC and USDOL.

2 Y=Million dollars U.S. (nominal).

3 P=Real price per pound of meats (1982 =100, adjusted with

Producer Price Index, all foods).

Table 10

U.S. ex-vessel value/price for oysters.!

178 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 7

U.S. supply of scallop meats (meat weight).1

Commercial landings

(million pounds)

Year Bay Calico Sea Total Imports

1975 1.6 2.0 10.1 13.7 19.7

1980 1.0 28.8 29.8 20.9

1985 1.3 12.5 15.8 29.6 42.0

1986 .7 1.6 20.0 22.3 47.9

1987 .6 8.2 32.0 40.8 39.9

1988 .6 11.9 30.6 43.1 32.0

1989 .3 6.6 33.8 40.6 40.9

1990 .5 1.1 39.9 41.5 39.8

) Source: Fisheries of the United States, var. iss.

Table 8

U.S. ex-vessel value/prices for scallops.)

Bay Calico Sea

Year y2 p3 y2 p3 y2 p3

1975 $3.5 $2.59 $0.8 $0.83 $18.0 $2.65

1980 3.9 4.35 110.4 4.16

1985 5.9 4.26 12.5 0.96 74.6 4.50

1986 6.5 8.28 3.1 1.78 97.4 4.53

1987 3.2 4.97 8.9 1.00 132.3 3.77

1988 3.4 5.33 12.5 0.93 128.2 3.72

1989 1.7 5.16 5.9 0.76 132.6 4.56

1990 3.1 4.63 1.3 0.91 153.7 3.09

! Source: USDOC and USDOL.

2 Y=Million dollars U.S. (nominal).

3 P=Real price per pound meats (1982 = 100, adjusted with

Producer Price Index, all foods).

Year

1975

198U

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

Year

1975

1980

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

Eastern

47.4

42.4

43.1

39.1

3U.0

23.9

21.4

18.4

Pacific

5.8

6.6

7.8

9.6

9.9

8.0

7.9

10.8

$42.7

70.1

70.1

78.1

92.4

78.5

83.6

93.7

Total

53.2

49.0

50.9

48.7

39.9

31.9

29.3

29.2

Imports

20.5

21.7

45.9

50.0

52.1

46.4

37.7

27.5

p3

$1.15

1.54

1.52

1.78

2.12

2.18

2.35

2.58

Real ex-vessel price per pound for bay scallop meats

typically exceeds that for sea scallops. Real ex-vessel bay

scallop prices averaged $5.40 during 1985-90, while

calico scallop prices averaged about $1.06. Nevertheless, since sea scallop landings far exceed that of bay

scallops, the total value of sea scallops landings dominates. Sea scallop prices experienced an overall downward trend during the same period, as supplies increased dramatically. Real ex-vessel prices for sea scallops decreased from $4.50/pound of meats in 1985 to

$3.09 in 1990.

Oysters-The total supply ofoyster meats declined 43%

from 1985 to 1990 (Table 9). The majority of this

decrease is attributable to declines in the production of

the eastern oyster. The majority of this decline has

resulted from decreases in production from natural

(public) oyster beds along the eastern seaboard and

Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, production of oyster meats

on the eastern and Gulf coasts each declined about

60% during this period. In contrast, production of

oyster meats on the Pacific coast increased nearly 40%

during 1985-90. Much of this increase is attributable to

a growing aquaculture (private) component focusing

on the culture of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas.

However, this increase was not sufficient to counteract

the downward trend in oyster landings of all species.

Although the overall volume of oyster meats declined

dramatically during 1985-90, ex-vessel value (and "farmgate" value for cultured oysters) increased in nominal

terms by 34% (Table 10). This increase was in large

part due to a 70% increase during the same period of

the aggregate (public and private product sources),

real ex-vessel price per pound of meats. Although data
_______ Adams et al.: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 179

were not available to address the relationship explicitly,

the relative movement of value and price for oysters produced by public and private sources may be dissimilar.

The above discussion characterizes the U.S. molluscan fisheries as economically important. with some species exhibiting erratic or declining availability. These

characteristics suggest the need for effective resource

management from a biological and socioeconomic perspective. The following discussion focuses on economic

concepts relevant to the proper management of these

important species.

Economic Concepts

Relevant to Management _ ~mic~al E,

Overfishing Overfishing

Cost

Effort

The utilization of a molluscan resource (or finfish resource for that matter) may be typified, historically, by

a pattern of discovery. expansion. and, in some cases,

eventual overharvesting. To avoid the potential endpoint in this historical pattern, regulation of the fishery

in some form by statc or Federal efforts is usually

adopted. The appropriate form for fisheries regulation

has been a subject of economic inquiry since the seminal article by Gordon (1954). In the following discussion, the economic concepts used to analyze and explain fishery resource problems will be presented within

the con text ofmolluscan shellfish resources in a primer

fashion.

Basic Concepts

For simplicity. we initially develop a simple bioeconomic

model. Following Anderson (1986), we begin with the

Schaeffer population equilibrium analysis (Schaeffer,

1954). Murawski and Idoine (1989) demonstrate that

due to the inherent variability of mollusk recruitment,

the surplus production model may be an inappropriate

basis for fishery management decision making. However, our objective is to develop a general conceptual

framework for defining objectives for management and

not to draw inferences for any spccific management

instrument or specific level of catch or effort. Givcn the

scope of our objective, the Schaeffer model offers a

simple analytical tool for demonstrating the molluscan

resource economics (Kahn and Kemp, 1985). Further.

the general conclusions that one reaches using the

simpler surplus population models are essentially the

same as that compared to more complex dynamic pool

models.

The sustained revenue curve is a monotonic transformation ofthe sustained yield curve assuming a constan t

price for fish (Fig. 2). The sustained yield curve is based

on the Schaeffer-style growth curve, the short run efFigure 2

Biological and economic management objectives.

fort/yield response, and the population equilibrium

curve. Assuming a constant cost per unit of effort, the

relevant components of a bioeconomical equilibrium

and the objectives for management can be discussed. A

biologic equilibrium may be said to have been reached

for any combination of sustained effort, population,

and landings that lies on the sustained yield curve.

However, even though they may be argued to be in

equilibrium, not all combinations of effort and landings may be deemed biologically desirable. This is illustrated by the fact that, with one exception, for any given

level oflandings there are two corresponding combinations of effort and population equilibria. Only at the

maximum of the sustained yield curve is the combination of effort and population size unique. This is the

well known maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Any

level of sustained effort beyond MSY will result in lowered population sizes, hence lower sustained yields.

Similarly, any combination of sustained effort to the

left of MSY will result in lower landings. even though

equilibrium population sizes are greater than that of

MSY. Thus, the management objective from a biological perspective may be said to be to attain MSY (although other biological objectives related to year class

distribution, spawning stock biomass, recruitment. and

others may be relevant). Based on an MSY management objective, overfishing would be characterized by

any sustained harvest level in excess of MSY. Thus, all

effort levels to the righ t of MSYwould be considered to

be biological overfishing.

In molluscan as well as other fisheries, the biological

equilibrium is a function of the underlying relationships governing recruitment, growth rates, and fishing

effort. By contrast. economic equilibria are functions of

the biological relationships, institutional context, and
180 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

incentives under which harvest takes place. Economic

theory demonstrates that maximum return to the resource is achieved at the point where marginal cost and

marginal revenue are equal. In the case of natural

resources this condition leads to maximization of resource rent. Maximum rent in a fishery is achieved at

the effort/yield combination where the slope of the

total cost and sustained revenue curves are equal, this is

known as maximum economic yield (MEY). To see that

this is the case, consider any given level of effort to the

left of MEY. The marginal value of an increase in effort,

as given by the slope of the sustained revenue curve, is

greater than its marginal cost (the slope of the total

cost curve). This can be seen through visual inspection

of the slopes of the cost and sustained revenue curves

evaluated at any point leftward of MEY. The opposite

may be said for any level of effort (including that of

MSY) to the right of MEY, where the marginal value of

additional effort is less than its marginal cost. MEY is,

therefore, the molluscan fisheries management objective from an economic perspective. Economic overfishing is characterized by any level of effort to the right of

MEY since any effort level greater than MEY would

represent an excessive allocation of resources to fishing. Overcapitalization, a phenomenon with which managers of molluscan resources are all too familiar, is

therefore a symptom of economic overfishing.

While MEY is the economic objective for molluscan

fisheries management, the economic equilibrium will

not only be a function of biological conditions but will

depend upon economic incentives and social institutions. Economic incentives affecting an economic equilibrium consist ofinput and output prices. These prices

affect the slopes of the cost and sustained revenue

curves, and in so doing, affect effort levels. For example, if the cost of fishing was to increase, the new

MEY would lie somewhere to the left of the previous

one due to the slope of the sustained revenue curve.

Note also that 1) only in the case where marginal fishing costs are zero does MEY and MSY coincide at the

same effort/yield combination and 2) that for all other

cases, MEYwill always lie somewhere to the left of MSY;

i.e. at effort/yield combinations that are less than that

ofMSY.

Open-access vs. Rights-based Management

Social institutions in the form of property rights to

molluscan fishery resources play an important role in

determining the economic and biological exploitation

of a fishery. Property rights serve the function of determining rights to use a resource and sanctions for abuse

of rights or damage to holders of rights. A system of

property rights that is perfectly specified includes the

following elements: rights are completely specified including rights and restrictions on use, rights are exclusive so that all rewards and punishments accrue solely

to the owner of the rights, rights are transferable, and

rights are enforceable and completely enforced (Randall, 1987). Such a system of property rights is what is

typically associated with private property. In fact, much

of the fishery economics literature that is prescriptive

in nature argues for some system of property rights

analogous to private property (Gordon, 1954; Scott,

1955; Alford, 1975; Keen, 1983). Note, however, that

sole ownership is not necessary for complete specification ofrights (Hanna, 1990).

Complete specification of property rights is consistent with MEY. To see that this is the case, consider the

case of a hypothetical fishery in the absence of property

rights. Figure 3 illustrates such a case. Assume that the

initial state ofthis fishery is at MEYand effort is EMEy At

this point profits are being earned. If property rights

are completely specified there would be no incentive to

increase effort beyond EMEy because to do so would

result in lower landings and hence lower profits. Furthermore, because property rights would be exclusive

the resource owner would have an incentive to not only

refrain from overharvesting but would have an incentive to engage in resource enhancement. This is particularly relevant for sedentary nearshore mollusks such

as oysters, hard clams, and mussels. As long as property

rights are exclusive, the benefit of productivity enhancing activities will accrue to the owner (Agnello and

Donnelley, 1976). However, since fisheries are common-pOOl resources, the benefits of engaging in conservation activities are not exclusive. Thus, there is an

incentive to take the best first and fastest and continue

to do so as long as revenues cover costs. This process is

Effort

Figure 3

Maximum economic yield contrasted with open access.
______ Adams et al.: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 181

illustrated as follows. In the short run, the fishery is

supported by a given population size and a given effort/yield relationship (E/YMEy)' Initial expansion of

effort beyond EMEy to EI will result in a short run

increase in yield and industry profits. However, at EI

the catch rate exceeds natural increase in the underlying population, consequently population size and yield

declines to a new, lower short run effort/yield curve E/

YI . As long as profits remain greater than zero, effort

will continue to increase and population sizes and landings will decrease. In the absence ofspecified property

rights, an economic equilibrium is not reached until

profits equal zero. This point is known as the open

access equilibrium and is shown as OA in Figure 3. At

OA the fishery suffers from both biologic and economic overfishing. Again, this is an issue familiar to

U.S. molluscan fisheries managers. The fishery management task, therefore, is to design management policy that

addresses these biological and economic problems.

In designing fishery management policy, economists

usually advocate property rights-based strategies. The

reason for this can be seen by examining the economic

implications of regulation-based management. In the

absence ofregulation, harvesters are likely to select the

most cost-effective harvest method. Thus, the cost curve

associated with the open access fishery may be presumed to represent the least cost method of harvesting

mollusks (CI in Figure 4). The imposition of restrictions on harvest methods, areas, or seasons fished may

indeed meet the biological objective ofincreased population sizes and increased landings. However, such regulations tend to simply force the cost of fishing to increase (C2 in Figure 4). The incentives to take the best

first and to discourage conservation activities are not

removed; hence, the fishery will still continue to operOA,

c,

OA, Effort

ate at an open access level of landings and effort O~

(albeit with higher levels of the former and lower levels

of the latter).

A fishery management policy may be said to be preferred if it results in an increase in the net value of a

fishery (rent distribution may also be an important

consideration). Under open access exploitation, the

net value of a fishery is zero; total harvest costs are

equal to total revenues. Thus, given our criterion, such

regulatory approaches to fishery management result in

no net gain in social well-being. Furthermore, since

marginal costs of fishing still exceed marginal benefits

at O~, the fishery is still overcapitalized and the unit

cost of fishing has increased.

Property rights in a fishery remove the negative externalities2 associated with open access fishing effort.

That is, the benefits and costs of conservation accrue to

resource owners. For sedentary mollusks, such as clams

and oysters, systems of open access and private ownership rights have coexisted for a long time. In many

coastal states, the leasing of submerged lands for private use in shellfish is common. Although lease arrangements differ among states, the lessee is usually

granted the right to produce shellfish using various

intensive or extensive aquaculture methods. For example, in samples taken throughout the Baylor grounds

of Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay, Haven et

al. (l981b) found oyster population densities ranging

from a low of 20 bushels per acre in the Piankatank

River. By contrast, owners of leased bottom in Virginia

typically seed their beds at a rate of 650-750 bushels of

seed oysters per acre and expect about 1 bushel of

marketable oysters for each bushel of seed oysters

planted (Haven et aI., 1981a). Recognizing that the

majority of seed oysters planted on private beds come

from public bars (primarily in the James River), the

very process of transplan ting seed oysters from public

to private oyster beds is only made possible by the

existence of property rights that assure the owner will

reap the rewards for his or her labor. Without such

assurances, there is little incentive for oyster producers

to engage in extensive or intensive forms of oyster

culture.

The estuarine habitat and sedentary nature of oysters, and to some extent clams, make the leasing of

designated areas possible. For deeper water mollusks,

such as surfclams, ocean quahogs, or sea scallops, the

leasing of geographic areas poses considerable difficulties. Nevertheless, property rights-based management

of some of these types of species is made possible

through the establishment of resource harvest rights.

Figure 4

Effect of regulation on harvesting costs. 2 An externality occurs when the action of one economic entity

affects the utility or production possibilities of another in a way

that is not reflected in the marketplace Oust et aI., 1982).
182 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

At this time the most common form of rights-based

management is an individual quota (IQ). In cases where

an ownership of IQ may be transferred, the system is

known as an individual transferrable quota (ITQ). The

merits and potential shortcomings of IQ's and ITQ's

are well documented elsewhere (Copes, 1986; Sissenwine

and Mace, 1992) and are not detailed here. The key

point is that economic problems require economic solutions. In the following section we briefly review the

management history of two different molluscan shellfisheries, one in which biological objectives guide management decision-making, and one in which economic

approaches have been adopted.

Contrasting Management Histories _

The previous discussion suggests that some form of

property rights structure imposed within the management regime of a fishery resource generates greater

overall economic benefits and provides disincentives

for engaging in biological overfishing. However, cursory examination ofthe current complement ofmolluscan fishery management efforts, particularly at the Federallevel, exposes a paucity of attempts to impose some

alternative to open-access management for molluscan

fishery resources and, thereby, realize these potential

economic and biological benefits. This historical absence suggests the existence of significant conceptual

or other constraints to the implementation of such programs for specific molluscan shellfish stocks. It may also

serve to reemphasize the complex nature of the biological, socioeconomic, and political environment in which

the nation's molluscan fishery resources are managed.

The Federal management efforts for Atlantic sea scallops and surf clams highlight the disparate set of objectives under which some of the nation's major molluscan resources are managed. The management histories

for each ofthese species suggest goals that are similar in a

biological sense (i.e. long-term viability of the stock), yet

potentially divergent in terms of ultimate socioeconomic

goals and the strategies used to achieve those goals.

Sea Scallops

The Atlantic sea scallop fishery appears to be an example of a molluscan fishery that is being managed

with biological objectives receiving primary importance.

The fishery has been characterized by effort, landings,

and value rapidly increasing over the last few years

3 NEFMC. 1991. Public hearing summary document related to proposals for Amendment #4 to the Atlantic sea scallop fishery management plan. NEFMC, Saugus, Mass. Unpub!. doc.

(NEFMC, 1982; NEFMC3). And although recruitment

into the fishery has been high, fishing mortality has

been excessive on incoming year classes. To address

this problem, an initial management plan for sea scallops was implemented in 1982. Management concern

centered on restoring adult stock abundance and ageclass distribution and addressing the subsequent effects

on yield per recruit and stock biomass relationships.

Although economic symptoms ofovercapitalization and

rent dissipation in the fishery have been alleged, management efforts have focused on biological goals using

classic open-access management strategies.

A major element of the management effort has been

the implementation of a meat-count standard designed

to prevent excessive fishing mortality on incoming year

classes of scallops. This management feature recognized the benefits of reducing effort directed toward

incoming year classes to allow for extending the length

of time the incoming year classes can be fished and

providing for a larger yield per scallop. This controversial management tool, however, has been saddled with

major problems of enforceability and compliance. The

latest in a series of proposed amendments to the fishery

management plan proposes to replace the meat-eount

standard with a vessel moratorium (coupled with limits

on fishing power), days at sea allocations, trip limits

(designed to address product quality concerns), restrictions on crew and gear, offloading windows, and permitting/reporting requirements. These efforts seek to

protect the fishery from poor year-class recruitment

through a systematic reduction in fishing effort and,

thus, mortality over a given time period.

