NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 September 1997

The History, Present

Condition, and Future

of the Molluscan Fisheries

of North and Central

Am.erica and Europe

VoluIne 1, Atlantic

and Gulf Coasts

Edited by

Clyde L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Victor G. Burrell,Jr.

Aaron Rosenfield

Willis L. Hobart

U.S. Department of Commerce
u.s. DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE

WIUJAM M. DALEY

SECRETARY

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker

Under Secretary for

Oceans and Atmosphere

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., Seatde, WA

98115-0070.

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

puhlic: business required by law of dlis

Department. Use of funds for printing of

this series has been approved by dle Director of the Olliee of Management and

Budget.

NOAA

Technical

Reports NMFS

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. Tint D. Smith 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 Technical 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 127

A Technical Report of the Fishery Bulletin

The History, Present Condition, and

Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of

North and Central Atnerica and Europe

Volutne 1, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

Clyde L. MacKenzie,Jr.

Victor G. Burrell, Jr.

Aaron Rosenfield

Willis L. Hobart (editors)

September 1997

U.S. DepartInent of CODunerce

Seattle, Washington
On the cover

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

1880's, courtesy of W. 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 1, Atlantic and Gulf

Coasts. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. 127,234 p.

Note

Volume 2 is scheduled for publication later in 1997; Volume 3 was published

in April 1997 and is 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

A ROSENFIELD

C. L. MACKENZIE, JR.

V. G. BURRELL,JR.

J. B. JENKINS

A MORRISON

C. L. MACKENZIE, JR.

F. M. SERCHUK

S. A MURAWSKI

D. E. WALlACE

C. L. MACKENZIE, JR.

S. E. FORD

C. L. MACKENZIE, JR.

v. G. BURRELL,JR.

R.J. DUGAS

E. A JOYCE

M. E. BERRIGAN

R.J. BUESA

R. S. APPELDOORN

Preface

Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and

Central America and Europe-A Synopsis

The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes

The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast

of the United States: Surfclams, Ocean Quahogs, and Sea Scallops

The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine

The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries from Massachusetts Bay through

Raritan Bay, N.Y. and NJ.

History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfisheries from

Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay

The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay

Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region

of the United States

History and Status of the Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and

Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S Gulf of Mexico

The Mangrove Oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae, and

Queen Conch, Strombus gigas, Fisheries of Cuba

The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Strombus gigas,

Mangrove Oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae, and Other

Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico

V

15

45

63

87

119

141

171

187

211

165

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

Volume II

Uniled:Slates

of America

Volume I

Prince Edward Island

Nova Scotia

~ew Brunswick

\

\ ,~ Massachusens Bay

\ \ c~"'~

\ \ Raritan Bay

\ Delaware Bay

'Chesapeake Bay

y

Iceland

Portugal

.......

1-

N

Volume III
Preface: The Past is Prologue

AARON ROSENFIELD

Oxford Laboratory

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Oxford, MD 21654

This three-volume monograph represents the first major attempt in over a century to provide, on regional

bases, broad surveys of the history, present condition,

and future of the important shellfisheries of North and

Central America and Europe. It was about 100 years

ago that Ernest Ingersoll wrote extensively about several molluscan fisheries of North America (1881, 1887)

and about 100 years ago that Bashford Dean wrote

comprehensively about methods of oyster culture in

Europe (1893). Since those were published, several

reports, books, and pamphlets have been written about

the biology and management of individual species or

groups of closely related mollusk species (Galtsoff, 1964;

Korringa, 1976 a, b, c; Lutz, 1980; Manzi and Castagna,

1989; Shumway, 1991). However, nothing has been

written during the past century that is comparable to

the approach used by Ingersoll in describing the molluscan fisheries as they existed in his day in North

America or, for that matter, in Europe.

The molluscan fisheries of North America and Europe

are changing rapidly, and in many cases, profoundly so.

Currently, some fisheries are in long-term decline and

some are even at the point of collapse because environments have degraded and stocks have been overharvested. On the other hand, many fisheries have consistently demonstrated fluctuations in productivity or cyclic high-low peaks in product or commodity supply

and demand. Natural ecological factors could be involved with resulting harvests that are in accordance to

so-called boom or bust, hit or miss, or "luck of the

draw" maxims.

Human activities associated with the molluscan fisheries, however, are the dominant influences over landings that enhance or retard shellfish availability through

all stages in the sequence from recruitment to final

utilization or consumption or both. Many, if not most,

descriptions of these human-associated activities and

resulting records or compilations of information derived from them are often warehoused, ignored, or

otherwise lose accessibility. Consequently, an accurate,

detailed, and objectively evaluated documentation of

past and current status and projections for the future of

molluscan fisheries is long overdue, and this three-volume

series is intended to provide such documentation.

As mollusks have high value as food for man, several

governments, public and private jurisdictional bodies,

industry organizations, cooperatives, tribes, individuals, and even family units over the generations have

often developed special propagation strategies and fishing practices for them. For the most part, however,

fishing for bivalves and univalves was and still remains

largely artisanal, using hunting-gathering approaches,

as opposed to some recently developed aquaculture

methodologies. As a consequence of the way most commercial fishery operations are now conducted, it is obvious that continuing productivity of the resource, its safe

use, and the acceptable quality of commodities or products derived therefrom depend upon production cost

encumbrances and on efficient maintenance of environmental quality and intelligent resource management.

It is also important to describe topics closely associated with shellfishing itself. They include the importance ofshellfisheries to coastal communities, how shellfish culture affects habitats, the economics associated

with shellfisheries, shellfish marketing and trade, and

government programs assuring the safe consumption

ofshellfish and the gathering, processing, and dissemination of landing statistics.

Knowledge of past events affecting molluscan fisheries and the consequences of these events should allow

us to avoid repetition of former mistakes and escape

the future expense of poor judgment. Furthermore,

information about the past, properly interpreted and

confirmed, combined with present information, will

allow better planning and preparation for the future.

These volumes, therefore, bring together the contribuv
vi NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

tions of about 60 distinguished authorities and scientists from many North and Central American states or

regions and European nations. Their broad knowledge

and experience chronicle important changes or events

in molluscan fisheries and discuss the factors that influence productivity, habitat quality, marketing, and trade.

Most importantly, and based on the past and present,

they describe their views of strategies and actions to be

taken in the future if the fisheries are to improve or

survive.

This three-volume monograph is based on an international symposium, "The History, Present Condition,

and Future ofthe Molluscan Fisheries ofNorth America

and Europe," which was held 25-26 May 1992 in Orlando, Fla. It was sponsored by the National Marine

Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources; National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment; Shellfish Institute of North

America; National Shellfisheries Association; Florida

Department of Natural Resources; and the Department

of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Papers from the symposium were augmented by invited contributions from

other authors to cover additional nations, states, provinces, and issues, to make the monograph as complete

as possible. The monograph was originally slated for

publication in the journal Manne Fisheries Review, but,

owing to its size, it has been published as three separate

volumes in the NOAA Technical Reports NMFS series.

Copies of the volumes will be available from the U.S.

Government Printing Office and the National Technical

Information Service; see page ii for ordering information.

Literature Cited

Dean, B.

1893. Report on European methods of oyster culture. Bull.

U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. 1891, lX:381-406.

Galtsoff, P. S.

1964. The Arnerican oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Serv.. Fish. Bull. 64, 480 p.

Ingersoll. E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Wash., D.C., 251 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone industries. Oysters. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery

industry of the United States. Sect. V., Vol. II, p. 507-565.

U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash., D.C.

Korringa, P. (ed.).

1976a. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science.

Vol. 1. Farming marine organisms low in the food chain.

Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., Arnst., 264 p.

1976b. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science.

Vol. 2. Farming the cupped oysters of the genus Crassostrea.

Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., Arnst., 224 p.

1976c. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science.

Vol. 3. Farming the flat oysters of the genus Ostrea. Elsevier

Sci. Publ. Co., Arnst., 238 p.

Lutz, R. A. (ed.).

1980. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science. Vol.

7. Mussel culture and harvest: a North Arnerican perspective. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., Arnst., 350 p.

Manzi,].]., and M. Castagna (eds.).

1989. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science. Vol.

19. Clam culture in North Arnerica. Elsevier Publ. Co., Arnst.,

461 p.

Shumway, S. E. (ed.).

1991. Developments in aquaculture and fisheries science. Vol.

21. Scallops: biology, ecology, and aquaculture. Elsevier Sci.

Pub!. Co., Arnst., 1,094 p.
Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and

Central America and Europe-A Synopsis

CLYDE L. MAcKENZIE,jR.

James]. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Highlands, NJ 07732

VICTOR G. BURRELL,jR.

South Carolina Department ofNatural Resources

Marine Resources Research Institute

P.O. Box 12559

Charleston, SC 29422-2559

ABSTRACT

The molluscan fisheries of North and Central America and Europe have fed humans for

thousands of years, with various species of oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, and gastropods

harvested. In North America and Europe, the initial harvests were made to provide food for

the fishermen's families. Later, additional quantities were harvested for local trading and

sales, and commercial sales developed slowly. As towns and cities grew, and as harvesting

methods, transportation, and refrigeration improved, mollusks could be shipped to population centers for sale, and large-scale commercial industries developed, especially for oysters.

Before the 1940's, harvesting was concentrated in bays and estuaries, but it then began

expanding onto the continental shelves. In the United States, the pollution, dredging, and

filling that had been weakening sales and damaging mollusk-producing beds in estuaries

and bays has slowed in recent years. Due to close government inspections, consumers now have

more confidence in mollusks as wholesome and safe and the demand for them is increasing.

Hatcheries have been producing some juvenile mollusks where demand has outstripped supply

on natural beds. The future ofthe fisheries appears bright because the demand for mollusks will

probably remain high. Many Central American molluscan fisheries are at an early stage of

development and somewhat resemble those of early North America. Harvesting by hand, often

without implements, prevails, and mollusks are harvested mostly for home use and local sales.

Introduction

Throughout history, mollusks have been harvested from

nearly every accessible estuary and bay of North and

Central America and Europe. Mainly since the 1940's,

the fisheries have extended onto the continental shelves.

The Atlantic coast of North and Central America, from

the Canadian Maritimes through Panama, including

the Caribbean islands, is roughly 9,500 miles or 15,000

km long; shorter than the coast of Europe from northern Norway through Turkey, which is roughly 17,000

miles or 27,000 km. But the two coastal areas are similar

in having many estuaries and bays.

The Pacific coast of North America, from the eastern

Aleutian Islands in Alaska through Panama, is somewhat longer, roughly 13,000 miles or 21,000 km, than

the Atlantic coast (from the Canadian Maritime provinces through Panama, including the Caribbean islands), but has far fewer estuaries and bays and a much

narrower continental shelf. Pacific coast mollusks were

harvested earlier by Native Americans-before 10,000

B.C.-than on the Atlantic coast, where evi<;lence shows

a 7,000 to 10,000 year history. Dutch, English, and

French colonists first harvested mollusks on the Atlantic coast in the 1600's, generations before their Pacific

coast descendants, and Atlantic coast mollusks have

been the subject of more scientific study.

Mollusk fisheries have always been important to

coastal communities, often providing employment in

the harvesting and processing of shellfish. Communi-
2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

ties often have limited daily catches to conserve mollusc

can resources and spread employment and production

over long seasons. Community regulation of stocks is

relatively inexpensive because wardens' salaries are often paid for by license fees (although planting seed and

cultch can be expensive).

The fisheries are "fluid," in that available stocks, numbers of fishermen, production, and landed prices can

be highly variable from year to year. This is especially

evident in the short-lived U.S. east coast fishery for the

bay scallop, Argopecten irradians. The prices fishermen

receive fluctuate because supplies come into the market irregularly, and production in one region can

strongly influence prices in another. For example, in

recent years, prices ofsoftshells, Mya arenaria, in Maine

were as high as $90/bushel when Maryland's production

waslow. But, when Maryland's production was high, Maine

softshell prices dropped by as much as 50%.

Landed prices of mollusks have had a great affect on

fisheries. Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, prices (inflation-corrected) along the northeast Atlantic coast

have fallen slightly since the 1960's, and efforts to increase production have been sporadic except in Connecticut. On the other hand, landed prices (inflationcorrected) of northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria,

have risen sharply from about $18/bushel in the late

1960's to $30 (750 count) in the mid-1990's. This has

stimulated increased harvests and hatchery construction. The high landed prices of $4-6/pound for sea

scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, meats, have so spurred

harvesting efforts that the Federal government began

instituting regulations to curtail effort in order to conserve stocks.

Harvesting gear has changed little over time, mainly

because coastal states and communities have not allowed unbridled use of more efficient gear. In Maine,

the "hack" (a multi-tined rake with a short handle)

used to harvest softshells, has remained about the same

since the early 1800's. In the middle Atlantic region,

the long-handled rake for northern quahogs has been

used since the 1860's when it was first fabricated, although it has undergone some improvement in design

and materials. In the Canadian Maritimes, the states of

Maryland and Virginia, and in the Gulf of Mexico,

hand-held oyster tongs have remained about the same.

But patent tongs (for northern quahogs), hydraulic

patent tongs (for oysters), and hydraulic escalators (for

softshells and northern quahogs), which require little

hand labor, have been developed for use in parts of

Chesapeake Bay, Long Island, and the South Atlantic.

In the 1800's and most ofthe 1900's, many fishermen

earned their living almost entirely by harvesting from

estuaries and bays. In the Canadian Maritimes, they

alternated between oystering and lobstering; in southern New England, between bay scalloping and

quahoging; in Chesapeake Bay, between oystering and

crabbing; and in the Gulf of Mexico, between oystering

and shrimping or crabbing. In recent years this has

changed because some fishermen, such as those in

southern New England and Chesapeake Bay, at least,

cannot earn enough from shellfishing full-time as the

quantities of mollusks available are too uncertain. Instead, they alternate between shellfishing and working

at shore trades.

Preparation of this monograph has revealed that in

most areas few details were readily known by biologists

about the local mollusk fisheries. Thus, some chapter

writers took much extra time to seek out such information as the number of boats and fishermen that were

active daily and their typical landings.

The Atlantic Coast of North America _

Middens

Shell middens consisting largely of eastern oysters, C.

virginica, but also of northern quahogs, M. mercenaria;

mussels, Mytilus edulis and Geukensia demissa; slippersnails, Crepidula spp.; and gastropods were common

throughout the Atlantic coast of North America. Some

in Florida are 4,000 years old. Middens of oysters and

other mollusks were also common on the larger Caribbean islands.

The sizes and contents of these middens reveal that

coastal natives ate and traded mollusks extensively. Shells

were also used for ornamentation, scrapers, spoons,

knives, fish hooks, and money (northern quahogs).

Historical Production

The dominant mollusks produced from Maine to Texas

shifted radically between 1900 and the early 1990's

(Fig. 1). Between 1900 and 1902, mollusk landings

totaled 164 million pounds of meats. This included 143

million pounds of oysters, 10 million pounds of northern quahogs, 10 million pounds of softshells, and 1

million pounds of bay scallops. No ocean quahogs,

Arctica islandica, or surfclams, Spisula solidissima, were

landed, and only 0.63 million pounds of sea scallop

meats were taken.

By 1991, oyster landings had fallen by 85%, northern

quahog landings remained about the same, and softshell

and bay scallop landings each had fallen by 40%. In

some areas of the Atlantic coast, persistent low shellfish

supplies have placed fishermen's families in poverty or

have forced them to search for shore-based employment. This is true of the oyster fisheries in Delaware

and Chesapeake bays, the softshell fishery in northeast-
_____ MacKenzie and Burrell: Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and Central America and Europe 3

Oyster Fisheries

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, European

colonists on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts found oysters

abundant in nearly all estuaries and collected them for

food, by hand or with tongs!. Dredges were first used

for harvesting oysters in the early 1800's. As the immigrant population and food needs grew, many oyster

Figure I

A comparison of mollusk landings (Atlantic coast,

Maine-Texas) between 1901-02 and 1994. Sources:

Lyles, C. H. 1969. Historical catch statistics (shellfish).

U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wild\. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat.

5007, 116 p.; and Anonymous. 1995. Fisheries of the

United States, 1994. Curr. Fish. Statistics No. 9400.

NOAA, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 113 p.

beds were gradually depleted, from Massachusetts to

Delaware. Over-harvesting has usually been cited as the

cause, but siltation of beds by eroded topsoil from land

clearing and farming probably contributed. From the

1820's to the 1840's, when demand for oysters was

increasing, oystermen began to transport them on schooners and sloops from Chesapeake Bay to more northern bays, especially to Raritan Bay, Long Island Sound,

and Narragansett Bay, for growth and subsequent harvest.

This transplantation continued into the early 1900's.

From about 1885 to 1906, oyster production expanded

further and attained its historical peak, because oysters, as

meats and whole, could be shipped by train to inland

population centers especially in the midwest. Markets along

the east coaststeadily increased as populations grew. More

vessels and packing plants were constructed and, in the

latter part of the period, oystermen began to install engines in their vessels to make them more efficient.

Oysters were a popular food for all classes of people,

costing substantially less than beef, chicken, or fish.

Nearly all eating establishments in eastern cities served

them. The largest production area was Chesapeake Bay,

followed by the Gulf states (especially Louisiana), then

Delaware Bay and Long Island Sound. Thousands of

people were seasonally employed to harvest and transport

them from the beds, and to shuck, can, and serve them.

Steam opening and heat canning of oysters began in

the Baltimore area around the 1850's and spread to the

south Atlantic states where the intertidal clumped oysters, characteristic of the region, were ideally suited for

processing. Oyster canning peaked in the early 1900's,

began to decline in the 1940's, and ceased altogether in

the 1980's.

From at least the mid-1800's to the early 1900's, dealers were confronted with the problem of oyster meats

containing mud and shell particles. One solution was to

empty the meats over a grate and run water over them.

Another was to hold oysters for up to 24 hours in floats

or on river banks, to allow them to flush sediments

from their mantle cavities. But the oysters also absorbed

brackish water and, in the early 1900's, this practice was

largely abandoned for sanitary reasons. Thereafter, all

oyster meats were placed in freshwater tanks or "blowers" for cleaning and bloating.

Mter about 1906, the oyster industry faced a sharply

reduced market demand, when a wave of public scares

over contaminated food swept the country. Officials

and newspapers attacked the ways in which oysters and

certain other foods, such as milk, were handled before

reaching consumers. They tied numerous cases of typhoid and gastrointestinal disorders to the eating of

oysters, and many people switched from eating oysters

to beef. Oyster production declined, prices remained level

while other food prices increased, and some oyster companies failed or were forced to consolidate with others.

143

a t ...

a

'" lD

c:

0

..... a ....

....

..... '" ::;; a

.... ..

ca a Q) M ::;;

'" a u

'" c:

:::J

0

a.

a

0-d't<9,..

I The use of tongs to harvest oysters in North America was first

recorded in Virginia in 1701 and in Maryland in the 1730's (A.

Witty and P. J. Johnson. 1988. An introduction to the catalog of

artifacts. In P.J.Johnson (editor), Working the water, the commercial fisheries of Maryland's Patuxent River, p. 53-173. The Calvert

Marine Museum and The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.), in 1721 in what is now Nova Scotia (P. de Charlevoix. 1744.

Journal of a voyage to North America. Vol. 1. March of America

Facsimile Series. No. 36. 383 p.), and in New York State in 1748 (P.

Kalm. 1937. Peter Kalm's travels in North America: The English

version of 1770. Vol. 1. Dover Publ., Inc., N.Y., 401 p.).

ern Maine, and the bay scallop fishery in southern New

England. By contrast, ocean quahogs, surfclams, and

sea scallops now dominate landings. Taken together,

1991 landings ofocean clams and scallops totalled about

113 million pounds of meats (76% of the total), while

landings of estuarine and bay oysters, clams, and scallops totalled about 36 million pounds of meats (24% of

the total).
4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

The oyster industry along the U.S. eastern seaboard

was substantially set back again in the mid-1920's, when

some people as far inland as Chicago contracted typhoid from eating polluted oysters. Many became severely ill, and some died. Especially subject to adverse

publicity were oysters taken from Raritan Bay. Newspaper stories warned of the dangers of eating oysters, and

the demand dropped sharply. To help salvage the situation, the industry and government leaders developed a

system to classify waters and check the sanitary condition of processing plants and oyster meats, to ensure

that meats were safe to eat.

The currentsystem involves several procedures. Shore--

line surveys of chemical inputs and toxic contributions

from land masses and boats are conducted, and the

water undergoes microbiological tests. Open-harvest

areas must have less than 70 coliforms/l00 ml, or less

than 14 fecal coliforms/l00 mL and buffer zones are

established around sewer outfalls and marinas. Samples

are taken of market shellfish for testing; meats cannot

exceed 230 fecal coliforms/l00 g of tissue. Problems

from rainfall are also examined. Every container of

mollusks shipped by a dealer must carry a tag2 allowing

officials to trace the source of the mollusks. This procedure makes it possible to locate a contaminated bed

and close it to harvest until the problem is rectified.

Oyster production in the Canadian Maritime provinces sagged from about 1915 to the 1950's because

"Malpeque Disease" killed many oysters. They eventually developed resistance to the disease, and production recovered on Prince Edward Island, especially after culture methods were begun in the 1970's.

The mid-Atlantic fishery was badly damaged in the

late 1950's, when oysters in Chesapeake and Delaware

Bays were infected with a newly identified disease, MSX,

or Haplosporidium nelsoni. This disease killed over 90%

of all oysters on grounds with salinities above 15%0.

Additional mortalities were caused by "Dermo," or

Perkinsus marinus. In the early 1990's, production was at

only about 130,000 bushels/year from Chesapeake Bay

and near zero from Delaware Bay. Dermo recently has

been found in Long Island Sound oysters, but only

minor mortalities have so far resulted.

In the early 1960's, several years of small crops of

seed oysters enticed companies on Long Island, N.Y., to

construct three hatcheries to produce seed. Two were

marginal operations that closed after a few years, but

the third has remained, producing about 50,000 bush2 Each tag contains]) the dealers' address. 2) his certification number and telephone number, 3) date the mollusks were harvEsted.

4) date they were shipped, 5) harvest location. 6) mollusk species

and quantity, 7) identity of buyer, 8) reshipper's certification number. 9) date shipped, and ]0) name, address. and telephone number of the company. A tag remains on every container until empty,

and it is kept on file for 90 days.

els ot market oysters/year, when diseases do not kill

juveniles. Since the late 1960's, oyster abundance on

natural beds in Connecticut has risen substantially as a

result of greatly increased shelling of beds and the

control of starfish, Asterias forbesi, and oyster drills,

Urosalpinx cinerea, two important predators. There is

now less need for hatcheries, and Connecticut currently produces more oysters-about 750,000 bushels/

yeal-than any other state on the eastern seaboard.

Production in Louisiana, currently the largest source

of eastern oysters in the United States, has been limited

by market demand because supplies have usually been

ample. In the early 1990's, all the Gulf of Mexico states

had oyster supplies more than adequate to meet demand.

In recent years, dealers have been selling them yearround, rather than mainly in the fall and winter, as in

the past. This has been possible because 1) refrigeration can keep oysters in good condition during warm

months at all stages of handling and 2) a summer

market has been developed in resort areas.

Overall production of eastern oysters has fallen greatly

over the past 30 years, and few are reared in U.S. Atlantic coast hatcheries. This contrasts with production of

Pacific oysters, C. gigas, which has risen considerably on

the Pacific coast and in Europe during the same period.

Clam Fisheries

Clam fisheries have centered around four species: northern quahogs, M. mercenaria, and softshells, M. arenaria,

which occur in bays and estuaries; and surfclams, Spisula

solidissima, and ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica, which

are ocean species.

Northern quahogs have been harvested since ancient

times, and European colonists first collected them by

treading and with rakes at wading depths. The longhandled rake, developed in the 1860's, allowed fishermen to harvest in depths of at least 8 m. Fishermen

have also taken quahogs with dredges, but primarily

since the 1940's. Production has been highest in bays

from Massachusetts through NewJersey and from North

Carolina through Florida. Unlike oysters and bay scallops, quahog abundance has remained steady in recent

decades, though local fluctuations occur.

Since the mid-1970's, the demand for and consequent prices of "littleneck" quahogs (50-60 mm in

length) have risen sharply. Fishing pressure on the

littlenecks has increased, and perhaps 20 hatcheries

have been constructed to produce them for growout on

private and public bottoms. Hatchery-reared seed quahogs are grown to market size in shallow beds covered

with screens for protection from predators. Hatcheries

operate from Massachusetts to Florida, and seed produced by them resulted in at least 100,000 bushels of
_____ MacKenzie and Burrell: Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and Central America and Europe 5

littlenecks in 1993. The increased production of littlenecks by private hatchery-growout farms has cut prices

slightly and made it more difficult for fishermen harvesting quahogs on traditional public beds to earn a

living. This problem could ease as markets expand.

Softshells have also been harvested since pre-colonial

times. The principal harvesting areas were once in the

Bay of Fundy and the states of Maine and Massachusetts, where the clams occur intertidally. But since the

1940's, Maryland has produced about the same amount

as Maine, harvesting from subtidal bottoms with hydraulic escalator rigs. Throughout the 1800's and until

the 1940's, from the Maritime Provinces of Canada

southward to Raritan Bay, softshells were shucked in

fishermen's homes, with meats peddled locally; the practice has continued on a small scale in a few areas. In the

1990's, pilot hatchery and growollt tests with softshells

have been made in Maine and New York.

Northern quahogs and softshells currently support

large recreational fisheries in the Canadian Maritime

provinces, New England, and Long Island, during the

warmer months. Sportfishermen tread quahogs and

rake both quahogs and softshells on intertidal flats and

at wading depths.

Unlike many nearshore mollusk fisheries, the U.S.

Atlantic coast offshore fisheries are heavily capitalized,

industrial-scale enterprises. They produce far more

mollusks than the nearshore fisheries and include

surfclams and ocean quahogs as well as sea scallops, P.

magellanicus.

The surfclam fishery began in the 1930's using powerhauled box dredges. During the 1940's, new hydraulic

dredges and mechanical meat washing spurred larger

landings. The surfclam's pale, flavorful meat has found

good consumer acceptance and, owing to its ocean

habitat, it does not have contaminant (coliform bacteria) problems. Surfclams were abundant enough to

replace the traditional northern quahog in commercially prepared chowders. They also overtook the market for canned clams on the Pacific coast, and at least

one large restaurant chain has used them instead of

softshells for fried clams (strips). Improved harvesting

efficiency and areal expansion of the fishing grounds

have contributed to increased catches.

In 1976, hypoxic water off New Jersey caused a massive surfclam kill, but a large recruiting class the same

year rebuilt the stocks. Little recruitment to the stocks

has occurred since.

Ocean quahogs live on both sides of the Atlantic

Ocean. Off the U.S. coast, they occur mostly in deeper

waters than the surfclam. The quahog fishery began off

Rhode Island during World War II as a military food

source, and in 1976 it expanded to the Mid-Atlantic.

The ocean quahog then became a substitute for the

increasingly scarce surfclam. U.S. vessels, some ofwhich

can hold as many as 90 32-bushel cages of quahogs,

harvest them with stern-loaded hydraulic dredges up to

4.25 m wide. Since 1977, the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries have been managed by the Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, which has established

such measures as catch quotas, limited entry of vessels,

and effort limitations on fishing time per vessel.

Scallop Fisheries

Bay scallops, A. irradians, have supported fisheries from

Massachusetts to Long Island and in North Carolina,

since the late 1800's. Each fall, quahog fishermen turned

their attention to bay scallops and were sometimesjoined

by local tradesmen. A crop of marketable scallops consists of one year class, and each year abundance varies

considerably in every bay. For instance, extensive dieoffs were caused by toxic algal blooms in Rhode Island,

New York, and North Carolina in the 1980's.

Calico scallops, A. gibbus, occur off the south Atlantic

states and are similar in size and longevity to bay scallops. A directed fishery for them began in the mid1960's, when mechanical shucking was developed. Annual yields fluctuate widely.

Sea scallop harvests began in the 1930's in the Bay of

Fundy and on Georges Bank. Production expanded

sharply in the late 1940's after a market was developed,

and demand has remained strong. In eastern Canada,

vessels usually tow gang-dredges, whereas in the United

States, chain dredges measuring 3-4 m across are used.

Total fishing effort increased sharply from the late 1970's

into the 1990's, and the current U.S. sea scallop fleet

includes at least 400 vessels.

A maritime boundary dispute between the United

States and Canada, settled in 1985 by the International

Court ofJustice in The Hague, restricted Canadian and

U.S. vessels to their own waters. The same year, the New

England Fishery Management Council adopted a fishery management plan that included a maximum of 30

meats/pound and a minimum shell height of 31/2

inches. This was not successful in preventing overfishing of the stocks, though, because the U.S. fleet became

too large to be profitably supported by the resource. In

1994, the meat count requirement was replaced by rules

that restricted the fleet size and number of vessel days at

sea. Canada has reduced the size ofits scallop fleet, and its

landings have increased steadily without the large fluctuations in annual catch experienced in the U.S. fishery.

Mussel Fisheries

Blue mussels, M. edulis, locally abundant along the shores

of northeastern North America, were infrequently mar-
6 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

keted until actively promoted in the 1970's. A directed

mussel fishery has since developed in the Canadian

Maritime provinces, Maine, and Massachusetts. The

mussels are cultured on suspended longlines and sometimes on the bottom, as well as harvested from natural

beds.

Gastropod Fisheries

Gastropod fisheries are small, but stocks are probably

almost fully utilized. The channeled whelk, Busycotypus

canaliculatus, fishery, which probably began in Rhode

Island in the 1930's, now is a minor pot fishery from

Massachusetts through Long Island. A small fishery for

the knobbed whelk, Busycon carica, and, to a lesser

extent for the channeled whelk, has been pursued in

lower Chesapeake Bay. They have also been fished by

shrimpers in their off-season offthe southeastern United

States, since about 1980. Other gastropods harvested

are the periwinkle, Littorina littorea, in the Bay of Fundy

and on the northern coast of Maine, and the queen

conch, Strombus gigas, in the Caribbean area. Florida's

queen conch fishery has been closed since the late

1980's.

Atlantic-Gulf Coast Mollusk Culture

Few mollusks were produced from hatchery-reared seed

from Canada through Texas in 1994. Less than 1% of

oysters, softshells, bay scallops, and no mussels, gastropods, ocean quahogs, surfclams, or sea scallops were

hatchery-reared. An exception was the northern quahog; an estimated 10-20% were produced from hatchery seed, and nearly all were sold as "littlenecks" for

eating on the half-shell.

Oysters and mussels are the only other mollusks cultured. Perhaps 90% of oysters receive some culture:

Many setting beds are planted with oyster or clam shells

to collect seed, and seed from shelled and unshelled

beds is transplanted to growing beds; predators are

controlled in Connecticut. Perhaps 65% of mussels are

grown on suspended lines or transplanted as seed to

growing beds. On a limited scale during summer, fine

mesh nets are laid over softshell beds in Massachusetts

to enhance abundances. No bay scallop, gastropod, ocean

quahog, surfclam, or sea scallop beds are cultured.

Fishery Statistics

The number of active mollusk boats and fishermen,

landings, and value along the Canadian Maritimes and

U.S. Atlantic coasts in the early 1990's are listed by

region in Table 1. Nearly 21,000 fishermen with 4,800

boats landed about 100,000 t of mollusk meats, or

25,000,000 bushels ofshellstock, with a landed value of

$470,000,000/year.

The Pacific Coast of North America _

Middens

Shell middens ofNative Americans were common along

the entire Pacific coast. The most abundant shells in

them are those of Olympia oysters, Ostreola conchaphila;

abalones, Haliotis spp.; and chitons. In California,

middens date from 3,000-4,000 years ago; in Baja California, they date from 6,100-8,890 years ago.

Oyster Fisheries

Olympia oysters are indigenous to the Pacific coast

from British Columbia into California. Relatively small

(25-40 mm long) and usually inhabiting salinities mostly

of25%0 and above, they occurred in scattered locations

in intertidal zones and bays. Small quantities were harvested in the 1800's, especially in the state of Washington where, beginning in about 1900, the oysters were

grown in diked grounds, and production was increased.

It later declined, especially after the 1940's, mostly owing to pollution. Small-scale Olympia oyster culture

also was practiced in California, but they now are grown

only in Washington in small quantities.

Completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869

made it possible to transport eastern oysters, C. virginica,

to the Pacific coast. Shipments ofseed and market-sized

oysters were sent to British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California for planting and growing. The

largest quantities were planted in San Francisco Bay,

Calif., and between 1887 and 1900, Atlantic coast dealers shipped an average of 124 carloads of oysters per

year for planting there. In 1899, California production

peaked at 2.5 million pounds of meats (335,000 bushels). The fishery declined as the bay became polluted,

and harvests ended by 1939. Plantings also ended in the

other west coast locations by or before the same time.

In the early 1900's, growers from Alaska to California

began importing seed of the large, robust, and fastgrowing Pacific oyster, C. gigas, from Japan. The oysters

reproduced naturally only in British Columbia and

Washington in the warmest summers, and they became

common there intertidally, but seed imports from Japan continued. They have been grown directly on the

bottom and on stakes, ropes, and racks.

In the 1960's, several hatcheries were constructed,

most of them in Washington and Oregon, to provide a

8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Table 1 (continued)

Landings

Location and No. of No. of

species harvested boats fishermen Meat wt. (t) Bushels Value (US$)

U.S. Gulf of Mexico

Eastern oysters 1,170 2,585 9,926 4,367,446 33,000,000

Subtotal 1,170 2,585 9,926 4,367,446 33,000,000

Grand total I 4,799 20,860 101,200 25,430,092 470,903,304

U.S. total only 3,580 16,497 86,119 20,065,653 353,706,304

I Total of listed data.

reliable local source of Pacific oyster seed and replace

Japanese imports. The hatcheries now supply most of

the seed produced from Alaska to California. For a

while, nearly all hatchery production was shipped to

distant growing sites as larvae, which growers put in

tanks containing water and shells, for setting. Recently,

some larvae, already set on shells, have been shipped

from hatcheries to growing sites. In the last two decades, some triploid Pacific oysters have been produced

in hatcheries. They do not develop gonads, so are fat

and harvestable in summer, in contrast to normal Pacific oysters. Washington has been, by far, the largest

oyster producer on the Pacific coast.

Pacific oysters are also grown in several Mexican estuaries on rafts and longlines. The seed is produced in

hatcheries in Mexico and the United States.

Clam fisheries

Several species of clams have been harvested commercially and recreationally on the Pacific coast. They include butter clams, Saxidomus giganteus; littlenecks,

Protothaca staminea; cockles, Clinocardium nuttallii; and

horse clams or gapers, Tresus capax and T. nuttallii, in

British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. The introduced softshells, M. arenaria, and Japanese littlenecks,

Tapes philippinarum, also have been harvested commercially in those localities. Another species once important in commercial and recreational landings are razor

clams, Siliqua patula, found on ocean beaches from

Alaska to Oregon. In recent years, harvests have been

limited by problems with paralytic shellfish poison,

domoic acid, and a new disease known as NIX (Nuclear

Inclusion Unknown). Scuba divers and recreational diggers harvest the geoduck, Panope generosa, in British Columbia and Washington. The pismo clam, Tivela stultorum,

once was harvested commercially in California.

Some Pacific coast clam species were canned commercially, but demand fell substantially in the 1960's,

when Atlantic coast surfclams, S. solidissima, and ocean

quahogs, A. islandica, took over the canned clam market. Commercial landings continue on a much smaller

scale, but in recent decades most clam species have

been harvested by recreational fishermen. Several species are harvested commercially in Mexico.

Scallop Fisheries

The weathervane scallop, Patinopecten caurinus, has been

the most important mollusk landed in Alaska since the

mid-1960's; production has comprised about 2.5% of

total U.S. scallop production. This species was also harvested on a small scale in British Columbia and Oregon. Small quantities of other scallop species have

been harvested commercially in British Columbia and

Washington and contribute to the recreational catch in

California. Some commercial scalloping takes place in

Mexico.

Mussel Fisheries

Small quantities of mussels are produced on the Pacific

coast, though they are fairly common from Alaska

through Mexico. From Alaska through Oregon, M.

trossulus is cultured on a small scale, and in Oregon, M.

californianus also is cultured. California produces the

most mussels; both M. galloprovincialis, imported from

Europe, and M. trossulus are cultured. In Mexico, small

quantities ofwild M. californianusand M. galloprovincialis

are harvested and attempts at culturing them have

begun.

Gastropod Fisheries

The most important gastropods harvested are abalones, Haliotis spp. In California, which has the largest
_____ MacKenzie and Burrell: Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and Central America and Europe 9

fishery, commercial harvesting began in the 1850's and

peaked in the 1950's and 1960's, with commercial divers

using hookah gear to harvest them. Recreational harvesting by sport divers has also become popular.

Culturists now are rearing them from hatchery seed.

Alaska has a small commercial abalone fishery, and

Native Americans in Alaska and British Columbia harvest abalones and chitons on a small scale for personal

use. An abalone fishery and hatchery culture are active

on the coast of Baja California, Mexico.

Historical Production

A comparison of Alaskan mollusk production in 1927

(when statistics were first available) and 1991 shows

that clam production was about twice as high in 1991.

Weathervane scallops were not harvested in 1927,

whereas nearly 1 million pounds of meats were taken in

1991.

A comparison of early and recent production in Washington, Oregon, and California shows that production

of oysters and clams was about six times higher in 1991

than in 1904.

Recent Problems

Mollusk fisheries throughout North America and the

Caribbean islands are beset with difficulties. Problems

include habitat loss from pollution and the degradation of estuaries and bays by human activities and hurricanes, user conflicts, seed shortages, diseases, intensive

fishing that has reduced some stocks, competition with

foreign imports, and loss of labor.

Land-based industries use the coastal zone for processing and cooling water, and for transportation, so

some mollusk-growing areas have been closed or restricted due to current or potential contamination by

toxic chemicals. Channelization for navigation purposes

has also altered water and substrate suitability for growth

of mollusks.

Since the 1940's, human population density in the

coastal zone has increased dramatically and projections

are for continued growth. This has led to an increase of

anthropogenic wastes, often resulting in closure ofmollusk beds and disruption offisheries. Substantial growth

in recreational use of waterways is causing a proliferation of shore-based marinas, golf courses, restaurants,

and other developments, impinging on the suitability

of some areas as mollusk growing sites. In the past,

public officials usually have allowed construction on

bays and estuaries if it promised to generate high revenues. Many shellfisheries have suffered as a result. Few

shellfish companies have been able or willing to bid

against developers for waterfront property to establish

landing and processing facilities.

Agriculture and silviculture use chemicals that also

can affect the suitability of mollusk beds. Such landbased industries also change runoff patterns which may

decrease water retention and allow much silt to enter

estuaries, affecting their productivity. Diseases have

made it difficult to grow oysters in the traditional areas

of Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, and little progress to

date has been made in developing disease-resistant

stocks.

Competition between commercial and recreational

mollusk harvesters; between different sectors of the

industry, such as clammers and oystermen; between

leaseholders and public grounds fishermen; and between environmentalists and commercial harvesters have

resulted in regulatory restrictions that discourage modernization and capital investments in mollusk fisheries.

This has prevented some fisheries from being fully ek

ploited. The harvesting and processing segments of the

mollusk fisheries are labor intensive and often rigorous

pursuits, and many workers are choosing less physically

demanding trades.

Mollusks have not been actively marketed, largely

because most companies are too small to mount an

effective effort. Promotion is usually limited to state

agencies' placement ofrecipes in newspapers and pamphlets and displays of mollusk products at trade shows.

Potential health problems, such as those caused by

Vibrio sp. in the Gulf of Mexico, have not been adequately addressed, and markets have suffered. Paralytic shellfish poison occurs regularly in some areas,

causing closures and loss of yields. Other more rare,

but publicized, health risks have further contributed to

loss of public confidence in shellfish wholesomeness.

On the other hand, there have been at least three

positive developments in the past quarter century. First,

rulings and activities by government environmental

agencies and public interest groups have reduced pollution and halted construction projects that would have

destroyed mollusk habitats in many estuaries. Some

environmentalists are not sympathetic to the needs of

mollusk fishermen, however, so mlings instigated by

them do not always benefit fishermen. Environmentalists often oppose proposals to manipulate habitats to

enhance mollusk abundances.

Second, assessments of offshore clams and scallops

by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans

and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,

have helped locate stocks for fishermen and determine

how rapidly stocks can be harvested without depleting

them.

Third, strong market demand, especially for scallops

and clams, has increased ex-vessel prices. By 1994, U.S.

ex-vessel prices for mollusks were at a near-record high.
10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

For example, "littleneck" northern quahogs were regularly selling for $0.16/piece ($120/bushel), Maine

softshells for $80-90/bushel, Connecticut oysters for

$60/bushel, and Canadian Maritimes blue mussels for

$0.55/pound ($33/bushel). In California, scuba divers

harvesting red abalone were selling the largest ones for

$600/dozen. Markets currently prefer farmed or depurated mollusks because they are perceived as safer to eat.

The Future _

Much effort is being made on both the Atlantic and

Pacific coasts to produce more mollusks, due to good

market demand that will undoubtedly grow. For increased production, ways must be found to grow more

mollusks in waters that are concurrently becoming more

crowded with people using them for recreation and

other purposes.

On the U.S. Atlantic coast, officials are attempting to

control pollution in bays and estuaries, so that thousands of acres of grounds now condemned for direct

mollusk harvests can become available again. Efforts

are also being made to increase mollusk abundances in

several bays and estuaries using hatchery-produced seed:

1) Northern quahog farms using hatchery-reared seed

are expanding in number and size from Massachusetts to Florida. Culturists are trying to develop barriers to prevent whelks and other gastropods from

entering the beds of cultured oysters and northern

quahogs.

2) Hatchery rearing of softshell seed is being tried in

Maine and New York, and has been proposed in

Maryland.

3) Hatcheries to produce sea scallops are being constructed in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia.

4) Proposals have been made to reestablish bay scallops

in Niantic Bay, Conn.; Barnegat Bay, N.].; and

Chincoteague Bay, Md. and Va., using hatcheryreared scallops as brood stock. A bay scallop demonstration farm using Chinese lantern nets suspended

from longlines has been established in Connecticut.

5) Researchers in NewJersey, Maryland, and Virginia are

attempting to develop strains of eastern oysters resistant to the diseases MSX and Dermo and which will

survive to market size on beds in Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. The seed would be produced in hatcheries.

The Connecticut oyster industry has been enormously

successful in producing oysters by preparing beds to

collect wild sets of seed and in otherwise farming the

beds to grow oysters to market size. Similarly, farming

ofsuch other mollusks as northern quahogs, softshells,

bay scallops, and mussels, in bays and estuaries might

be successful. Town officials in Maine and Massachusetts recently have had success in enhancing softshell

seed abundances by laying lj4-inch mesh screens over

clam flats, and field tests are being planned in New

Jersey to determine whether a shell-covered bottom will

protect wild seed of northern quahogs from predators.

The three U.S. offshore shellfisheries are now managed by fishery management plans implemented under

provisions of the U.S. Magnuson Fishery Conservation

and Management Act of 1976. At the current rates of

recruitment and harvest, the ocean quahog stock will last

about 30 years. The plan to restrict surfclam harvests has

led to an improved economic situation in the industry.

And managers hope that decreased fishing effort on sea

scallops will increase its stocks and stabilize yields.

Commercial clams and scallops on the continental

shelf could be exploited to a much larger extent. Dense,

Widespread sets (>8,000/m2) of surfclams occur every

summer in thousands of acres of coastal bottoms at

least off Long Island, N.Y. and NewJersey, but the seed

is almost entirely consumed by crabs every autumn.

The seed perhaps could be harvested in the late summer and grown on bottoms or in suspended trays in

sounds and bays where temperatures are sufficiently

low for them to survive and grow to market sizes.

Sea scallop seed could be collected in mesh bags

placed in ocean areas. It could possibly be grown in

lantern nets, on suspended lines, or on the bottom, in

sufficiently cool sounds and bays. This technique is

currently being tested on Prince Edward Island.

On the Pacific coast, hatchery culture of oysters is

expected to enjoy continued success, and abalone culture is growing in California. Three hatchery-growout

farms are producing abalone for food, and about ten

similar farms grow them for the aquarist trade. Pacific

coast oyster and abalone producers have expanded their

markets from North America to Pacific rim countries in

Asia, a trend likely to continue.

Researchers on the west coast of Mexico are developing culture methods for scallops, abalone, oysters, pearl

oysters, and mussels. The Mexican government is encouraging private companies-domestic and international-to develop mollusk farms. Local officials forecast that Mexico will soon follow Chile, which in the

late 1980's and early 1990's developed large salmon

and scallop farms. Mexican officials wish to preserve

natural environments, but will allow slight alterations

where mollusk and shrimp culture is developing.

Video cameras and players make it possible to record

effective mollusk culture techniques and share these

quickly with other nations. Underwater video cameras

enable culturists who cannot scuba dive to view mollusk

beds and develop new procedures more effectively, and

video cassettes can be mailed to interested aquaculturists almost anywhere.
_____ MacKenzie and Burrell: Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and Central America and Europe II

Considerable research on the biology and ecology of

mollusks takes place in many parts of the world.

Culturists can scan the published results, seeking ways

to increase production.

Central America _

Before publication ofthis monograph, the mollusk fisheries in Central American countries (Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, EI Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica,

and Panama) had not been described to any extent and

little has been written about the biology and ecology of

their mollusks. However, at least two species, the Caribbean oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae, and queen conch,

Strombus gigas, have been described in other parts of

their ranges. The Nicaraguan molluscan fisheries described in this monograph may be representative of

those in other parts of the region, because the country

is centrally located, its mollusks range widely in the

region, and habitats are probably similar.

Shell middens left along Nicaragua's Atlantic (Caribbean) coast by indigenous peoples suggest that mollusks have been harvested there for a great many years.

In recent times, people on this coast have harvested

marshclams, Polymesoda placans; coquina clams, Donax

denticulata and D. striata; and Caribbean oysters for

personal use. Harvesters paddle or sail dugout canoes

to marshclam and oyster beds located 60-90 cm deep at

low tide in lagoons, gathering the mollusks by hand. No

implements are used. They usually harvest coquina clams

with shovels, but also by hand, along Atlantic coast

beaches. As was the cultural practice of peoples indigenous to eastern North America, Nicaraguan women

and children harvest most of the mollusks, and the

women also open and cook them. Adult males harvest

finfish, shrimp, turtles, lobsters, and gastropods to sell.

In the Caribbean Sea, gastropods such as queen

conchs and whelks are harvested by scuba divers who

primarily seek lobsters. Queen conchs are harvested

throughout the Caribbean area.

On Nicaragua's Pacific coast, the black ark clam or

mangrove cockle, Anadara tuberculosa, is harvested in

mangrove, Rhizophora sp., swamps. Some black ark clams

are eaten by the harvesters, but most are sold whole or

served in cocktails in the western part ofthe country. The

clams, which range from Baja California to Peru, are

harvested in Mexican mangrove swamps and presumably

in other Central American countries that border on the

Pacific. Mollusks harvested on a lesser scale in western

Nicaragua are beanclams, Donax dentifer; giant ark clams,

A. grandis; chitons, Chiton stokesi; and giant eastern Pacific

conchs, S. galeatus. D. dentifer, A. grandis, and S. galeatus

range along the entire Pacific coast of Central America.

Scuba divers harvest S. galeatus in Mexico and Nicaragua.

No studies of water quality have been conducted in

Nicaragua, and no sanitary controls over production

and marketing are practiced. Because its beds are not

certified for marketing, its mollusks cannot be sold in

such countries as the United States.

Large-scale commercial harvesting and marketing of

mollusks never developed in Nicaragua because supplies are relatively small (no mollusk culturing is done),

and refrigerated transport of small quantities of mollusks to distant markets in the warm climate has been

impractical. Its mollusk fisheries could expand a little,

but substantial increases seem unlikely.

The only commercial scallop fishery along the Central American Pacific coast is in Panama, where Pacific

calico scallops, Argopecten ventricosus, occur. Harvests

apparently peaked in the 1960's, when about 300 t of

meats were landed annually. Landings after that have

been much smaller. Most scallop meats are flown to the

United States for sale.

Europe _

Middens

Shells of European flat oysters, Ostrea edulis, have been

found in ancient (6,000 B.C.) shell piles, from Norway

through Portugal. They are also found in inland settlement remains of the Roman Empire. Other species

found in the middens are blue mussels, M. edulis; cockles, Cerastoderma edule; and periwinkles, L. littorea.

Oyster Fisheries

In the 17th and 18th centuries, flat oysters were a common food in coastal areas of Europe and were cultivated in the Mediterranean Sea. They became increasingly important during the 1800's in Germany, Denmark, England, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, Italy,

Croatia, and other countries. In some nations, they

were the most important mollusk landed. Much of the

19th-century expansion in harvesting was due to increased demand created by better transport inland.

By the late 1800's, when oysters were being landed in

increasing quantities along the U.S. Atlantic coast, natural stocks of flat oysters had declined sharply in most

European countries, although they persisted into the

early 1900's in Denmark and Portugal. They have since

been replaced by C. angulata in Portugal.

Flat oysters have recently been relatively scarce except in the Netherlands, Croatia, and Turkey, where

small stocks have persisted. Overfishing was the main

cause of decline, but extremely cold winters contributed.

In recent years, a disease caused by Martelia refringens and
12 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Bonamia ostreae also has killed stocks. B. ostreae was introduced when O. edulisseed, raised in California hatcheries,

was transplanted to Europe for growth.

Several European countries have been growing the

robust Pacific oyster, C. gigas, a practice begun in the

late 1970's. North of the Netherlands, production is

entirely from hatchery-produced seed, whereas in the

Netherlands and France it is mostly from natural sets.

France is Europe's leader in production of C. gigas, with

150,000 t (4.13 million bushels)/year. Most French oysters are held in ponds for about two weeks before sale.

Clam Fisheries

The fishery for cockles, Cerastoderma edulie, has been

important for generations from Germany through Spain.

Before the 1960's, fishermen dug them with hand rakes

on bare flats and in shallow water at low tide. Since

then, they have harvested them with hydraulic dredges

and production has increased markedly, especially in

the Netherlands, England, and France. A cockle fishery

in the Wadden Sea, Germany, began in 1973 and ended

in the early 1990's.

In France, Portugal, and Spain, grooved carpet shell

clams, Tapes decussatus, are harvested from natural areas and also are farmed. Farming consists of collecting

seed from natural areas and planting and protecting it

in small growing areas (parks). France also produces

this species from hatcheries, and Britain produces a

small quantity.

The fishery for T. decussatus and Chamelea gallina is

generations old in Italy. T decussatus is also harvested in

Croatia. Japanese littlenecks or Manila clams, T.

philippinarum, were introduced to Europe in the 1980's

and are produced in hatcheries in Norway, France, and

Italy. Commercial fishing for striped venus, Venus gallina,

and T. decussatus began in Turkey in the 1970's.

Scallop Fisheries

Scalloping in Europe was done on a small scale for fish

bait until the early 1900's. It became a large fishery in

the 1960's, when fleets began to dredge for Pecten maximus off the coasts of Britain and France, for Chlamys

islandica around Iceland, and for P. jacobaeus in the

Adriatic Sea in Italy. P. jacobaeus is also harvested in

French Mediterranean waters. Dredging for C. opercularis

off the Faroes began in 1970. British boats also have

been harvesting C. opercularissince the early 1970's, and

Norwegian fleets have been harvesting C. islandica since

the mid-1980's. Belgian boats began landing scallops

with trawls in the late 1960's and early 1970's; more

than half are taken from the English Channel. European countries import some scallops from outside Europe, with France being the leading importer.

Mussel Fisheries

Mussels are now the most important mollusk landed in

Europe. The blue mussel, M. edulis, fishery was relatively small until 1900. Although some were consumed,

most were used as bait for longline fisheries or as fertilizer. Since then, and especially after the mid-1940's,

demand for them as human food has increased. Landings have risen markedly in Germany, Denmark, the

Netherlands, France, and to a small extent, Sweden.