The management measures historically imposed and

currently proposed for sea scallops adhere to classic

open-access management strategies in lieu of rightsbased resource management, the latter of which may

allow the economic forces of the market to playa more

direct role in reducing overfishing and overcapitalization. Although theoretically valid and of growing political popularity, rights-based management regimes may

yet face substantial local and regional sociopolitical

reluctance to depart from the traditional open-access management scheme (Agnello and Donnelley, 1984). Sea

scallop management may provide a good case in point.

Surfclams

In contrast to the open-access style of management

adhered to for sea scallops, the Atlantic surf clam fishery has recently opted for an innovative management

plan based on the assignment of individual harvest

rights. The nature of the fishery has allowed economic

management objectives to playa greater role in guiding

regulation and policy development.
_______ Adams et aL: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 183

The initial surfclam FMP was implemented in 1977.

The resource had experienced high levels of mortality

due to an incident of anoxia in maJor habitat areas

(MAFMC, 1990). At the time the FMP was adopted, the

industry was characterized by dramatically declining

harvest levels and resulting economic instability. In response, resource managers initially imposed classic openaccess measures, such as harvest quotas, effort limitations, and permit/logbook provisions.

As the resource recovered, however, vessel overcapitalization quickly occurred and attention turned to the

mounting economic problems confronting the industry. A permit moratorium was imposed in an attempt to

limit the number of vessels in the fishery. In addition,

quarterly quotas were implemented to provide processors with a more consistent product supply. However,

these and other open-access measures, such as size limits and harvest region adjustments, met with little success in reducing excess harvest capacity and achieving

economic efficiency4 in the fishery. The potential economic advantages of assigning harvest rights in the

fishery were then examined and brought to the industry. Mter considerable debate and discussion regarding

allocation, eligibility, and other issues, an ITQ system

was adopted for the surfclam fishery in 1990. The complicated and burdensome system of effort control which

had proven unworkable was retired.

Detractors remain, however, suggesting that the ITQ

system has resulted in layoffs, increased concentration,

and greater processor influence in the industry. Whether

these suggested characteristics exact a short-term negative (or positive) influence on the fishery must be

weighed against the long-term economic benefits that

such a program can potentially generate. A similar management program has also since been implemented for

the Atlantic ocean quahog fishery.

Managing at the State Level

State fishery management agencies are also involved

with the management of molluscan resources. There

are many species that present viable populations within

state waters. Examples would include hard clams, bay

scallops, softshell clams, and oysters found within the

waters ofmany eastern and southern states. Butter clams,

geoducks, razor clams, and abalones represent species

found in nearshore waters of western states. The management of these species most often is accomplished

with open-access management measures, such as gear

restrictions, size limits, bag limits, etc. Such manage4 Efficiency in the context of this discussion regards an allocation of

resources such that the value of the fishery to society is maximized

(Anderson, 1986).

ment scenarios are often complicated by the need to

consider the nearshore recreational interests. Some

states, however, have encouraged a management philosophy which embodies a more rights-based management approach, such as private oyster leases in Texas

and Louisiana, and harvest-rights auctions for geoducks

in Washington.

Consequences of

Environmental Deterioration _

Commercial and/or recreational harvests of mollusks

(oysters, clams, and mussels) occur in 22 states (lJSDOC,

1977). As a result of both natural and human-induced

factors, most, if not all, ofthese states have experienced

deterioration of their coastal shellfish growing waters.

The following discussion addresses the reasons, extent,

and impacts of environmental deterioration of shellfish growing waters from within a resource economics

framework.

Sources of Environmental Deterioration

About 70% ofthe U.S. population currently lives within

50 miles of the coast. and between 1950 and 1984, the

population in coastal counties grew by more than 80%

(USEPA, 1989). This rapid rate of growth, in conjunction with the absolute number of people living along

the coast, about 350 mi2, has strained the fragile ecosystems which support mollusk populations, destroying

many of the traditionally productive shellfish beds while

leaving others unsuitable for human activities due to

excessive pollution.

Some specific human-induced causes for deterioration of mollusk growing areas, as cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1990), are presented

below.

1) Industries: According to EPA estimates, 1,300 major industrial facilities discharge directly into estuarine

and near coastal waters.

2) Sewage treatment plants: Almost 600 municipal

treatment plants discharge effluents into estuaries and

near-coastal waters.

3) Dredge materials: Annually, about 150 million t of

dredged materials are released into estuaries and nearcoastal waters.

4) Hazardous waste: From 75 to 100 hazardous waste

sites in U.S. coastal counties are considered to present

some threat to marine resources.

5) Nonpoint sources: Over half of coastal water pollution is attributable to urban and agricultural nonpoint

sources.

6) Combined sewer overflows: Raw sewage and urban
184 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

runoff is discharged into the estuaries after rainstorms

in urban areas.

7) Upstream sources: Discharges from thousands of

industrial and municipal plants enter rivers that subsequently enter estuaries.

8) Landfill and development: Landfill and development in environmentally sensitive coastal areas have

destroyed critical spawning, nursery, and habitat areas

traditionally used by much of the nation's fish and

shellfish resources.

From an economic perspective, these human-induced

causes of estuarine deterioration reflect externalities

that exist in the utilization of molluscan shellfish habitat. These externalities occur because many of the resources associated with mollusk production, including

the estuarine growing areas and the shellfish found

there, are often not privately owned, and entitlements

are not properly specified. Since the polluters do not

pay a market price for the use of all necessary resources

(including the estuarine waters needed for the production of shellfish), discharges may be excessive from a

societal viewpoint. Therefore, externalities which occur as activities under control by one party, in this case

the polluters, negatively impact activities of other parties, such as shellfish harvesters, other sectors of the

economy dependent on shellfish production (e.g. processors, wholesalers, and distributors), and consumers

(via an increased risk related to the consumption of raw

shellfish products originating from waters of questionable quality). An externality may also exist when environmentally sensitive coastal areas are developed in a

manner that reduces production from unaltered estuarine environments.

Human-induced discharges may also lead to increased

monitoring and enforcement costs by state and federal

agencies to ensure shellfish safety standards. According

to a recent study (C'SDOC, 1991), expenditures per

state on shellfish management programs averaged about

$0.50jacre in 19905 and ranged from $0.085 (Maine)

to $6.04 (Washington) on a per state basis. A substantial proportion of these costs, which have increased by

almost 40% since 1985 (after adjusting for inflation), is

devoted to routine monitoring ofthe release of humaninduced pollutants in the estuarine growing areas of

the shellfish-producing states.

Extent of Deterioration

Table 11 helps to document the deterioration of U.S.

estuarine shellfish growing waters. In 1990, total classified growing waters equalled 17.2 million acres. Of this

total, 63% (10.9 million acres) was approved for harvest. More than one-third (6.3 million acres), however,

was harvest limited. The biggest share of the 6.3 million

5 Numbers given in the report were adjusted for inflation to 1989

dollars. There were converted to 1990 dollars herein.

Table 11

Shellfish estuarine waters classification trends, 1971 and 1990 (1,000 acres), not including classification of offshore

growing areas. Sources: Bell (1978) and lJSDOC (1991).

Approved Conditional Restricted Prohibited Total

% % ~o % %

Region! 1971 1990 change 1971 1990 change 1971 1990 change 1971 1990 change 1971 1990 change

North Atlantic2 1,250 781 -37.5 7 9 +28.6 11 11 0 122 332 272.1 1,390 1,132 -18.6

Middle Atlantic 3,895 4,221 +8.4 121 217 +79.3 19 217 L3 560 688 22.9 4,595 5,343 +16.3

South Atlantic4 1,786 2.091 +17.1 <1 119 L 0 102 L 676 630 -6.8 2,463 2,940 +19.4

Gulf of Mexico 3,226 3,434 +6.5 282 1,153 +408.9 0 103 L 1,618 2,405 48.6 5,126 7.095 +38.4

Pacific5 204 338 +55.7 <1 73 L U 31 L 322 201 -37.6 526 6,643 +22.2

------ ---- ------ ------ Total 10,361 10,865 4.9% 410 1,571 +383.2 30 464 3,298 4,256 +29.1 14,100 17,153 +21.7%

I Regions are defined as follows: North Atlantic includes the States of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts; Middle Atlantic

includes the States of Massachusetts (lower portion), Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and

Virginia; South Atlantic includes the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (east coast); Gulf of Mexico

includes the States of Florida (west coast), Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; Pacific includes the States ofCalifornia, Oregon,

Washington, and Alaska.

2 For 1971, all of Massachusetts was included in the North Atlantic Region. In the 1990 data, a small section of Massachusetts was included

in the Middle Atlantic Region.

3 The "L" denotes a very large amount of change between 1971 and 1990.

4 For 1971, all of Florida was included in the Gulf of Mexico.

5 Alaska was not included in 1971 survey.
_______ Adams et al.: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 185

harvest-limited acreage was classified as prohibited

(some 4.3 million acres), indicating that no harvest is

allowed for human consumption at any time. Another

1.6 million acres were classified as conditional, indicating that harvest can occur only when certain criteria are

met. Finally, 464,000 acres were classified as restricted,

indicating that harvesting could take place only ifshellfish were subjected to a suitable purification process,

such as relaying or depuration.

As indicated in Table 11, the total classified shellfish

estuarine acreage expanded almost 22% from 1971 to

1990, from 14.1 million acres to 17.2 million acres.

Because ofthe increase in harvest-limited waters during

the period, however, approved shellfish estuarine growing waters increased by <5%, from 10.4 million acres to

10.9 million acres (almost 200,000 of the half-million acre

increase resulted from the inclusion ofAlaska in the 1990

data). Shellfish-harvest limited acreage increased from 3.7

million acres in 1971 to 6.3 million in 1990. Acreage

classified as prohibited increased by almost 30% and acreage classified as conditional increased almost fourfold.

While the Gulf of Mexico region accounted for 41 %

of the total classified shellfish estuarine growing waters

in 1990, it accounted for almost 60% of the nation's

shellfish-limited acreage. Overall, the Gulf of Mexico

region accounted for 57% of the nation's prohibited

shellfish acreage and almost 75% of all conditional

shellfish growing waters in 1971 and 1990. The greatest

percentage increase in prohibited growing waters, however, was attributed to the North Atlantic region (272%)

while the prohibited growing waters in the Pacific region actually showed a large percentage decline (38%).

Sewage treatment plants are the primary point-source

of pollution at the national level (Table 12), while

septic systems and urban runoff are the primary

nonpoint sources. Sewage treatment plants and urban

runoff were the primary upstream pollution sources.

Overall, sewage treatment plants were the primary

point-source of pollution in all regions considered except the Pacific region where industry was the primary

point-source of pollution. The impacts of sewage treatment plants were particularly apparent in the North

Atlantic and Mid Atlantic Region where 67% and 57%,

respectively, of harvest-limited acreage was a result of

this pollution source. Direct discharge of pollutants, in

addition to sewage treatment plants, was a substantial

point-source of pollution in the Gulf of Mexico region.

The five sources of nonpoint pollution-septic systems, urban runoff, agricultural runoff, wildlife, and

boats-were generally all significant contributors to closures of shellfish waters in all regions (Table 12). With

respect to upstream sources of pollution, sewage treatment plants and urban runoff were the primary contributors affecting shellfish harvest-limited acreage.

Table 12

Pollution sources affecting harvest-limited acreage (x 1,000), 1990.1.2 Source: USDOC (1991).

;orth Middle South Gulfof

Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Mexico Pacific Nationwide

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Point sources

Sewage treatment plants 238 67 641 57 374 44 973 27 75 25 2,301 37

Combined sewers 21 6 224 20 0 0 211 6 0 0 456 7

Direct discharge 1 <1 84 7 5 1 920 25 6 2 l,l06 16

Industry 21 7 223 20 180 32 522 14 129 42 1,075 17

onpoint sources

Septic systems 91 26 123 11 288 34 1.763 48 57 19 2,322 37

Urban runoff 75 23 655 58 290 34 1,276 35 110 36 2,406 38

Agricultural runoff 5 3 130 12 233 28 301 8 41 13 710 11

Wildlife 19 7 112 10 306 36 1,115 30 39 13 1,591 25

Boats 55 17 353 31 146 17 507 14 47 15 1,108 18

Upstream sources

Sewage treatment plants 2 1 104 9 9 I 1,174 32 45 16 1,334 21

Combined sewers 0 0 5 <l 0 0 134 4 0 0 139 2

Urban runoff 3 1 72 6 8 I 793 22 43 14 919 15

Agricultural runoff 0 0 1 <l 0 0 435 12 0 0 436 7

Wildlife 0 0 28 2 35 4 210 6 0 0 273 4

1 % is percent of all harvest-limited acreage in region.

2 Since the same percentage of a shellfish area can be affected by more than one source, the percentages shown above cannot be added.

They will not sum to 100.
186 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Economic Consequences

of Environmental Deterioration

Deterioration of U.S. shellfish growing waters has at

least two potential impacts on the shellfish industry.

First, deterioration ofshellfish growing waters results in

a reduction in the harvestable supply of mollusks. Second, deterioration, especially with respect to pollution

of the shellfish growing waters, can result in a reduction in demand for shellfish products. This reduction

in demand can result in lower dockside prices for molluscan products which, in turn, can lead to reductions

in quantities supplied by the harvesting sector.

To illustrate how deterioration of shellfish growing

waters can impact the harvestable supply of mollusks,

consider Figure 5, which relates long-run catch as a

function of effort. 6 Mathematically, this long-run quadratic relationship between catch and effort can be

represen ted as follows (Bell, 1989, gives a derivation of

the model):

suIts in a lower catch at any level of effort, as indicated

in the previous equation, and can be represented in

Figure 5 by an inward shift in the sustainable yield

curve. For illustrative purposes, the maximum potential biomass (B'') is assumed to fall from B*(O) to B*(I)

inFigure 6 as a result in estuarine deterioration. This

causes the sustainable yield curve to fall from SY(O) to

SY(l) and, hence, long-run yield declines at allleveIs of

effort.

While empirical studies evaluating the loss in mollusk production are few and possibly flawed due to

simplifying assumptions (such as an assumption of no

price response), value losses have been calculated for

the years 1966,1971, and 1975 (Table 13). These likely

represent upper-bound estimates of losses. Expressed

in terms of 1990 dollars, the 1975 losses nationwide

approximate $70 million.

Between 1961 and 1989, 10,384 cases of shellfishassociated viral diseases and 1,400 cases of oyster- and

clam-associated hepatitis A have been documented in

the United States (USDOC, 1991). These illnesses, and

B*k 2

C(t) = kB *E(t) - --E 2(t) a

where C(t) is the quantity of stock harvested during

time period t, B* is the maximum potential biomass

under various constraints, E(t) is the amount of effort

employed in the fishery during time period t, k is equal

to the catchability coefficient, and a is a parameter.

Note that B*, which is a reflection ofthe carrying capacity of the fish stock, is also interactive with E(t) and

E2(t). Reductions in carrying capacity emanating from

increases in natural or human-induced discharges reTable 13

Estimated value loss from habitat deterioration, 1966,

1971, and 1975. Source: USDOC (1977).

Species 1966 1971 1975

Oysters $7,005,243 $17.486,457 $18,017,693

Clams 3,533,836 10,643,255 11,069,088

Mussels 14,OIY 82,840 99,518

Total $10,553,098 $28,212,552 $29,186,299

Quantity

(per unit time)

Price 0(0)

.,

E PI .c:;:

(,)-

M'E P2 (,)::>

G; P10

.a

Effort

(per unit lime)

6 The relationship between effort and long-run yield. as shown in

Figure 6, is often referred to as the Schaefer sustainable yield

curve. While its applicability to molluscan resources is at best

questionable, it is used here because of its simplicity and its exposure to a wide range of audiences.

Figure 5

Hypothetical shift in sustainable yield curve for shellfish related to estuarine deterioration.

Figure 6

Hypothetical response in demand from an increased

perceived risk of shellfish consumption.
_______ Adams et al.: Resource Economics Issues Concerning Molluscan Fisheries in the United States 187

reports of phytotoxins (paralytic shellfish poisoning)

and contaminants such as pesticides, metals, etc., in

mollusk producing waters, have created consumer uncertainty about the quality of the shellfish they purchase, especially if intended for raw consumption, as in

the case of oysters (Lin et al., 1991; Swartz and Strand,

1981) .

The impact of consumer uncertainty with respect to

raw mollusks can be theoretically evaluated with the aid

of Figure 6. The demand curve for mollusks, assuming

no uncertainty or risk, is given by D(O), while industry

supply is represented by S(O).' Under this scenario,

equilibrium quantity and price are given as QI and PI'

respectively.

Uncertainty in safety of shellfish consumption, as

measured by perceived risk, can be introduced by a

reduction in demand for molluscan shellfish at all prices,

i.e., a downward shift in the demand curve. For our

purposes, demand is assumed to fall to D (1), though

the actual decline in demand will ultimately depend

upon the perceived risk and consequences thereof.

The reduction in demand from an increase in perceived risk results in an immediate reduction in price

to pt This price reduction results in a reduction in the

quantity supplied by the fishermen (assuming quantity

supplied is responsive to changes in price) and, hence,

some upward movement in price. In equilibrium, the

quantity supplied, as a result of an increase in perceived

risk, is reduced from QI to Q2 while the equilibrium

price falls from PI to P2'8 Therefore, decreased consumer confidence regarding the consumption of raw

shellfish may manifest itself by lower prices in the marketplace and reduced output from the harvesting sector. Total revenues generated by the industry may decline significantly, through both reduced product prices

and lost market share.