But Spain is the European leader, with an annual production ofl73,000 t (6.3 million bushels) (1990), much

as a result of culture. Spanish mussel production exploded with the development of raft culture in the

1940's and 1950's. In other countries, mussel culture

involves either dredging seed from natural grounds

and planting it on growing grounds, or collecting natural seed on ropes and along the shore and then growing it in suspended plastic mesh socks or, as in France,

on bouchots (poles). This method, used on the Atlantic

coast of France, is the oldest known method for farming mussels off the bottom and dates from 1235.

The world leader in bottom-farming of mussels is the

Netherlands, where about 100,000 t/year are produced

in the Wadden Sea. Southeastern France, Italy, Croatia,

Turkey, and Bulgaria have historic fisheries for the

Mediterranean mussel, M. galloprovincialis. Production

has increased in some countries since the 1940's, when

fishermen began using mesh socks to grow the mussels.

Total mussel production in Europe was at least 590,000 t

(about 22 million bushels) in 1990. Wholesalers may

rewater the mussels for two weeks or more before seIling them to consumers. Freshness is guaranteed by the

rewatering, which also serves for depuration. Mussels,

commonly distributed from docks and rewatering tanks

to wholesalers in various EC countries within 12-36

hours, reach consumers in top condition.

Gastropod Fisheries

Intertidal periwinkles, L. littorea, probably have been

eaten for centuries along the coast from Norway to

France. The largest fisheries apparently were in Britain

and the Netherlands. While they continue to be harvested

in Britain, this fishery disappeared in the Netherlands in

the 1960's, as stocks declined and labor costs escalated.

Whelks, Buccinum undatum, also have been harvested

for centuries in Britain, and the Netherlands had an

important fishery for them from the mid-1800's to the

late 1960's, when the whelk populations declined from
_____ MacKenzie and Burrell: Trends and Status of Molluscan Fisheries in North and Central America and Europe 13

overfishing. France also has had a large fishery for this

species. Countries with small whelk fisheries have been

Germany, from the 1950's into the 1970's, and Belgium

since the early 1960's. Most whelks are caught with pots.

Fishermen in Bulgaria and Turkey harvest the exotic

snail, Rapana thomassiana, in the Black Sea. The snail

was introduced there accidentally from the Sea ofJapan in the 1940's.

European Mollusk Culture

The most important bivalves produced in Europe3 are

mussels, M. edulis and M. galloprovincialis; Pacific oysters,

C. gigas; cockles, C. edule; flat oysters, 0. edulis; clams, T.

decussatus, T. philippinarum, T. pullastra, and Venus gallina;

scallops, P. maximus, C. islandica, and C. apercularis; and,

recently, hard clams, Spisula subtruncata and S. solida.

Only oysters; littleneck (Manila) clams, Tapes spp.;

and scallops, P. maximus, are reared in hatcheries. About

20% of the Pacific oysters and less than 10% of the

littleneck clams are produced from hatchery seed. More

than half of the littleneck clams originated from hatcheries until the mid-1980's, but strong recruitment of

natural stocks in Italy has all but eliminated the market

for hatchery seed. Hatchery production of flat oysters

and scallops is of little consequence because the hatchery seed of both species suffer nearly total mortality

during growout in the field.

Production of mussels and oysters depends almost

exclusively on culture activities. In the case of mussels,

about half of the production is from culture of naturally setspat on ropes or poles (mostly M. gallaprovincialis

in Spain, Italy, and France), and about half is from the

relaying ofwild seed to subtidal growing beds (M edulisin

Denmark, Netherlands, and Germany). Exceptions are

Bulgaria and Turkey, where most mussels are harvested

from wild beds. In the case of oysters, the seed from spat

collectors is usually grown intertidally on reserved plots.

Littleneck clam production depends both on fishing for

wild stocks and on bottom culture, but it is impossible to

say which is more important. Production of cockles, scallops, and hard clams is based on the fishery of natural

stocks, mainly offshore dredging with specialized boats.

Public Health Standards for Mollusks

The EC Common Market has been developing uniform

standards for the protection of public health. Within

3 This section was contributed in 1994 by Matthias Seaman, Institut

fur Meereskunde an der Universitat Kiel, Dusternbrooker Weg 20,

D-24105 Kiel, Germany; John Bayes, Seasalter Shellfish Ltd.,

Whitstable, Kent CT5 lAB, U.K.; and Fernando Gutierrez Gomez,

Tinamenor S. A., 39594 Pesues, Cantabria, Spain.

the EC regulatory framework, standards are established

for the quality of waters in which mollusks are cultivated and fished. Standards currently being being applied in several EC countries include those for: pH,

temperature, water-chlorine intensity, suspended solids, salinity, oil, flavor, taste, thermotolerant coliforms,

dissolved oxygen, halogenated organic carbons, and a

number of metals. The standards provide that their

values may not be exceeded under natural conditions,

beyond set limits.

Uniform European regulations will be implemented

for the waters in which mollusks are fished or kept, as well

as for fish and mollusks imported from outside the EC.

Criteria apply to processing techniques, hygiene, and facilities. The EC became effective on 1January 1993.

The Future

The future ofmollusk fisheries in Europe appears to be

strong, as the new EC public health standards will give

consumers increased confidence in the wholesomeness

of mollusk products. Demand should continue to be

good. The influences of environmental activists may

curb mollusk fisheries in some countries since they

have been objecting to certain harvesting and culture

practices. A few countries with shortages ofseed, such as

for clam species, cite the need to construct hatcheries.

Interactions between

North America and Europe _

Nearly all mollusks produced in North America are

sold within its boundaries, and nearly all European

production is sold within the EC. In recent years there

has been little mollusk trade between North America

and Europe. Small quantities of North American scallops and oysters have been sold in Europe, and small

quantities of pickled European mussels have been sold

in the United States. North Americans have copied

European methods of growing mussels. Perhaps they

could copy the handling of mussels from harvesting to

markets. Connecticut methods offarming oysters might

be tried in Europe.

Each succeeding chapter in this volume contains:

1) a list of mollusk fisheries in each area

2) a description of mollusk habitats

3) maps showing locations of beds

4) the history of each mollusk fishery including historical landings and gear development

5) historical references relating to mollusk fisheries

6) historical and modern photographs showing aspects

of the fisheries.
14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

In addition, many chapters include local recipes for

preparing mollusks, as well as historical numbers of

boats and fishermen.

The chapters in the later section (volume 2) on topics associated with mollusk fisheries contain:

1) how fishermen relate to mollusk supplies

2) environmental challenges facing mollusk fisheries

and culturists

3) government regulatory strategies to assure the safety

of mollusks

4) economic issues relating to mollusk fisheries

5) a description of government collection and processing of mollusk landing statistics

6) mollusk marketing in the United States, and,

7) trade in Europe.

None of the chapters contain descriptions of the

anatomy, physiology, or growth of the mollusks, because these aspects have already been described in

many papers, books, and reports published over the

past century or so. Neither do they provide much information on setting densities ofjuvenile mollusks. Abundances ofjuveniles vary among years, and are largely

governed by environmental conditions that in turn are

influenced by weather. Dense sets can occur even when

spawning stocks are relatively low and vice versa. Individual mollusk fisheries can flourish following one or

more years in which sets of juveniles are dense and

survival is high, or be depressed following a series of

poor setting or survival years or both.

Some chapters describe how abundances of mollusks

have declined due to habitat degradation. A recent

example is the spread of sea lettuce (Chlorophyta,

Ulvaceae) on softshell beds in northern New Jersey.

The sea lettuce mats over the beds, preventing settlement of larvae and killing adults. Since too little specific information exists about the relationship between

habitat condition and mollusk abundances, we recommend that future researchers devote more attention to

studying the features of habitats and ways to modify

them to enhance abundances.
The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes

JAMES B.JENKINS

ALLAN MORRISON

Department ofFisheries and Oceans

P.O. Box 1236

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada

CLYDE L. MAcKENZIE,JR.

James]. Howard Marine Laboratory

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Seroice, NOAA

Highlands, NJ 07732

ABSTRACT

The estuarine and offshore waters of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova

Scotia have supported fisheries for nine species of mollusks. Estuarine mollusks have

included eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica; softshells, Mya arenaria; northern quahogs,

Mercenaria mercenaria; periwinkles, Littorina littorea; and since 1981, blue mussels, Mytilus

edulis. The offshore mollusks have included sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, since the

early 1900's; surfclams, Spisula solidissima, and ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica, both since

about 1970; and Arctic surfclams, Mactromeris polynyma, in the 1980's and 1990's. All except

oysters and mussels have been harvested from wild public beds, while oysters have been

harvested from public and leased beds and mussels from leased beds. The presence of

middens along many shores prove that generations of Native Americans used oysters,

softshells, quahogs, mussels, and snails as food and for jewelry. Most shellfisheries are

seasonal, with about 50 boats and 920 fishermen employed in the winter, the least active

season. About 1,285 boats and 4,090 fishermen are employed in the fall, the most active

season. In 1992, 15,191 t ofmolluscan meats were landed; sea scallops comprised 90% ofthe

landings. The sea scallop fishery has two types of fleets. One with relatively small boats and

crews harvests scallops in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy and

environs, and the other type with large boats and crews harvests mainly on Georges Bank.

Introduction

The estuarine and offshore waters of the Canadian

Maritime Provinces (Fig. 1)-Prince Edward Island

(P.E.!.), New Brunswick (N.B.), and Nova Scotia

(N.S.)-have supported fisheries for nine molluscan

species. The estuarine fisheries have been based on

harvests of oysters, Crassostrea virginica; softshell clams,

Mya arenaria; and northern quahogs, Mercenaria

mercenaria, since prehistoric times; blue mussels, Mytilus

edulis, since the 1940's; and periwinkles, Littorina littorea,

since at least the early 1950's.

The offshore fisheries have been based on harvests of

sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, since the early

1900's; surfclams, Spisula solidissima, since the 1920's

and 1930's; and to a small extent, ocean quahogs, Arctica

islandica, since about 1970; and Arctic surfclams,

Mactromeris polynyma, in the 1980's and 1990's.

The economies of the Maritimes are based on agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism, with molluscan

fisheries important to all three provinces. In 1992, the

number of boats ranged from about 50 in winter, the least

active season, to 1,286 in fall, the most active season; the

number offishermen ranged from 825 in winter to 4,092

15
16 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

O' Oysters

m· Mussels

q. Quahogs

$. Sottshells

p. Periwinkles

62' ------'-g;

Atlantic Ocean

New Brunswick

Figure I

Locations of principal areas for harvesting estuarine shellfish in the Maritime provinces.

Letter sizes show relative sizes of the fisheries.

in the fall (Table 1). Total 1992 production ofall mollusks

was about 112,815 metric tons (t) (whole weight) (4.9

million bushels; 15,191 t of meat) with a landed value of

Can$132.2 million (US$104 million); sea scallops comprised about 90% of the landings (Table 2).

Softshells, quahogs, periwinkles, sea scallops,

surfclams, ocean quahogs, and Arctic surfclams have

been harvested from wild public beds, while oysters

have been harvested from public and leased beds and

mussels from leased areas. Before the 1970's, the public

oyster beds were wild. The only "culturing" was done on

private leases, with seed oysters picked by hand and

planted on the leases for growth to market size. Since

around 1970, production on P.E.!. has come increasingly from cultured public beds, and some oysters are

cultured on leases on P.E.I. and in N.B.

The Maritime provinces are at or near the northern

end of the ranges of many harvested mollusks. Oysters

occur north to Miscou Island in northern XB. Northern quahogs range to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and

ocean quahogs to Newfoundland. Softshells, periwinkles,

and sea scallops extend to Labrador while the blue

mussels and Arctic surfclams range to the Arctic Ocean

(Abbott, 1974).

Habitats _

Three main bodies of water border the provinces: the

Gulf of St. Lawrence, including Chaleur Bay and

:-.Iorthumberland Strait; the Atlantic Ocean; and the

Bay of Fundy. Gulf of St. Lawrence tides range from

about 0.6-2.7 m (2-9 feet), while those in the Bay of

Fundy have the largest amplitudes in the world, 9 m (30

feet) in most places and as much as 16.5 m (54 feet) in

the Minas Basin.

The GulfofSt. Lawrence is called the "Acadian pocket"

because its temperatures are warm enough to support

species normally found much farther south along the

U.S. eastern seaboard. Temperatures in estuaries extending from the Gulf are around -2°C from January

into March, but range to 20°-24°C in July and August

(Needler, 1931) because the estuaries have extensive

shallow zones and broad intertidal flats, many of which

are deep orange-red and absorb much radiant energy.

In winter, an average of 1 m (3 feet) of ice covers the

Gulf, in contrast to the Atlantic Ocean and Bay of Fundy

which are nearly ice-free except in estuaries.

Salinities in estuaries range from nearly fresh at headwaters to 32%0 near mouths. Large areas of estuaries
___________________ Jenkins et aI.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 17

Figure 3

New Brunswick showing principal shellfishing areas and ports.

Figure 2

Prince Edward Island showing principal shellfishing areas

and three towns.

\ k~"""~_. Om"" e_"""~a &MalpeQueSay

1 " .::> Cardigan

,~~

{] .. -Bay

EaslArver' e ~~r'£ Ch",o<:~-6~ernon River ,......Murray

'i ~~'de w.eslRlver~~~ /7 Harbor L ~7c..~ "Wood"'"'''' BedsQue Bay . Northumberland Strait

Chaleur Bay ..... :

New Brunswick

Table 1

Estimated numbers of mollusk fishing boats and fishermen in

the Maritime provinces-Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), New

Brunswick (N.B.), and Nova Scotia (N.S.)-during peak fishing times in 1992.

Species Boats Fishermen

Oysters

P.E.I., spring 250 275

P.E.I., fall 230 230

N.B., spring 43 43

N.B., fall 500 575

N.S., fall 50 50

Softshells

P.E.I., spring-fall 42

N.B. (Northumberland St.), spring-fall 125

Bay of Fundy, spring-fall 300

N.S. (east coast), spring-fall 45

Northern quahogs

P.E.I., spring-summer 15 250

N.B., spring-summer 100

N.S., spring-fall 70

Periwinkles

N.B.-N.S., summer-fall 35

Mussels

P.E.I., spring 615

P.E.!., summer 5 15

P.E.!., fall 615

P.E.I., winter 25

Sea scallops

Gulf St. Lawrence, spring and fall 200 450

Bay of Fundy, spring-fall 150 GOO

Georges Bank, year-round 50 800

Surfclams

P.E.I., summer 18 36

Arctic surfclams

.S.-Newfoundland. year-round 3 96

N.S., spring-fall 3 9

Totals

Spring 714 3.87U

Summer 94 1.923

Fall 1,286 4,092

Winter 53 921

on P.E.I. (Fig. 2), N.B. (Fig. 3), and N.S. (Fig. 4) have

salinities from 7-15%0 at low tide-suitable for oysters,

but unsuitable for the predatory starfishes, Asterias

vulgarus and A. Jorbesi, which cannot tolerate salinities

below 15%0. In addition, adult starfish rarely inhabit

grounds less than 1.2 m (4 feet) deep at low water.

Oysters inhabit many of those grounds even where

salinities are above 15%0. (A. Jorbesi has become much

more abundant around P.E.I. in the past 20 years.) In

mussel-growing areas, salinities range from 23-29%0

Uudson, 1989).

Bottom firmness varies widely. Oysters grow on mud

(sometimes so soft it barely supports them), shell deposits, and hard sand. Most quahogs inhabit mud. In

the Bay of Fundy and Atlantic Ocean, scallops grow on

gravel-sand, gravel-rock, and sand. Surfclams inhabit

sand and cobblestone bottoms.
18 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

During winters from the 1860's to the early 1940's,

farmers destroyed some oyster habitat on P.E.!. and in

N.B., particularly close to shores, when they dug deposits of "mussel mud" from the bottoms of estuaries. The

mud was dug from the bottom and raised through

holes in the ice, using large forks or scoops attached

to lines extending to horse-turned capstans. The mud

was then transported by horse-drawn sleighs to nearby

fields and spread on the soil. While it contained mussel

shells, estuary mud was also packed with oyster shells

that benefited soils as a fertilizer and conditioner to

lower acidity. The shell beds ranged from 60 cm to 3 m

(2-10 feet) deep (Ingersoll, 1881; Patton, 1911; Weale,

1978).

Table 2

Commercial landings of mollusks in the Maritime provinces-Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.), New Brunswick (N.B.), and

Nova Scotia (N.S.)-in 1992.

Species and location Metric tons] Bushels2 Meat weight (t)

Oysters

P.E.I. 1,179 32,480 603

N.B. 530 14,500 263

N.S. 121 3,300 63

Softshells

Gulf of St. Lawrence

P.E.I. 256 9,404 55

N.B. 639 23,473 138

N.S. 0 0 0

Bay of Fundy

N.B. 519 19,065 112

N.S. 1,214 44,594 263

Northern quahogs

P.E.! 560 15,428 77

N.B. 202 5,565 30

N.S. 99 2,727 15

Periwinkles

N.B.-N.S. 239 6,260 51

Mussels

P.E.I. 4,186 154,000 700

N.B. 50 1,837 8

N.S. 1 37 0.17

Sea scallops

Gulf of St. Lawrence

P.E.I. 796 35,264 96

N.B. 832 36,733 100

N.S. 496 22,040 60

Bay of Fundy and Atlantic Coast

N.B and N.S. 24,239 1,073,613 2,920

Georges Bank

N.S. 75,528 3,342,645 9,100

Surfclams

P.E.I. 806 22,205 1,306

N.B. 227 6,254 48

N.S. 96 2,645 20

Totals 112,815 4,874,069 15,191

] Whole weight.

2 U.S. standard bushels.

3 Assuming a yield of 4 pounds/bushel.

4 Data from 1992.

Value (thousands)

CanS US$

$2,062 1,623

1,048 825

40 31

464 365

893 703

0 0

638 502

1,943 1,529

803 632

370 291

117 92

4,959 3,903

33 26

1,076 847

1,151 906

723 569

32,107 25,268

82,767 65,138

554 436

334 263

134 105

132,216 104,054
__________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 19

Large deposits of fossil shells remain in the historically oyster-producing estuaries, and on P.E.I. some

have been mined and used as cultch for oyster larvae.

They have been surveyed in Malpeque and Bedeque Bays

and other estuaries on P.E.I. and in Caraquet Bay, N.B.

Sea scallops, surfclams, and ocean quahogs are harvested on offshore banks (Fig. 5).

Aboriginal Fisheries

Cape Breton Island

Atlantic Ocean

50 Miles

eo Km.

In the early 1600's, Pierre Biard, a Jesuit missionary

describing life in N.S. (Wells, 1986) said: "In the middle

of March, fish begin to spawn ... from the month of

May up to the middle ofSeptember, [the Native Americans] are free from all anxiety about their food; for the

cod are upon the coast, and all kinds of fish and shellfish [are present] ..."

The presence of middens along many shores proves

that generations of Native Americans used oysters,

softshells, quahogs, mussels, and snails as food and for

jewelry (Ingersoll, 1881; Baird, 1882). Baird (1882),

after finding the ashes in one midden were derived

from eelgrass, Zostera marina, concluded that the natives cooked mollusks by wrapping them in eelgrass and

burning it. The softshell middens are about 60 cm (2

feet) deep and occupy several acres on the coasts of

N.B. and N.S. (Newcombel ).

Figure 4

Nova Scotia showing principal shellfishing areas and ports.

I Newcombe, C. L. 1933. The softshelled clam fishery of the Bay of

Fundy. Manusc. Rep. of the BioI. Stns., Fis. Res. Bd. Can. 288, 38 p.

460 New Brunswick

9

66° 60°

Atlantic Ocean

58°

42°

Figure 5

Offshore beds where sea scallops and clams are harvested: 1) Northumberland Strait, 2) Bay

of Fundy, 3) Grand Manan, 4) Southwest Bank, 5) Brier Island, 6) Lurcher Shoals, 7)

German Bank, 8) Browns Bank, 9) Georges Bank, 10) Western Bank, 11) Middle Bank, 12)

Banquereau Bank, and 13) Saint Pierre Bank; the Grand Bank, not shown, lies east of Saint

Pierre Bank.
20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Government Administration

of Shellf'Isheries _

The Constitution Act of 1982 assigned legislative authority for Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries to

the government ofCanada. The Minister ofthe Federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has constitutional authority over fisheries and direct management authority over fisheries in the Atlantic provinces.

Administrative agreements between the Provincial

and Federal governments permit one level of government to act for the other in the daily management of

fisheries. In the Maritimes, the DFO regulates public

fisheries. Aquaculture, as it applies to private property

rights, is regulated and administered by the provinces,

except in P.E.I. where it is administered by the DFO on

behalf of the province. In P.E.!., an aquaculture zoning

system has been developed and implemented, taking

into consideration the type of lease (i.e., bottom or

surface) and balancing the demands of the various

users for marine water resources. This is the first zoning

system in North America. Shellfisheries are controlled

and administered through DFO regulations governing

the licensing of fishermen (the number of licenses in

fisheries for most species is limited). Regulations define

seasons, size limits, fishing methods and areas, vessel size

(if applicable), and other licensing requirements that

pertain to governing harvest of public resources.

The Federal government has also entered into international agreements. One ofthese is the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (known as the International

Shellfish Agreement) that outlines specific guidelines

for handling and identifying shellfish. To this end, the

Federal government has passed Management of Contaminated Fisheries Regulations authorizing the Regional

Director General to close any fishery in a contaminated

area. Any fishing in such an area can be controlled by

licensing and a detailed decontamination plan. Water

quality in areas where shellfish are harvested is regulated

by the Canadian Department of the Environment.

Fisheries administrators are cognizant of the importance of shellfish to the economic and social fabric of

rural communities in the Maritimes, and they try to

work closely with fishermen to enhance their employment and earnings. In many areas, estuarine shellfisheries involve people from the lower end of the economic scale, providing almost all of their incomes.

Estuarine Shellf'Isheries

Oyster Fishery

Nearly all oysters occur in wild public beds of various

sizes on P.E.I. and the Gulf of St. Lawrence portion of

northern N.B. and N.S., including Bras D'Or Lake.

Most occur at depths from 60 cm to 2 m (2-6 feet) at

mean low water, but they range from the intertidal

zone to a depth of at least 11 m (36 feet). There are very

few oysters along the Atlantic coast ofN.S. and none in

the Bay of Fundy.

Spatfalls of oysters on the public beds occur in commercial densities nearly every year. They subsequently

grow in clusters of 3- to 5-year classes, from spat to

commercial size (at least 76 mm or 3 inches) (Table 3).

Oysters grow relatively slowly, but the rate of growth

varies by estuary. On P.E.I., growth is fastest in Bedeque

Bay at up to about 37 mm (1.5 inches)/year. medium in

the East River at 20 mm (0.75 inches)/year, and slowest in

branches ofMalpeque Bay at 10 mm (0.4 inches)/year.

Starfish are abundant and eliminate most seed oysters in depths below 1.2 m (4 feet), where salinities are

above 15%0. The only other predators are rock crabs,

Cancersp., that prey on unattached seed oysters smaller

than 25 mm (1 inch), and the Atlantic oyster drill,

Urosalpinx cinerea, which is scarce and only a minor

source of oyster mortality.

Market-size oysters contain less meat than those farther south along the Atlantic coast. In N.S., they yield

only about 3.75 pounds of meat/bushel (Morse, 1971),

Table 3

List of minimum legal lengths for harvesting mollusks

in the Maritime provinces, 1993. Source: Department

of Fisheries and Oceans.

Minimum

inmm

Waters Species (inches)

All provinces Eastern oyster 76 (3.0)

Prince Edward Island Northern quahog 50 (~.O)

Inland and tidal Surf clam 76

waters Softshell 50

New Brunswick

Inland and tidal waters Northern quahog 38(1.5)

of that portion of New Surf clam 76

Brunswick that borders Softshell 44 (1.75)

on the Bay of Fundy

Inland and tidal waters Northern quahog 38

of that portion of New Surf clam 76

Brunswick that borders Softshell 38

on the Gulf of St.

Lawrence and

Northumberland Strait

Nova Scotia

Inland and tidal waters Northern quahog 38

Surf clam 76

Softshell 44

Bay of Fundy Sea scallop 76

Georges Bank Sea scallop 105 (4)
_________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 21

or about half the meat yield of oysters from the State of

Connecticut. This makes them less suitable for shucking, but their meat is flavorful and demand for them as

fresh ovsters on the half-shell is strong. The oysters are

unique because, with proper storage, they will remain

alive out of water for at least two months.

Before completion of the Intercolonial Railway in

1876, most shellfish and fish products consumed in

Montreal, Canada's easternmost large city, were obtained from the United States because of good transportation and a shorter distance from Montreal to the

U.S. Atlantic seaboard than to the Maritimes. The railway opened markets in the central provinces, leading

to an increased oyster harvest in the Maritimes. Output

was highest in the 1880's and 1890's. with P.E.I. the

main producer. Maximum recorded output for the three

provinces, 162,000 bushels valued at $193,938, was in

1882, but production declined sharply thereafter

(Morse, 1971).

Prince Edward Island-The first detailed description

of oystering in the Maritimes was written by Ernest

Ingersoll (1881) who surveyed the industry in 1879 as

part of a wider survey of North American shellfisheries.

He found oystering on P.E.I. centered in Malpeque

(Richmond) Bay, where each spring (May and June)

and fall (September into November) 400-500 local farmers each harvested about 5 bushels of oysters/day from

wild beds using tongs. Their boats were square-sterned

rowboats and small sailboats. The catches were hauled

by wagon to the seaport of Summerside, a distance of

3-16 km (2-10 miles) away, and sold for about $0.40/

bushel. The oysters were then transported by boat to

the mainland for further sale.

Bedeque Bay then had few oysters, as a consequence

of overfishing, and apparently little oystering took place

there. But the bay once supported a large oyster supply,

and its oysters became famous. Oysters were also scarce

in West, North, and East rivers where they had once

been abundant. The value of those landed on the island was about $25,000 annually.

In 1880, about the time of Ingersoll's survey, annual

oyster production from P.E.I. was about 40,000 boxes

(50,000 bushels). The historical peak production year

(70,000 boxes (87,500 bushels)) was 1890, after which

production fell steadily to only 5,600 boxes (7,000 bushels) by 1920. The decline had four causes:

1) Fishermen retained seed attached to market oysters

landed, discarding it on shore (Patton, 1911). (In

the 1920's, government regulations required fishermen to break up clusters and return seed to the

beds; they could retain only oysters at least 3 inches

(76 mm) long (Found, 1927));

2) Mud diggers destroyed many oyster beds;

3) Sediment deposition from land erosion caused by

agricultural development (Kemp, 1916) and road

construction degraded the beds (deBelle, 1971); and

4) A disease known as "Malpeque disease" infected and

killed nearly all oysters in Malpeque Bay beginning

in 1915; later, it spread to all oyster-producing areas

on the island.

A disease-resistant oyster stock eventually evolved on

P.E.I. The last oysters died there from the disease in

1954 (Morse, 1971). As new generations of oysters became resistant to the disease, production rose to reach

30,000 boxes (37,500 bushels) by 1950. The oyster distribution by then had changed. Oysters never became

abundant again in Malpeque Bay, probably because the

shells of dead oysters became covered with fouling organisms that prevented the larvae from setting. But

oysters were abundant in Bedeque Bay which became

the island's leading producer, and they were also abundant in the East and West rivers.

A system of leasing barren grounds to individuals for

oyster cultivation had begun in 1912 (Patton, 1913), and

by 1966, there were about 1,800 leases comprising 4,949

acres, or about 2.75 acres/lease in the three provinces

(Morse, 1971). But nearly all had poor bottoms and most

were in areas where oyster larvae did not set regularly, so

culture was never practiced on most of them aside from

growing small quantities ofseed gathered along shores.

Some leases have played an important role in oyster

production since all oysters harvested from contaminated grounds (such as those in Bedeque Bay and the

lower East River) during spring seasons have been held

on leases over the summer for depuration then harvested each fall. (Bedeque Bay and the lower part ofthe

East River had become poIluted as the towns of

Summerside and Charlottetown grew in population.)

Termed "relays," contaminated oysters have comprised

up to 80% of total production. Fishermen sell most

relays to a few dealers who have larger leases of 8-20

acres, planting the remainder on their own leases.

The government established two seasons for public

oyster grounds. The spring season, established for relaying oysters at least 3 inches (76 mm) long from

contaminated beds, lasts from 1 May to 15July, while the

fall season, for harvesting similar oysters from beds certified for immediate consumption, is from 15 September to

30 November. Harvests tend to remain consistent throughoutspring seasons because the oysters are growing, but in

the fall seasons they decline after 3-4 weeks2.

2 In the Eastern United States, most relayed oysters are small seed

transferred from low to high salinity areas. Since seed oysters grow

slowly in low salinities and faster in high salinities, the practice

works well. A similar management practice cannot be adopted on

Prince Edward Island because the oysters grow well in Bedeque Bay

and slowly in relayed beds such as those in Malpeque Bay.
22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

3 Boylan, F. 1993. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

Personal commun.

double-prowed finfishing dories,

with tonging (culling) boards in

their bows. Since the mid-1940's,

fishermen have used square stern

boats about 4.4 m (14.5 feet) long,

powered by outboard motors (20-

25 hp). They are still called "dories," and tonging boards have remained in the bow. In the last 15

years, fishermen have replaced

wooden head tongs with wire-head

tongs. Fishermen hold oysters in

wooden fish boxes containing 4

or 5 pecks (l to 1.25 bushels),

although for the past 25 years,

dealers have been shipping oysters in cardboard boxes that hold

3.5 pecks (60 pounds), in place of

5-peck wooden boxes used earlier.

Since the Ingersoll (1881) survey, most island oystermen have

continued living on the western

end of the island near Malpeque

Bay, but since the early 1900's,

they have had to travel to other

estuaries, mainly Bedeque Bay and

the East and West rivers, to harvest oysters. Because the East and

West rivers are up to lI5 km (72

miles) from their homes, fishermen historically have found it impractical to go to and from home

every day. Therefore, they built

board and tarpaper shacks in

which to sleep and cook, on the

estuary shores during oyster seasons. The shacks, which had bunks

for one or two men, were improved in the early 1950'sand

made of plywood. In the late

1950's, axles and wheels from

wrecked automobiles were put

under them, converting them to

trailers that could be towed to estuaries at the beginning of seasons and back home at the end.

In the early 1960's, fishermen began buying manufactured trailers, and now nearly all are manufactured

(Boylan3) (Fig. 7). The fishermen return home on

weekends by truck.

Mobile trailers enable fishermen to opt for different

estuaries as desired. They simply tow the trailers and

Figure 7

Trailers used to house fishermen at a temporary site, North River, Prince

Edward Island, during the oyster season, 1980's. Photograph courtesy of the

Canadian Department ofFisheries and Oceans, Charlottetown, P.E.I.

FJ.gUre 6

Fishennen harvesting oysters with tongs, East River, Prince Edward Island,

1980's. Photograph by A. Morrison.

Many oystermen dig softshells or pick northern quahogs in late July and August. Many once netted smelt,

Osmerus mordax, in winter, but in the last 25 years or so

most have been unemployed in winter and are supported by government unemployment insurance.

Fishermen continue to harvest oysters with tongs during low tides (Fig. 6), in addition to hand-picking small

quantities along shores. In the early 1900's, tongs had

wooden heads supported by wires. Tonging boats were
_________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 23

FJgUI"e 8

Grading oysters for market at Ellerslie, Prince Edward

Island, 1920's. The oysters were shipped in barrels.

Photograph on display at Department of Fisheries and

Oceans Museum, Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island.

dories to chosen sites, usually during the few hours of

high tides so as not to lose any fishing time. In recent

years, quahog fishermen also have lived in trailers on

the shores of estuaries during summer harvesting seasons. The provincial government has established a number oftrailer parks with washrooms and electricity which

are operated by the Shellfish Association.

Since the late 1800's, the principal market for oysters

produced in the Maritimes has been the Province of

Quebec, the most important destination being Montreal.

Quebec consumers rate the quality of oysters mostly by

shell shape. The oysters thus have nearly always been

sold in four categories based on shell shape. The top

grade, "fancy" oysters (so scarce they have not been

marketed for the last 25 years) have a length that is no

more than 1.5 times their greatest width. The next,

"choice" oysters have a length no more than 1.75 times

their width. "Standard" oysters have a length no more

than two times their width and in the bottom grade,

"commercial" oysters are twice as long as they are wide.

The more that oystermen break up clusters of seed

while harvesting, the better the grade of market oysters

will be in future years. Beds not harvested for a few

years produce standards and commercials when harvested. In 1972, the percentages of oysters sold in each

of the currently available grades were: choice, 38%;

standard, 43%; and commercial, 19%. By the 1990's,

the grade and quality had improved because of the

cultivation of beds by the government and industry

working as partners. The rough percentages of oysters

sold in each grade were choice, 65; standard, 25; and

commercial, 10 (Boylan3). "Fancies" are not included

because they so rarely occur as to be statistically irrelevant.

FIgUre 9

Grading oysters for market at Burleigh Bros. oyster

house, Freeland, Prince Edward Island, 1980's. Oysters

were shipped in cardboard boxes. Photograph by A.

Morrison.

Upon receiving oysters from fishermen, shellfish dealers hire workers to grade them (Fig. 8, 9). A worker can

grade about three 3.5-peck boxes ofoysters/hour. Dealers pay the fishermen after grading. In 1993, dealers

purchased oysters by the peck and paid fishermen

Can$16.00 (US$12.30; US$49.20/bushel) for choice,

Can$8.00 (US$6.15; US$24.60/bushel) for standards,

and only Can$2.00 (US$1.54; US$6.15/bushel) for commercials (Fortune4). The fancy and choice grades go

mainly to upscale restaurants, the standards to restaurants and grocery stores, and commercials to groups

having annual outings. Fishermen often keep one or

two boxes of commercials in the basements of their

homes for winter eating. In recent years, the demand

for commercials has been weak. Less than 1% of all

oysters are shucked and sold as fresh meats.

The oyster marketing season has traditionally ended

shortly after ice covers the estuaries in early December.

But one buyer is selling oysters during winter by hold4 Fortune, B. 1993. Atlantic Aquafarms, Inc., Orwell, Prince Edward

Island, Canada. Personal commun.
24 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

o ~nJ:rrmmtr";;;"';k;;;.~nmtnTITITITfrrnmrrlmnTIIT!n-nllmt"Mn~;:;;m;;;:::r

1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 10

Historical landings of eastern oysters, Crassostrea

virginica, in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and

Nova Scotia, 1875-1990.

New Brunswick-In 1953, Malpeque disease caused the

first mortalities on the mainland, and by the late 1950's

had spread to estuaries along the entire Northumberland Strait coast from Caraquet Bay, N.B., to Pictou,

N.S. The result was a 90% decline in N.B. oyster production (Morse, 1971). On the assumption that P.E.!.

oysters were resistant to the disease, government auOysters

10

'"

c15

{3.

25

30

oo

~20

X

and Can$6,000 (US$4,722) in the fall season, for a total of

Can$12,750 (US$10,034)/year while oystering, although

the best oystermen land and earn about 50% more.

In the 1980's, DFO authorities found the enhancement program was not working as well as anticipated.

The number offishermen rose almost in proportion to

the growing numbers of oysters. While employment

had increased, harvests and earnings per individual did

not rise substantially. In 1987, the DFO instituted limited entry to the oyster fishery to improve individual

earnings. This should be partially effective, and the fall

seasons should last longer. The labor required for the

necessary handling of every cluster to separate market

from seed oysters prevents individuals from landing

much larger quantities in a day, even when oysters are

abundant.

Besides oystermen working public grounds, about 75

men harvest from their leased areas. The leases are

unique because they have good bottoms and receive

regular oyster sets. In recent years, the government has

provided assistance to leaseholders to develop their

culturing and harvesting methods. Leaseholders harvest with tongs or drags or at low tide by hand picking.

When hand picking in Vernon River, they pull wooden

sleds to hold the oysters. This group seldom fishes from

public grounds.

1) Spreading fossil shells mined in Malpeque Bay to

collect spat (up to 30,000 bushels/year, a total of

about 200,000 bushelsfrom 1976 to 1986 were spread

in Bedeque Bay);

2) Transplanting oysters from a 35-acre intertidal flat in

Bedeque Bay to good grounds in the bay (24,000

bushels were spread on 38 acres in 1973), and

unfished oysters from a channel 6-11 m (20-36 feet)

deep in the East River to good grounds 1-2 m deep

in the lower river (20,000 bushels were spread on 20

acres in 1992, and a total ofsome 50,000 bushels on

50 acres in earlier years);

3) Cultivating shells buried under a few centimeters of

mud to clean them sufficiently to collect spat (25

acres in Bedeque Bay and the West River were cultivated from 1988 to 1990); and

4) Collecting spat on shells held in plastic mesh stockings (5,000 to 10,000 bushels of shells are spread

each year).

The result has been a large increase in oyster abundance, with production rising to 38,000 boxes (48,000

bushels) in 1990 (Fig. 10). (Production in Bedeque Bay

increased from 5,000 boxes (7,250 bushels) in 1972 to

30,500 boxes (38,000 bushels) in the late 1980's.) The

number offishermen has also increased. In 1973 about

90 fishermen harvested oysters in Bedeque Bay in the

spring, but in 1983 there were about 250, and in 1993

about 200. About 155 men now tong oysters on public

grounds each fall: 30-40 in the West River, 60-80 in the

East River, and 50 in Cascumpeque Bay (Boylan3).

A typical fisherman tongs 5 days/week and harvests

from 2 to 5.5 5-peck boxes (2.5-6.9 bushels). The average is 2.5 boxes (3.1 bushels) of market oysters/day, or

12.5 boxes (15.6 bushels)/week. In the spring season,

each harvests about 150 boxes (187.5 bushels) of oysters, and in the fall season, 100 boxes (125 bushels), for

an annual total of 250 boxes (312.5 bushels). In the

early 1990's, fishermen were paid Can$40-50 (US$31-

39)/box for oysters harvested in the spring season, and

an average of Can$60 (US$47)/box for oysters harvested in the fall season (Boylan3). A typical fisherman

thus earns Can$6,750 (US$5,312) in the spring season

ing them on racks set on bottoms and raising them as

needed through holes cut in the ice.

Mter 1950, island oyster production fell almost steadily

from 30,000 boxes (37,500 bushels) to only 14,000 boxes

(17,500 bushels) in 1972. In 1972, the provincial and

federal fisheries departments began a program to rehabilitate the fishery (MacKenzie, 1975). Very little had

ever been done before then to cultivate or otherwise

enhance the productivity of public beds, but since 1972,

the government has conducted some enhancement

nearly every summer. The actions have involved:
_________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 25

thorities transplanted oysters from the island to the

affected mainland areas. The government hired P.E.I.

fishermen to harvest in the usual way with tongs, but as

unculled clusters containing both seed and market oysters. Many, if not all, were taken from Bedeque Bay

(Boylan3) .

In each estuary, a program was implemented to plant

oysters on public grounds and on private lease areas

that were established to hold them. Large plantings

were made on public fishing grounds and government

reserve areas, and about 8 bushels of oysters were provided free to each leaseholder to plant. From 1957 to

1962, 22,500 bushels of oysters were transplanted to

N.B. and 28,000 bushels to N.S. (Medcof, 1961; Morse,

1971). The seed produced from the imported oysters

was resistant to Malpeque disease, and mortalities from

it have not been apparent in N.B. and N.S. since then.

N.B. currently produces an official total of about

about 12,000 boxes (15,000 bushels) of oysters/year,

but unofficial sources claim that actual production is

perhaps twice as large. Some 75% of oysters landedare

from public beds, and nearly all oystering is done in the

fall. In the 1970's, beds in Caraquet Bay produced

about 70% of the total, but production there has since

declined sharply.

In 1979, DFO biologists implemented a plan for leaseholders to produce more seed by using plastic "Chinese

hats" to collect and grow it (Ferguson, 1987). The hats,

about 50 em (20 inches) in diameter, are coated with a

mix of cement, lime, and sand, and then assembled in

columns of 12. A crew of five workers can prepare 500

columns/day. Leaseholders put the columns in the

water when oyster larvae are setting and leave them

suspended until October, when the oysters have attained lengths of 5-20 mm (0.2-0.8 inches). They then

lay the columns on hard bottoms at a depth of at least

1.5 m (5 feet) to protect them from ice. The columns

are resuspended in the spring. When the oysters have

grown to at least 25 mm (1 inch), they are removed

from the "hats" and most are planted on the bottom at

the rate of 300,000 oysters/acre, by hand shovel or

mechanical spreader. At this size, oysters are safe from

predation by rock crabs. Some oysters are held in plastic mesh bags that are set on racks, as is done in Europe,

or placed in 'Japanese lanterns."

Ten leaseholders in Caraquet Bay and another ten in

Buctouche Bay each set out about 2,500 columns of

Chinese hats a year. Use of the hats comprises the only

oyster culture in N.B. (Dioron5). N.B. oysters require

5-6 years to grow from setting to market size. Dealers

grade market oysters similarly to those in P.E.I. and sell

most in eastern Canada.

5 Dioron, S. 1993. Provo Dep. of Fisheries and Aquaculture of New

Brunswick. Shippigan, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal commun.

In the 1990's, the number of men actively oystering

in this province has been about 575 each fall and between 40 and 50 each spring. In Caraquet Bay, about 40

fishermen on public beds and lOon leases tong oysters

each fall. The next area southward is Tabusintac where

20 fishermen tong on public grounds and 20 tong on

leases. Further south is Neguac where about 150 fishermen tong oysters on public grounds and leases. The

government also allows Neguac fishermen to dredge

oysters for a week in a deep channel. Each boat is

limited to 400 pounds (about 5 bushels) of market

oysters/day. Each spring, 35 fishermen drag oysters

from contaminated grounds to be spread on their leases;

the oysters have to be at least 63.5 mm (2.5 inches)

across (Thompson6).

Baie St. Anne currently has the largest oyster fishery

in the province. About 250 fishermen in 200 dories

tong on public grounds, and 15 on leases (Curwin7).

The next area south is Richibucto, where eight fishermen tong oysters from contaminated areas in the spring

to relay onto their leases. The oysters are harvested and

sold in the fall and winter (Curwin7); in winter, the

leaseholders harvest through the ice using quahog rakes.

The southernmost oystering area is Buctouche, where

about 50 fishermen tong on public grounds and 10 on

leases (Dioron5).

Nova Scotia-Each spring in N.S., about 50 men tong

or rake oysters in 4.25 m (l4-foot) boats, locally called

"flats." They work from the N.B. border eastward in

Pugwash, Wallace Harbor, Caribou-Pictou, and

Antigonish, taking oysters of all sizes to plant on their

leases. In the past few years, this fishery has become

smaller, since the leased grounds are becoming polluted.

The other estuary where oysters are harvested is Bras D'Or

Lake, where about 20 fishermen tong them every fall.

The Future-Oyster culture in the Maritimes is only

about 20 years old and has produced good results,

especially on P.E.I. Like many oyster grounds along the

Atlantic coast of the United States, a lack of setting

surfaces for larvae limits oyster abundances, although

large deposits of fossil shells are available to mine as

cultch in a few estuaries. Oysters set in commercial

abundance nearly every year, disease is not a problem,

and predators are nearly absent from vast areas of growing bottoms; therefore, the biological and environmental

potential for increasing oyster production is substantial.

The Maritime provinces each have established introduction and transfer committees. Recently, "deadman's

6 Thompson, W. 1993. Neguac, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal

commun.

7 Curwin,j. 1993. Baie St. Anne, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal

commun.
26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Bay of Fundy-Softshell harvesting in the Bay of Fundy

is concentrated in southern N.B. and in the Minas and

Annapolis Basins, N.S. Throughout the 1800's, softshells

were used as bait by Atlantic cod and haddock fishermen and for local home consumption. The beaches

where softshells were dug for bait were near the main

finfishing ports, and the bait was preserved in barrels

holding mixtures of 2 quarts ofsalt and 1 pint ofmolasses. Over the years, increasingly more softshells were

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia: Northumberland

Strait-Commercial and recreational digging of

softshells takes place in numerous inlets along the shores

of Northumberland Strait in N.B. The most important

area is Buctouche where about 100 people dig commercially every day. The total number of people digging in

all inlets is about 125. From 1984 to 1992, commercial

landings ranged from 590-1,150 t (whole weight)

(21,600-42,000 bushels) (Fig. 12). The area has one

shucking plant for softshells.

eaten, and soon after otter trawls were introduced to

catch fish in the 1920's, the need for finfish bait ended

(Newcombe!).

The harvesting method has remained unchanged

through the years. Fishermen dig them on flats with

hacks. With about four hours to dig each day, they can

harvest about 2 bushels. Dories, sometimes used to

transport clams, have been grounded on the flats during ebb tide, loaded with softshells, then floated on the

flood tide and either rowed or towed by motorboat to

shore (Newcombe!).

The softshell fishery became increasingly prominent

after about 1890, because laws restricted summer harvesting in the State of Maine. From that time, large

quantities of the bay's softshells were marketed in Boston every summer. Diggers sold the softshells to dealers

who sold them shucked or whole. Dealers also sold the

meats fresh and canned. Canning softshells had begun

in the 1880's. In 1900-1905, 14% were canned and by

1925-1930, 70% were canned. Most were exported to

the United States. In the 1920's and 1930's, diggers

were paid about $1.50/barrel ($0.50/bushel). Canning

later became less important as demand for fresh meats

and whole softshells rose in New England (Newcombe!).

In the 1920'sand 1930's, shucked softshell meats

usually were packed in I-gallon cans, but also in 2- and

5-gallon cans. Shuckers, locally called "cutters," received

$0.28 for each gallon opened. Dealers shipped the meats

by boat to New England in sugar barrels that held

Figure 11

Fisherman digging softshells, Mya arenaria, in New Brunswick, Bay of Fundy,

1980·s. Photograph by M. Therien.

Prince Edward Island-About 35-

50 men currently dig softshells on

P.E.I. on a daily basis in the warm

months. Most use four-tine garden

forks, but others use round shovels,

plungers, or four- or five-tine hoes,

called hacks (Fig. 11), and a few use

hydraulic jets. Each digger harvests

about 100 pounds (1.7 bushels) of

softshells/day Dealers pay Can$l.00-

1.40 (US$0.84-1.08)/pound (US$50-64/bushel). The

province had one plant. The softshells were shucked by

women, each of whom opened 30-50 pounds of meat

(3.75-6.25 gallons) / day, ·and was paid Can$l.OO

(US$O.77/pound; US$6.15/ gallon) (Can$30-50/ day;

US$23-38/day). From 1984 to 1992, commercial landings ranged from 71 to 487 t (2,600-17,860 bushels)

(Fig. 12).

fingers," CodiumJragile, has been found

in several estuaries. This plant is a

known pest to the shellfish industry.

Softshells (locally called "clams") are

harvested during low tides in all

three provinces, but the most important area is the Bay ofFundy bordering N.B. and N.S. The main season is from April to October, but

some harvesting continues in the

cold months.

Softshell Fishery
__________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 27

o +---+----+--j--+---j---+-----,~-

1984 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Figure 12

Landings of softshells in Northumberland Strait and

Bay of Fundy, 1984-1992.

20

o "'" ;/ New Brunswick

/ ,", X 16 I ""e- ",

-; Nova Scotia /' '. ','H---R"" g ",0" --0

FlO 6,

Softshells

Bay of Fundy

0.

26

at Can$5.6 million (US$4 million). They then fell and

averaged about 1,900 t (70,000 bushels) each year from

1988 to 1992 (Fig. 12). Throughout most of the 1980's,

of the total landed in the Bay of Fundy and eastern

N.S., 28-47% came from southern N.B., 39-60% came

from western N.S., and 4-10% came from eastern N.S.

(Anonymous9) .

New England is the primary market for softshells.

Fishermen deliver them live to a plant where they are

shucked and processed, though some are bought locally and trucked to the Buctouche plant to be shucked

by about 100 shuckers. The plant also shucks some

softshells trucked in from Maryland, with the meats

then sold in New England. The other local plants are at

Dipper Harbor, Chamcook, Back Bay, Bocalec, Lepreau,

and Welshpool, N.B.; and in Digby and Annapolis counties, N.S. A softshell fishery has recently developed on

Grand Manan Island with several plants on the island.

Softshells are processed in two forms, fresh (clam meats

and in the shell) and frozen (plain and breaded meats).

Large quantities of softshells harvested in the Scotiatwenty I-gallon cans and in flour barrels that held fourteen I-gallon cans. The cans were surrounded with ice.

The softshells left Yarmouth, N.S., and St. Andrews,

New Brunswick, each afternoon and arrived in Boston

the following morning. Whole softshells were shipped

from St. Andrews to Boston in barrels and boxes (capacity 1/2 barrel weighing about 100 pounds) packed

with ice. Whole softshells peddled locally sold for $0.50/

peck ($2.00/bushel) (Newcombe l).

Softshelllandings continued to expand into the late

1940's. But in the 1950's, landings fell sharply when

green crabs, Carcinus maenas, extended their range

northward from Maine, invaded the beds in large numbers, and decimated the softshells (Wallace8). The crabs

remained abundant and softshell production was low

through the 1960's. The number of diggers fell correspondingly. For example, in the Minas Basin the number dropped from 100 diggers in 1948 to 20-70 within

those two decades (Anonymous9 ). Since then, the crabs

have become much scarcer and the softshells more

abundant.

By 1970, softshell canning had nearly ended because

New England wanted more whole softshells, and more

fresh meats for an expanding market for fried meats.

Prices increased as markets grew, and landings ofwhole

softshells and the number of diggers increased in response (Anonymous9).

About 300 people currently dig softshells daily

throughout the bay in warm months: 100-150 in southern N.B., 100-150 in the Minas Basin, and 40-50 in the

Annapolis Basin. In southern N.B., an average of 5 to 6

diggers (range, 0-18) are on each of the local flats. A

digger can turn over 1 m2 of flat bottom every two

minutes. In summer, 5-10 tourists and local people in

N.B. and a similar number in N.S. also dig softshells

daily for home consumption (Robinson10).

Besides digging softshells, the commercial fishermen

also work on herring seiners, some pick periwinkles

and blueberries, and in November many work in the

Christmas tree and wreath industry. Some also harvest

the red seaweed or dulse, Rhodymenia palmata, around

the island of Grand Manan, N.B., and a few harvest

green sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis

(Robinson10).

In the early 1980's, commercial landings ofsoftshells

in the Bay of Fundy were rising, and in 1986 they

peaked at 4,517 t (whole wt.) (166,000 bushels), valued

8 Wallace, D. E. 1993. Maine Dep. of Natural Resources, 3081 Mere

Point Rd., Brunswick, Maine. Personal commun.

9 Anonymous. 1989. Softshell clam fishery management plan. Communications Branch, Dep. of Fisheries and Oceans, Scotia-Fundy

Region, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

lORobinson, S. 1993. Biological Station, Dep. ofFisheries and Oceans,

St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal commun.
28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Fundy region are trucked to N.B., where they are

shucked or packed whole (Anonymous9). Each plant

hires from 10 to 60 shuckers, nearly all of whom are

women.

Some diggers shuck their own softshells at home and

sell them to the plants. They harvest each day for about

four hours and shuck for another four hours. The

plants currently pay home shuckers Can$3.90-4.90

(US$3.00-3. 75) /pound for the softshell meats

(Doncasterll) .

Nova Scotia: East Coast-On the east coast ofN.S., 40-

50 commercial fishermen dig softshells from Halifax to

llDoncaster, D. 1993. Inspection Branch, Dep. of Fisheries and

Oceans, Blacks Harbor, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal commun.

8-,------------------------

the Strait ofCanso. There are no commercial diggers in

the area from Yarmouth to Halifax (Doncasterll).

Pollution and the Future of Softshelling-The human

population along shores has increased in southern N.B.

and along with it water pollution. In the past 10 years,

about 50% of softshell beds in the area have been

closed because of bacterial pollution and the closures

are relatively permanent. There are also some temporary closures due to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).