Summary and Conclusions

Molluscan fisheries comprise an important component

of the total North American commercial fishing industry. Many species of bivalves and gastropods are of

commercial importance. The U.S. fishery, however, represents the most important single source of many molluscan species, in particular oysters, clams, and scal7 This supply response assumes that long-run catch is positively

related to price. In some resources that are overfished, supply

could respond negatively to price increases.

8 McConnell and Strand (1989) demonstrated that improved water

quality in certain situations will reduce social returns to the resource. While the concepts are outside the scope of this paper,

readers are referred to their work for a more detailed analysis of

the effects of water quality on consumption and production of

seafoods.

lops. The issues that confront molluscan resource managers in the United States are many and complex. The

resources themselves are extremely dynamic from a

biological perspective, with the harvest activities being

further influenced by a varied complement of political

and socioeconomic factors. Though open-access management techniques seem appropriate for the current

biological problems facing some molluscan stocks in

U.S. waters, the adoption of a rights-based management policy holds greater promise of achieving longrun economic goals. Rights-based strategies have been

recently designed to address economic issues confronting the management ofsurf clams and ocean quahogs,

while the management regimes adopted for most other

species continue to adhere to open-access regulatory

measures in the face of growing economic problems.

Managers of near-shore or estuarine molluscan stocks

must also be cognizant of the economic consequences

that arise from the deterioration of habitat, both human-induced and otherwise. The economic losses that

can occur from reductions in estuarine mollusk production and decreased consumer confidence have been

shown to be substantial. Such concerns provide a need

for molluscan resource managers to be more fully aware

of the economic forces that come to bear on all sectors

of the industry-from harvesters to consumers-and to

adopt a management policy that can effectively address

these economic issues.

Literature Cited

Agnello, R.]., and L. P. Donnelley.

1976. Externalities and property rights in the fisheries. Land

Econ.52(4):518-529.

1984. Regulation and the structure of property rights: The

case of the U.S. oyster industry. Res. Law Econ. 6:267-281.

Alford,]. ].

1975. The Chesapeake oyster fishery. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.

65(2) :229-239.

Anderson, L. G.

1986. The economics offisheries managemen t.Johns Hopkins

Univ. Press, Baltimore, 296 p.

Bell, F. W.

1978. Food from the sea. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 380 p.

1989. Application of wetland valuation theory to Florida fisheries. Univ. Fla. Sea Grant ColI. Rep. 95, 118 p.

Copes, P.

1986. A critical review of the individual quota as a device in

fisheries management. Land Econ. 62(3):10-12.

FAO.

1985-89. Yearbook of fishery statistics, catches and landings.

Food Agric. Organ. U.N., Rome, var. years, pagin.

Gordon, H. S.

1954. The economic theory of a common property resource:

The fishery.]. Polit. Econ. 62:124-142.

Hanna, S. S.

1990. The eighteenth century English commons: A model

for ocean management. Ocean Shoreline Manage. 14:155-

172.
188 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Haven, D. S., W.]. Hargis, and P. C. Kendall.

1981a. The oyster industry of Virginia: Its status, problems,

and promise. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Spec. Pap. Mar. Sci., Rep. 4.

VlMS, Gloucester Point, Va., 1,024 p.

Haven, D. S.,]. P. Whitcomb, and P. C. Kendall.

1981b. The present and potential productivity of the Baylor

grounds ofVirginia. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Mar. Sci. Ocean Eng.

Rep. 243, Vol. I, II. VlMS, Gloucester Point, Va., 278 p.

Just, R. E., D. L. Hueth, and A. Schmitz.

1982. Applied welfare economics and public policy. PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, Nj., 491 p.

Kahn,]. R., and W. M. Kemp.

1985. Economic losses associated with the degradation of an

ecosystem: The case of submerged aquatic vegetation in

Chesapeake Bay.]. Environ. Econ. Manage. 12:246-263.

Keen, E. A.

1983. Ownership and productivity of marine fishery resources:

An essay on the resolution of conflict in the use of the ocean

pastures. McDonald Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, Va.,

122 p.

Lin, C. T.].,]. W. Milon, and E. Babb.

1991. Determinants of food safety perceptions: A case study

of oysters in the southeast.]' Agribus. 9(1):71-84.

McConnell, K. E., and I. E. Strand.

1989. Benefits from commercial fisheries when demand and

supply depend on water quality.]. Environ. Econ. Manage.

17:284-292.

MAFMC.

1990. Admendment #8. Fishery management plan for the

Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery. Mid-Atl. Fish.

Manage. Counc., Dover, Del., 142 p.

Murawski, S. A.. and]. S. Idoine.

1989. Yield sustainability under constant-catch policy and stochastic recruitment. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118(4):349-367.

NEFMC.

1982. Fishery management plan final environmental impact

statement regulatory impact review for Atlantic sea scallops

(Plawpecten magellanicus). New Engl. Fish. Manage. Counc.,

Saugus, Mass., 149 p.

Randall, A.

1987. Resource economics, an economic approach to natural

resource and environmental policy.]. Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 434 p.

Schaeffer, M. B.

1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of population important

to the management of the commercial marine fisheries.

Bull. Inter-Am. Trop. Tuna Comm. 1:27-56.

Scott, A.

1955. The fishery: The objectives of sole ownership.]. Polit.

Econ.63:116-124.

Sissenwine. M. P., and P. M. Mace.

1992. ITQ's in New Zealand: The era offixed quota in perpetuity. Fish. Bull. 90:147-160.

Swartz. D. G.. and I. E. Strand.

1981. Avoidance costs associated with imperfect information:

The case ofkepone. Land Econ. 57:139-150.

USDOC.

1977. Repon to Congress; The molluscan shellfish industries

and water quality: problems and opportunities. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Off. Fish. Develop.,

46 p.

1975-90. Fisheries of the United States, 1975-90. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat.,

var. iss., pagin.

1991. The 1990 national shellfish register of classified estuarine waters. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Off. Oceanogr.

Mar. Assessment, Strategic Assessment Branch, 100 p.

USDOL.

1977-90. CPI detailed report. U.S. Dep. Labor, Bur. Labor

Stat., var. iss., pagin.

lTSEPA.

1989. Marine and estuarine protection: Programs and activities. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Off. Water, Rep. EPA-503/

9-89-002, 42 p.

1990. Progress in the National estuary program: Report to

Congress. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Rep. EPA 503/9-90-

005,50 p.
Mollusk Statistical Data Collection in the United States

DAVID L. SUTHERLAND and STEVENJ. KOPLIN

Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

ABSTRACT

Molluscan fishery and industry data are collected for commercial landings, cold storage

holdings, market prices, processed products, and trade. The data are collected by census

rather than estimated from random samples. Landings data collection began in 1880 and is

often ajoint state and Federal responsibility. Commercial landings are collected by a variety

of mandatory and voluntary reporting systems including trip tickets, dealer weigh-out slips,

logbooks, interviews, and sampling. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service conducts

supplemental surveys to compensate for the great diversity in data collection methods by

more than 20 coastal states that collect landings data. The Service also gathers fishing effort

data. Seven factors that affect the collection and interpretation of landings data are: 1)

different reporting periods, 2) underreporting, 3) lack ofspecies identification, 4) combining

landings and aquaculture data, 5) lack ofuniform reporting units, 6) confidentiality, and 7) data

accessibility. Cold storage holdings, market price, and processed product data are entirely

dependent on voluntary data submissions by industry. Although the NMFS takes great care to

ensure that the data are accurate and complete, voluntary reporting is subject to bias as all

possible contributors may not be identified or report. The Bureau of the Census compiles

monthly trade data on 41 import and 29 export mollusk commodities and many other items.

Introduction

The ational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an

agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and

its predecessor agencies have a long history of collecting and reporting molluscan fisheries data. ational

statistics have been compiled on fishery landings, processing volume, wholesale market prices, supply offresh

and frozen products, and foreign trade. The history of

data collection efforts, data collection methods, data reporting, and other issues and changes affecting the completeness and accuracy of national statistics are discussed.

Landings _

History

U.S. commercial landings ofmollusks and finfish, along

with other fisheries effort data, were first reported for

1880 by the Assistant Director of the U.S. National

Museum in cooperation with the U.S. Commission of

Fish and Fisheries (Goode, 1884). The data were also

reported for general surveys of a limited number of

states or limited areas ofthe United States during 1881-

1907 and for 1909-28 (NMFS, 1984). A comprehensive

statistical canvass offishery landings for the entire United

States was first made in 1908 by the Bureau of the

Census (1911). The canvass included catches taken in

oceans, bays, coastal rivers, and inland waters-wherever commercial fishing was conducted. Comprehensive surveys by the U.S. Fish Commission and its successor

agencies, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF) and

NMFS, have been conducted annually since 1929 with the

exception ofsome inland waters and partial surveys conducted between 1941 and 1951. Lists of partial and complete landing canvasses by year are given in Fisheries

Statistics of the U.S., 1977 (NMFS, 1984) and Fisheries

of the U.S., 1992 (NMFS, 1993). Landings data have been

entered into NMFS computerized databases since 1962;

prior to that only published data usually are available.

Methods

The collection of U.S. fishery data is a joint state and

Federal responsibility. These fishery data collection sys189
190 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

tems obtain landings data from state-mandated fishery

or mollusk trip tickets, landing weigh-out reports provided by seafood dealers, logbooks offishery catch and

effort, and shipboard and portside interviews and biological sampling of catches. The fishery agency of a

respective state usually is the primary collector of landings data. In some states, however, NMFS and state

fishery personnel cooperatively divide data collection

efforts based on such criteria as inshore vs. offshore

fishing effort by fishermen, geographic distribution of

port agents or seafood dealers, or fisherman participation in selected fisheries. Landings data for each state

represent a census of reporting fishermen and seafood

dealers rather than an expanded estimate based on

sampling data.

Principal data gathered during cooperative state-Federallanding censuses consists of: the pounds, ex-vessel

values, and species caught; the state, county, and port

of landings; and landing dates. Census methodology

has evolved over many years and differs by state, but

supplemental surveys are made by NMFS to ensure that

the data from different years and states are comparable.

Mollusk landings in NMFS databases are used in fishery and economic studies and modeling. A sophisticated relational database system allows rapid and easy

data extraction, transformation, and summarization.

Landings volume in metric tons (t), the actual price per

kilogram, and the deflated (using Producer Price Index) price per kilogram are shown for several economically important mollusks in the northeastern United

States at state and regional levels. To illustrate the

volume and value from 1965 to 1996 of Massachusetts

sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (Fig. 1), NewJersey

surfclams, Spisula solidissima (Fig. 2), and ocean qua14 o t(ooo's) ---Actual $ + Deflated $ 14

12 12

i 10 10

!Jl 8 8 <I>

C

g

0

'C 6 6 Qj

::; 4 4

2 2

0

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year

Figure 1

Volume and ex-vessel actual and deflated (using product price index [PPI], 1982 = 100) values of sea scallop

landings in Massachusetts, 1965-96.

hogs, Arctica islandica (Fig. 3), landings are presented

along with northeast regional landings (Maine to Virginia) for softshells, Mya arenaria (Fig. 4), eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica (Fig. 5), and northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria (Fig. 6). Some states record

landings of northern quahogs by market categories

such as littleneck, topneck, cherrystone, and chowder.

NMFS reports all northern quahog landings as a single

species/market category because the market categories

are not always clearly defined and may vary with locale,

season, and spawning condition. Landed prices ofvarious mollusk species vary widely. Prices for 1993 collected from local port agents, including size categories

of northern quahogs, are listed in Table 1.

NMFS also conducts surveys each year to gather information about fishing effort. Data collected during

the surveys include the number of full- and part-time

fishermen; the number of commercial fishing vessels

(craft of at least 4.5 t [5 net tons]) and boats (craft <4.5

t); physical characteristics data ofvessels; distance-fromshore fishing information; and the types, sizes, and

numbers of gears fished.

As of 1992 seven states (Alaska, Washington, Oregon,

California, Hawaii, North Carolina, and Florida) have

mandatory fishery trip-ticket reporting systems. Two

additional states, Maine and South Carolina, have statemandated trip-ticket reporting systems only for shellfish. North Carolina and Louisiana recently have authorized the implementation of a trip-ticket reporting

system. Seafood dealers in trip-ticket states must send

their respective state fishery agency a ticket that documents the catch for each fishing trip taken by a commercial fishing craft. Trip-ticket data usually include

the pounds and ex-vessel value of each species landed

25 T,=======:::::;------::----r 2.5

lOt + Actual $ ---Deflated $1

20

'iil

! 15 6.... 1.5

!Jl

C

g

0 10 .. 'lI' ."Qj

::;

5

ill

0.5

0 0

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year

Figure 2

Volume and ex-vessel actual and deflated (using PPI,

1982 = 100) values of surfclam landings in New Jersey,

1965-96.
_____________ Sutherland and Koplin: Mollusk Statistical Data Collection in the United States 191

along with such other information as vessel identification number, fishing area, gear type, and commercial

license number. The data are compiled by the state and

usual1y made available to NMFS within 8-12 months

after the end of the year. Florida, however, does not

require that trip-tickets include ex-vessel price data or

vessel identification. To fil1 the data gaps in Florida,

NMFS conducts supplemental market surveys to determine the ex-vessel value of landings. The commercial

license numbers on Florida trip-tickets are cross-matched

with U.S. Coast Guard files to determine vessel identification numbers; however, boats are not individual1y

identified.

Landings in other states are based on various voluntary or mandatory reports submitted by seafood dealers. Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas require seafood dealers to

submit weigh-out slips or monthly reports of commercial landings. Seafood dealers in northeastern states

from Maine to Virginia usual1y list the vessel identification number on each weigh-out slip, but al1landings by

boats are combined and reported as a single boat code

number. Southeast states from North Carolina to Texas

(excluding Florida) list only vessel identification numbers for shrimp landings; boat registration numbers are

not reported. State landings usual1y are reported on a

4

I~~~ 2

o 1990 1985 1990 1995

Year

7 -:r;:::======:===:====;-----~ 12 101(000'5) ....Actual$ + Deflaled$1

A··jA:"6

6

2

3

o

1965 1970 1975

2

0.5

1.5

10 I (OOO's) +Attual $ *Oefla,ed sl

-

"" *+

n

25

20

Ul

<:>

0 15 e.

'"

C

B

0

'C 10 a;

::<

5

o 0

1965 1970 1975 1990 1985 1990 1995

Year

Figure 3

Volume and ex-vessel actual and deflated (using PPI,

1982 =100) values of ocean quahog landings in New

Jersey, 1965-96.

Figure 4

Total annual volume and ex-vessel actual and deflated

(using PPI, 1982 = 100) values of softshell landings for

Maine to Virginia, 1965-96.

4

2

5

1990 1985 1990 1995

Year

1970 1975

6 ~~!i. 10

o-",'J.,J.l,1.L.........f'.L,J.J,.u,JJ,J-yJ,.u,JJI,lJ,lJ'rti,J.l,ll,l.I,Ly-l,ll,l.l,ll,l.YJ.1l,ll,l.J,JJ,l.I,JL 0

1965

8,-r:::==============:::;------, 1101(000'5) ....Actuai $ +Oeflaled $1

4

~II~ 2 ,J.J,J..L.LL,JJfl,lL 0

1990 1985 1990 1995

Year

o -",'J..l1.1.l,""""

1965 1970 1975

14

12

Ul 10 l

'" 8 c

B

0 6

::< 4 -

2

Figure 5

Total annual volume and ex-vessel actual and deflated

(using PPI, 1982 = 100) values of eastern oysters for

Maine to Virginia, 1965-96.

Figure 6

Total annual volume and ex-vessel actual and deflated

(using PPI, 1982 = 100) values of northern quahog

landings, 1965-96.
192 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 1

Approximate landed prices per bushel of U.S. east

coast mollusks in 1993. Data are from various NMFS

and State port agents.

Species

and area Value ($)

Bay scallop

Massachusetts 60.001

Softshell

Maine 61.69

Maryland 45.93

Northern quahog

New York

Littlenecks 56.002

Cherrystones 20.00

Chowders 12.00

Conch

Massachusetts 42.25

Sea scallop

Massach usetts 26.64-40.503

Oyster

New York 26.43

Maryland 21.20

Gulf coast 12.50

Surfclam

New Jersey 7.73

Calico scallop

Florida 6.67"1

Blue mussel

Massach usetts 4.90

J Based on landed price of$10/pound of meats.

2 Based on 400 count "bushel (A level U.S. standard bushel

has 750 littlenecks).

3 Based on landed prices of meats ranging from $4.44 to

$6.75/pound (the larger the meats, the higher the price).

4 Based on landed price of $10/gallon of meats.

monthly basis and summed to obtain annual totals.

Complete mollusk landings for Connecticut, Delaware,

Maryland, and Massachusetts are available only on an

annual basis.

In addition to trip tickets or dealer weigh-out slips,

fishermen who participate in Federally permitted fisheries, regardless of the state in which the fish or shellfish are landed, must submit a logbook of their catch

and effort to the appropriate NMFS Science Center

Director. Logbook submissions are required for two

molluscan fisheries, Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog. A mandatory Federal reporting requirement also

exists for seafood dealers who handle fishes and mollusks from regulated fisheries. In Federally permitted

fisheries, NMFS observers may be placed on fishing

craft to record catch, effort, and biological data while

the craft is at sea. Some states may also require a commercial fishing craft to carry state personnel if fishery

operations are conducted within territorial waters.