The Bay of Fundy area has three depuration plants for

softshells, two near St. Andrews and one near Digby.

During dry periods, government authorities have conditionally opened some closed flats to digging, but such

openings are dependent upon sporadic rain-free periods, so are awkward to manage. As the human population increases, government authorities will attempt to

control pollution and use depuration to maintain the

softshell fishery (Doncasterll).

12Carnpbell, G. 1993. Fort Augustus, Prince

Edward Island, Canada Personal commun.

Northern Quahog Fishery

The fishery for northern quahogs was minor in the

Maritimes until about 20 years ago, but it since has

been growing in response to rising demand. About

80% are landed in P.E.I. (Fig. 13), where 200-300 fishermen harvest them daily in the warm months. The

principal harvesting areas are in the West, East, and

Vernon rivers, and Percival and Malpeque Bays. Fishermen get to harvesting locations by outboard motor

dory. They generally hand pick the quahogs on bottoms covered by 0-0.75 m (0-2.5 feet) of water at low

tide, but also sometimes tong.

To hand pick, which is called "crawling for quahogs"

or "hand stomping," fishermen creep along on their

knees while sweeping their hands

through the mud surface, feeling

for the quahogs. They tow a 1.5-

bushel plastic box floated by an

inflated rubber tire tube to hold

them (Fig. 14). Until several years

ago, fishermen wore only pants,

shirts, and shoes while hand picking, but recently they have begun

wearing rubber scuba diving suits.

They also wear rubber dish-washing gloves to protect their hands

from sharp oyster shells; a pair of

gloves lasts 1-2 days (Campbelll2).

The best men pick 2-2.5 bushels of quahogs/tide and earn

1990 1991 1992

,.·0········ -

1989

New Brunswick

ttl

1987 1988

_0 -

ttl Nova Scotia

o

1986

QUah09S/",,,,

Prince Edward Island

'y .-------'

1985

o ~=F=::j~==-'fI==::!i:==::=fjl==='f~--+-----.j

1984

Figure 14

Fisherman on his knees gathering quahogs with his hands at low tide, East

River, Prince Edward Island, 1980's. He holds quahogs in floating box beside

him. Photograph by A. Morrison.

Figure 13

Landings of quahogs in the Maritime provinces, 1984-

1990.
_________________ Jenkins et a1.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 29

Can$80-90 (US$62-69) (Warren13); women pick about

1 bushel/tide (CampbellI2 ). Dealers purchase quahogs

by the pound, and in 1993, paid fishermen Can$1.35

(US$1.04; US$83/bushel) for littlenecks; Can$0.70

(US$0.54; US$43/bushel) for cherrystones; and

Can$0.10 (US$0.08; US$6.15/bushel) for chowders.

About 90% are shipped to the eastern United States,

the rest to Quebec (WarrenI3).

A quahog relay program from contaminated areas

recently began on P.E.I. The DFO limits the number of

fishermen to 35 (31 men and 4 women were in the

program in 1993). The fishermen sell the quahogs by

the piece to dealers who depurate them in shallow,

clean waters for 14 days. In 1993, dealers paid Can$0.14

(US$O.l1) for littlenecks, Can$0.12 (US$0.092) for

cherrystones, and Can$0.07 (US$0.054) for chowders.

The quahogs were relatively abundant that year in the

contaminated areas since they had not been fished

before, so the fishermen earned more (about Can$120

(US$90)/day) than those harvesting in clean areas.

Dealers pay the Atlantic Veterinary College in

Charlottetown Can$60 (US$46) to have each batch of

quahogs checked for bacteriological conformity

(SprakeI4) .

N.B. and N.S. fishermen also hand pick most quahogs. About 100 fishermen harvest quahogs in N.B.

Wallace Harbor, the only uncontaminated bay where

quahogs are taken in N.S., is also the largest producing

area. Quahogs harvested from a few contaminated bays

are relayed by truck to grounds in P.E.I. for depuration.

About 70 fishermen harvest quahogs in N.S. (Warren13).

Most fishermen in the Maritimes trade quahoging for

oystering in September.

Periwinkle Fishery

The common periwinkle, L. littorina, (called "winkle"

or "wrinkle" locally) occurs throughout the Bay ofFundy,

but the main fishery is along its south shore in N.B. and

a lesser one is on its southeastern shore in N.S., where

the periwinkles are smaller than those in New Brunswick

(RoachI5 ).

L. littorina was introduced to the Atlantic coast of

North America from Europe and was first reported in

the Bay of Fundy in 1861 (CookI6). The yellow peri13Warren, W. 1993. Bedeque, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Personal commun.

14Sprake, D. 1993. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

Personal commun.

15Roach, G. 1993. Nova Scotia Dep. ofFisheries, Halifax, Nova Scotia,

Canada. Personal commun.

16Cook, R. 1976. Periwinkle survey Grand Manan Island. New

Brunswick Dep. ofFisheries, Frederickton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Unpub!. rep., 31 p.

winkle, L. obtusa, and rough periwinkle, L. saxitilis, occur farther north in the Maritimes and have been found

in prehistoric native aboriginal shell middens, suggesting they are endemic to North America (Caddy et a!.,

1974). Both are too small for sale.

The periwinkles in N.B. inhabit rocky shores and are

largest around offshore islands, probably because of

more wave exposure and higher frequency of harvesting by man. They are located in the low intertidal zone

and in subtidal waters to depths of at least 9 m (30 feet)

at low tide. They are found randomly on boulders that

are sometimes 2 m in diameter, and on ledges, but also

on rocks as small as 15 cm. They are sparse on sand

beaches. The width ofthe periwinkle range along shores

is 10-35 m; the more gradual the shore slope, the wider

the range. In most areas, periwinkles track over slimy

rocks; in others, they occur in and around Irish moss,

Chondrus crispus. Periwinkles frequently are covered with

the coral, Lithothamnion sp. In winter they bunch together in crevices and small tide pools, possibly to prevent freezing (Cook16).

Periwinkles are preyed upon by moon snails, Lunatia

sp.; Atlantic dogwinkles, Nucella lapillus; several fishes;

gulls and other shore birds; and crabs. The snails do

not concentrate PSP (Robinson10).

A periwinkle fishery in N.B. has operated for at least

50 years, but landings data were not recorded until the

1950's, when production averaged about 14 t (310 bushels) /year. Landings increased afterward and reached

125 t (2,750 bushels) in 1975; but according to official

landings, they fell sharply afterward and almost none

were landed in 1980. One dealer reported some landings in 1980, but dealers were not required to report.

The main reason for the decline was that most pickers

were engaged in the sardine fishery that was booming

then (HollandI7). Periwinkle production again rose

sharply and reached 225 t (5,000 bushels) in 1987. It

fell to 83 t (1,825 bushels) in 1990 with a landed value

of about Can$100,000 (US$77,000), but reached 235 t

(5,200 bushels) in 1992 (Fig. 15) .

Periwinkles can be harvested year-round. The busiest

period is in the spring after Federal government unemployment funds run out (COOkI6), but harvesting occurs through summer into fall and even into winter.

Winter picking is difficult, however, because periwinkles

are located along the low tide line where ice may be

present. Most market-size periwinkles measure about

11-13 mm e/I6 to 1/2 inches) in diameter, the largest

being 19 mm (3/4 inch). Dealers set a minimum purchase size (HollandI7).

Fishermen travel to the offshore islands in small boats

and pick the periwinkles near the tide line during low

1

7

Holland, R. 1993. RR 4, St. George, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal commun.
30 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

o +--'--.L.l...J-+-'---'---L-"-+----'--'---'--+--'---L.L..L.!-'--'--'--'--P-.L.Lq-'~-Y-.L.L'__'_t--LJ

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1985 1990

18Eddy, S. B., Fisheries and Oceans, Blacks Harbor. New Brunswick,

Canada. Letter dated 22 November 1993.

Wild mussels grow in many Maritime estuaries. During

World War II, mussels were harvested and canned on

P.E.I., but from then into the 1970's, only small quantities were harvested by hand or with tongs for personal

use or sale to a few restaurants. The mussels were heavily

laden with pearls and had poor market value. In the

1970's, provincial and DFO biologists developed a system for culturing mussels on suspended longlines, after

studying mussel culture in western Europe. Suspended

mussels are harvested before pearl formation. Commercial growers began to use this system in 1981, and in

the 1990's they filled nearly all suitable estuaries on

P.E.I. and several in N.S. with longlines holding mussels. The mussel-growing areas are leased through the

DFO on P.E.I., but in N.B. and N.S. they are leased

through the provincial governments.

All three Maritime provinces have problems with

ducks preying on small cultured mussels. One or more

species ofscoters, old-squaws, or eiders prey on mussels

especially during their fall migrations.

Prince Edward Island-Mussel farms on P.E.I. are located in protected estuaries, 4-8 m (13-26 feet) deep.

About 50% of the farms are in the east end of the

island, with the remainder in barrier beach lagoons

along its north side (Judson, 1989). The farms operate

in leased areas, most of which range from 20-61 ha

(50-150 acres); the largest lease operates on 465 ha

Mussel Fishery

Upon receiving the periwinkles, dealers weigh them,

spread them on a table, wash them, and remove any

foreign shells, but they do not grade them. They then

pack them in onion bags, 50 pounds to a bag, and

submerge them in tanks ofrunning seawater. Each day,

the sacks must be turned over and "sloshed" in the

water, or otherwise the decomposition of feces will kill

the periwinkles at the bottom of the sacks. During

warm months, a "large" dealer may have 200-300 bags

in tanks ready for shipment (Holland17).

Dealers ship the periwinkles in the same bags to

Maine or to Canadian destinations such as Ontario and

Quebec (Montreal). Many are subsequently shipped to

Holland from Maine. One dealer also ships about 200

pounds packed in styrofoam boxes to Hawaii every

week (Eddy18). The market demand for periwinkles is

steady year-round (Holland17).

R. Holland, a dealer in St. George, N.B., intends to

handle larger quantities of periwinkles because the market is strong. He plans to construct a diver-operated

suction device to harvest them at a depth of 9 m (30

feet). Many subtidal periwinkles are 19-22 mm e/4-7/8

inches) in diameter and command top prices.

/ /\\

20

Figure 15

Landings of whole periwinkles in the Bay of Fundy.

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1950-1990.

25-,------------------i

Periwinkles

tides. Some wear thin but strong rubber gloves, while

others harvest barehanded. The tidal range in southern

N.B. is 6-8.5 m (20-28 feet), twice a day. The best

picking is during extreme low tides that occur 8-9 days

a month when pickers get about four hours of good

picking; on neap tides they get only about two hours.

The largest and most desirable periwinkles are furthest

down the tideline (Holland17).

In some areas, a population that has been picked

heavily will return to its original abundance by the

following set of tides a month later, but most sites

similarly picked will require two or three sets of tides

(2-3 months) to rebuild with an abundance of periwinkles (Cook16).

About 100 people in southern N.B. now engage in

the fishery; from 30 to 40 are active daily during warmer

months. A typical picker harvests 60-120 pounds (0.6-

1.2 bushels) on an extreme low tide and works about

five days a week, but working time is dependent upon

the tides and weather. In summer, pickers may go for a

day with their wives and children and return with several pails of periwinkles (Robinson10). Periwinkles are

also picked for home use in N.B. and N.S.

N.B. dealers, some ofwhom also buy sea urchins, pay

Can$0.30-0.40 (US$0.23-0.31)/pound for most periwinkles and sell them for Can$0.55-0.60 (US$0.42-

0.46) /pound. But for the largest periwinkles they pay

Can$0.60/pound and sell them for Can$1.20

(US$0.92)/pound (Holland17; Eddy18). Typical pickers

earn Can$35-40 (US$27-31) /tide, while the best earn

Can$60-80 (US$46-62)/tide (Holland17).
_________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 31

(1,150 acres). The larger farms contain about 400 lines,

of which 200 lines are harvested annually; 200 lines

yield 200 tor 7,333 bushels of mussels.

Culture System-The farmed mussels are grown in

plastic mesh socks 3 m (10 feet) long, each sock usually

strengthened by a strand of polypropylene twine. The

socks are suspended from lines of 12 mm (0.5 inch)

polypropylene rope, and the lines vary from 100 m (328

feet) to 200 m (656 feet) in length. Buoys support them

near the surface and are anchored by 350-kg (770-

pound) concrete anchors, or 2-m (6-foot) screw-dish

anchors. Each line holds from about 120 to 250 socks. The

size of a mussel farm is measured by the number oflines.

In the spring and in October, workers fill the socks

with seed mussels 15-20 mm (0.6--0.8 inches) long, at a

density of 600-800 mussels/m (500-730/yard) of sock

length. Farmers collect seed from ropes or reused socks

that they had suspended, and from shorelines. After

being suspended in water, the seed work their way

through the mesh and attach by their byssuses to the

outside of the socks.

In the fall, the longlines are sunk at least 1.5 m (5

feet) below the ice cover that will form. Workers position ice poles that stick about 1 m above the surface to

mark the position of each line. The lines are sunk with

concrete blocks or sacks filled with beach sand and tied

at 3-5 m (10-16 foot) intervals. Ifsocks are not clear of

the bottom, the mussels will suffocate in the mud or be

destroyed by starfish.

Within 18 to 24 months, the mussels grow to a marketable size of 55-80 mm (2.2-3.3 inches) and each

line then contains 1 to 3 t (37 to 110 bushels). Peak

mussel quality and market demand occur in winter

(November to April), so most mussels are harvested

then. Workers use chain saws to cut a 1 x 2 m (3- x 6-foot)

hole through the ice at one end of each line. To harvest

mussels, a scuba diver enters the hole, ties a line to the

longline, swims along the longline and releases its far end

from its mooring, and then returns to the hole. Crews use

a portable hydraulic winch to haul the longline up through

the hole. As the line emerges, workers cut off the mussel

socks and stack them in boxes on vehicles (Fig. 16) for

shipment to a plant near the shore, where they are

declumped, washed, and graded (Fig. 17).

Transportation on the ice depends on its thickness

and the snow cover. When the ice is at least 30 cm (1

foot) thick and the snow cover is thin, workers use

pickup trucks. In heavy snow, they use snowmobiles, allterrain vehicles, and farm tractors equipped with chains

to tow sleighs. In the spring and fall, when the ice is not

sufficiently strong to support vehicles and equipment,

workers have used airboats and hauled boxes of mussels ashore with winches. As the industry has developed

around P.E.I., harvesting under poor ice conditions has

Figure 16

Crew harvesting blue mussels through hole in the ice at Cardigan Bay, Prince Edward

Island, 1980's. Mussel socks are cut offlongline, put in plastic crates, and carried to packing

house on shore in truck. Photograph by A. Morrison.
32 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Figure 17

Machine that declumps, washes, and grades blue mussels at packing house on shore of

Cardigan Bay, Prince Edward Island, 1980's. Photograph by A. Morrison.

become unnecessary because ice formation and breakup

varies enough from place to place to cause little interruption in harvesting. Also, the plants have developed

long-term (two weeks or more) holding techniques.

The low harvesting season is from June to September. During this open water period, the equipment

used is a converted 12 m (40-foot) lobster boat equipped

with a boom and hydraulic winch. Many boats have an

aluminum chute or conveyor attached to the side or

stern to guide the longline and socks aboard and reduce losses due to fall-off.

In 1987, the mussel fishery was threatened when an

outbreak of severe food poisoning in humans in eastern Canada was traced to mussels harvested from Cardigan Bay, P.E.I. The name given this illness was amnesic

shellfish poisoning. The toxin was identified as domoic

acid (Wright et al., 1989), produced by the diatom

Nitzschia pungens forma multiseries (Bates et al., 1989).

By 1988, the Federal government had developed a test

to monitor mussels for the presence of domoic acid

and several insubstantial closures have since occurred.

Preselected key shellfishing sites around the Maritimes

are monitored year-round for domoic acid and PSP by

DFO's Inspection Branch. The domoic acid test uses a

high pressure liquid chromatograph with UV monitoring; the PSP test is a mouse bioassay. Samples from

several sites are run simultaneously and results usually

are available the next day (Gilgan19 ). In 1989, some

beds were closed in southern N.B. when the toxin was

found in softshells and blue mussels (Richard2o).

During 1992-93, at least 600 people were seasonally

involved in the mussel fishery. In the fall, for about

eight weeks, 600 people stripped seed off ropes and

socks and put it in new socks. In the winter, at any given

time, five five-person crews were harvesting. Each crew

harvested its weekly sales in only two days. In the spring,

600 people (most ofthem the same workers who stripped

in the fall) stripped seed and put it in socks. In the

summer, five crews of three were harvesting at any

given time, each working three days/week (Fortune4).

An additional 15 fishermen harvested wild mussel seed

from shorelines and sold it to mussel farmers in the

spring and fall (Warren13).

19Gilgan, M.lnspection Branch, Dep. ofFisheries and Oceans, Halifax,

Nova Scotia, Canada. Personal commun.

2oRichard, D. 1993. Fisheries and Oceans, Blacks Harbour, New

Brunswick, Canada. Personal commun.
__________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 33

45 -,------------

40

35

-30

a

a

~25

~20

15

10

5

Mussels

Prince Edward Island

t/ Nova Scotia

duce Belon oysters, Ostrea edulis, for oyster bars in cities

of Quebec. The bars offer these to provide customers

with a wider selection of oyster types. Production has

been low, thus far, because of technical problems in

producing seed. This hatchery also has reared in test

quantities spat of eastern oysters, northern quahogs,

and bay scallops, Argopecten irradians (Enright21 ). The

other hatchery, in Shippegan, N.B., is on a pilot scale. It

began operating in 1991, was closed in 1992 because

funds were lacking, but produced 3 million northern

quahog seed (no oysters) in 1993 (Dioron5).

o+--'f'.=.c'F--'-'!L-+---'Il--+---+-'f==tp---f--+--I

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Figure 18

Landings of whole blue mussels in the Maritime provinces, 1980-90.

Marketing-Mussel production on P.E.I. has soared

since the early 1980's, reaching 4,200 t (154,000 bushels) (Fig. 18) with a landed value of about Can$5 million (US$3.9 million) in 1992. Dealers sell about 75%

in Canada, Quebec being the main market. The rest

are shipped to other markets in Canada and the United

States. In 1987, the price to growers was about US$0.90/

kg (US$0.40/pound) and the export price received by

the plants was US$1.66/kg (US$0.75/pound). In 1993,

the local retail price was US$2.49/kg (US$l.14/pound).

The Future-The number ofoperations on P.E.I. has

grown rapidly, and the limit of available waters has

been nearly reached. Future increases in production

will come from more intense use of current production

areas and from expansion into shallower waters.

Nova Scotia-In 1993, N.S. licensed 52 leases, but only

12 were producing mussels. All involved growing mussels in socks suspended from longlines, similar to the

mussel growing method on P.E.!. The fishery had about

12 year-round employees, besides 50 seasonal employees in the spring and fall. The industry produces about

13% as many mussels as P.E.I. with a landed value of

Can$400,000 (US$308,000) (Roach15).

New Brunswick-In the early 1990's, mussel culture

wasjust beginning in N.B. A few farmers were growing

them on longlines in Lameque Bay and Baie St. Anne.

Shellflsh Hatcheries

The Maritime provinces have two shellfish hatcheries.

A commercial hatchery in Blandford, N.S., 32 km (20

miles) south of Halifax, has been attempting to proOffshore Fisheries _

Sea Scallop Fishery

The sea scallop fishery, by far the largest shellfishery in

the Maritimes, has two fleet types. One, with relatively

small boats and crews, harvests scallops in the southern

Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy and environs, and the other, with large boats and crews, harvests

scallops mainly on Georges Bank.

Recruitment of scallops has been highly variable on

all grounds, so periods of good harvests have been

followed by periods of low ones. In 1991, landings of

scallop meats by the four southern Gulf ofSt. Lawrence

fleets totaled about 270 t, by the four Bay of Fundy

fleets about 2,000 t, and by the Georges Banks fleet

about 6,000 t. In the past 20 years or so, several management regulations have been imposed to reserve grounds

for specific fleets (Fig. 19), and to conserve stocks by

limiting entry, restricting meat counts (number of

muscles/unit of weight), and setting landings quotas.

Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence-The scallop fishery in

the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, which includes waters from Chaleur Bay to northern Cape Breton Island,

N.S., and around P.E.I. is considered a supplement to

the lobster fishery, with its seasons and regulations established around lobstering. Most dredging is at depths

of from 18-30 m (60-100 feet), and there are large

fluctuations in effort and landings (Lanteigne and

Davidson22 ) .

The fishery is divided into four management areas,

each with its own season, gear specifications, and fishermen. Four measures have been taken in each to control

effort: 1) fishing seasons, 2) widths of dredges, 3) meat

21Enright, C. 1994. Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries, P.O. Box

2223, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3C4, Canada. Personal commun.

22Lanteigne, M., and L.-A. Davidson. 1992. Status of the giant scallop

(Placapecten magellanicus) fishery in the southern GulfofSt. Lawrence

(Fisheries and Oceans, Gulf Region) - 1990 update. Canadian

Manuscript Rep. Fish and Aquatic Sci. 2148. Dep. Fish. Oceans,

Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, 15 p.
34 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

66°

New Brunswick

\

", F\

\

\

\

I

I

I

62"

21-24) Fishing zones of four scallop

fleets in southern Gulf of st. Lawrence

A) Limit for Upper Bay of Fundy scallop

fleet

B) Boundary of Mid-Bay New Brunswick

scallop fleet

C) Boundary of Bay of Fundy area (prohibits offshore vessel access)

D) Western limit of Inshore scotian Shelf

scallop fishery

E) 12-mile boundary (Prohibits offshore

vessel access)

F) Georges Bank

G) Canada-United States boundary

Figure 19

Federal government fishing zones for sea scallop fleets in the Maritime provinces.

count, and 4) number of licenses. The boats used are

converted from lobstering (Fig. 20). The dredges are

similar to Digby dredges used in the Bay of Fundy,

except that the scrapers have teeth and range from 5.1

m (16.5 feet) to 6.6 m (21.5 feet) wide (Lanteigne and

Davidson22) (Fig. 21).

The beginnings of the scallop fishery in the southern

Gulf are unknown, but fishermen harvested scallops in

Northumberland Strait as early as the 1930's (Mossman23). In all four fishing areas, between 356 and 559

scallop-lobster boats have been active (selling scallops

at least once in a year) from 1986 to 1990. The numbers

represent between 46% and 72% of license holders

(Lanteigne and Davidson22 ). Fishing activity can be

intense and localized. For example, during a normal

fishing day in Management Area 24, about 150 scallop

fishing boats dredge in a 1500 km2 area (579 mi2), and

perhaps 200 are dredging in all four areas. Two or

three men, including the captain, man each boat

(Lanteigne24) .

2

3Mossman, D. 1993. Vernon, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Personal commun.

Each spring off eastern P.E.I. (fishing Area 24), nearly

all active scallop fishermen dredge for only 2-3 weeks,

then trap lobsters. They start scalloping again in early

October and usually continue until a freeze-up in December. Each boat dredges for 10-16 hours/day, getting 10-12 pounds of meats/hour, and returns to port

every night. The lobster buyers also purchase scallops.

From 1982 to 1992, landings of scallop meats in the

southern Gulf of St. Lawrence ranged from 180 to 315 t

of meat (Fig. 22). The landings may be underestimated

because many private sales are unreported. On occasion, the boats have landed scallop roe; landings ranged

from 1,000 kg (2,200 pounds) in 1988 to 11,300 kg

(24,860 pounds) in 1981 (Lanteigne and Davidson22).

Scallop fishing Area 24 (mainly the Northumberland

Strait) historically has had the highest landings and

largest number of licenses in the southern Gulf. But

landings have declined substantially over the past 20

years, resulting in a high proportion of inactive license

~4Lanteigne,M. 1994. Science Branch, Dep. of Fisheries and Oceans,

P.O. Box C.P. 5030, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. Personal

commun.
__________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 35

20 -,-------------------------,

Figure 21

Close-up of part of gang (Digby) dredge used to harvest sea scallops, Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island,

1980's. Photograph by A. Morrison.

Figure 20

Boats temporarily converted for sea scalloping with Aframes and culling or dredge boards on their sterns,

Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, 1980's. Dredges

are partially visible. The boats are also used for catching crustaceans (lobsters, Homarus americanus; and rock

crabs, Cancer irroratus), and fishes (herring, Clupea

harengus; cod, Gadus morhua; hake, Urophycis tenuis; and

bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus). Photograph by A.

Morrison.

holders. Lobstermen who do not hold scallop licenses

do not like to have scallop fishermen dragging over the

lobster grounds (Lanteigne and Davidson22).

18

16

6

Sea Scallops

Gulf of St. Lawrence

Prince Edward Island

./ c o

New Brunswick? 0 0

c,

Bay of Fundy-In the Bay of Fundy, which is 160 km

(l00 miles) long and 50-80 km (32-50 miles) wide, sea

scallops have been most plentiful off Digby and Digby

Neck and near Grand Manan Island. Scallops probably

were first caught on the hooks of trawls and handlines

set by cod fishermen, and eaten on the boats or taken

home. A directed scallop fishery in the Bay of Fundy

area began in 1895, when about 335 bushels ofscallops

were landed and the meats canned. From then until

1901, steadily increasing quantities were landed and

canned during winter season-the offseason for herring fishing. The earliest gear was a rowboat towing a

single drag hauled by hand (Stevenson25).

In 1902, the scallop fishery started to become sizable

when fishermen from Digby, N.S., discovered a large

scallop bed in the Annapolis Basin. The bed was dredged

regularly for the next few years by a growing fleet consisting of boats powered by gasoline engines and using

dredges hoisted by power winches. (Gasoline engines

25Stevenson,J. A. 1931. The scallop fishery of the Fundy area. BioI.

Bd. Can. Manusc. Rep. BioI. Sta. 197, 17 p.

./ Nova Scotia

----9~

o+--+---l--+--+-+--+---t--+--+-

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Figure 22

Landings of sea scallop meats in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 1982-92.

began to be replaced by diesel engines in the late

1930's.) Most boats were about 10.7 m (35 feet) long

and 4.3 m (l4 feet) wide, with engines of 10-35 hp.

For a long time, single dredges were used, but were

eventually replaced by sets of two to four dredges affixed at one end to an iron bar. They were called Digby

"drags" or "rakes." The dredges varied in shape, but the

design most often adopted had an untoothed scraper

on either side so that the dredge could collect scallops

with equal efficiency whichever way it landed on the

bottom. The dredge bag consisted entirely ofwire rings

joined by smaller rings. The dredges were about 1 m

(3.5 feet) wide, and a set of four weighed about 300
36 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

pounds. The Digby scallop fleet was composed of about

48 boats in 1922 and 90 boats in 1926 (Stevenson25).

Fishermen considered it unprofitable to dredge on a

bed unless at least 180-200 scallops were collected in

every haul. The average landed price of whole scallops

ranged from $4.48/barrel ($1.80/bushel) in 1922 to

$6.93/barrel ($2.77/bushel) in 1926 (Stevenson25 ).

Governmental restrictions have been imposed on the

fishery over the years. By 1931, all scallop boats had to

be licensed, the dredges had to have rings or twine at

least 4 inches in diameter, and a practice of floating

scallop meats in freshwater to increase their weight was

prohibited (Stevenson25 ). In the 1940's, the scallop

season was open from only 1 October to 30 April. Later,

it was open year-round, but to save scallop fishing close

to shore for the winter months, a zone 9.7 km (6 miles)

wide, starting at the N.S. shoreline, and 48 km (30

miles) long into the bay was closed from 1 June to 15

October; later, the width of the zone was extended to

12.8 km (8 miles). A minimum size limit for scallops of

4 inches (102 mm) was also imposed.

The boats and dredges gradually became larger, with

more powerful engines and winches. The government

imposed a limit on the width of dredges of 18 feet (5.5

m); they now are constructed ofseven 0.75 m (2.5 foot)

dredges attached to an iron rod (Robinson26).

In early years, fishermen landed scallops in the shell,

and plant workers were paid $0.25/gallon to shuck

them. Through the 1920's, the practice of canning

meats gradually ended and meats were sold fresh, mostly

to the United States. Packed in ice and sent by train to

Yarmouth, they went from there by boat to Boston, New

York, and other U.S. ports. Trotline fishermen bought

the rims (mantle, viscera, and gills) for $0. 125/gallon,

as cod and haddock bait. The shells were used for ornaments and ashtrays as well as poultry grit. The poultry

industry paid $2.00/t for the shells (Stevenson25).

From the 1950's to 1970, only about 25 boats comprised the Digby fleet, but the number later increased

(Robinson26). By 1970 a fleet of boats was harvesting

scallops in N.B., and in 1972 the DFO limited entry to

the fleets. Fleet expansion continued, though, because

a number of vessel owners provided evidence of historical effort in the fishery; this legally entitled them to

obtain licenses (Anonymous27).

From 1972 to 1977, the DFO restricted the harvesting area of bay boats to the Bay of Fundy and adjacent

waters on the Scotian Shelf. In 1976, the N.B. fleet was

given permits that allowed them to harvest scallops only

within 7 miles oftheir coast. Most dredging was on beds

26Robinson, H. 1993. Packers Cove, Nova Scotia, Canada. Personal

commun.

27Anonymous. 1986. In G. Griffith (ed.), Final report, 4X+5 Scallop

seminar held at Digby, !'Jova Scotia, Canada.

near Grand Manan Island (Anonymous28). The fleet

was then called "the 7-mile fleet." But in 1977-78, depletion of the Bay of Fundy scallop stocks resulted in a

request from the inshore fleet for access to Georges

Bank. Despite protests by the Georges Bank fleet, in

1978 the DFO gave the Bay of Fundy fleet an annual

quota of 2.9% of the catch of the previous year on

Georges Bank (Anonymous27).

In the late 1970's, the Bay of Fundy fleet continued

to expand. Its fishing capacity was sustained by the

exploitation of further grounds-first Browns Bank,

then German/Lurcher, then the Brier Island area. Almost concurrently (starting in 1981), increased recruitment occurred on the traditional Bay of Fundy beds,

and in 1989, landings rose to a peak of about 4,500 t of

meats, a total at least ten times the landings in most

years from 1955 to 1975 (Anonymous27).

In the summers of 1985 and 1986, some vessels violated regulatory and quota restrictions and began to

fish on Georges Bank, an action that inflamed relations

between the Bay of Fundy and Georges Bank fleets.

Following a series of interfleet meetings and seminars

hosted by the DFO, an agreement was negotiated in

October 1986. It called for the permanent separation

of the fleets at the 43°40' latitude line, a phasing out of

the effort by inshore boats on Georges Bank by 1989,

and an extension of the 7-mile N.B. fleet to mid-bay

(Jones29). In addition, unused scallop licenses were

cancelled (Anonymous27).

Four separate inshore scallop fleets currently operate in the bay and along the Atlantic coast ofN.S.:

1) The Bay of Fundy Fleet, with 75 active owner-operated vessels 13.7-20 m (45-65 feet) long and 300

fishermen, sails from Digby, N.S., but some Digby

boats port in Yarmouth in summer to be nearer the

Lurcher Shoals scallop grounds. The fleet is permitted to harvest scallops throughout the bay and approaches, but concentrates on the N.S. side of the

bay. Each boat usually has four men-a captain and

three shuckers-but when harvesting was good in

the 1980's, three or four more shuckers were added.

In 1985, the fleet landed 722 t ofscallop meats with a

landed value of Can$8.7 million (US$6.7 million).

Scallops comprise about 70% of its revenue, and

other fisheries such as trawling for groundfish account for the rest (Anonymous27).

2) The Mid-Bay (formerly 7-Mile) Fleet, composed

mostly of vessels <13.7 m «45 feet) long, dredges

28Anonymous. 1989. Inshore scallop fishery plan. Communications

Branch, Scotia-Fundy Region, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 9 p.

29Jones, B. C. Environmental Studies, Provo Dep. of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, P.O. Box 6000, Frederickton, New Brunswick E3B

5H1, Canada. Letter dated 7January 1994.
_________________ Jenkins et at.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 37

25i-------------------,

0¥-'-L-4-J.....LL-'---f---l--''--'--'-r---'---'--L-t...L.L-L-L-r-'--L.L-Y-l-L-'--'--If-l--!

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Sea Scallops

Bay of Fundy

5

20

Figure 23

Landings of sea scallop meats in the Bay of Fundy,

1955-92.

only shuck scallops that are at least 3 inches (76 mm)

across (3-inch scallops have a meat count of 60-70/

pound). Crew members sleep 4-5 hours out of every 24

(Titus29).

With stocks down, each boat in the Bay ofFundy fleet

now harvests 200-400 pounds of meats/day. The crews

wash the meats aboard, put them in 33- or 40-pound

bags and cover them with ice. The boats land 800-1,600

pounds of meats/trip (Titus30). In contrast, some MidBay boats often land only 100 pounds/day Uones29).

Over the past 50 years, scallop landings in the bay

and its approaches have varied widely, from 12 t in

1974-75 to 4,529 tin 1989 (Fig. 23).

Managing the region's scallop fishery has been vexing for resource managers because the fleet tends to

become too large for existing scallop stocks. This has

led to instability of the fishery (the fleet increased from

64 boats in 1978 to 98 boats in 1986). Despite efforts to

control the size of the fleet, it has grown over the years,

and too many scallop boats now are licensed. As a

result, the scallop resources in the Bay of Fundy and

nearby regions are somewhat depleted, and the economic performance by the participants is not as good as

it was.

The fleet has the capacity to overfish any recruitment

increase long before it has a chance to reach its growth

potential (Anonymous27). Fishermen and government

authorities now are cooperatively working toward development of further conservation measures that may

include new ways to establish a minimum harvestable

size, limits on trips or fishing days/week, and closures

during spawning periods Uones29).

Georges Bank-Georges Bank is the principal ground

for a fleet of large scallop vessels. Scallop beds on the

In the early 1990's, an estimated 150 boats were

scalloping every good summer day in the entire Bay of

Fundy and included 100 Bay of Fundy boats and 50

Mid-Bay boats. Price and availability of scallops and

problems in other fisheries such as groundfish, all contribute to the use of licenses. In 1993, the number of

licenses in each fleet was: Bay of Fundy, 99; Mid-Bay,

209; Upper Bay, 16; Inshore East of Baccaro, 185; and

Offshore (Georges Bank), 76. If an owner of a Bay of

Fundy boat then desired to sell his license, he would

charge Can$125,000-150,000 (US$96,000-115,000) for

it (Robinson26).

The fleets harvest scallops all year except in restricted

areas. Winter weather is often adverse. For instance, in

January 1993, the Digby boats were able to make only

one trip; they had good weather only after mid-February (Titus30).

Boats in the Bay of Fundy fleet leave their ports on

Sunday nights and usually return on the following Thursday, but sometimes on Friday or Saturday. Most dredge

and shuck continuously 24 hours a day, but some boats

return to port every night. Crews are not allowed to

shuck at their docks as they once did, and they now can

scallops on the N.B. side ofthe bay. It has 124 vessels

that do some scalloping, but many fish primarily for

lobsters, groundfish, herring, and mackerel. They

sail from every N.B. Bay of Fundy port from Alma to

St. Andrews including the three islands. Before 1980,

N.B. landings comprised only about 5% of the total

Fundy landings, but in the 1980's, the large recruitment of scallops in the bay substantially increased

landings. In 1985, the vessels landed 189 t ofscallop

meats worth Can$2.8 million (US$2 million). Scallops comprise about 50% of the total value of all

species landed (Anonymous27).

3) The Upper Bay of Fundy Fleet, with seven active

vessels, is restricted to a small area in the north end

of the bay. The vessels range in length from 10.6-

13.4 m (35-44 feet) and employ relatively small

dredges. The fleet relies on scallops for about 50%

of its total revenue and on lobsters for most of the

rest. In 1985, it landed 9 t of scallop meats worth

Can$115,000 (US$84,120) (Anonymous27).

4) The Inshore East of Baccaro Fleet, with 28 active

vessels from 5.8-13.4 m (19-44 feet) long, is restricted to coastal areas along the south and eastern

shores of mainland N.S. and the outer coast of Cape

Breton. It relies on scallops for only a tiny portion

(1 %) of its landings. In 1985, its vessels landed 8 t of

scallop meats worth Can$107,000 (US$78,000)

(Anonymous27).

3lYfitus, D. 1993. D. B. Kenney Fisheries, Westport, Nova Scotia,

Canada. Personal commun.
38 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

Georges Bank --

Canadian Landings

Sea Scallops

O+-'--'--'--L+-'--'--'--'-+-L-'--'--L+-'--'--'--'-+-L-'--'--L+-'--'--L.L+..L...I-L-,-+...L.J

1955

14 ~----------------------,

12

Figure 25

Landings of sea scallop meats from Georges Bank by

Canadian boats, 1955-90.

10

a

o 8

6

Scallop abundances and landings from Georges Bank

have varied, as in the Bay of Fundy (Fig. 25). Over the

past 10 years, the total quota allotted to the fleet has

risen because the scallops have become more abundant. Less than 2,000 t were landed in 1984, 3,800 t in

1985, 4,300 t in 1986 (Anonymous27), 6,000 t in 1991,

and 6,200 tin 1993. Vessels in the early 1990's landed

up to 30,000 pounds of scallop meats/trip, but 1993

was exceptional and a few vessels landed up to 60,000

pounds of meats/trip (Green3!). Each of the seven

companies is allotted a set portion of the quota, under

a system called Enterprise Allocation. The quota is not

divided equally; some can land more than others, based

on historic landings. A company can also purchase a

portion of another company's share. The number of

annual trips each boat makes varies with the quantity of

scallops its company can land (Green3!). About 36 vessels are dredging scallops at any given time; the others

Figure 24

Canadian sea scallop boat on Georges Bank. Photograph by M. Lumdy.

31Green, S. 1993. Lockport, Nova Scotia, Canada. Personal

commun.

other offshore banks are smaller, less

productive, and have never been

regularly exploited, but vessels sometimes harvest scallops on the closer

German and Browns Banks during

rough winter weather. Only before

1972 were the large vessels allowed

to dredge scallops in the Bay of

Fundy (Anonymous27).

In the early 1980's, this fleet consisted of 72 wooden and steel vessels

averaging about 30 m (100 feet)

(range, 27-41 m or 89-135 feet)

long (Fig. 24) and crewed by about

1,100 fishermen. Seven companies

in several ports in southern N.S.

owned all the vessels and have exclusive harvesting

rights to all sea scallop resources south of the 43°40'

line, which includes Georges Bank. The fleet cannot

harvest scallops within 19 km (12 miles) of shore

(Green3!) and is wholly dependent on scallops because

it has no licenses for other species.

The vessel crews average 16 (range, 11-19) men. Two

dredges, 2.4-4.9 m (8-16 feet) wide, are towed off each

side of each vessel (Roach!5). Trips average 10 days,

with crews dredging and shucking 24 hours a day. The

vessels return to port, unload their catches, and layover

for 24 hours (Green31). In 1983, wooden vessels averaged 135 sea days and steel boats 194 sea days. The

average crew share on wooden vessels was Can$15,665

(US$12,690) and on steel vessels was Can$32,470

(US$26,300) (Anonymous27).

From the 1940's until 1984, Canadian vessels harvested sea scallops throughout Georges Bank (Anonymous27). But in October 1984, the "Hague Line" was

established by the World Court in The Hague, the

Netherlands, to divide Canadian and U.S. waters on the

east coast.This gave Canada exclusive rights to the fish

and shellfish of the "Northern Edge" of Georges Bank

(with the United States getting the remainder). The

Northern Edge, 55-90 m (180-300 feet) deep, usually

has the highest abundance ofsea scallops of any ground

in the western Atlantic Ocean.

In 1972, the DFO imposed a maximum number of60

meats/pound, but that has been gradually lowered to

30. DFO inspectors check the meat count on vessels as

they land, and violations are rare (Green3l ). In 1977

the government restricted the fleet by limiting the duration of each trip, the catch of a single trip, and the

total catch over a 4-month period, to reduce effort

(Anonymous27), but the restrictions have since been

rescinded.
_________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 39

Table 4

Canadian exports offrozen scallops by country, 1985-1988. (Quantities [Q] in metric tons, values [V] in Canadian dollars

x 1,000).1 Source: text footnote 8.

1985 1986 1987 1988

Country Q V Q V Q V Q V

United States 4,068 59,153 4,213 64,837 4,251 63,844 4,199 49,015

France 20 129 177 2,704 89 1,062

Japan 7 54 8 44 35 486

Switzerland 10 68 5 86 28 382

West Germany 29 290

Bermuda 1 2 31

Others 3 53 16 271 189 1,149 26 285

Totals 4,127 59,677 4,247 65,220 4,659 68,300 4,342 50,744

1 Total value in U.S. currency: 1985, $43,564; 1986, $46,958; 1987, $51,225,1988, $41,103.

Table 5

Canadian exports offresh/chilled scallops to the United States and other countries combined in 1985-1988. (Quantities

[Q] in metric tons, values [V] in Canadian dollars x 1,000).1 Source: Footnote 7.

1985 1986 1987 1988

Country Q V Q V Q V Q V

United States 1,510 21,597 1,853 27,736 2,548 36,134 3,373 37,473

Other 1 I 28 27 415 16 183

Totals 1,510 21,598 1,854 27,764 2,575 36,549 3,389 37,656

I Total value in U.S. currency (x 1,000): 1985, $15,766; 1986, $19,990; 1987, $27,412; 1988, $30,501.

are in transition or unloading during mid-season, from

March to though July (Matthews32).

The Georges Bank fishery has been able to keep the

size of its fleet under better control than have scallop

fisheries in the inshore areas. And in 1986, the companies decided to reduce their 72-vessel fleet; by 1993, it

numbered 42 (Matthews32).

Sales of Canadian Scallops--Dealers keep the scallop

meats in the same cotton bags in which fishermen land

or repack them, and then ship them frozen or fresh

(Titus30). They sell 95% offrozen (Table 4) and fresh

(Table 5) scallops to the United States, shipping them

by truck from N.S. and N.B. In the 1980's, Canada's

share of the U.S. sea scallop market was about 25%

(Anonymous28) •

32Matthews, P. 1994. Deep Sea Trawlers, 152 Monteque St.,

Lunenberg, Nova Scotia BOJ 2CO, Canada. Personal commun.

Surfclam Fishery

The surfclam (called "bar clam" locally) has a limited

distribution in the Maritimes. It is most abundant along

the shores of P.E.I. and the Northumberland Strait

shores of N.B. and N.S., becoming scarcer with increasing depth. Substantial concentrations do not occur in

offshore bottoms as they do off the middle Atlantic

coast of the United States (Medcof and McPhail, 1955;

Rowell and Chaisson, 1983; Chaisson and Rowell, 1985).

Commercial harvesting of surfclams with hydraulic

dredges in Northumberland Strait began in 1969 when

the dredges became available and were fitted to lobster

boats 12-13.7 m (40-45 feet) long. A typical boat has

one hydraulic dredge whose blade is 84 em (33 in)

wide, a heavy duty winch, haul back cables, a pump and

motor, intake and outlet hoses, an A-frame, and blocks.

Water is fed through the hose to the dredge at 40-50

p.s.i. Of 29 licensed boats, only about 18, each with a
40 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

12,-------------------,

Surfclams

Arctic Surfclam Fishery

o't'---+---+---+---+-----if---+---+------1

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

" Nova Scotia

t.! c

Prince Edward Island

ttl'

..... New Brunswick

··,,"G... .

·······6·....

10

0 8 .

;2

6

UJ

c

Figure 26

Landings ofsurfclam meats in the Maritime provinces,

1984-90.

crew of two, are active on any day outside of their 2-

month lobster season (Warren 13).

Most surfclamming is done in the summer. Boats

dredge the clams from small scattered beds at depths

averaging about 4.6 m deep (15 feet) (range, 1-15 m)

(3-50 feet) for 10-12 hours/day. Tow times range from

5-25 minutes. Each boat lands 3,000-5,000 pounds of

whole clams (35-62 bushels)/day from a new bed, and

700-1,000 pounds (9-12.5 bushels)/day from an old

one. Between 1984 and 1990, total landings on P.E.I.

ranged from 290 t (whole weight) (7,500 bushels) to

1,000 t (26,000 bushels), in N.B. from 100 t (2,600

bushels) to 800 t (20,750 bushels), while N.S. had minor landings (Fig. 26). In 1992, fishermen were paid

Can$0.38 (US$0.29)/pound (US$23/bushel), but in

1993 the price had fallen to Can$0.25 (US$0.19)/pound

(US$15/bushel) (Warren13).

Workers in local canneries shuck the clams live, discard their viscera, wash the meats, chop them, and put

them in cans with shell liquor and brine. The cans are

sealed, retorted for 90 minutes, and labelled.

Ocean Quahog Fishery

A large resource of ocean quahogs (called "mahogany

quahogs" locally) is present on the Scotian Shelf,

Georges Bank (Rowell and Chaisson, 1983; Chaisson

and Rowell, 1985), and in the east part of Northumberland Strait. The market for quahogs is weak because

of their high iodine content, and the fishery is small.

When retorted, the meats turn dark on the surface,

which spoils them for market.

In 1970, Triton Sea Products33 in Port Medway, N.S.,

began harvesting ocean quahogs. It shipped live ones,

about 50 mm (2 inches) long, to the United States for

the half-shell trade (Hiltz, 1977). Larger quahogs that

had been shucked, minced, and frozen were also shipped

to the United States for use in canned chowder and

stuffed clams. In 1970 the company landed 907 tons

(25,000 bushels), and in 1971, 1,361 t (37,000 bushels)

(Caddy et aI., 1974); after 1971, operations were halted

(Rowell and Chaisson, 1983).

In 1979, 37 t (1,000 bushels) of ocean quahogs were

landed in P.E.!., and less than 0.5 t (15 bushels) were

landed in either N.B. or N.S. Landings varied little in the

next two years. The landings in N.B. and N.S. were for

domestic consumption only. In 1982, the only substantial

harvests were near Murray Harbour, P.E.I., where two

vessels landed 77 t (2,100 bushels), all of which were

canned for local markets (Rowell and Chaisson, 1983). A

small inshore fishery currently operates in N.S. (Roddick34).

The Arctic surfclam (called "Stimson's surfclam" locally) supports a fishery that began in the 1980's. In

1980, the DFO had initiated a series of development

surveys for underutilized clam species on offshore banks

and found commercial concentrations of Arctic

surfclams on Banquereau Bank. A commercially exploitable biomass of 561,000 t and an MSYof 16,821 t

(whole weights) were estimated for the stock (Rowell

and Amaratunga, 1986). This species was found in much

smaller quantities on the Grand Bank, Sable Island

Bank, and Western Bank at typical depths of 30-50 m

(100-165 feet), and also off the coasts of P.E.I. and

northern N.B. (Rowell and Amaratunga, 1986). Fishermen later found commercial concentrations on the

Grand Bank.

Starting in the late 1980's, three offshore vessels,

about 61 m (200 feet) long, two of them processorfreezers, were harvesting Arctic surfclams on Banquereau Bank. The vessels were converted from supplying

oil rigs. The processor-freezers have crews of 32 men

(16 operated the vessel and 16 processed clams). The

vessels tow two hydraulic dredges 4.5 m (14.75 feet)

wide from outrigger booms; pumps supply water under

pressure to the dredges, which are retrieved and emptied together. The vessels operate 24 hours/day with

the two processor-freezers remaining at sea for a month

at a time. The vessel landing live clams makes trips of

about five days duration (Roddick34).

Most clams harvested are about 120 mm (4.7 inches)

long (Roddick and Lemon, 1992). In shucking them

33Mention of commercial firms and products does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

34Roddick, D. 1993. Fisheries and Oceans, Halifax, Nova Scotia,

Canada. Personal commun.
_________________ Jenkins et al.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 41

Figure 27

Shucking softshells at a plant in Chamcook, New Brunswick, 1994. Photograph by C. MacKenzie,Jr.

aboard, the tongues (feet) are removed

separately, the mantles frozen into

blocks (to be used in soups), and the

viscera discarded. In 1989, a converted

Norwegian scallop vessel started fishing on Grand Bank, and by 1992 all

processor-freezer vessels were fishing

on there because its product was more

acceptable to the Japanese market.

(The foot of the clams on Banquereau

Bank has a purple tinge that consumersfound objectionable, whereas the foot

of clams on the Grand Bank has a more

acceptable red tinge.) Typical vessel landings from one trip are 130-140 t of

tongues and mantles (800 t or 22,000

bushels whole weight) (Roddick34).

In addition, three vessels 13.7-20 m

(45-65 feet) long have been dredging

for Arctic surfclams and ocean quahogs in inshore waters 30 m (100 feet)

deep, off Lockport, N.S. They make

day trips, harvesting on orders from

dealers. Catches range from 500 to 4,000 pounds (6 to 48

bushels). They land most of the clams in Lockport and

ship them whole. Offshore and inshore vessels dredge for

Arctic surfclams year-round, but the inshore boats now

mainly fish for ocean quahogs (Roddick33).

In 1992, catches of Arctic surfclams were 11,000 t

(whole weight) (about 300,000 bushels ) (% of the

MSY calculated by DFO); the value of the landed, processed, packaged meats was Can$12,402,000

(US$9,500,000). If sold by the bushel, whole clams

would be worth Can$0.44/kg (US$14.50/bushel). In

1993, an effort was begun to start a fishery for Arctic

surfclams in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A small-scale

fishery has been established and currently is operating

with two boats. There is a small U.S. fishery for them on

Stellwagen Bank in Massachusetts Bay (Roddick34).

The long-term future of this fishery is unclear. Clam

stocks are holding up well, but the market is mostly

limited to Japan and constrains the fishery (Roddick

and Kenchington, 1990). The high-value strip clam

market in the United States requires clams at least 139

mm (5.4 inches) long. Since less than 1% of Arctic

surfclams are longer than 139 mm, they cannot be sold

to this market (Chaisson and Rowell, 1985).

Shellnsh Buyers _

The Maritime provinces have about 128 licensed

shellstock or processing plants. P.E.I. has 23 shellstock

plants and 10 plants that handle scallop meats. The

entire Scotia-Fundy region has about 50 licensed

softshell buyers. N.B. has 50 shellstock plants; from 7 to

10 plants also handle scallop meats, and five others

handle only scallop meats. N.S. has 30 facilities registered for exporting softshell products to the United

States, 10 provincially licensed facilities selling softshells

only in N.S., and 20 plants that handle sea scallop meats

(FDA, 1993).

The following details were obtained from a softshell

shucking plant in Chamcook, N.B., in June 1993.

Softshells were delivered to the plant by 20 diggers and

shucked by 12 female employees. Each shucked from

about 7 to 11 a.m., three days a week. They would work

longer hours later in the summer when more softshells

were brought into the plant. Shucking continued into

winter, but on a smaller scale.

The manager of the plant first hot-dipped the

softshells, a bushel basketful at a time, in a tank of nearboiling freshwater for a few seconds to free the muscles

from the shells. Mter being cooled in a tank of ambient-temperature freshwater, the softshells were piled

on tables in front of the shuckers, each of whom removed the meat, dropped the shells into a barrel, and

cut the end off the neck, removing its skin. The shucker

put the meat into a gallon can on the table (Fig. 27),

and it took about one hour to fill the can. Full cans of

meats were taken to the manager, who washed the

meats with a spray offreshwater and packed them in 1-

gallon plastic bags that he then sealed and stored in a

cold room for later shipment. Shells and skins were

discarded in local woods or onto driveways.

When harvesters deliver mussels to one of the five

P.E.I. processing plants, shore workers strip the mussels
42 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

from the socks and put them in polyethylene tanks

containing running seawater. The mussels then go

through a processing system that consists of a receiving

hopper/ conveyer, a declumper/ grader, an elevating

conveyer, a debyssing machine, and a grading/packing

table (Fig. 17). They are packed in 12.5 kg (27.5 pound)

polymesh bags; two bags are placed with an ice pack in

a waterproof carton. The mussels are shipped to markets within 1,000 km (600 miles) by insulated truck and

to more distant markets by airfreight. Cultured P.E.I.

mussels are sold fresh in the shell with some producers

using the name "Island Blues."