Issues

Several factors and changes in statistical reporting have

occurred since fishery data collection began in 1880

that may affect the accuracy, completeness, consistency,

and accessibility of national landings data. The factors

and changes include:

1) Differences in time periods for reporting some

mollusk landings and changes in the port listed as the

landing site,

2) Underreporting of landings,

3) Landings not identified to species,

4) Combined reporting of aquaculture and wild

hatvest,

5) Lack of uniform units for reporting landings,

6) Data confidentiality, and

7) Data accessibility.

Changes in reporting time periods and in the stated

port of landings may affect total annual mollusk landings at the state level. Annual landings of oysters were

reported by fishing season (September to April) until

1930. Since 1930, oyster landings have been reported

by calendar year. Prior to 1942, all landings from an

individual vessel were credited to a single, principal

port at which most fish and shellfish were unloaded.

This policy was discontinued because it often resulted

in crediting catches to ports far removed from the

actual landing site. Since 1942, the pounds and value of

landings have been credited to the actual ports of landings by seafood dealers and fishery port agents.

Some landings of mollusks may be intentionally or

unintentionally underreported owing to special taxes

on mollusk landings, incomplete voluntary reporting

of landings, landing quotas, and lack of a landings

census by states during some years. Reported landings

of mollusks decreased coincident with implementation

of special taxes on mollusks in some states. Landings

are confounded by other factors (e.g. red tide, fishing

seasons, trip limits, etc.), however, and the extent of

unreported mollusk landings are not quantifiable.

Landings data in some states or for selected species

may be incomplete because they are based on voluntary

rather than mandatory reporting requirements. For

instance, one fishery cooperative in New York trucks its

catch directly to the Fulton Fish Market in New York

City, bypassing local wholesale seafood dealers who

voluntarily report landings. Although NMFS collects

weekly market price data at the Fulton Fish Market and

at several other major fish markets, the poundage of

fish and shellfish processed is not reported because the
____________ Sutherland and Koplin: Mollusk Statistical Data Collection in the United States 193

fishery data collection system is designed to census the

data at the port of landing.

Reported landings data may also be biased because

there are occasions (e.g. under a fishery quota system)

when fishermen or seafood dealers may have financial

incentives to underreport actual landings. However,

data accuracy and completeness presumably are increasing because many recently implemented Federal

Fishery Management Plans include mandatory reporting requirements and allocate future fishery harvests to

individual fishing vessels based on recent year's landings. It therefore is advantageous for fishermen to ensure that their entire landings are recorded accurately

by the data collection system.

Although recent landings data usually record mollusk landings by species, long time-series of landings

usually are available only at the family level. Some states

did not report landings of mollusks by species until the

late 1970's and even into the mid-1980's. Oyster landings of multiple species were often combined and reported as a single predominant species or generically

listed. The oyster data, however, provide useful information about changes in relative quantity and value of

U.S. landings (Fig. 7).

NMFS (1990) summarized 1880-1989 Atlantic and

Gulf coast mollusk and finfish annual landings for selected family or species groups. However, landings prior

to 1930 and from 1941 to 1951 may reflect incomplete

data collection at the state level due to budgetary and

personnel limitations during the Depression and World

War II eras. Abalone (Haliotis sp.) reflect the decreased

reported landings during these periods and the absence of value data during the early 1920's (Fig. 8). The

anomalously high volume of abalone landings in 1888

reported in past publications reflects the fact that whole

50 10 t (ooo's) - $ (millions) I 140

40 120

lil 100

30 ... '"

c 80 1

.'l g= 0

'c 20 60 1

1ij

::E 40

10

20

0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Year

Figure 7

Total annual volume and value of United States oyster

(eastern and Pacific) landings, 1930-96.

live weight was reported while meat weights were reported during all other years.

Historically, landings data usually have included all

mollusks sold to seafood dealers, regardless of their

source. But they have recently included mollusks from

leased beds and those produced by aquacultural practices. When landings are reported from leased beds, it is

not always evident whether those data represent true aquaculture production or wild harvest. For statistical purposes,

NMFS uses the FAa (1993) definition of aquaculture:

"Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms,

including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants.

Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular

stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of

the stock being cultivated. For statistical purposes,

aquatic organisms which are harvested by an individual

or corporate body which has owned them throughout

their rearing period contribute to aquaculture, while

organisms which are exploitable by the public as a

common property resource, with or without appropriate licenses, are the harvest of fisheries."

A few states currently do not differentiate between

landings from public and private leased bed areas or

may not report aquaculture production. Mollusks from

leased bed areas traditionally are combined with those

taken from public bed areas and are reported as commercial landings. Mollusks from leased beds may also

be reported separately as aquaculture production. For

instance, some of the total U.S. commercial landings

listed in Table 2 include mollusks raised on leased

beds, and the aquaculture production data may not be

complete because all states do not report or differentiate aquaculture in landings.

o 0

1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985

1895 1915 1935 1955 1975 1995

Year

Figure 8

Total annual volume and value of United States abalone landings, 1880-1995.
194 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 2

U.S. mollusk domestic commercial landings and aquaculture productionI in metric tons (t) of meats and

thousands of dollars.

Commercial Aquaculture

landings production

Year $ $

1985 126,195 317,456 11,392 44,222

1986 136,888 356,876 12,798 58,871

1987 136,163 398,461 12,474 60,884

1988 156,141 405,103 12,515 71,350

1989 171,559 426,680 11,450 71,939

1990 158,192 442,052 12,010 92,608

1991 162,910 428,375 11,170 75,543

1992 152,147 454,552 12,950 95,133

1993 174,680 405,928 13,985 89,162

1994 195,061 413,521 15,111 85,200

1995 198,353 399,812 12,681 91,558

1 Data source: NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Uniformity of landing units of measure, especially

for oysters, is also a problem in data collection

activities. Although statistics on the quantity of finfish

landed represent round (live) weights, bivalve mollusk

landings are traditionally reported as meat weights

(without shell). With the exception of sea scallops

that are shucked at sea, the ex-vessel value of landings

represents the price paid before shucking or other

processing.

Great variation exists within and among states in how

oyster landings are reported. The variation in landing

units includes gallons of meats, bushels of varying sizes,

totes, and number ofindividual oysters harvested. Conversion factors are used to change the original reporting units to a standardized unit of pounds of meat

landed. Since species, season, spawning condition, and

geographic area of harvest affect the shucked weight

yield of mollusks, the most accurate conversions of

landings from whole to meat weights occurs when the

factors are included in the conversion factor. Unfortunately, landings often are combined or the factors are

not recorded, and an NMFS standard generic conversion factor may be used to estimate meat weight.

Data confidentiality sometimes limits the public dissemination ofstatistical data. Federal statutes limit public access to fishery statistics to prevent trade secrets

from being revealed or otherwise place someone at a

competitive disadvantage. If fewer than three vessels or

companies land a species or fewer than three seafood

dealers process a species, the data are considered confidential and cannot be released to the public. Confidential data must be combined with similar landings so it

cannot be individually identified after release to the

public.

Landings data were recorded as early as 1880, but

only the data in electronic databases are readily accessible. Most landings data prior to 1962 exist only in outof-print publications, although NMFS has electronically

compiled 1880-1989 annual landing statistics (NMFS,

1990) for a few selected mollusk species groups from

Atlantic and Gulf Coast waters. To increase the accessibility to historical landings data for other species, NMFS

has contracted to digitize 1930-61 published landings

data into a computerized landings database.

The harvest of mollusks by recreational fishermen is

believed to be substantial, but complete national data

on recreational mollusk fishing are lacking. A few states

report recreational licensing or catch and effort for a

few mollusks, but most recreational mollusk fishing is

undocumented. The State of Washington has a separate mollusk sport license to harvest razor clams, Siliqua

patula, and reports the number of licenses and license

revenues (WDF, 1990). Alaska annually estimates the

sport harvest ofrazor clams, S. patula and S. alta, from a

mail survey of state recreational fishing (Mills, 1992).

NMFS conducts annual Marine Recreational Fishery

Statistical Surveys (MRFSS), but the surveys usually

gather only recreational finfish catch and effort data.

However, catch and effort data for abalone sport divers

are gathered during supplemental MRFSS California

surveys that are state funded.

Processed Products _

History

Processing of mollusks (canned oysters and clams) was

first reported in "Fisheries of the United States, 1908"

by the Bureau of the Census (1911). Limited surveys of

canning production were conducted from 1909 to 1929

for only a few areas. Comprehensive annual surveys

of U.S. processed products that included shucked as

well as canned products began in 1930 and continue to

date.

Methods

NMFS is the primary agency conducting an annual

survey of the volume of U.S. processed products. In a

few states, cooperative state-Federal agreements have

been reached for the exchange of information. Approximately 4,500 firms are surveyed, of which about

450 handle mollusk products. Volume, plant value, and
____________ Sutherland and Koplin: Mollusk Statistical Data Collection in the United States 195

employment are the typical types of information collected at the plants. Volume data for raw products are

collected in gallon equivalents for shucked oysters,

clams, and scallops. Data for other mollusks such as

squid, abalone, and octopus are collected in pounds.

Data for such processed products as canned clams and

oysters are collected by case pack, while items such as

breaded oysters are reported in pounds. For data consistency, NMFS began reporting the various volume

measurements as pound equivalents in 1987.

Issues

The annual processing survey is conducted on a voluntary basis. Although most of the industry is cooperative

in completing the survey, the loss of a single dealer may

in certain cases bias the reporting of totals due to

confidentiality regulations. To minimize potential errors, quality control edits are conducted as part of the

normal data entry programs. The m~ority of errors are

the misreporting of pounds instead of gallons, or the

use of an ex-vessel value rather than the processed

value. Companies are recontacted for clarification of

data that is suspect.

Market Prices

History

Market price data at five major wholesale fishery markets around the nation have been reported since 1937.

NMFS Market News offices collect wholesale market

data from participating wholesal.e dealers at Boston,

New York, New Orleans, Seattle, and Long Beach markets. High, low, and mean price data are reported three

times each week for each species and market.

Methods

At the Fulton Fish Market, NMFS personnel interview

about 60 dealers each day to obtain data on wholesale

prices ofmollusks and finfish; 25-30 dealers are phoned

each week to gather market price data on frozen seafood. Wholesalers voluntarily report the price/pound,

market category, and product state (shucked or whole)

of mollusks such as scallops, clams, conchs, oysters,

mussels, periwinkles, and cockles (Clinocardium nuttallii

from Pacific coast). Market data are reported to NMFS

orally, by computer printouts, and by transaction logbooks provided by dealers. Wholesalers often report

the poundage (receipts) of mollusks and finfishes that

are brought to the market for sale.

Issues

Published market price and receipt data represent a

summary ofvoluntarily reported data by wholesale dealers. However, all dealers may not be available or willing

to provide data each day. The large number of dealers

interviewed and numerous prices obtained each day

ensures that all marketed species are reported and that

representative estimates of their minimum, mean, and

maximum wholesale prices are calculated.

Cold Storage Holdings

History

The supply (weight) of fresh and frozen fish and shellfish held in cold storage at public and private warehouses across the United States are reported by product, species, month, and region. In addition to the

weight of holdings, percentage changes in holdings for

the most recent month and year are also published.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture began collecting data on the freezing and storing offishery products

in 1916 (BCF, 1964). The Interior Department's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries took over data collection

in 1945, but it had been publishing the data since] 941

(USFWS, 1941). Fresh and frozen holdings data have

been published monthly from 1941 to date.

Methods

Cold storage facilities that warehouse fishery products

for a minimum of 30 days voluntarily submit monthly

reports oftheir holdings for the last day of each month.

Public, private, and semiprivate refrigerated facilities

and specialized storage facilities such as fish houses and

manufacturing and processing plants are included in

the survey. Excluded from the holdings are stocks in

facilities whose entire inventory are turned over more

than once per month. Mollusk holdings (pounds of

meats) are reported for clams, oysters, scallops, squids,

and unclassified shellfishes. Cold storage holdings are

inclusive ofimported fishery products as well as domestic production.

Issues

Estimates of the total U.S. supply of fresh and frozen

seafood are based on monthly reports that are voluntarily submitted by suppliers. Biased data can occur if a

storage facility chooses not to participate in the survey,

provides incomplete or inaccurate data, or if a facility is
196 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

not included in the survey because NMFS is unaware of

its existence. Although mollusk holdings are identified

by generic categories, they are not reported by species.

Foreign Trade

History

Data on U.S. foreign trade have evolved gradually from

imprecise estimates of the early 19th century to the

current broad range of highly detailed statistics. The

trade system is dynamic, with commodities being added

or removed over time as required by either legislation

or industry needs. Information on imports and exports

of fresh, frozen, and prepared mollusks, specifically

oysters and clams, have been recorded since at least

1890. In recent years, 41 import and 29 export commodity codes are reported for shellfishes such as abalone, conch, mussels, scallops, octopus, squid, and snails.

The United States has a long history of importing mollusk commodities, but it has begun exporting mollusks

only recently. The 1996 U.S. imports (product weight) of

oysters, clams, and scallops were about 8 times larger than

exports (Table 3).

Methods

Importers and exporters are required to file documentation by paper or electronically for each transaction

Table 3

U.S. imports and exports] of oysters, clams, and scallops in metric tons (t) of meats.

Imports (t) Exports (t)

Year Oysters Clams Scallops Oysters Clams Scallops

1985 20,832 5,887 19,067 N/A2 440 506

1986 22,697 7,657 21,735 N/A 564 547

1987 23,626 8,002 18,114 N/A 525 609

1988 21,053 6,746 14,533 N/A 661 621

1989 17,083 6,012 18,540 494 845 1,133

1990 12,495 7,180 18,071 455 1,343 3,220

1991 13,856 5,575 13,394 335 1,337 3,213

1992 12,033 6,469 17,546 362 754 1,628

1993 12,811 4,345 23,575 513 821 1,881

1994 11,201 7,034 25,708 902 1,187 2,717

1995 10,977 5,736 21,923 865 1,294 2,688

1996 9,847 6,505 26,620 748 1,564 2,808

I Data source: NMFS Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

2 Data not available or incomplete.

with the Treasury Department's Customs Service. The

Customs Service in turn transmits the data to the Commerce Department's Bureau ofthe Census for monthly

compilation and release to the public. Types of information in the documentation include date of transaction, commodity, various types of value and volume,

country of origin or destination, and the customs district of lading or unlading.

Issues

With millions of import and export transactions taking

place, errors do occur. Many errors are corrected before data are released publicly by using computerized

edit checks and having discussions with knowledgeable

persons about specific products in question. Sources of

errors may include misidentification of a commodity,

incorrect volume or value information, miscoding of

countries, or errors in processing the documentation.

The Census Department historically notes a 5% error

rate at a monthly level and recommends that users of

trade data use quarterly time frames or longer to smooth

out discrepancies in the data.

Summary _

Mollusk fishery and industry data are collected for commerciallandings, cold storage holdings, market prices,

processed products, and trade. The data are collected

by census rather than estimated from random samples.

Landings data collection began in 1880 and is often a

jointstate and Federal responsibility. Commercial landings data are collected by a variety of mandatory and

voluntary reporting systems including trip tickets, dealer

weigh-out slips, logbooks, interviews, and sampling.

NMFS conducts supplemental surveys to compensate

for the great diversity in data collection methods by

more than 20 coastal states that collect landings data.

NMFS also gathers fishing effort data. Seven factors

that affect the collection and interpretation oflandings

data are different reporting periods, underreporting,

lack of species identification, combining landings and

aquaculture data, lack of uniform reporting units, confidentiality, and data accessibility.

Cold storage holdings, market price, and processed

product data are depend entirely on voluntary data

submissions by industry. Although NMFS takes great

care to ensure that data are accurate and complete,

voluntary reporting is subject to bias as all possible

contributors may not be identified or report. The Bureau of the Census compiles monthly trade data on 41

import and 29 export mollusk commodities and many

other items.
______________ Sutherland and Koplin: Mollusk Statistical Data Collection in the United States 197

Literature Cited

BCF.

1964. Manual for conducting statistical surveys of the fisheries of the United States. U.S. Oep. Inter., Fish. Wildl. Serv.,

Bur. Commer. Fish., Commer. Fish. AL-ll, 59 p.

Bureau of the Census.

1911. Fisheries of the United States, 1908. Oep. Commer.

Labor, Bur. Census, 324 p.

FAO.

1993. Aquaculture production, 1985-1991. Food Agrie. Organ., U. ., FAO Fish. Cire. 815 Rev. 5, 213 p.

Goode, G. B. (ed.).

1884. The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States.

U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., O.C., var. pagin.

Mills, M.J.

1992. Harvest, catch, and participation in Alaska sport fisheries during 1991. Alaska Oep. Fish Game, Fish. Oata Ser. 92-

40, 189 p.

NMFS.

1984. Fishery statistics of the United States, 1977. U.S. Oep.

Commer., NOAA, Nat!' Mar. Fish. Serv., Stat Oig. 71, 407 p.

1990. Historical catch statistics, Atlantic and Gulf coast states,

1879-1989. U.S. Oep. Commer., NOAA, Nat!' Mar. Fish.

Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 9010,107 p.

1993. Fisheries ofthe United States, 1992. U.S. Oep. Commer.,

OAA, Nat!' Mar. Fish. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 9200, 115 p.

USFW.

1941. Cold storage holdings of fishery products, August 16,

1941. U.S. Oep. Inter., Fish. Wild!. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 1,

2 p.

WOF.

1990. Fisheries statistical report. Wash. Oep. Fish., Olympia,

86 p.

Shellfish Marketing in the United States:

Past, Present, and Future

IAN DORE

14545.£. Camano Drive

Camano Island, Washington 98292

ABSTRACT

The shellfish industry tends to be product driven. The business starts with what can be

harvested, then looks for outlets willing to buy the product. Most shellfish are sold as

commodities, with little attempt to persuade the customer to buy mollusks specifically,

rather than one of the many competing foods. Most mollusks simply are shipped to retail

markets which display them in refrigerated showcases with price tags, with little promotional activity. Clams are the most important bivalve marketed in the United States in terms

of meat weight. The supply of clam meats amounted to 155 million pounds, compared with

69 million pounds of scallop meats and 50 million pounds of oyster meats in 1992. Most

clam production consists of surf clams, Spisula solidissima. and mahogany clams, Arctica

islandica, landed on the east coast and processed into products such as minced clams,

stuffed clams, clam strips, and chowder. Apart from chowders and breaded clam strips,

which are popular throughout the country, few clam products are eaten inland. Northern

quahogs, Mercena-ria mercenaria, are mainly sold alive. Small sizes, up to about 11/2 inches

hinge width, may be eaten raw on the half-shell. Softshell clams, Mya arena-ria, are never

eaten alive, but are eaten steamed or are shucked and sold in gallon cans to restaurants,

which bread and fry them. Americans eat only the adductor muscle uf scallops, discarding

the roe (savored by Europeans) and the viscera. Consumers divide scallops into three

categories: sea, bay, and calico. Eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, are often graded by size:

standards, selects, and large or extra selects. Pacific oysters, C. gigas, are also graded. Unlike

in Europe, eating oysters raw in the shell is not common in the United States. Much of the

production is shucked. Fresh oyster meats in containers ranging from eight ounces to one

gallon are the staple product. Breaded oyster meats are also an important item. Canned

oysters are packed in retail sizes for sale to consumers and in larger cans for further

processing into products such as stews, chowders, and hashes. The blue mussel, Mytilus

edulis, supplies almost all the market for mussels, but Americans have never taken to

mussels, and the market is limited. Some other species, such as abalones and whelks, are

also available to American consumers in small quantities. Clams, oysters, and mussels all

share the risk that food poisoning could seriously affect their- markets. Overcoming that

problem is the most difficult task facing the industry.

Introduction

The marketing concept (Chaston, 1983) starts with consumer needs and preferences and works to supply an

appropriate product. Shellfish, like most ofthe seafood

industry, tends to be product driven: the business starts

with what can be harvested, then looks for outlets willing to buy the product. This is common to many industries. In 1984, 70% of respondents to a marketing survey named marketing and sales capacity as the areas

that most needed improvement in their businesses

(Anonymous. 1984). A useful definition is provided by

Bangs (1987): "Marketing is the complex process of

creating customers for your products/services."

In the opinion of the author, mollusk marketing is

not yet a well developed skill, even in the United States.'

It remains unfortunately true that most shellfish are

I Views or opinions expressed or implied are those of the author and

do not necessar.ily reflect the position of the National Marine

Fisheries Service, NOAA, nor does mention of trade names or

commercial firms imply NOAA or NMFS endorsement.

199
200 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

sold as commodities, with little attempt made to differentiate sources or qualities and almost no attempt made

to persuade the consumer to buy mollusks rather than

one of the many competing foods which clamor for

attention and scarce money. Most mollusks are simply

shipped to retail markets which display them in refrigerated showcases with a price tag. Promotional activity

is generally lacking. The lack of marketing of mollusks

has been remarked for decades in the developed world.

Cole (1949) commented "It is impossible to give a

comprehensive survey of the difficulty facing British oyster planters without making some reference to the problems of marketing." Later, another British-based observer

(Nowak, 1970) pointed out that the U.S. shellfish industry

"is one of the most highly organized in the world" but his

admiration was directed mainly at sellers ofshrimp, crab,

and lobster rather than those selling mollusks.

Clams _

Clams are the most important bivalve in the United

States in terms of meat weight: according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, 1993), the supply of clam meats amounted to 155 million pounds in

1992, compared with 69 million pounds ofscallop meats

and 50 million pounds of oyster meats. U.S. harvests of

clams in 1990 amounted to 27.8% of world production

(live weight): 413,300 metric tons (t) in 1990 of reported world production of 1,488,200 t, according to

FAa figures (FAa, 1990). A breakdown of U.S. production by type is given in Table 1. FAa figures permit

international comparisons.

The greatest part of U.S. clam production consists of

surfclams, Spisula solidissima, and ocean quahogs, Arctica

islandica, which are processed into products such as

minced clams, stuffed clams, clam strips, and chowders.

Table 1

Clam landings (1,000 t), 1986-90. 1

Species 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Ocean quahog 169.7 187.6 171.7 191.7 177.3

Surfclam 195.2 149.2 156.2 163.7 173.5

Hard clam

(Mercenaria) 32.7 34.6 31.7 22.0 23.9

Soft clam 11.8 16.1 14.9 14.5 12.4

Other clams 16.5 15.1 17.3 24.6 26.2 --- ------

U.S. total 379.9 409.6 399.3 426.3 413.3

World total 1,420.7 1485.3 1464.4 1479.9 1488.2

U.S. as percent

of world 26.7 27.6 27.3 28.3 27.8

I Source: FAO, 1990.

Production of hard clams or quahogs, Mercenaria

mercenaria, is falling, despite increasing aquaculture efforts. Harvests of soft clams, Mya arenaria, which are

harder to farm, are also declining. Geoducks, Panopea

alnupta; razor clams, Ensis spp. and Siliqua spp.; and

other gourmet mollusks are extremely small business.

It should be noted that the U.S. clam industry is

essentially restricted to the east coast, where almost all

clams are harvested. Apart from chowders and breaded

clam strips, which are popular throughout the country,

few clam products are eaten inland. On the west coast,

locally farmed Manila clams, Tapes philippinarum, and

similar species supply small regional markets.

Clams and Their Uses _

Quahogs or hard clams are mainly sold live. Small sizes,

up to about 11/2 inches hinge width, may be eaten raw,

on the half shell. Larger specimens are cooked. Littleneck clams, the smallest size of the quahog, is the most

valuable. Alternatives such as Manila clams and even

bleached mahogany clams may be offered as substitutes.

Softshell clams are never eaten raw, but some are

sold live for steaming. Most are shucked at shoreside

plants and distributed in gallon cans to restaurants

which bread and fry them. Breaded, frozen softshell

clams are also readily available from processors, usually

packed in individual portions of 4-6 ounces. Known as

Ipswich clams, belly clams, and fryers, this product is

important in the northeast and middle Atlantic areas, but

hardly known in the rest of the country, where "fried

clams" generally means breaded strips ofsurfclam mantle.

Surfclams (one word rather than two is preferred by

the American Fisheries Society [Turgeon et aI., 1988])

are processed into chopped meats, clam juice, chowders, clam strips, and steaks. Ocean quahogs or mahogany clams are used for mincing. The mantles are

generally considered too tough for use as strips or

steaks. The bellies are removed because they darken

minced meat products.

Many other clams are available in small quantities.

The southern quahog, Mercenaria campechiensis, is similar to the hard clam, although its shelflife is reported to

be rather shorter. It has a somewhat thicker shell, but is

otherwise indistinguishable in the trade. Stimpson's

surfclam, Mactromeris polynyma, often called red clam

because the tongue turns red when cooked, is available

in small quantities from Canadian suppliers who sell

most of their production to Japan. Geoducks, the giant

softshell clam of the Pacific Northwest, are also exported to Japan. They are prized locally in Washington

and British Columbia, but are little seen or known

elsewhere. Also on the west coast, Manila clams and

Pacific littlenecks are used for steaming. The meats are
________________ Dore: Shellfish Marketing in the United States: Past, Present, and Future 201

tougher than the quahog; these species are not suitable

for eating raw, although they may occasionally be substituted illegally for quahogs.

By now, it will be apparent that clam nomenclature is

not clearly defined. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 1988) has codified the names of commercially distributed finfish in "The Fish List." The agency

is still working on a similar codification of shellfish

names. Table 2 summarizes the names found in commercial literature. Names preferred by the American

Fisheries Society (Turgeon et aI., 1988) are given for

reference. Most of these are appropriate for commercial use. However, it is unlikely that marketers of Manila

clams would care to offer their product as 'Japanese

littlenecks." Arctica islandica might be better called "mahogany clam" than the recommended "ocean quahog" to

reduce any confusion with the much more valuable quahog. Common names are those that appear to be most

often used in commerce. The column "Other vernacular

names" includes names that are regionally or occasionally

used. Note that those listed for Mercenaria spp. refer to

sizes: littlenecks are the smallest, served mainly raw on the

half shell; cherrystones and topnecks are larger, used for

clams casino and similar cooked recipes; chowder clams

and pumpkins are the largest. These are shucked and the

meats used in chowders, stuffed clams, and other recipes.

The column "Common names" and "Other vernacular names" in Tables 2, 4, and 6 are the result of extensive surveys of books, periodicals, and other contemporary literature. "Common names" are those most frequently found. The distinction is not intended to express an opinion about the correctness or otherwise of

particular nomenclature.

Raw Clams-Small quahogs are sold live for eating raw.

Concerns over health and safety are paramount for

marketers in this sector. This matter is the subject of

other papers so will not be mentioned here, except to

underline its great importance. Live clams are usually

sold by the bushel. Weights and counts of bushels vary,

because the thickness and density of the shell varies.

Softshell clams are extremely delicate and must be

handled with great care. One of the more depressing

sights is a retail display of dead or dying softshell clams

with the siphons hanging limply on a bed of discolored

ice. This is the antithesis of marketing.

Shucked clam meats are sold by the gallon for

foodservice and retail display and in smaller containers

for resale to consumers. Shucked meats of softshell

clams and quahogs are widely available in the east.

Western clams are almost all sold in the shell. Shucked

meat demand is met by other, more processed products.

Table 2

Scientific and commercial common names of clams in the United States (see text for source data).

Scientific name AFS name Common name

Mercenaria mercenaria Northern quahog Quahog, hard clam

Mercenmia campechiensis Southern quahog Quahog, hard clam

Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam Surf clam, surfclam

Rangia cuneata Atlantic rangia Rangia clam

Arctica islandica Ocean quahog Mahogany clam, ocean clam,

ocean quahog

Mactromeris polynyrna Arctic surfclam Red clam, Stimpson's surfclam

Mya arenaria Softshell Softshell clam, Ipswich clam

Panopea abrupta Pacific geoduck Geoduck

Tresus nuttallii Pacific gaper Horse clam, gaper

Tresus capax Fat gaper Horse clam, gaper

Tapes philippinarum Japanese littleneck Manila clam, Pacific littleneck

Protothaca starninea Pacific littleneck Pacific littleneck, steamer

Saxidomus giganteus Butter clam Butter clam

Saxidomus nuttallii Washington clam Butter clam

Tivela stultorum Pismo clam Pismo clam

Clinocardium nuttallii Nuttall's cockle Basket cockle, cockle

Ensis directus Atlan tic jackknife Razor clam

Siliqua costata Atlantic razor Razor clam

Siliqua patula Pacific razor Razor clam, Pacific razor clam

Other vernacular names

Littleneck, cherrystone, topneck, chowder clam,

pumpkin (see text)

Littleneck, cherrystone, topneck, chowder clam,

pumpkin (see text)

Black clam

Belly clam, fryer, steamer, gaper, squirt

Giant clam

Steamer, littleneck
202 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Chopped or Minced Clams-Chopped clams are an

important foodservice item in their own right as well as

the basic raw material for many processed clam products.

Surfclams and mahogany clams are used. Mahogany clam

mantles are minced as an alternative to surfclams, but

generally only when the supply ofsurfclams is inadequate.

Mahoganies tend to be tougher and the meat is somewhat

darker. Chopped clams are sold with varying percentages

of clam juice, which should be the liquid enclosed in the

shell with the clam. For most purposes, a pack ratio of

75:25 for meat:juice is appropriate. Specifications vary as

does the ability of processors to meet them accurately.

Chopped clams are sold in containers ranging from 8

fluid ounces to 1 gallon. For further processing, 15-

pound frozen packs are offered. Chopped clams are

often frozen, since the shelf life of the fresh product is

limited and freezing does not appear to affect the taste

or texture of the product.

Clam Juice-Pasteurized clam juice is bottled for retail

sale. Frozen clam juice is available in gallon containers

for foodservice and manufacturing.

Clam Strips-In most parts of the United States, "fried

clams" are breaded strips of surfclam foot. The strips

are available in various widths, packed in gallon, halfgallon, and 5-pound containers. Breaded strips are

packed for retail sale, in portions of 4 or 6 ounces and

in bulk. There is a range of choice of percentages and

types of breading. Clam steaks and medallions are

breaded products derived from adductor muscle, foot

or "tongue" of the surfclam. These products have interesting applications but have not yet made a significant

impact on the market.

Chowder-Clam chowder is one of the few mollusk

products with a broad appeal to consumers nationwide.

White (New England, cream base) and red (Manhattan, tomato base) chowders are available fresh, frozen,

and canned, and in ready-to-serve forms or as concentrates. There are almost as many recipes as producers.

Prepared Half-shell Products--Stuffed clams are a popular U.S. northeast item. They are made by mixing a breadbased stuffing with chopped clams and clam juice, then

baking the mixture on a real or imitation clam shell. Easily

heated in the microwave, they are popular in bars and for

snacks. More sophisticated half-shell products include

clams oreganata and clams casino. These and similar recipes are available frozen, ready to heat and serve.

Oysters

In volume terms, the oyster business is in long-term

decline. This is no doubt partly due to lower production because of overharvesting, diseases, and polluted

water. According to FAO (1990) data (Table 3), U.S.

production of oysters (live weight) declined from

213,900 metric tons (t) in 1986 to only 148,700 t in

1990. The decline started much earlier, of course, and

continues. The United States, once the largest producer of oysters in the world, now contributes less than

15% of the planet'S production.

Production of Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, on the

U.S. west coast has been steady (and in some areas

increasing), while the traditionally much larger harvests of eastern oysters, C. virginica, in both the Atlantic

states and the Gulf of Mexico has dropped precipitously

(NMFS, 1993). By 1990, the Pacific region had overtaken

the Gulf of Mexico as the largest producer of oysters.

In recen t years, imports ofoysters (in terms ofmeats)

have become more important, accounting for about

one-third of available supplies between 1979 and 1982,

rising to as much as 59% in 1988 (NMFS, 1993). Imports continue to supply about half of the market.

Domestic production supplies live and fresh shucked

product. Imports are chiefly frozen meats (used by

processors for a wide range of products) or canned

meats for retail sale.

Oyster Products

Raw Oysters-Unlike in Europe, oysters in the shell are

a comparatively unusual item in the United States: much

of the production is sold shucked. Nevertheless, the

raw oyster on the half shell is the definitive oyster dish:

it is the way people expect to see oysters served, even if

they themselves, like most other Americans, prefer to

eat them fried or in oyster stews.

Live oysters are traditionally sold in bushel bags or

other volumetric measures and are graded by size. Some

states, such as Florida, Louisiana, and Texas have laws

Table 3

Oyster landings (1,000 t), 1986-90. 1

Species 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Pacific, C. gigas 20.4 36.2 29.2 28.6 39.5

Eastern,

C. virginica 213.9 181.0 137.9 128.6 97.9

Other 0.4 0.6 1.3 11.3 --- ------ -- U.S. total 234.3 217.6 167.7 158.5 148.7

World total 1,082.6 1,112.1 1,094.5 1,042.5 1,028.7

U.S. as percent

of world 21.6 19.6 15.3 15.2 14.5

1 Source: FAO, 1990.
_______________ Dore: Shellfish Marketing in the United States: Past, Present, and Future 203

defining the volumes. Eastern oysters are often graded

(smallest to largest) as standards, selects, and large or

extra selects. There are no standard definitions for

these size gradings. Pacific oysters are also graded. Terms

such as yearling, petite, and bakers are used. Again,

there are no standard definitions. Size consistency is

also not defined.

Some producers, especially on the west coast, pack

oysters in trays in boxes to extend storage life. These

same packers also attempt to keep size grades consistent. Oysters that have been raised on ropes or in trays

are more likely to be separate than oysters which are

dredged in clusters from enhanced growing beds. These

farmed oysters can be graded more easily. They are also

easier than clumps to pack in boxes, which are more

protective and more attractive than the traditional onion bags.

Frozen Oysters: Whole and Half Shell-Oysters can

easily be frozen, either whole or opened on the half

shell. Unfortunately, there is a strong prejudice against

freezing them. Consequently, oyster producers are denied the many advantages that freezing offers the industry, including easier handling and much longer storage life.

Frozen half-shell oyster products are acceptable: oysters Rockefeller, oysters in momay sauce, and many

other recipes are distributed in this form. Experiments

with skin packs have had poor results because points

and edges on the oyster shells puncture the wrap. However, similar products can be packaged in this way using

artificial oyster shells which are smoother than real ones.

Oyster Meats-Fresh oyster meats in containers ranging from 8 fluid ounces to I gallon are the staple

product of the domestic industry. The Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR 21) defines five size grades and size

uniformity for eastern and four size grades for western

oyster meats (CFR, 1992). However, it appears that few

packers pay attention to these rules, preferring their

own grades and definitions. Water content of shucked

oysters is a contentious issue between packers and buyers. AOAC method 18.013-015 provides a standard test

(AOAC, 1990).