The plants ship most shellfish to cities in Canada

(such as Montreal), the eastern United States, and California, in refrigerated trucks. Driving time for trucks

carrying shellfish from P.E.I. to Montreal is about 14

hours. The drive to New York City takes 25 hours. A

shipment that leaves P.E.I. on Saturday for either New

York or Cleveland will arrive the following Monday

morning. Shipments to California first go by truck to

Boston (a 12-hour trip) and then go by plane to California, arriving 24-36 hours later (MacWilliams35 ).

Recreational Shellfisheries _

Tourists and locals in the Maritimes harvest softshells

and surfclams recreationally along many shores, digging with shovels (Fig. 28) and garden forks during low

tides; others use snorkels and fins to search for surfclams.

Few people go after quahogs or mussels. The DFO and

provincial fisheries departments have few statistics on

the numbers ofrecreational fishermen or their catches.

ShellIlSh as Local Foods

Maritime residents eat shellfish on only a limited scale.

Oysters usually are eaten raw on the half-shell. Northern quahogs are eatcn raw on the half-shell and in

chowders containing milk, potatoes, onions, butter, salt,

and pepper. Scallops are eaten fried, steamed, or

creamed, while mussels are steamed and then eaten.

Most people steam surfclams in their shells, shuck them

and remove the viscera, chop the meat into chunks, put it

in quartjars, and then boil it for 2-3 hours to tenderize it.

The Future _

Use of molluscan resources in the Maritimes can be

maximized in two ways. The first is through regulations

35MacWilliams, K. 1993. Fort Augustus, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

Personal commun.

Figure 28

Digging softshells for a home meal in West River, P.E.I.,

1994. Photograph by C. MacKenzie,jr.

and policies to 1) control harvests to ensure conservation and promulgate good economic performance by

fishermen, 2) minimize damage to the cnvironmcnt by

pollution, and 3) if the will exists, partially reverse

anthropomorphic damage to the environment.

The second mechanism is enhancement. Oyster and

mussel abundances have already been increased substantially by culture and can be increased further. Techniqucs can be devised fOl- other estuarine mollusks,

including softshells, northern quahogs, and perhaps

surfclams and periwinkles. The fishermen in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence currently are experimcnting

with enhancing natural scallop recruitment. They set

out onion bags filled with polyethylcnc netting to collect seed scallops, which are then released on the bottom or grown in lantern nets. Fisheries authorities will

guard against importing non-native spccies of mollusks

because of the possibility of diseases.

Acknowledgments _

We wish to thank the many people who took the time

from their busy schedules to provide information. Their

names are listed in the footnotes. We also thank the

following for reviewing sections of the chapter: M.

Lanteigne, Science Branch, DFO, Moncton, N.B. (sea
___________________ Jenkins et at.: The Molluscan Fisheries of the Canadian Maritimes 43

scallop fishery in Gulf of St. Lawrence); S. Robinson,

Biological Station, DFO, St. Andrews, N.B., and D.

Doncaster, S. B. Eddy, and D. Richard, Inspection Division, DFO, Blacks Harbour, N.B. (softshell and periwinkle fisheries in Bay of Fundy); E. Ferguson, DFO,

Tracadie-Sheila, N.B. (Oyster fishery in N.B.); B. C.

Jones, Provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fredericton, N.B. (sea scallop fishery in Bay of

Fundy); G. Roach, Provincial Department of Fisheries,

Halifax, N.S. (sea scallop fishery on Georges Bank and

Bay of Fundy); and D. L. Roddick, DFO, Halifax (clam

fisheries on offshore banks). G. Nowlan, Statistics

Branch, DFO, Moncton, and]. Walcott, Statistics Branch,

DFO, Halifax, supplied landings data.

Literature Cited and Selected References

Abbott, R. T.

1974. American seashells, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold

Co. N.Y., 663 p.

Baird, S. F.

1882. Notes on certain aboriginal shell mounds on the coast

ofNew Brunswick and of New England. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus.

IV:292-297.

Bates, S. S., C.]. Bird, A. S. W. deFreitas, R. Foxall, M. Gilgan,

L. A. Hanie, G. R.Johnson, A. W. McCulloch, P. Odense,

R. Pocklington, M. A. Quilliam, P. G. Sim,]. C. Smith,

D. V. Subba Rao, E. C. D. Todd,]. A. Walter, and]. L. C. Wright.

1989. Pennate diatom Nitzschia pungens as the primary source

of domoie acid, a toxin in shellfish from Prince Edward

Island, Canada. Can.]. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:1203-1215.

Caddy,]. F., R. A. Chandler, and D. G. Wilder.

1974. Biology and commercial potential of several underexploited molluscs and crustacea on the Atlantic coast of

Canada. In Proceedings of a symposium on the Industrial

Development Branch of Environmental Canada, February

5-7,1974, p. 57-106. Montreal, Quebee.

Chaisson, D. R., and T. W. Rowell.

1985. Distribution, abundance, population structure, and

meat yield of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) and

Stimson's surf clam (Spisula polynyma) on the Scotian shelfand

Georges Bank. Can. Ind. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 155, 125 p.

deBelle, G.

1971. Roadside erosion and resource implications in Prince

Edward Island. Geogr. Pap. 48, Dep. Energy, Mines, Resour.,

Ottawa, 25 p.

Drinnan, R. E., and]. C. Medcof.

1961. Progress in rehabilitating disease affected oyster stocks.

Fish. Res. Board Can., BioI. Stn. St. Andrews, Gen. Ser. Cire.

34,3 p.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration).

1993. Certified shippers list.

Found, W. A.

1927. The oyster fishery on the Canadian Atlantic coast. In

Report of the Department of Fisheries for 1909-1910. 43rd

Annu. Rep., Spec. Appended Rep. I, Ii-Ixxi.

Found H. R., and R. R. Logie.

1957. Rehabilitation ofdisease- depleted oyster fisheries. Fish.

Res. Board Can., BioI. Stn., St. Andrews, Gen Ser. Cire. 29, 2 p.

Ferguson, E.

1987. The private oyster industry in New Brunswick. In]. F.

Roache (ed.), Atlantic Canada workshop-proceedings. p.

173-191. Dep. Fish. Oceans. Gen. Ed. Ser. 5. Vol. 1.

Hiltz, L. L.

1977. The ocean clam (Arctica islandica). A literature review.

Fish. Mar. Serv., Env. Can. Tech. Rep. 720, 177 p.

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., 251 p.

Judson, W. 1.

1989. Mussel culture in Prince Edward Island. In N.DePauw,

E.Jaspers, H. Ackefors, and N. Wilkins (eds.), A biotechnology in progress, p. 335-339. European Aquaculture Society,

Bredene, Belgium.

Kemp, E.

1899. The oyster fisheries of Canada, a survey and practical

guide to oyster culture. Ottawa, Canada, 101 p.

1916. Some hints on oyster culture. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa, Canada, 38 p.

Logie, R. R.

1956. Oyster mortalities, old and new in the Maritimes. Fish.

Res. Board Can., Atl. Coast Stn., Prog. Rep. 65:3-11.

MacKenzie, C. L.,lr.

1975. Development of a program to rehabilitate the oyster industry of Prince Edward Island. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(3):21-35.

Medcof,]. C.

1961. Oyster farming in the Maritimes. Fish. Res. Board Can.,

Bull. 131, 158 p.

Medcof,]. C., and].S. McPhail.

1955. Survey of bar clam resources in the Maritime provinces. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 102,6 p.

Morse, N. H.

1971. An economic study of the oyster fishery of the Maritime provinces. Fish. Res. Board Can., Bull. 175, 81 p.

Needler, A. W. H.

1931. The oysters of Malpeque Bay. BioI. Board Can., Bull.

22,35 p.

1940. Report on oyster culture 1938-1939. Dep. Fish., Ottawa,

Can., 16 p.

1941. Oyster farming in Eastern Canada. Fish. Res. Board

Can., Bull. 60, 83 p.

Needler, A. W. H., and R. R. Logie.

1947. Serious mortalities in Prince Edward Island oysters

caused by a contagious disease. Trans. R. Soc. Can., Ser. Ill,

41(5):73-89.

Patton, M.].

1911. The Canadian oyster industry. Reprinted from Rep. of

Comm. Conser, ernitled: "Lands, Fisheries, Game and Minerals, 1911. R. L. Crain Co., Ltd., Ottawa. 20 p.

1913. Oyster farming in Prince Edward Island. Fourth Annu.

Rep. Comm. Conserv., Ottawa, Can., 14 p.

Roddick, D. L., and E. Kenchington.

1990. A review ofthe Banquereau bank fishery for Mactromms

polynyma for the 1986 to 1989 period. Can. Atl. Fish. Sci.

Adv. Comm. Res. Doe. 90/14, 26 p.

Roddick, D. L., and D. Lemon.

1992. Exploratory survey for small Arctic surfclams on the

eastern Scotian shelf. Can. Ind. Rep. Fish Aquat. Sci. 215, 33 p.

Rowell, T. W., and T. Amaratunga.

1986. Distribution, abundance, and preliminary estimates of

production potential of the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)

and Stimson's surf clam (Spisula polynyma) on the Scotian

shelf. Can. Atl. Fish. Sci. Adv. Comm. Res. Doc. 86/56, 21 p.

Rowell, T. W., and D. R. Chaisson.

1983. Distribution and abundance of the ocean quahog

(Arctica islandica) and Stimson's surf clam (Spisulapolynyma)
44 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

resource on the Scotian shelf. Can. Ind. Rep. Fish. Aquat.

Sci. 142,75 p.

Weale, D. E.

1978. The mud diggers. The island magazine (Prince Edward

Island) 5:22-30.

Wells, K.

1986. The fishery of Prince Edward Island. Ragweed Press,

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 211 p.

Wright,]. L. C., R. K. Boyd, A. S. W. deFreitas. M. Falk, R. A. Foxall,

W. D.Jamieson, M. V. Laycock, A. W. McCulloch, A. G. McInnes,

P. Odense, M. A. QUiliiam, M. A. Ragan, P. G. Sim, P. Thibault,

]. A. Walter, M. Gilgan, D.]. A. Richard, and D. Dewar.

1989. Identification of domoic acid, a neuroexcitatory amino

acid in toxic mussels from eastern Prince Edward Island.

Can.]. Chern. 67:481-490.
The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the

Northeastern Coast of the United States:

Surfclams, Ocean Quahogs, and Sea Scallops

FREDRIC M. SERCHUK and STEVEN A. MURAWSKI

Woods Hole Labomtmy

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Woods Hole, MA 02543

ABSTRACT

The offshore fisheries for Atlantic surfclams, Spisula solidissima; ocean quahogs, Arctica

islandica; and sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, off the northeastern coast of the United

States are among the most valuable shellfisheries in the world. In 1993, U.S. commercial

landings of the three species totalled 65,200 metric tons (t) of meats and generated $160

million in ex-vessel revenues. These fisheries are heavily capitalized industrial-scale enterprises. The resulting food products are distributed nationally and internationally. All three

fisheries are controlled by Fishery Management Plans (FMP's) implemented under provisions of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The modern

fishery for surfclams developed in the 1930's, when power dredging was introduced. During

the 1940's, technological developments, including hydraulic dredges, stimulated a rapid

expansion of the fishery. Catches increased as technological developments continued and

fleet size increased. Landings peaked at 44,000 t of meats in 1974. Mid-Atlantic surfclam

populations are now dominated by a single year class >15 years old. Ocean quahogs were

first harvested commercially during World War II. This mid-Atlantic fishery developed

rapidly during the late 1970's and early 1980's. Total landings peaked at 23,000 t in 1985

and have since fluctuated between 21,000 and 23,000 t. The New England sea scallop fishery

is centered in New Bedford, Mass. Harvesting methods with heavy dredges have changed

little since the inception of the fishery in the 1930's. Total fishing effort by the fleet

increased from 11,500 days/year in the late 1970's to 43,000 days/year in 1991. In 1985, the

International Court ofJustice in The Hague settled the maritime boundary between the

U.S. and Canada. The U.S. received fishing rights to grounds south ofthe Northern Edge of

Georges Bank while Canada received rights to the Northern Edge and grounds to the north.

In 1982, a Fishery Management Plan adopted by the New England Fishery Management

Council included a 30-meat count per pound maximum and a 3 1/2-inch shell minimum for

the fishery, but the meat count and other regulations were not effective in controlling

overfishing. Amendment #4 to the FMP is designed to lower fishing effort and result in

higher, more stable yields. The current fleet of over 400 vessels is far larger than can be

profitably supported by the resource.

Introduction

The fisheries for Atlantic surfclams, Spisula solidissima,

ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica, and sea scallops,

Placopecten magellanicus, off the northeastern coast of

the United States are among the most valuable shellfisheries in the world. In 1993, U.S. commercial landings of all three species totaled 65,200 metric tons of

meats (down from the record 71,200 t (Fig. 1) set in

1990) and generated $160 million in ex-vessel revenues

(Fig. 2). The 1993 combined harvest accounted for

23% of the total ex-vessel value ($707 million) of all

commercial finfish and shellfish landings in the New

England and Middle Atlantic regions, and for 5% ofthe

ex-vessel value ($3.5 billion) of all U.S. domestic fishery

landings (USDOC, 1994).

Unlike many fisheries for nearshore bivalve resources,

these offshore molluscan fisheries are heavily capital45
46 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

• Surf Clam

C2J Ocean Quahog

o Sea Scallop

OJ

-':l

100 OJ

'"

'"

G:j 50

o'rYr',-'T'-rY"""'-'TY'rY-eYr'rY.,..,.,YrU.,JY,-Y,Jy.,JLeYrYYH,J,JYY-rY

53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92

70 -

60

80 250,---------------------,

• Surf Clam

Ocean Quahog

o Sea Scallop

850

o

~-

'; 40 0>

·S

-g 30-

'"-.J

20

Year Year

Figure I

U.S. landings (thousands of metric tons, meat weight)

of sea scallop, ocean quahog, and surfclam, 1950-93.

Data are for all regions fished by U.S. vessels.

Figure 2

Ex-vessel value (millions of U.S. dollars) ofsea scallop,

ocean quahog, and surfclam landings, 1950-93. Data

are not deflated (Le. current values).

ized industrial-scale enterprises (Murawski and Serchuk,

1989). The value added through shoreside processing

is substantial, and the resulting food products are distributed nationally and internationally. The offshore

fisheries also generate significant employment, notjust

in the harvesting sector, but in the seafood processing,

marketing, and retailing sectors as well. Fisheries for

surfclams are conducted in waters between 9 and 36 m,

while the ocean quahog and sea scallop fisheries are

prosecuted at much greater depths, usually 73-110 m.

Thus, the harvesting equipment is very different from

that used for estuarine and nearshore bivalve fisheries.

All three offshore shellfisheries are controlled by Fishery Management Plans (FMP's) implemented under provisions of the U.S. Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976 (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1994; New England Fishery Management

Council, 1994). Exploitation of the three species dates back

to the last century, although it was not until after World

War I that the modern offshore fisheries developed.

In this overview, we summarize the biology, management, resource status, and future outlook for the

surfclam, ocean quahog, and sea scallop stocks in U.S.

waters of the Northwest Atlantic continental shelf.

Surfclam

Biology

Surfclams are distributed in the western North Atlantic

from the southern GulfofSt. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras,

N.C. (Merrill and Ropes, 1969; Murawski and Serchuk,

1989). In U.S. waters, commercial concentrations are

found primarily in the Middle Atlantic region-off the

New Jersey coast and the Delmarva (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) Peninsula-although fishable quantities also exist off southern New England, on

Georges Bank, and off Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 3). In the

Middle Atlantic, surfclams are found from the beach

zone to depths of about 60 m, although abundance

sharply declines beyond 40 m. Surfclams are active

burrowers and most commonly occur in medium- and

coarse-grained sandy sediments. Local clam bed distributions are influenced by both temperature and salinity; upper lethal temperatures for adults run 26°-30° C,

and salinities less than 14%0 cannot be tolerated. Water

temperature also affects gonadal development and time

ofspawning (Ropes, 1968).

Surfclams are the largest bivalves in the western North

Atlantic (Fig. 4). Maximum size is 22.6 cm shell length,

although individuals larger than 20 cm are rare. Growth

is relatively rapid; on average, Mid-Atlantic surfclams

reach 70 mm by age 2, 11 cm by age 4, and harvestable

size (13 cm) by age 6-7. Growth rates, however, can be

affected by clam density, with growth significantly reduced in heavily populated beds (Fogarty and Murawski,

1986). Meat yields double between ages 4 and 7, and

average meat weight of harvestable-size animals generally exceeds 100 g (Fig. 4). Virtually all of the visceral

mass is used commercially, with minced clams, dips,

juices, and fried clams made from various body parts.

The most valuable portion of the surfclam is the foot

muscle, which is generally sliced into thin strips and fried.
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 47

2

9

26

61

1248

1

3

10

27

62

Number of Clams

SPECIES: 403. CRUISES: 9203

•

•

•

Mid-Atlantic

Bight

Distribution of Surf Clams

NEFSC Clam Survey 1992

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

45 "..,1

," (

44 I

/

I,) (

I

43 J I ' ,/-.. ...... ---"--------../

I

I

42 --,'\

.'.

36

Figure 3

Geographic distribution of surfclam populations sampled in hydraulic dredging

surveys off the northeast U.S. during summer, 1992. Data are numbers of clams

caught in each 5-minute tow with a hydraulic clam dredge. Survey stations are

primarily located in the Mid-Atlantic, southern New England, and Georges Bank. The

U.S.-Canada maritime boundary (the "Hague Line") is plotted as a dashed line.

Sexes are separate, although hermaphrodites occasionally occur (Ropes, 1968). Sexual maturity is generally reached by age 2, although some individuals spawn

at the end of their first year of life (USDOC, 1993).

Spawning can occur either during a single time interval

or over multiple time periods, between mid:July and

early November. Eggs and sperm are broadcast into the

water column, where fertilization occurs. Within a bed

of clams, spawning is probably annually synchronous.

The buoyant surfclam eggs and larvae remain planktonic for about 3 weeks (at 22°C). Prior to settlement,

the larvae may be dispersed great distances by prevailing water currents.

Commercial Fishery

Although surfclams cast ashore during storms were harvested by Native Americans, the U.S. commercial fishery did not begin until the late 1870's off Cape Cod,
48 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

FJgW"e4

Valves (shells) of the Atlantic surfclam. Note the presence of a broad hinge

(chondrophore)on the inner surface. This structure is sectioned radially to reveal

growth lines that have proved to be reliable indicators of age.

where surfclams were harvested for bait in the handline

fishery for Atlantic cod (Yancey and Welch, 1968).

The modern food fishery developed in the 1930's, when

power dredging techniques were introduced. The fishery

was initially centered off Long Island, N.Y., but soon

spread southward into the Mid-Atlantic Bight, in particular off NewJersey. During the 1940's, technological

developments (e.g. mechanical washers to remove sand

forced into the mantle cavity and viscera during dredging, and hydraulic dredges to replace the dry or scrape

dredges) and wartime protein demands stimulated rapid

expansion of the fishery, and landings quadrupled between 1944 and 1945.

Extensive surfclam beds discovered off NewJersey in

1950 subsequently supported the fishery until the early

1970's. Between 1950 and 1970, surfclam landings increased nearly tenfold, from 3,500 to 30,500 t of meats

(Fig. 1). Improved harvesting efficiency, increases in

vessel size and the total number offishing vessels, areal

expansion of the fishing grounds, and new technologies and equipment (e.g. shoreside automatic shucking

equipment, stern-rigged steel vessels, improved dredge

designs, and dredge handling systems) all contributed

to increased catches (Murawski and Serchuk, 1989; Figs.

5-7). However, by the early 1970's, commercial catch

rates on the New Jersey grounds were declining because abundance (in both northern and southern New

Jersey waters) had become much reduced. In 1971,

large beds ofsurfclams were discovered offChesapeake

Bay, and the highly mobile and greatly expanded offshore fleet (about 100 vessels, compared to 54 vessels in

1965) quickly shifted southward to Virginia. During the

next 3 years, annual landings rose to unprecedented

levels, peaking in 1974 at a record-high 44,000 t (Fig.

1). However, the Chesapeake resource was quickly overfished, and annual landings then steeply declined, falling in 1976 to an 8-year low of22,000 t, 50% ofthe 1974

peak. In the summer of 1976, hypoxic water conditions

off NewJersey devastated the state's clam stocks, generating a massive reduction in surfclam biomass over a

2,600 mi2 area (USDOC, 19951).

Since 1977, a restrictive FMP aimed at rebuilding and

conserving Mid-Atlantic surfclam stocks and stabilizing

annual harvest rates has regulated offshore landings by

quotas. Large recruiting year classes produced off New

Jersey in 1976 (after the anoxic event) and off the

Delmarva Peninsula in 1977 have rebuilt the stocks,

although there has been little new recruitment in the

past 15 years. Total surfclam landings increased from

17,000 t in 1980 to 35,000 t in 1986, but have since

I USDOC. 1995. Report of the 19th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (19th SAW). Nat!' Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc. 95-08.
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 49

Figure 5

Hand shucking surfclams c.a. 1965. This method was replaced by automated heat

shucking methods in the 1970's, which allowed greater volumes of clams to be

processed at much lower cost.

stabilized at about 30,000 t. Landings from waters under Federaljurisdiction (the Exclusive Economic Zone,

or EEZ, from 3 to 200 n.mi from the coast) have generally

accounted for 7().80% of annual U.S. harvests. In 1993,

most EEZ landings occurred off of northern NewJersey

(75%), with the remainder in the Delmarva (16%) and

southern NewJersey areas (9%; Fig. 3; USDOC, 19951).

Landings from the southern New England and

Georges Bank fisheries have always been a rather small

component ofthe U.S. harvest. Their combined catches

have never exceeded the 3,000 t of 1986, and no landings occurred from either region in 1993 or 1994. The

Georges Bank fishery has been closed since 1989, due

to the presence of toxins causing paralytic shellfish

poisoning (PSP).

Management

Beginning in November 1977, EEZ surfclam fisheries

have 'been managed under the Surf Clam and Ocean

Quahog FMP prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, 1994). Management measures initially included

annual and quarterly catch quotas, a moratorium on

vessel entry into the fishery, a mandatory logbook reporting system for both harvesters and processors, effort limitations on fishing time per vessel, and closed

areas to protectsmall clams. In the early 1980's, minimum

size limits and target discard rates were also implemented.

The FMP can be credited with restoring the depleted

surfclam stocks and contributing to an improved economic situation in the industry. Under the FMP, fishing

effort by the surfclam fleet was markedly reduced, and

the strong 1976 and 1977 year classes were effectively

husbanded. Stock biomass, as indicated by standardized research vessel surveys and fishery catch rates,

increased dramatically in the early 1980's. As the 1976

and 1977 cohorts attained harvestable size, annual quotas were adjusted upwards and surfclam landings

doubled between 1980 and 1986 (Fig. 1). However, the

harvesting capacity of the fleet still greatly exceeded

that necessary to catch the annual quota. To space out

the quota over the entire year and maintain a steady

supply ofsurfclams for the market, vessels were restricted

(beginning in 1985) to only 6 hours offishing time every 2

weeks (i.e. 36 fishing hours per calendar quarter).

This overcapitalization persisted until 1990 when,

under Amendment #8 to the FMP, an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system was enacted to redress the

economic inefficiencies created by the FMP in harvesting the resource. Under this system, percentages ofthe

annual quota were allocated among individual vessels,

based on performance history and vessel size. Allocated
50 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 6

A surfclam-ocean quahog dredge vessel (above), and hydraulic clam dredge (below).

Typically, these vessels will tow two dredges, one off each side of the vessel. Dredges are up

to 20 ft wide and use high pressure water jets to slurry the substrata and clams before the

dredge knife lifts the clams into the rear portion of the dredge.

quota percentages are allowed to be bought and sold

and, if desired, combined on fewer vessels. With enactment of the ITQ scheme, restrictions on vessel fishing

times and the vessel moratorium were eliminated from

the FMP because the trading of allocations was believed

to be the means by which rationalization of harvesting

capacity and fishing effort would occur (Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, 1994).

This has indeed been the case; under the ITQ system, the number of vessels participating in the

Mid-Atlantic EEZ fishery declined by 41 % between 1990

and 1991 (from 128 to 75 vessels). Current vessel numbers and their characteristics are given in Table 1. Fishermen are now concentrating on reducing harvesting

costs via improvements in efficiency, rather than racing

against one another to catch the quota.
__ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 51

Figure 7

Two methods for handling clams or.board the fishing vessel. In the upper

picture, a crewman loads bags by hand. This method was used until the early

1970's, when the 32-bushel cage was introduced (lower photograph). The

cages are loaded onboard by hand or conveyors. They are off-loaded by

crane and transported directly to the shucking plant.

Resource Status

Trends in distribution, relative abundance and biomass, size cOmpOSItIOn, and recruitment patterns of

Mid-Atlantic surfclams have been monitored and evaluated in standardized research vessel surveys performed

by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center since

1965 (USDOC, 19951). Prior to 1976, these surveys

were conducted on an intermittent basis, but they were

performed annually between 1976 and 1984, and trien-
52 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Table 1

Mid-Atlantic surfclam-ocean quahog vessel characteristics for 1993.

nially from 1986 on. Surveys use a stratified random

sampling design, with a commercial-type hydraulic clam

dredge as the sampling gear. Indices of abundance and

biomass (stratified mean number and weight per 5-

minute tow) and size frequency distributions (shell

length in 1 cm intervals) are derived for each assessment area (i.e. northern New Jersey, southern New

Jersey, Delmarva). In toto, between 1965 and 1994, 20

separate surveys of the :\1id-Atlantic EEZ surfclam resources were done. Surveys were also conducted of

surfclam populations offLong Island (1986, 1989, 1992,

1994), in southern New England waters (1986, 1989,

1992, 1994), and on Georges Bank (1984, 1986, 1989,

1992, 1994).

In the Mid-Atlantic region, survey indices have documented significant changes in the abundance and size

composition of surfclams during the past three decades. In northern NewJersey, stock biomass (and landings) declined gradually between 1965 and 1974, but

plummeted in 1977 due to the 1976 hypoxic clam kill.