Individually quick frozen (IQF) and bulk or block

frozen oyster meats are imported from the Republic of

Korea and Japan in large quantities. IQF product is

frozen in molds, giving an even shape ideal for breading. Block frozen oyster meats are used for soups, chowders, stews, and other products.

Coated Oysters-Breaded oysters are an important

foodservice item. Battered oysters are less frequently

found. Coated products are sold in the frozen food

sections of supermarkets as well as from seafood

counters, where bulk packs are displayed and individual

orders weighed out for customers.

Canned Oysters-Canned oysters are packed in retail

sizes for sale to consumers and in larger cans for further processing into products such as stews, chowders,

and hashes. Federal regulations (CFR 21) require that

the drained weight of canned oysters be at least 59% of

the volume of the can (CFR, 1992). Domestic production has largely disappeared: this market is now met by

imports from Korea.

Types of Oysters and Their Uses

The eastern oyster is still the most important domestic

species, although it is being rapidly overtaken by the

Pacific oyster as production declines on the Atlantic

and Gulf coasts. In the 1950's and 1960's, Chesapeake

Bay produced 2.5-3.5 million bushels a year. By 1987-

88, production was only 335,000 bushels (Shaw, 1989).

Most of the production is shucked and sold as fresh

meats.

The Pacific oyster, introduced from Japan in the

1920's and flourishing in Washington, British Columbia, and other Pacific coast areas, is also often shucked,

although a higher proportion of the output appears to

be sold live in the shell. Growers have worked to differentiate their strains. They have also introduced triploid

oysters and strains such as the Kumamoto2 which has a

particularly deep cup and is attractive for the raw halfshell trade.

Most imported frozen and canned oysters are Pacific

oysters or the closely related C. rivularis. Worldwide,

the Pacific oyster is the most important and abundant

oyster species, accounting for perhaps 75% of world

production (FAO, 1990).

European flat oysters, Ostrea edulis, sometimes called

"Belon" by marketers (although strictly speaking this

word denotes oysters from a particular area of Brittany

in France) are grown in Maine and California. They are

reserved for high-priced restaurants where they are

sold raw on the half shell.

The Olympia, native, or western oyster, formerly Ostrea

lurida, and now Ostreola conchaphila, is no longer abundant in its native Pacific coast waters, and the remaining small production is also sold live for the specialist

half-shell trade. Chilean oysters, Ostrea chilensis, and the

similar New Zealand oyster (which is either the same

species or Ostrea lutaria-experts differ) are imported

for the same use. Since they are at their winter peak

during the American summer, they are useful for restaurants that want to offer live raw oysters throughout

2 Named after the Japanese bay where the strain originated.
204 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

the year. The names used for the different species of

oysters are shown in Table 4, with sources mentioned in

the text concerning Table 2.

Scallops

For the most part, Americans eat only the adductor

muscle ofscallops, discarding the roe (savored by Europeans) along with the viscera, which are eaten in some

Asian countries. Scallop production and sales fluctuate

wildly from year to year, but the underlying trend is

strongly upward. More Americans are eating more scallops whenever they are available (Table 5).

Types of Scallops and Their Uses

The U.S. scallop market was developed on the basis of

the Atlantic sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, which

still dominates the market. Consumers, as well as institutional buyers, tend to divide scallops into three categories: sea, bay, and calico scallops. Less informed

buyers equate these categories with size: seas are larger

than bays, which are larger than calicos.

Sea scallops are caught by American fishermen and

large quantities, both fresh and frozen, are imported

from Canada. Supplementary supplies of the Japanese

scallop, Patinopecten yessoensis, are imported fromJapan.

Occasionally, large scallops are imported from Australia and other countries. Scallops are being brought in

under the controls of the National Shellfish Sanitation

Program (NSSP), which may make it more complicated

to import scallops from new sources in the future. Sea

scallop meats generally run between 10 and 40 per

pound. Sea scallops are sold fresh in 30-pound bags or

frozen in 5-pound blocks and in IQF packs.

The Atlantic bay scallop, Argopecten irradians, is much

smaller, around 70-110 per pound. Most of the limited

domestic production is sold fresh. Supplementary supplies are imported from northern Europe: the queen

scallop, Chlamys opercularis, is similar and is often marketed here as a bay. In recent years, large quantities of

frozen bay scallops have been imported from China,

where the species is now being farmed; the industry is

based on seed from the United States. At least one local

Chinese species, C. farrerri, may be mixed with the bay

scallops. Although the Chinese product is often the

true bay scallop species, the quality is frequently reported to be poor, owing to inadequate handling and

processing facilities.

The Atlantic calico scallop, Argopecten giblnts, is a boomand-bust fishery with periods of glut alternating with

periods ofscarcity. Calicos are small, down to about 150

count and distinguishable from bay scallops by their

shape, which is longer and thinner. Calicos are generally much less expensive than bays, an indication of the

market's opinion ofthe relative taste and texture differences. Nevertheless, calico scallops are sometimes

mislabeled as bay scallops, both in retail markets and in

restaurants. Pacific calico scallops, Argopecten ventricosus,

mostly imported from Mexico, are often labeled and

sold as bay scallops in West Coast markets.

Few scallops are landed on the west coast, and attempts to farm the Japanese scallop in British Columbia

are still tentative. Weathervane scallops, Patinopecten

caurinus, are available, especially in Alaska but are little

fished, partly because of the risk of scallop dredges

breaking up nursery grounds for the valuable king crab.

When available, they are similar to sea scallops. Pink

and spiny scallops, Chlamys rubida and C. hastata, are

harvested the length of the Pacific coast. Although

different, they are frequently sold together, usually live

(or fairly recently dead) in the shell. For reasons unknown, they are sometimes called singing scallops. Common names of scallops are shown in Table 6, with

sources mentioned in the text concerning Table 2.

There has been a small trend towards eating pink

and spiny scallops steamed whole. This may carry some

risk, because scallops are not at present monitored for

toxins such as paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Some

marketers of bay scallops are also suggesting that their

Table 4

Scientific and commercial common names of oysters in the United States (see text regarding Table 2 for source data).

Scientific name

Crassos/rea virginica

C. gigas

Os/rea lunda/

Os/reola conchaphila

Os/rea edulis

C. n vulans

Os/rea chilensis

AFS name

Eastern oyster

Pacific oyster

Olympia oyster

Edible oyster

none

none

Common name

Eastern oyster, American uyster, oyster

Pacific oyster, oyster

Olympia oyster, native oyster

Flat oyster, European oyster

Suminoe oyster

Chilean oyster, chiloe

Other vernacular names

Cove oyster, numerous geographical names

Japanese oyster

Western oyster

Belon
________________ Dore: Shellfish Marketing in the United States: Past, Present, and Future 205

product be prepared whole, which I view as a problem.

Scallops are now being brought under NSSP controls

so that consumers can be assured of a safe product.

(Note: although some scallops appear to store toxins in

the muscle, the amounts are insignificant. The roes and

viscera, however, may contain dangerous amounts of

some toxins.)

Many domestic and foreign processors treat scallop

meats with sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) or other

phosphates. Properly used, phosphates make an important contribution to maintaining weight and improving

the appearance of the meats. However, phosphates can

be misused to add water and camouflage spoilage. In

response to complaints, the FDA has drafted regulations to cover the use and labeling of phosphates in

scallops.

Mussels and Other Mollusks _

There are limited harvests of mussels in Massachusetts

and Maine, with a growing farming industry in Atlantic

Canada (mainly Prince Edward Island). American consumers have never taken to mussels. Although they are

inexpensive, tasty, and a good alternative to clams in

many preparations (such as fried or in pasta sauce),

mussels are hard to sell. Producers certainly try: mussels

are available in a wide variety of packs, processes, and

prepared products; unfortunately, none of them yet

sells in large quantities.

The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, supplies almost all of

the market. Abundant but small in the wild, the quality

improves ifit is thinned and cultivated. Farmed mussels

have certain advantages: they grow fast so do not contain the occasional "pearl" which can crack a diner's

tooth. A small number of farmers have succeeded in

establishing niche markets for their particular mussels,

but these successes have been limited.

The most noticeable success in mussel sales in recent

years has been the green-lipped mussel, Perna canaliculus, from New Zealand. This is a large mussel, mostly

farmed. It has been successfully promoted in the U.S. as

a distinct product at much higher prices than other

mussels.

Abalones, Haliotis spp.; whelks, Bus,'1cotypus spp. and

Busycon spp.; periwinkles, Littorina littorea; and conchs,

Strombus spp., are among the other shelled mollusks

available to American consumers. Abalone is expensive

and scarce. The problem here is finding enough product to meet overseas demand. U.S. buyers generally get

what is not sold toJapan. Whelks (also known as scungili

and sea snails) are a specialty of the northeast and are

Table 5

U.S. supply of scallop meats in millions of pounds,

1986-92. 1

U.S. commercial landings

Total

Year Bay Calico Sea Total Imports supply

1986 0.7 1.6 20.0 22.3 47.9 70.2

1987 0.6 8.2 32.0 40.8 39.9 80.7

1988 0.6 11.9 30.6 43.1 32.0 75.1

1989 0.3 6.6 33.8 40.7 40.9 81.6

1990 0.5 1.1 39.9 41.5 39.8 81.3

1991 0.4 n.a. 39.3 39.7 29.5 69.2

1992 0.4 n.a. 33.5 33.9 38.7 72.6

I Source: NMFS, 1992.

Table 6

Scientific and commercial common names of scallops in the United States (see text regarding Table 2 for source data).

Scientific name

Argopeclen cit'cularis

Argopeclen gibbus

Argopeclen irradians

Argopeclen purpumlus

(Chlamys purpumlus)

Chlamys farreri

Chlamys haslala

Chlamys islandica

Chlamys opercularis

Chlamys rubida

Palinopeclen caurinus

Palinopeclen yessoensis

Placopeclen magellanicus

AFS name

Pacific calico scallop

Atlantic calico scallop

Bay scallop

None

None

Spiny scallop

Iceland scallop

None

Reddish scallop

Weathervane scallop

None

Sea scallop

Common name

Mexican scallop, Panama scallop

Calico scallop

Bay scallop

Peru scallop, calico scallop

Chinese scallop

Pink scallop

Iceland scallop, Norwegian scallop

Queen scallop

Pink scallop

Sea scallop, Alaska scallop

Japanese scallop

Sea scallop

Other vernacular names

Mexican bay scallop (incorrect)

Brazil scallop

Cape Cod scallop, Long Island scallop,

Peconic bay scallop

Singing scallop (fanciful)

Singing scallop (fanciful)

Gian t Pacific scallop
206 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

exported to the Orient. Conch is little known outside

the southeast and a few large cities such as New York

and Chicago. Periwinkles are available in sacks in New

York's Fulton Fish Market, but the total consumption is

small.

Some Marketing Examples _

There are many examples of mollusk creative marketing. Since the demise at the end of 1991 of the shortlived National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council,

there has been no nationally organized attempt to sell

shellfish. (The Council promoted all seafood and did

not distinguish its efforts between finfish and shellfish.)

Several states promote their own shellfish industries,

and coastal states with marketing activities were polled.

The following notes are highlights based on material

supplied by those who responded to the inquiry. The

coverage is not intended to be complete.

In Maryland, the St. Mary's County Oyster Festival

and the associated National Oyster Cook-Off are held

each October, attracting thousands of consumers and

potential consumers to oyster shucking contests and

the cooking competition. Oyster recipes 5elected from

the entries are published.

Rhode Island holds an international quahog festival,

although the international aspects of a shellfish found

commercially only in the western Atlantic would seem

to be limited.

Virginia's Marine Products Board is one of the more

visible state organizations promoting seafoods. Shellfish are important in Virginia. Virginia Seafood promotes oysters, scallops, and clams with specification

and fact sheets, recipes, posters, and trade show representation (nationally and internationally) of producers. The organization's material on oysters answers common questions about oyster diseases and pollution.

Alaska, early in this century, supplied large quantities

of razor clam meats, but is not currently an important

producer of any mollusks, partly because of red tide

toxins. Oyster farming has recently started in the state.

The Alaska Shellfish Growers Association provides promotional material and offers trade show representation

to its members. It is also working on a quality assurance

program.

West coast shellfish growers represented by the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association (PCOGA) have

benefitted from regional initiatives of the group, including participation in a number of the promotions

described below. The PCOGA encourages members to

use standardized shellfish tags as a way of identifying

the origin of their shellfish.

Long Island, N.Y., growers adopted a similar tag approach with their "green seal" scheme which works to

assure consumers that the clams and other shellfish

packed under the logo are properly and legally harvested. This is in response to problems caused in the

marketplace by illnesses traced to bootlegged mollusks.

The Chamber of Commerce of the town of Oyster Bay

on Long Island sponsors an annual Oyster Festival which

attracts thousands of consumers. This type of event,

mostly based on oysters, is held in many coastal locations. Other state bodies such as those in Louisiana,

NewJersey. and California, promote shellfish as part of

their overall work on seafoods.

Independent promotions designed to benefit specific commercial groups are often imaginative and well

funded. Shaw's Crab House in Chicago, a large restaurant. held "Royster with the Oyster" in October 1991.

The restaurant featured and promoted oysters in many

ways, including cutting the price. Lectures and entertainmen ts were accompanied by a "celebrity oyster slurp"

competition in which well-known people swallowed as

many oysters as possible with their hands tied behind

their backs. The restaurant's sales of oysters during and

after the promotion are reported to have increased

substantially. One of the purposes of this and similar

promotional events is that they draw a great deal of

press coverage, promoting the sponsor as well as the

product. The Charleston (S.C.) Restaurant Association

sponsors "The world's longest oyster roast" each winter,

attracting some 6,000 people to an event which both

promotes the shellfish and raises money for charity.

A similar promotion in Seattle featured wines but at

the same time gave great exposure to oysters. The Pacific Northwest Oyster Wine Competition was designed

to identify wines that go well with oysters. Teams of

experts swallowed oysters and sampled wines to determine the wines which best complemented the oysters.

Perhaps the most spectacular promotion was the Oyster Olympics, also held in Seattle. Teams representing

seafood restaurants competed in three events. Oyster

identification required contestants to determine the

species, market name, common name, variety, and growing method of 12 different oysters by sight and taste.

The shucking competition required them to open one

dozen oysters of each of these species and to present

them attractively on a platter. The oyster wine competition offered contestants the opportunity to identify 10

different wines in a blind tasting.

A number of associated events and entertainment

accompanied the Oyster Olympics to benefit a local

organization dedicated to maintaining and improving

the quality of the water in Puget Sound.

It is impossible to quantify results from promotions

such as the Oyster Olympics. The benefits extend from

the considerable press coverage, which helps to make

consumers more aware of and familiar with the shellfish, to improved team spirit and morale among the
_______________ Dore: Shellfish Marketing in the United States: Past, Present, and Future 207

employees of competing restaurants. Not the least of

the benefits is that by educating restaurant staff, such

promotions help them to sell shellfish to the customers.

The Future _

Demand for mollusks is generally increasing, yet promotional activity is almost entirely devoted to oysters,

consumption of which is way down from historical levels. Scallops, which are of great importance to the seafood industry, are sold as a commodity. Scallops are

advertised in trade magazines, but there is little attempt

to reach the consumer. Perhaps the fact that the scallop

market is growing without marketing efforts is sufficient for the producers.

Oysters and clams are popular shellfish. Mussels, for

reasons that are not clear, have never become popular.

All three, however, share the risk that an outbreak of

food poisoning could seriously affect their markets.

Overcoming that problem is the most important task

facing the industry. It is difficult for industry groups to

handle and promote particular shellfish as safe if the

industry as a whole operates in ways which arouse consumer concern. Regional efforts to identify shellfish as

especially safe (such as the Long Island Green Seal

program) are a start, but cannot be effective without

two things: 1) they must be able to distinguish themselves from competitors' products in such a way that

consumers would continue to buy them, even if other

clams, mussels, or oysters were compromised; and 2)

the controls required by the NSSP must be fully implemented and enforced so consumers have automatic

confidence in the safety of shellfish instead of an underlying suspicion.

Literature Cited

Anonymous.

1984. The Wall StreetJourna!. Feb. 6.

AOAC.

1990. AOAC official methods of analysis. Assoc. Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Va.

Bangs, D. H.,Jr.

1987. Market planning guide. Upstart Pub!. Co., Portsmouth,

.H.

CFR.

1992. Code of Federal regulations. Title 21, food and drugs.

Fed. Regist., Washington, D.C.

Chaston,1.

1983. Marketing in fisheries and aquaculture. Fishing News

Books, Ltd., Farnham, U.K.

Cole, H. A.

1949. The British oyster industry and its problems. Cons.

Perm. Int. Explor. Mer. Rapp., Oct.

FAO.

1990. Yearbook of Fishery Statistics. Food Agric. Organ. U.N.,

Rome.

FDA.

1988. The fish list. FDA guide to acceptable market names

for food fish sold in interstate commerce. U.S. Food Drug

Admin., Wash., D.C.

NMFS.

1993. Fisheries ofthe United States, 1992. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA, Nat!' Mar. Fish. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 9200, 115 p.

Nowak, W. S.

1970. The marketing ofshellfish. Fishing News Books, Lond.

Shaw, W. N.

1989. The oyster industry of Chesapeake Bay. Aquacult. Mag.

Mar.lApr.:73-74.

Turgeon, D. D., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, W. K. Emerson,

W. G. Lyons, W. L. Pratt, C. F. E. Roper, A. Scheltema,

F. G. Thompson, and]. D. Williams.

1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates

from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. Am. Fish.

Soc. Spec. Pub!. 16, 277 p.

USDOC.

1991. National shellfish register. U.S. Dep. Commer., Wash.,

D.C.

United States Trade in Bivalve Mollusks in 1990 and 1991

WILLIAM J. BELLOWS

Trade Seroices Division

National Marine Fisheries Seroice, NOAA

u.s. Department ofCommerce

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

ABSTRACT

In recent years, United States trade in bivalve mollusks has largely involved imports. In

1990, imports were more than five times larger than exports, and four times greater in 1991.

In 1991, U.S. exports of bivalve mollusks products amounted to $38.6 million, an increase in

value of 12% over 1990. Exports went to 44 countries in those two years, with Canada the

largest single market and the EC second. Together they accounted for over 80% of U.S.

export of bivalve mollusk products in 1991. The most important products were scallops,

fresh and frozen, which accounted for about $20 million. U.S. exports of clams increased

sharply between 1990 and 1991. In 1991, the U.S. imports of bivalve mollusks were valued at

about $162 million. The imports came from 61 countries, of which Canada was the largest

single supplier, and Canada, China, and Japan supplied more than 70% of the total.

Scallops, fresh or frozen, dominated the list of imports. Canada is the largest single source

of U.S. imports of scallops.

Introduction

The United States has become a large market for fish

products, including bivalve mollusks from around the

world, and it also exports many mollusks. The U.S.

trade in bivalve mollusk products in recent years has

been largely one way-imports (Fig. 1). Imports in

1990 were more than five times greater than exports

($174,249,337 vs. $34,422,506). The situation improved

only slightly in 1991, when imports were four times as

large ($162,383,676 vs. $38,629,780). In 1991, the percentage growth in exports (12.2%) was larger than the

decline in imports (6.8%).

Historical Perspective _

The first U.S. international trade in bivalve mollusks

involved sales of eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, to

Europe and eastern Canada, beginning in about 1870.

Most went to England, although small amounts went to

France and Germany, and about one-quarter went to

Canada, where the largest market was Montreal. The

quantity of oysters shipped to Europe from New York

City between October 1880 and May 1881 was 70,768

barrels (about 175,000 bushels) (Ingersoll, 1881). The

export of oysters to Europe ended in the 1930's but

continued to Canada into the 1990's.

In about 1890, softshells, Mya arenaria, harvested in

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, began to be

shipped to New England whole, and as shucked and

canned meats. Canning became less important in the

1920's and 1930's, as the demand for fresh meats and

whole softshells rose (Newcombe, 1933). The imports

of softshells to New England have continued in the

1990's.

In the early 1900's, the west coast states of Washington and Oregon began importing seed of the Pacific

oyster, C. gigas, to grow on local beds, and a large

industry resulted.

In the latter half of the 1900's and increasingly so in

recent decades, international trade in bivalve mollusks

has expanded considerably, especially with an increasing harvest of deep-sea scallops and the development of

good means to preserve shellfish, such as freezing.

Current Exports

The United States exported bivalve mollusk products to

44 countries in 1991 and 1992; 22 countries received

them in both years. Canada and the European coun209
210 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 1

U.S. bivalve mollusk exports by country, 1991.

Quantity Value Quantity Value

Country (kg) ($) Country (k.g) ($)

Canada 4,886,250 19,198,064 Denmark 7,048 33,796

Other E.C. 1,685,348 13.071,415 Aruba 3,706 32,503

France 982,149 10,092,305 New Zealand 1,734 26,320

Japan 511,419 3,861,481 Norway 5,486 23,000

United Kingdom 435,002 1,597,1l8 Philippines 17,206 20,275

Taiwan 152,559 1,231,829 Bahamas 4,550 15,015

Netherlands 107,042 585,689 Singapore 1,360 1l,280

Italy 64,345 403,054 Germany 1,171 8,752

Rep. of Korea 31,652 293,952 St. Kitts-Nevis 940 6,279

Bermuda 36,498 287,729 Jamaica 499 6,050

Spain 82,442 279,097 Br. Virgin Is. 362 5,674

Hong Kong 20.986 153,167 French Polynes 400 4,048

Sweden 6,312 91,902 Mexico 15,296 88,198

China 16,594 86,325 Belgium 6,148 71,604

St. Lucia 975 3,000 Indonesia 8,770 64,772

Neth. Antilles 7,051 47,511 Total 9,101,300 51,701,204

Thousands of Metric Tons

1991

Ifm TAIWAN

1990

JAPAN

1988 1989

CANADA. EC

o

5·,----------------------,

0.5

(i) 41----------1l1li----111------1

o

::;: 3.5+----------1.._---111----1 (/)

6 3+-----------.1-----l1li-----"1

t

(/) 2.51---------- .1----111---

z 2,----=-------.----111-----1 o 1.5+----.

4.51-------------···-II1II----

1988 1989 1990 1991

Figure 1

Comparison of U.S. bivalve mollusk trade, 1988-91.

5'

O"--__--L---__-L__~'____J

35

30

25

20

15'

10 .

tries accounted for about 86% in 1991. Canada was the

single largest market, and its imports increased from

1988 to 1991. The European Community (EC) was

second largest; its imports fell sharply from 1988 to

1989 but then rose sharply in 1990 and 1991. Exports to

Japan, which in 1988 led the market, have declined,

and accounted for about 6% ofthe total in 1991 (Table 1;

Fig. 2).

The most important product was fresh and frozen

scallops, which accounted for about $20 million, or

more than half the total value of all bivalves exported in

1991. The U.S. exported scallops to 24 countries (counting the EC countries as one market) in 1991. The

market is highly concentrated because Canada, Japan,

and the EC accounted for about 80% ofthe total (Table

2). The quantity exported to Canada did not change

Figure 2

U.S. bivalve mollusk exports by country, 1988-91.

much in the two years (Fig. 3), but exports, predominately frozen scallops, to the EC increased by more

than 85%. Within the EC, France is the largest market

for bivalve mollusk products. In 1991, 88% of its purchases of U.S. bivalve mollusks were frozen scallops

(Table 3).

The highest-valued bivalve exports to Japan were

nonspecified frozen products (dried, salted, and inbrine products, as well as frozen), which accounted for

over half of U.S. bivalve mollusk products exported

there. Frozen clams were second at 38%, while frozen

scallops were fourth but accoun ted for only 2% of total

bivalve mollusk exports.
_____________________ Bellows: United States Trade in Bivalve Mollusks in 1991 211

Table 2

U.S. scallopl exports, 1991.

Quantity Value Quantity Value

Country (kg) ($) Country (kg) ($)

Canada 3,294,010 9,755,234 New Zealand 1,734 26,320

Japan 438,413 3,768,952 Norway 5,486 23,000

E.C. 644,721 2,441,577 Philippines 17,206 20,275

Denmark 7,048 33,796 Bahamas 4,550 15,015

United Kingdom 358,765 799,592 Sl.KitLS-Nev. 940 6,279

Taiwan 90,410 687,666 Br. Virgin Is. 362 5,674

France 80,702 682,528 Singapore 680 4,005

etherlands 92,823 416,723 Fed. Rep. of Germany 708 3,397

Italy 62,928 389,572 Hong Kong 20,539 146,667

Rep. of Korea 25,261 237,512 Mexico 11,428 65,589

Spain 41,747 115,969 Bermuda 7,670 53,039

Sl. Lucia 975 3,000

Neth. Antilles 5,489 41,901 Total 5,214,595 19,743,282

I Tariff codes 0307210000 and 030729000.

8OO1-j---- - -------

1000

1990 1991 01+---

2OO1t---

1200,-r--------------------,

Cf)

z

U 800

ii

fW

::;; 4001+----

3000

2SOO

(f)

z

2000

--j 0

f0 1500

ii

fW

::;;

1_~_E_C •__C_A_NA_D_A____A_LL_O_TH_E_R_S_IEm __TO_T_AL_=:J CANADA • JAPAN

EEEE ALL OTHERS TOTAL

~EC

Figure 3

U.S. exports ofscallops to major trading partners, 1990-

91.

Figure 4

U.S. exports of clams to major trading partners, 1990-

91.

Frozen mollusks were also the most valuable export

to Taiwan. Nonspecified frozen mollusks accounted for

more than 50% of exports in 1991. Scallops were second, at 36% of the total.

U.S. exports of clams increased sharply between 1990

and 1991 (Fig. 4). They were worth about $4 million in

1991, comprising 10% of total mollusk exports. Japan,

Canada, and EC shared the markets, taking 38,31, and

27%, respectively, ofthe 1991 total, leaving only 4% for

other countries.

U.S. exports of whole oysters and fresh and frozen

meats have a current value of about $2 million dollars.

In 1991, Canada took about 65% of the total oyster

exports, in terms of value. In the same year, oyster

exports to the EC, mainly France, were about 75 t,

valued at $690,000-about 29% of the total. The share

of U.S. oysters in the EC market is minimal.

Current Imports

In 1991, the U.S. imported bivalve mollusks from 61

countries, with a value of $162 million, 7% below that

of 1990. Most imports came from only a few countries.

Canada was the largest single supplier and, along with
1 France included in E.C.

2 Total is for all countries.

3 Frozen/dried/salted (tariff code [I.e.] 0307290000).

4 Live/fresh (LC. 0307210000).

" NSPF frozen/dried/salted (Le. 0307990080).

6 NSPF frozen/dried/salted (LC. 0307990040).

7 NSPF live/fresh (LC. 0307910040).

8 Live/fresh/frozen/dried (Le. 0307100040).

9 Live/fresh (Le. 0307310000).

10 Frozen/driedlsalted/breaded (Le. 0307390000).

II Seed (Le. 0307100020).

Table 4

U.S. bivalve mollusk imports by country, 1991.

Quantity Value Quantity Value

Country (kg) ($) Country (kg) ($)

Canada 11,048,025 82,492,196 France 12,655 171,985

China 3,464,140 18,426,574 United Kingdom 19,694 159,914

Japan 1,603,421 17,148,538 Venezuela 23,642 132,750

Mexico 1,691,926 8,930,952 Singapore 15,270 132,610

New Zealand 2,863,844 7,708,651 Papua New Guinea 8,000 132,514

Rep. of Korea 1,337,143 7,'237,978 Philippines 27,627 102,308

Honduras 1,070,202 4,799,171 Bahamas 23,758 102,178

Australia 451,284 3,507,454 Italy 8,808 98,794

Peru 329,583 1,926,080 Spain 17,999 71,362

Jamaica 433,722 1,642,804 Kenya 10,650 57,157

Columbia 270,545 1,544,449 Macao 42,912 53,912

Hong Kong 227.388 1,000,638 Haiti 2,360 14,386

Malaysia 328,002 857,288 Morocco 2,060 6,022

Chile 109,456 738,681 Kiribati 224 4,346

Belize 79,221 629,663 Marshall Is. 130 2,166

Namibia 6,000 47,619 Bermuda 20 1,725

E.C. 70,489 552,257 Norway 171 1,680

Denmark 3,081 9,840 Portugal 191 1,387

Uruguay 1,787 9,450 Neth. Antilles 73,623 479,668

Argentina 71,513 377,536 Faroe Islands 38,827 274,844

Taiwan 40,655 274,691 South Africa 50 2,000

Indonesia 13,865 259,405 Fiji 16,320 212,805

Thailand 78,322 194,389 Iceland 20,264 180,482

Cayman Islands 35,154 174,376 Total 25,994,023 162,887,675
_____________________ Bellows: United States Trade in Bivalve Mollusks in 1991 213

Table 5

U.S. bivalve mollusk imports by product, 1991.

Canada China Japan Australia TotaJl Value l

Product (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) ($)

Scallops2 3,282,466 3,074,870 1,180,165 450,977 9,064,870 72,563,802

Scallops3 3,261,678 73,103 24,778 0 4,329,337 38,069,574

Mollusks4 93,245 194,091 203,778 157 3,512,936 17,484,063

Clams" 1,951,159 13,361 319 0 2,405,378 10,200,109

Oysters6 443,211 3,821 59,779 0 1,269,985 6,399,609

Mussels7 17,152 1,680 3,395 0 1,444,902 3,698,313

Oysters8 206,324 23,124 107,085 0 546,563 3,412,564

Oysters9 432,244 900 0 0 670,827 2,156,069

MusselslO 326,337 1,224 0 0 839,083 1,927,802

Clamsll 244,539 54,560 2,507 0 444,177 1,636,395

Musselsl2 222,139 0 0 0 605,073 1,234,564

Clamsl3 236,649 0 0 0 238,234 1,163,506

Clamsl4 126,991 21,521 1,981 80 255,114 1,055,146

Clams 15 108,584 0 0 0 109,264 706,202

Mollusksl6 9,448 525 15,270 70 77,809 304,500

Musselsl7 84,941 1,360 0 0 103,214 227,881

Oystersl8 918 0 4,364 0 15,388 143,577

Total 11,048,025 3,464,140 1,603,421 451,284 25,932,154 162,383,676

I All countries.

2 Frozen, dried, salted, breaded (tariff code [ee.] 0307290000).

3 Live/fresh (ec. 0307210000).

4 Mollusks SPF frozen/dried/salted (t.e. 0307990060).

" NSPF live/fresh (ec. 0307910070).

6 Live/fresh/frozen/dried (ee. 0307100040).

7 Frozen/dried/salted/breaded (ee. 0307390000).

8 Live/fresh/frozen/dried (ec. 03071000080).

9 Live/fresh/frozen/dried (ee. 030710060).

10 Live/fresh (ee. 0307310000).

II NSPF frozen/dried/salted (t.c. 0307990055).

12 Live/fresh/farmed (ec. 0307310010).

13 Geoduck live/fresh (ec. 0307910050).

14 NSPF frozen/dried/salted (ec. 0307990050). I" geoduck frozen/dried/salted (ee. 0307990030).

16 NSPF live/fresh (ec. 0307910090).

17 Live/fresh wild (ec. 0307310090).

18 Seed (ee. 0307100020).

China and Japan, supplied about 72% of the total. The

value of imports from Australia was not great, but increased sharply from $150,000 in 1990 to $3.5 million

in 1991 (Table 4).

Seventeen bivalve mollusk products were imported,

but two scallop products accounted for about 52% of

the total (Table 5). The quantity was slightly less in

1991 than in 1990.

Imports from Canada, the largest supplier of bivalves,

were mostly fresh and frozen scallops, with clam products the next largest category in 1991. Scallop and clam

products together accounted for nearly 95% of total

bivalve imports from Canada. Scallops also dominated

(>90%) the bivalve imports from China. Its number of

products increased from 6 in 1990 to 13 in 1991. Imports

from Japan were slightly less in 1991 than in 1990; frozen

scallops accounted for most of the value in both years.

Canada is the largest supplier ofscallops, with about

50% of the total value of U.S. imports from all countries; China and Japan are second and third. The three

countries together supplied about 87% of all imported

scallops in 1991 (Table 6). The most dramatic change is

the increase in scallop imports from Australia; the imports in 1991 were valued at nearly $3.5 million, whereas

none were imported in 1990.
214 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128

Table 6

U.S. scallop! imports, 1991.

Quantity Value Quantity Value

Country (kg) ($) Country (kg) ($)

Canada 6,544,144 65,864,252 Hong Kong 18,989 169,515

China 3,147,973 17,410,464 United Kingdom 19,694 159,914

Japan 1,204,943 13,123,320 ew Zealand 22,088 147,654

Mexico 1,419,935 6,795,543 Venezuela 21,758 122,623

Australia 450,977 3,493,Y65 Thailand 20,941 98,755

Peru 311,085 1,833,364 Argentina 7,Y15 57,126

Chile 64,648 465,508 Namibia 6,000 47,619

Other E.C. 32,349 331,899 Uruguay 1,787 9,450

Faroe lsI. 38,827 274,844 Philippines 667 3,308

Rep. of Korea 58,746 202,005 Norway 171 1,680

Iceland 20,264 180,482

France 12.655 171,985 Total 13,426,556 110,965,275

1 (Tariff Codes 0307210000 and 0307290000).

Literature Cited

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster-industry. In G. Brown Goode (ed.), The

history and present condition of the fishery industries. U.S.

Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D.C., 252 p.

Newcombe, C. L.

1933. The softshelled clam fishery of the Bay of Fundy.

Manusc. Rep. BioI. Sta., Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 288,38 p.
Markets for Bivalve Mollusks in the European Community

ERIC FLEURY

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

United States Mission to the European Union

Bd du Regent, 40

1000 Brussels, Belgium

ABSTRACT

The market for bivalve mollusks in the European Community (EC) is strong, but EC

member states have supplied most ofthe market with trade amongst themselves. EC imports

from outside the Community ranged from only 2% for mussels to 69% for frozen scallops in

1991. The only important EC market for U.S. exporters was the French scallop market. It

was the biggest and nearly the only roe-on scallop market in Europe. French market

preference is for large scallops (10/20-30/40 count/kg). Japan was the biggest and most

reliable supplier to the French roe-on scallop market until May 1990, but since then the list

of suppliers has become longer, to include the Republic of Korea, Chile, and many other

countries. The European flat oyster, Ostrea edulis, and the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, are

usually marketed live in Europe. EC production and intra-EC trade in oysters is substantial

and has accounted for about 90% of the EC supply, with the remaining 10% imported

mainly from Turkey. France is by far the leading consumer of oysters, followed by Italy,

Belgium, Spain, and Germany. About 95% of the European market for mussels has been

supplied by EC countries, with the remainder from Turkey and Sweden. Nearly all mussels

are traded live, rather than processed. The European market for clams, the principal

species being Tapes decussatus and Venus verrucosa, is mainly in Spain, France, and Italy.

Trade within countries is extensive, with some imports coming from Turkey, Morocco, and

Tunisia. Some frozen clam meat is imported from Asia and from India. The only mollusk

harvested in North America that can be sold in Europe in any quantity is the scallop. To

remain an important supplier, U.S. producers must be allowed and encouraged to export

roe-on scallops.

OYSTERS _ SCALLOPS LIVE/FRESH SCALLOPS FROZEN

HIE MUSSELS LIVE/FRESH MUSSELS FROZEN MOLLUSKS PREPARED

Figure 1

Imports of bivalve mollusks to the EC, 1988-91.

140

--- -

--- -- I-- -

_...__.~-

f--- --

~~ iBm ~~ Ii~ 1985 19S9 1990 1991 o

120

20

iii

o 100

rn

=>

o so Ern

z 60 2

()

40

:>

Introduction

French Scallop Market _

The market for bivalve mollusks in the European Community (EC) is strong, but the EC member States supply most of the market with trade amongst themselves.

Imports to Europe have ranged from only 2% for mussels to 69% for frozen scallops (Fig. I). The only important EC market for U.S. exporters is the French scallop

market which represents about 75% of U.S. scallop

exports to the EC.

The French scallop market (Fig. 2, 3) is the largest and

is almost the only roe-on scallop market in Europe.

French preference is for large scallops (10/20-30/40

count/kg).

215
216 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 128 _

9,---------------------,

Netherlands

863

Belgium

726

Denmark

469

Metric tons

France

7808

Figure 3

Imports of frozen scallops by EC countries, 1991.

1989 1990 1991

I TOTAL. JAPAN USA

1988

Figure 2

Imports of frozen scallops by France, 1988-91.

o

en 7 --- o

z

;;; 6---------

::J

o

E 5-----

en6 4-------

IU

a:

Iw

::;;

This market is governed by two regulations. The first

prohibits the soaking of meats in water (an economic

fraud). The humidity/protein ratio (H/P) must be under 5 in all samples, and all scallop shipments entering

France are tested. The ratio has been difficult to reach

for some scallop species, even those known to be unadulterated, and some producers have had to dry their

scallops before exporting them to France. Experiments

conducted on Icelandic and Scottish scallops showed

that, even if near the limit, they usually passed the test.

This French regulation has been in effect since lJanuary

1993, even without a European regulation. This would not

have been the case ifit were a sanitary measure.

The second regulation has prohibited the import of

scallops from Japan since 18 May 1990, for sanitary

reasons; the scallops had contained paralytic shellfish

poison (PSP). The prohibition was extended to all EC

countries on 8 April 1992, after further investigations

showed the continuing presence of toxins in the scallops.

Japan had been the biggest and most reliable supplier to the French roe-on scallop market until May

1990, supplying up to 55% of scallops imported to

France. The ban forced French buyers to find other

sources, and the United States, Canada, and the United

Kingdom became the suppliers. U.S. exports ofscallops

to France increased from 230 metric tons (t) in 1989, to

566 t in 1990, and to 1,086 tin 1991 (Fig. 2).

By 1991, the remaining scallop-producing countries

had learned of the French market potential and of the

market share they could gain if they moved quickly to

offer a roe-on scallop. New Zealand, a traditional supplier of high quality (and high priced) roe-on scallops,

increased its sales to France from 144 t to 473 t between

1990 and 1991. Other coun tries, whose supplies were

expected to increase, were also likely to try to penetrate

the French market. For instance, Australia reopened its

scallop fisheries in Tasmania after 3 years of closure for

resource conservation, and Canada, which was monitoring water quality, found that PSP remained at a safe

concentration, thus was provided for a good 1991 season.

The French market, after a year of uncertainty, rejected all roe-offscallops. Imitation roe-on scallops had

better sales in the south of France than real roe-off

products. As a result, the list ofsuppliers became longer

than ever, to include the Republic of Korea, Chile, and

many other nations. United States scallop supplies in

1992 failed to keep pace because of increased competition and other factors, including the high cost of sampling and analysis for PSP. The National Marine Fisheries Service analysis for PSP on roe-on scallops costs $50

per sample, and five or six samples are needed. The

quantity of U.S. exports to France thus fell sharply, in

1992 totaling only 216 t, a drop of 80% from 1991. The

total dropped further, to only 50 t, in 1993, just onethird of the amount the United States had exported to

France when Japanese scallops were still allowed.

One new factor was thought to potentially favor U.S.

roe-off producers: because the French market would be

short of roe-off scallops, prices for them would probably be higher than for roe-on. Still, higher prices would

not cover the loss in overall volume, as the market for

roe-off scallops remained small.

Meanwhile, the market in the U.S. became much stronger; it is unlikely that U.S. exports will again reach the

1991 quantity.
__________________ Fleury: Markets for Bivalve Mollusks in the European Community 217

Markets for Other Bivalve Mollusks _

Oysters

The European flat oyster, Ostrea edulis, and the Pacific

oyster, Crassostrea gigas, are marketed, mainly live, in

Europe. EC production and intra-EC trade of the oysters is substantial, accounting for about 90% of the EC

supply. The remaining 10% of imports are mainly from

Turkey. EC markets vary considerably, as shown by national per capita consumption. France is by far the

leading country, with a consumption of 1.9 kg per

person per year. Then comes Italy (175 g), followed by

Belgium (170 g), Spain (115 g), and Germany (8 g).

The French market, after low prices in 1990, was firmer

in 1991. The English market, which is concentrated in

restaurants and bars, is sti1l small, but increasing. The

Spanish and Italian markets are difficult to penetrate

due to strict water quality regulations, but it appears

that Spain has a particular interest in U.S. flat oysters.

Oysters nearly always must be depurated in the buying

country, even if a bilateral agreement exists between

the producing and importing countries.

Mussels

About 95% of the European market for mussels is supplied by EC countries, the remainder coming from

Turkey and Sweden. Nearly all are mussels traded live

rather than processed.

Clams and Scallops

The main species are Tapes decussatus and Venus verrucosa.

The European market for clams is centered largely in

Spain, France, and Italy. Trade within countries is also

extensive, and some imports come from Turkey, Morocco, and Tunisia. Some frozen clam meat was imported from Asia, mainly from Thailand and China, but

also India. It is used for dishes such as paella and

seafood cocktails.

In July 1997, the European Commission (the Executive Branch of the European Union) made a decision to

list countries outside the European Union from which

imports of bivalve mollusks are allowed. This decision

concerns all live and processed (frozen, shucked,

canned, etc.) bivalve mollusks, except wild roe-off scallop muscles. In November 1997, only the following 12

countries were listed in two groups: Turkey, Morocco,

Peru, South Korea, Chile, Greenland, the Faroe Islands,

Canada, United States, Thailand, Australia, and New

Zealand. China, India, and many other former suppliers

to Europe have been excluded. Supplies ofscallops that

came from China or frozen clam meats from India (for

seafood cocktails) need to be replaced in European

markets. Opportunities exist for suppliers in North

America and the listed countries to fill the markets.

Prepared and Preserved Mollusks

The importance of the market for prepared and preserved mollusks is difficult to describe, as this category

includes mussels, oysters, clams, squid, cuttlefish, and

snails.

North American Mollusks

The only mollusk harvested in North America that can

be sold in any quantity in Europe is scallops. The scallop market, especially in France, was and is important

to the United States. To become again an important

supplier, U.S. producers must be allowed and encouraged to export roe-on scallops, to participate in the race

to regain the 1992 loss of its market share. Since scallops have high value, competition among suppliers is

strong. If the United States reacts too late, it will lose

this potential market. The demand for other mollusks

produced in North America, such as eastern oysters, C.

virginica; Pacific oysters; surfclams, Spisula solidissima;

ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica; blue mussels; and northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria, currently is extremely

weak in the Ee, but niche markets exist.
NOAA Technical Reports NMFS

The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are to monitor and assess the abundance

and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and distribution of

these resources, and to establish levels for their optimum use. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, with the development and enforcement of domestic fisheries regulations, with the surveillance of foreign fishing off U.S. coastal waters, and with the development and enforcement

of international fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishing industry through marketing services and economic analysis programs and through mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry.

Recently Published NOAA Technical Reports NMFS

124. Effects of the cessation of sewage sludge du:mping at the 12-Mile Site: 12-Mile

Du:mpsite Sy:mposiu:m, Long Branch, New Jersey, June 1991, edited by Anne 1.

Studholme,John E. O'Reilly, and Merton C. Ingham. October 1995, 257 p.

125. Population characteristics of Gulf :menhaden, Brevoortia patronus, by Douglas S.

Vaughan, Eldon]. Levi, and Joseph W. Smith. February 1996, 18 p.

126. Ecology of juvenile walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogra'ln'lna. Papers fro:m the

workshop "The I:mportance of Prerecruit Walleye Pollock to the Bering Sea and North

Pacific Ecosyste:ms," Seattle, Washington, 28-30 October 1993, edited by Richard D.

Brodeur, Patricia A. Livingston, Thomas R. Loughlin, and Anne B. Hollowed. December 1996,

228 p.

127. The history, present condition, and future of the :molluscan fisheries of North

and Central America and Europe, Volu:me 1, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, edited by Clyde

1. MacKenzie,Jr., Victor G. Burrell,Jr., Aaron Rosenfield, and Willis 1. Hobart. September 1997,

234 p.

128. The history, present condition, and future of the :molluscan fisheries of North

and Central America and Europe, Volu:me 2, Pacific coast, and supple:mental topics,

edited by Clyde 1. MacKenzie, Jr., Victor G. Burrell, Jr., Aaron Rosenfield, and Willis 1. Hobart.

December 1997, 217 p.

129. The history, present condition, and future of the :molluscan fisheries of North

and Central America and Europe, Volu:me 3, Europe, edited by Clyde 1. MacKenzie, Jr.,

Victor G. Burrell, Jr., Aaron Rosenfield, and Willis 1. Hobart. April 1997, 240 p.

130. Biology and tnanage:ment of sablefish, Anoplopo'lna fi'lnbria. Papers £ro:m the International Sy:mposiu:m on the Biology and Manage:ment of Sablefish, Seattle, Washington, 13-15 April 1993, edited by Mark E. Wilkins and Mark W. Saunders. June 1997,275 p.

131. A photographic catalog of killer whales, Orcinus orca, fro:m the central Gulf of

Alaska to the southeastern Bering Sea, by Marilyn E. Dahlheim. November 1997, 54 p.
Superintendent of Documents Publication Order Form

The History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of North and

Central America and Europe, by Clyde L. MacKenzie, Jr., Victor G. Burrell, Jr.,

Aaron Rosenfield, and Willis L. Hobart (editors). NOAA Technical Report NMFS.

Stock # Title Price* Qtv Total

003-01 7-00551-8 V.1 Atlantic and Gulf Coasts $19.00

003-017-00554-2 V. 2 Pacific Coast & Suoolemental Tooics **

003-017-00550-0 V. 3 Eurooe $20.00

Order Total

* Price includes regular shipping and handling; add 25% for foreign orders.

**Price for V. 2 not available at press time; please call (202) 512-1800 or

check Internet site: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/sale/prf/prf.html

Company or personal name

Additional address/attention line

Street address

City, State, ZIP code

Daytime phone including area code

Purchase order number (optional)

(Please type or print)

Check method of payment:

D Check payable to Superintendent of Documents

D GPO Deposit Account"-------------------

D VISA D MasterCard D Discover/Novus

Number:------------ Expiration date: _

Authorizing signature _

Mail to: Superintendent of Documents

P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

To fax your order: (202) 512-2250

To phone your order: (202) 512-1800

Thank you for your order!

NOAA Technical Reports NMFS

Technical Reports ofthe Fishery Bulletin

Guide for Contributors

Preparation

Tide page should include authors' full

names and mailing addresses and the

senior author's telephone and FAX

number.

Abstract should not exceed one doublespaced typed page. It should state the

main scope of the research but emphasize its conclusions and relevant findings. Because abstracts are circulated by

abstracting agencies, it is important that

they represent the research clearly and

concisely.

Text must be typed double-spaced

throughout. A brief introduction should

portray the broad significance of the

paper; the remainder of the paper should

be divided into the following sections:

Materials and Dlethods, Results,

Discussion (or Conclusions), and Acknowledgtnents. Headings within each

section must be short, reflect a logical sequence, and follow the rules of multiple

subdivision (i.e. there c.m be no subdivision without at least two items). The

entire text should be intelligible to interdisciplinary readers; therefore, all acronyms, abbreviations, and technical terms

should be spelled out the first time they

are mentioned. The scientific names of

species must be written out the first time

they are mentioned; subsequent mention

of scientific names may be abbreviated.

Follow the U.S. Government Printing Offue

Sryfe Manual (1984 ed.) and the CBE Sryfe

Manual (5th ed.) for editorial style, and

the most current issue of the Americall

Fisheries Socie!J's Common and Scientific

Names of Fishes from tILe United States alld

Canada for fish nomenclature. Dates

should be written as follows: II November 1991. Measurements should be expressed in metric units, e.g., metric tons

as (t); if other units of measurement are

used, please make this fact explicit to the

reader. The numeral one (I) should be

typed as a one, not as a lower-case el 0).

Text footnotes should be numbered

with Arabic numerals and typed on a

separate sheet of paper. Footnote all personal communications, unpublished data,

and unpublished manuscripts with full

address of the communicator or author,

or, as in the case of unpublished data,

where the data are on file. Authors are

advised to avoid references to nonstandard (gray) literature, such as internal,

project, processed, or administrative reports, wherever possible. \Vhere these

references are used, please include

whether they are available from NTIS

(National Technical Information Service)

or from some other public depository.

Literature cited comprises published

works and those accepted for publication

in peer-reviewed literature (in press). Follow the name and year system for citation format. In the text, cite Smith and

Jones (1977) or (Smith and Jones, 1977).

If there is a sequence of citations, list

chronologically: Smith, 1932; Green,

1947; Smith and Jones, 1985. Abbreviations of serials should conform to abbreviations given in Serial Sources for tILe

BIOSIS Previews Database. Authors are

responsible lor the accuracy and completeness of all citations.

Tables should not be excessive in size

and must be cited in numerical order in

the text. Headings should be short but

ample enough to allow the table to be

intelligible on its own. All unusual symbols must be explained in the table heading. Other incidental comments may be

footnoted with italic numerals. Use

asterisks for probability in statistical

data. Because tables are typeset, they

need only be submitted typed and formatted, with double-spaced legends. Zeros

should precede all decimal points for

values less than one.

Figures include line illustrations and

photographs (or slides) and must be cited

in numerical order in the text. Unless

photographs are submitted on glossy

paper with good contrast, we cannot

guarantee a good final printed copy.

Figures are to be labeled with author's

name and number of figure. Use Times

Roman font (upper and lowercase letters)

to label within figures. Avoid vertical lettering except for y-axis labels. Zeros

should precede all decimal points for

values less than one. Figures may be submitted as computer software files (along

with laser-printed copies), as photomechanical transfers (PMTs), or as high

quality photographic prints. Send only

xerox copies of figures to the Scientific

Editor; original figures will be requested

later when the manuscript has been accepted for publication. Figure legends

should explain all symbols and abbreviations and should be double-spaced on a

separate page at the end of the

manuscript.

Copyright law does not cover government publications; they fall within the

public domain. If an author reproduces

any part of a government publication in

his work, reference to source is considered correct form.

Subnrlssion

Send printed copies (original and two

copies) to the Scientific Editor:

Dr.John B. Pearce, Scientific Editor

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1097

Once the manuscript has been accepted

for publication, you will be asked to submit a software copy of your manuscript

to the Managing Editor. The software

copy should be submitted in WordPetftet

text format (or in standard ASCII text

format if WordPerfect is unavailable) and

should be placed on a 5.25-inch or 3.5-

inch disk that is double-sided, double or

high density, and that is compatible with

either DOS or Apple Macintosh systems.

Copies of published articles and

notes are available free of charge to the

senior author (50 copies) and to his or

her laboratory (50 copies). Additional

copies may be purchased in lots of 100

when the author receives page proofs.
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS OFFICE

BIN C15700

SEATILE, WA 98115

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Department of Commerce

Permit No. G-19

NOAA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administmtion was established as part of the Department of Commerce on

October 13, 1970. The mission responsibilities of NOAA are to assess the socioeconomic impact of natural and

technological changes in the environment and to monitor and predict the state of the solid Earth, the oceans and

their living resources, the atmosphere, and the space environment of the Earth.

The major components of NOAA regularly produce various types of scientific and technical information in

the following kinds of publications:

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS-Important definitive

research results, major techniques, and special

investigations.

CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS-Reports

prep2.red by contractors or grantees under NOAA

sponsorship.

ATLAS-Presentation of analyzed data generally in the

form of maps showing distribution of rainfall, chemical

and physical conditions of oceans and atmosphere,

distribution of fishes and marine mammals, ionospheric

conditions, etc.

TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATIONS-Reports

containing data, observations, instructions, etc. A partial listing includes data serials; predictions and outlook

periodicals; technical manuals, training papers, plano·

iog reports, and information serials; and miscellaneous

technical publications.

TECHNICAL REPORTS-Journal quality with extensive details, mathematical developments, or data listings.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS-Reports of

preliminary. partial. or negative research or technology

results. interim instructions, and the like.

lnformalion on availability of NOAA publications can be obtained from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1998- PR0GI2057-S/40012