Outstanding recruitment from the 1976 year class, however, resulted in a marked recovery of the northern

New Jersey resource between 1978 and 1982. Since

1982, biomass has declined by about 50% because the

growth potential of the 1976 cohort has diminished

and no new significant recruitment has occurred. Concomitant with this biomass reduction, commercial catch

rates have fallen sharply.

In southern New Jersey, survey indices of relative

abundance were high during the late 1960's and early

1970's, but have remained at relatively low levels since

the 1976 clam kill. Although there was some modest

recruitment of the 1976 cohort in the southern New

Jersey area, it was much less than in northern New

Jersey, and resource recovery was much more limited.

Similar to northern New Jersey, southern catch rates

have generally declined since the late 1980·s. Survey

Vessel size class

1·50 CRT 51-150 CRT 151+ CRT

The Future

results indicate that the abundance of surfclams off

southern New Jersey is substantially lower than in the

northern NewJersey and Delmarva areas.

Off the Delmarva Peninsula, biomass levels of

surfclams were relatively high and stable between 1965

and 1975. However, sharp declines occurred during

1976 and 1977 as a result of intensive fishing by the

surfclam tIeet, which had recently returned to Delmarva

after depleting the Chesapeake Bay beds. Despite the

extremely low abundance of the Delmarva surfclam

resource in 1977, recruitment of the 1977 year class

proved excellent. Between 1978 and 1986, indices of

survey biomass showed an increase to record levels,

however, survey biomass declined in 1989 and 1992 due

to lack of additional strong recruitment.

Survey indices of density from the southern New

England and Long Island areas are much lower than

those in the Mid-Atlantic, suggesting that surfclam resources in these areas are rather limited. Densities are

higher on Georges Bank, but have still generally been

only about half as large as those for northern New

Jersey or Delmarva. Given the continued closure of the

Georges Bank fishery, however, surfclam biomass will

continue to accumulate there.

Mid-Atlantic surfclam populations are dominated by

single large year classes that are now more than 15 years

old (USDOC, 19951). Good recruitment has not followed the strong 1976 cohort in Northern New Jersey

or the strong 1977 cohort in Delmarva. Although fishing mortality rates are low and annual catches have

stabilized, the overall biomass of Mid-Atlantic surfclams

is declining, after peaking in the mid-1980's. Although

present resource levels are sufficient to sustain annual

catches of between 16,000 and 19,500 t for about 7-10

years in the Mid-Atlantic region, the supply of adult

clams will eventually become exhausted unless major

new recruitment occurs. Even ifsuch recruitment does

occur, it will take about 5-6 years before the clams from

this cohort reach harvestable size.

The northern New Jersey and Delmarva areas currently account for about 90% of annual landings of

EEZ (offshore) surfclams. While over 60% of the total

biomass is located within these two regions, maintaining present harvest levels will result in increased fishing

mortality as populations decline. However, it is unlikely

that the fishery will soon shift to other regions since

dam densities elsewhere are lower.

Clearly, continuing the long-term strategy adopted

by managers to husband the extant surfclam resources

seems prudent, at least until significant improvement

in recruitment is evident.

25

10.0

18

III

169

4,887

86,752

54

4.0

22

59

75

7,318

97,927

9

3.4

18

24

25

2,959

35.376

Characteristic

No. of vessels

Mean crew size

Mean age (years)

Mean trips/year

Mean days absentl/year

Mean $/day absentl

Mean lb/day absent]

] Days absent from dock.
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 53

Ocean Quahog _

Biology

Unlike the surfclam, the ocean quahog ranges on both

sides ofthe Atlantic, from the Bay ofCadiz in southwest

Spain through northern Europe to Iceland, and westward to the Canadian Maritimes and New England,

south to Cape Hatteras (Merrill and Ropes, 1969).

Throughout its range, the ocean quahog inhabits relatively cold waters, at shallower depths in the north but

progressively deeper at the southern end of its range.

In U.S. waters, the species lives at depths of 8-256 m in

the Gulf of Maine, on Georges Bank, and in offshore

areas ofthe Middle Atlantic shelf. Itrarely occurs where

bottom water temperatures exceed 16°C for more than

brief periods during the year.

The highest quahog densities in U.S. waters occur on

the southern flanks of Georges Bank and in the New

York Bight (USDOC, 19951). Highest densities in the

Mid-Atlantic Bight occur in 40-60 m depths. In the

Gulf of Maine, ocean quahogs occur near shore, owing

to cool summer bottom water temperatures. The species inhabits a variety of substrata, from mud to coarse

sand and shell hash. Fishable concentrations of large

quahogs (>80 mm shell length) are found off New

Jersey, Long Island, and the Delmarva Peninsula (Fig.

8). Off Maine, a small-boat fishery for 40-60 mm quahogs occurs (USDOC, 19951).

Ocean quahogs are among the slowest growing and

longest lived fishery resources anywhere (Thompson et

al., 1980; Murawski et al., 1982). In the Mid-Atlantic

Bight, maximum size is 132 mm, although quahogs

larger than 110 mm are rare (Ropes and Murawski,

1983). Extensive analyses of growth rate and onset of

sexual maturity have been conducted on a population

off Long Island. Average shell length at age 5 is 25 mm;

at age 10,47 mm; at age 20, 65 mm; at age 50, 86 mm;

and at age 100, 97 mm (Murawski et al., 1982). The

oldest known specimen is 221 years old, with a 107 mm

shell, sampled from off southern New England (Ropes

and Pyoas, 1982). Recent growth studies conducted on

natural populations off Machias, Maine, indicate slower

growth rates and smaller maximum sizes than in more

southern waters (Kraus et al., 1992). When cultured,

however, the species is capable ofrelatively rapid growth

during the first several years oflife (Kraus et al., 1992).

The bulk ofthe commercial catch in the Mid-Atlantic

Bight consists of animals with shell lengths of 70-100

mm (USDOC, 19951). Average viscera weight for 90

mm shell length is about 30 g (Murawski and Serchuk,

1979). Because of the relatively short foot muscle (unlike surfclams), most large ocean quahogs are processed

into chowder, minced clams, juices, dips, and other

products. The fishery off Maine primarily targets small

animals which are sold live at the retail level. The average ex-vessel value of large clams caught in the MidAtlantic is about $4/bushel, whereas off Maine the value

of the landings exceeds $40/bushel for small quahogs

(Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1994).

As with the surfclam, ocean quahog sexes are separate. Eggs and sperm are shed into the water column,

where the eggs are fertilized (Lutz et al., 1982). In the

Mid-Atlantic, 50% offemales are mature at 50 mm shell

length, or about 11 years of age. Males mature slightly

earlier. Spawning generally occurs in the Mid-Atlantic

region from summer through early autumn. The larvae

float in the plankton for an extended period, as development time in cold waters of winter is protracted.

They may drift for 2 months or more and may thus

settle far from their point of origin (Lutz et al., 1982).

Commercial Fishery

Ocean quahogs were first harvested commercially off

Rhode Island during World War II, owing to increased

protein demands of that time (Murawski and Serchuk,

1989). War-time landings reached about 600 t (meat

weight), but declined to less than 200 t for the period of

1947-69. During this same period, the surfclam fishery

expanded greatly. Prior to 1976, virtually all quahog

landings were from nearshore Rhode Island waters,

when a fishery was developed off the Mid-Atlantic area

(Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey). Food processing advancements made the species an effective substitute for the increasingly scarce surfclam during the late

1970's (Fig. 1). This Mid-Atlantic fishery developed rapidly during the late 1970's and early 1980's (Figs. 1,2),

with total landings increasing from 588 t in 1975 to

2,540 t in 1976, and 15,300 tin 1980. Landings peaked

in 1985 at 23,600 t and have since fluctuated between

20,000 and 23,000 t (USDOC, 19951).

The Mid-Atlantic ocean quahog fishery has usually

taken advantage of the existing surfclam fishery infrastructure, and processing plants in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware process the bulk of both

species. Not surprisingly, the quahog fishery developed

first near the existing port and processing facilities, but

local resource depletions close to the ports caused a

general northward development of the fishery during

15 years of intensified fishing in the region. Initially,

fishing was concentrated off southern New Jersey and

Maryland, but now the area between Maryland and

Long Island is intensively fished, as vessels seek highdensity concentrations to maximize catch rates for this

high-volume, low unit-value fishery. Total ocean quahog harvests from the Mid-Atlantic fishery have exceeded 300,000 t of meats-more than 2.5 million t of

"shell-on" resource.
54 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Distribution of Ocean Quahogs

NEFSC Clam Survey 1992

\

8

33

128

382

2463

1

9

34

129

383

Number of Quahogs

•

SPECIES; 409, CRUISES; 9203

•

•

Mid-Atlantic

Bight

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 45

.~ /' "I

I (

1

44 I I j

(', ( I

I

43 J I '

____\.... _____ J r ./

I

I

36

37

39

41

Figure 8

Geographic distribution of ocean quahog populations sampled in hydraulic dredging surveys off the northeast U.S. during summer, 1992. Data are numbers of

quahogs caught in each 5-minute tow with a hydraulic clam dredge. The U.S.-

Canada maritime boundary (the "Hague Line") is plotted as a dashed line.

The fishery off eastern Maine is a rather recent development. Unlike the highly mechanized, industrial-scale

fishery of the Mid-Atlantic, fishing off Maine is smallscale. Most Maine vessels are converted lobster boats

(about 30 ft in length and <5 CRT) harvesting less than

20 bushels per day. In contrast, typical landings for

large vessels in the Mid-Atlantic fishery (typically >80 ft

and >150 CRT) are about 1,000 bushels per trip (USDOC,

19951; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1994).

Annual landings from the Maine fishery average about

100 t. The fishery is seasonal (May-August), and many of

the boats pursue other species during the remainder of

the year. The portion ofthe Maine coast where harvesting

occurs is small because, although the ocean quahog occurs intermittently along the entire Maine coast, most

areas are closed to harvest due to lack ofroutine monitoring for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).

Management

As with the surfclam, formal management of the EEZ

resource was initiated in 1977 with the adoption of the

Mid-Atlantic Council's Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 55

FMP. Specific quahog management provisions initially

included an annual quota, logbook recordkeeping requirements, and a moratorium on new vessel entrants

into the fishery. No minimum shell size requirement

was imposed, owing to the dearth of small quahogs in

the heavily fished Mid-Atlantic region.

More recently, Amendment #8 to the FMP established an ITQ plan and eliminated fishing time restrictions (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1994).

The current (e.g. 1993 and 1994) annual quahog quota

is 24,500 t of meats. The fishery in recent years has not

been constrained by the quota and, in fact, total landings are slightly below the quota. The species' extremely

slow growth rate and very poor recruitment in the MidAtlantic region threaten development of a "sustainable"

fishery there. Given the unique population dynamics of

the species, managers have pursued a policy of ensuring

adequate resource to yield approximately stable catches

for a 3O-year period. This implies a maximum harvest rate

of about 3% per year. Under this scenario, unless recruitment improves, the stock will essentially be fished out by

the end ofthe period (USDOC, 19951).

Current ocean quahog harvests in the Mid-Atlantic region are not proportional to resource abundance in various sub-regions. Most of the catch currently comes from

off NewJersey, whereas most ofthe stock occurs off Long

Island, southern New England, and on Georges Bank.

The Georges Bank stock cannot currently be harvested

due to PSP. Although current resources are sufficient to

support annual harvests of 20,000 t into the early part of

the next century, it is unlikely that a large-volume fishery

for large quahogs can be sustained in the Mid-Atlantic,

even if recruitment improves; 2o-30-year-old quahogs

would be only about 65-72 mm in shell length, far below

the current average size in Mid-Atlantic landings. It is not

known ifharvest rates and recruitment levels are sufficient

to sustain present annual catches in the Maine fishery.

Resource Status

Abundance, size composition, and biomass ofthe ocean

quahog resource have been monitored both by standardized hydraulic dredge surveys and by samples of

the commercial fishery (the surfclam section describes

survey procedures). Abundance and distribution ofthe

resource in the Mid-Atlantic area was well documented

by surveys at least a decade before the initiation of

large-scale fishing. Additionally, the entire history of

the fishery has been monitored by logbook catch and

effort data (Murawski and Serchuk, 1989; USDOC,

19951). Except during 1976, all trips have been monitored through mandatory logbook submissions.

Population biomass estimates for areas currently being

fished were made by regressing annual catch rates on the

cumulative catch from an area. With this formula, the xintercept of the regression becomes the initial population,

and the slope is an estimate of total mortality rate. The

formula also accounts for natural mortality and any recruitment to the population. It indicates that the population of

quahogs in fished areas is between 200,000 and 300,000 t

ofmeats, with a substantial additional resource located in

deep, unfished waters off Long Island, as well as in southern New England and Georges Bank (USDOC, 19951

).

Analysis of commercial catch rates indicates a trend

of general decline since inception of the fishery. In

heavily fished areas off the Delmarva Peninsula and

New Jersey, rates have declined substantially. About

45% of the Delmarva resource available in the mid1970's has probably been harvested. There is no indication from research vessel surveys that these areas are

being repopulated with large numbers ofjuveniles. The

Georges Bank resource, currently unfished, represents

the largest biomass component and is comprised of relatively large quahogs. The long-term harvest potential of

Maine's ocean quahog resource is not known, but total

landings have declined in this as yet unregulated fishery.

The Future

The fishery has expanded from two locations, offsouthern NewJersey and Maryland, to include northern New

Jersey, Long Island, and southern New England. On

average, vessels steam farther from ports, particularly in

cooler months, when the clams are not apt to spoil

from the heat. In the future, the focus ofthe fishery will

shift to more northern grounds, and processing plants

are already being relocated to New England ports, including New Bedford, Mass. Dense beds off southern

New England and Long Island are likely to support the

bulk of the fishery after the year 2000. Access to the

resource on Georges Bank presupposes a reduction in

the incidence ofPSP or more aggressive monitoring for its

presence and prevalence. Ultimately, sustainability of the

fishery will depend on occurrence of new recruitment

and its growth to harvestable size. Large-scale recruitment

events have not yet been seen in intensively fished MidAtlantic areas. Experiments in Maine indicate the species

can be grown intertidally and the growth rate accelerated

over that occurring under natural conditions. Thus, ocean

quahogs may have potential for aquaculture.

Sea Scallop

Biology

Sea scallops occur on the Northwest Atlantic continental

shelffrom the Strait ofBelle Isle, Newfoundland, to Cape
56 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Hatteras, North Carolina. North ofCape Cod, concentrations can often be found just below the low tide mark in

waters shallower than 20 m; farther to the south, sea

scallops are restricted to cooler offshore waters deeper

than 40 m (Serchuk et aI., 1979). Sea scallops are intolerant ofwater temperatures above 20°-22°C and, accordingly,

their southern and shoreward distributions are likely limited

by temperature (Fig. 9). They prefer cold waterswith oceanic

salinities; optimum water temperature is about lO°e.

Commercially important aggregations occur from

Port au Port Bay, Nfd., to the Virginia Capes, usually at

depths of between 40 and 100 m on sand and gravel

substrates (Serchuk et aI., 1979). In U.S. waters, principal offshore fishing grounds are in the Middle Atlantic

from Hudson Canyon, south to offthe mouth ofChesapeake Bay, and on Georges Bank. Fishing also occurs in

the Gulf of Maine, but that fishery is generally dependent on inshore beds (USDOC, 1993).

Distribution of Sea Scallops

NEFSC Scallop Survey 1993

6

21

64

187

2484

1

7

22

65

188

Number of Scallops

•

•

•

SPECIES: 401, CRUISES: 9304

Mid-Atlantic

Bight

42 --,'\

)

l ,-,

t'"" 41

;-

\,

76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65

45 /,1 I

, " (

44 !

;

36

38

37

40

43

39

Figure 9

Geographic distribution of sea scallop populations sampled in dredging surveys

off the northeast U.S, during summer, 1993. Data are numbers ofscallops caught

in each IS-minute tow with a scallop dredge. No stations are sampled off Southern

New England, owing to the historic dearth of scallops there. No stations were

sampled in the Gulf of Maine, although small quantities do exist there. The U.S.-

Canada maritime boundary (the "Hague Line") is plotted as a dashed line.
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 57

Scallops grow rapidly during their first several years

of life. Between ages 3 and 5, scallops commonly increase 50-80% in shell height and quadruple in adductor muscle meat weight (Serchuk et al., 1979). During

this time span, the number of meats per pound is

reduced from greater than 100 to about 23. Maximum

shell size is about 23 em, but scallops larger than 17 em

are rare. Longevity is not known conclusively, but is

thought to be in excess of 15 years (MacKenzie, 1979).

Spawning occurs in late summer or early autumn,

beginning in the Mid-Atlantic area in July, and proceeding northward until mid-October in the northern

part of the range (MacKenzie et al., 1978). There is

some evidence for two spawning periods in the MidAtlantic region (Schmitzer et al., 1991), but it is unlikely that individual scallops spawn more than once

per year. The sexes are separate. Fertilized eggs are

buoyant, and larvae remain in the water column for 4-6

weeks before settling to the bottom (Posgay, 1979;

McGarvey et al., 1992, 1993).

Commercial Fishery

An organized fishery for sea scallops dates from 1887,

although landings never exceeded 2 million pounds of

meats until the early 1930's when harvest of the extensive Georges Bank populations began (Doherty et al.,

1964). The New England scallop fishery, centered at

New Bedford, Mass., developed rapidly in the 1930's,

with peak landings of 10 million pounds by 1939. Landings declined sharply during World War II but increased

afterward to 20 million pounds (Premetz and Snow,

1953). Harvesting methods have changed little since

the inception ofthe fishery (Royce, 1946; Posgay, 1957;

Smolowitz and Serchuk, 1989). Most catches are still

made with heavy dredges, although dredge size and

vessel power have increased significantly (Figs. 10-12).

Most dredge catches are shucked at sea, with shells and

viscera discarded. Only the adductor muscles are marketed in the United States, although there is increased

interest in marketing "roe-on" scallops in Europe and

elsewhere. In the Mid-Atlantic, some vessels use trawl

nets to catch scallops, and these catches are generally

landed in the shell ("shell stocked") for shucking ashore.

Between 1951 and 1958, landings remained relatively

stable, fluctuating between 8,500 and 10,700 t of meats

(Fig. 1), with Georges Bank catches comprising over

80% of all U.S. landings. In 1959, an exceptionally

large year class (probably the 1955 cohort) recruited to

the Georges Bank fishery, and landings increased to

more than 11,200 t annually between 1959 and 1962

(Posgay, 1968; Serchuk et al., 1979). Canadian participation in the Georges Bank fishery also increased then.

The percentage ofGeorges Bank scallop landings taken

Figure 10

Unsorted catch ofsea scallops and other benthic invertebrates and debris (above). Catches are still sorted by

hand as they were in the early days of the fishery.

Scallops are generally opened by hand (below) at sea,

but in some cases they are landed live in the shell and

shucked ashore.

by Canada rose from 9% in 1957 to 37% in 1962 and to

50% by 1964.
58 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Figure 11

Sea scallop dredges used in the fishery in the early 1960's (above) and the early

1990's (below). Although the design ofthe dredges has remained similar, the

most notable development is that dredges used now are much larger.

By the mid-1960's, abundance had

declined on Georges Bank, but increased in the Mid-Atlantic, so U.S.

and Canadian fleets shifted their focus accordingly. However, reduced

recruitment in the late 1960's and

early 1970's resulted in significant declines in landings. From 1967 to 1974,

annual U.S. landings did not exceed

5,500 t and during 1970-74 averaged

just 2,600 t.

Recruitment ofthe strong 1972 year

class was highly successful on both

Georges Bank and in the Mid-Atlantic. As a result, U.S. harvests rapidly

increased from 2,700 tin 1974 to 8,700

t in 1976, peaking at 14,500 tin 1978.

Thereafter, they decreased steadily,

falling to 6,700 tin 1985, as a result of

lower region-wide recruitment levels.

U.S. catches subsequently increased to

a record 17,400 t in 1990, but fell again

to 8,200 t in 1993 (Fig. 1; USDOC,

1993) .

Total effort in the U.S. scallop fishery increased significantly from the

late 1970's until 1993. From 11,500

days fished by the fleet in 1978, effort

increased to 43,000 days in 1991

(USDOC, 19922). The greatest increase in effort occurred for the largest vessels (>150 GRT)-nearly a tenfold in increase in effort since the late

1970's. Currently, more than 400 vessels are licensed to participate in the

scallop fishery (New England Fishery

Management Council, 1994).

Management

Prior to the early 1980's, management

advice was formulated through the

ICNAF (International Commission for

the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries) with

participation by U.S. and Canadian

science and industry advisors. The

ICNAF limited the harvest ofsea scallops in waters under itsjurisdiction to

the two coastal nations. No formal

rules were adopted by the United

t USDOC. 1992. Report of the 14th ortheast

Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (14th

SAW). Nat!. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc. 92-07.
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 59

Figure 12

Two typical sea scallop fishing vessels used off the northeast U.S. coast during

the 1990's. The vessel above is typical of those hailing from northern ports,

such as New Bedford, Massachusetts, whereas the vessel below is typical of

southern vessels from North Carolina and Virginia. Note on the vessel below

the presence of a "shucking house" on the stern, where the crew separates

scallop meats from shells.

States to regulate its fishermen, although union and

industry practices limited time at sea and crew sizes

(Serchuk et aI., 1979). During the ICNAF era, Canada

enacted total catch limits (which were not restrictive)

and a maximum count of 40 meats per pound. Following extension of territorial jurisdictions to 200 miles by

the United States and Canada in 1977, sea scallops

became a major bilateral fishery issue. Ultimately, the

U.S.-Canada maritime boundary (the "Hague Line")

was established by the International Court ofJustice in

October 1994 (Fig. 9), forcing both countries to abandon grounds that they had historically shared.

Even prior to settlement of the boundary question,

the need for restrictive regulations to conserve U.S.
60 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Table 2

Sea scallop vessel characteristics for 1993.

scallop resources was recognized, and a sea scallop FMP

was implemented by the New England Fishery Management Council in 1982. Provisions included a 30-meat

per pound maximum and a 3lj2-inch shell height minimum (Smolowitz et aI., 1989). A one-year phase-in of

the meat count regulation allowed 40 meats per pound

to be landed. Subsequent amendments to the plan

included tolerances in the count to reflect seasonal

variation, and a 12-hour daily "window" during which

all scallops had to be landed, to enhance enforcement

of the meat-count regulations. But meat count and

other regulations were not effective in controlling

growth or recruitment overfishing (Smolowitz and

Serchuk, 1987; 1989). Consequently, amendment #4 to

the sea scallop FMP (enacted in 1994) established a

series of direct controls with the goals of 1) restoring

adult abundance and age distribution, 2) increasing

yield per recruit, 3) evaluating costs of management,

and 4) minimizing adverse environmental impacts on

stocks (New England Fishery ManagementCouncil, 1994).

Amendment #4 replaced meat count requirements

with 1) a moratorium on new vessel entrants (Table 2),

2) effort reduction through fewer days at sea per vessel,

3) increase in the ring sizes of dredges (eventually to

31

/2-inch diameter), 4) mandatory dealer and vessel

logbooks, and 5) other provisions to limit gear size and

effectiveness. It is estimated that days at sea may have to

be reduced 35-70% to lower fishing mortality below

the level at which recruitment overfishing occurs. Reductions in effort will occur over a seven-year period, to

minimize short-term economic impacts of regulation

on the fleet. It is hoped that by decreasing fishing

mortality, total yields will increase and become more

stable, thereby avoiding the cycle ofboom and bust that

has characterized this fishery in recent years (Fig. 1).

Subsequent to settlement of the boundary dispute

with the United States, Canada implemented a restrictive ITQ scheme to regulate its Georges Bank fishery.

Vessel size class

1-50 CRT 51-150 CRT 151+ CRT

Resource Status

The Future

Since this program was initiated, the Canadian offshore

scallop fleet has been halved from about 80 to 40 licensees. Canadian landings on Georges Bank have gradually increased since 1985, without large variations in

year-to-year catch. Profitability of this fleet is considered to be quite high.

Trends in resource abundance, size composition, and

recruitment strength have been monitored annually

since 1975 (Serchuk et aI., 1979; USDOC, 19922). Research vessel surveys conducted by the National Marine

Fisheries Service sample areas of offshore abundance

from Cape Hatteras northward, including all areas on

Georges Bank (Serchuk and Wigley, 1986). Periodic

Canadian surveys also provide information useful to

both countries. Survey abundance indices are provided

for both prerecruit «70 mm shell height), and recruitsized animals. Given the current high fishing mortality

rates, prerecruit indices generally correlate with landings in the subsequent year or two.

Research vessel abundance indices generally follow

the pattern of landings. In the Mid-Atlantic region,

prerecruit abundance indices peaked in 1989, declined

in 1990-92, but increased in 1993-94. Currently, the

abundance of harvestable-size scaliops is high throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. In contrast, abundance in

the U.S. sector of Georges Bank is at an historic low; it

peaked in 1991, but recruitment has been poor in all

areas of Georges Bank since then. Due to the dearth of

prerecruits on Georges Bank, the focus of the U.S.

fishery will be primarily in the Mid-Atlantic area for the

next few years.

Fishing mortality rates for sea scallops have been

estimated based on the ratio of ages 2 to 3 and older in

research vessel surveys (USDOC, 19922). Average mortality increased from about 0.6 (43% annual exploitation rate) in 1985 to 1.7 (79% annual exploitation rate)

in 1989-90. Recruitment overfishing is defined as occurring when the harvest rate results in spawning stock

biomass per recruit that is less than 5% of an unfished

population. Under current population circumstances,

harvest occurs at a mortality rate of 0.71 (49% annual

exploitation rate). Therefore, fishing mortality needs

to be reduced by nearly 60% just to reach the overfishing threshold. Growth overfishing occurs at mortality

rates in excess of 0.23 (20% annual exploitation rate).

136

9.5

15

19

215

2,323

3,389

100

7.7

18

19

162

1,854

2,664

69

3.0

25

36

53

1,118

2,250

No. of vessels

Mean crew size

Mean age (years)

Mean trips/year

Mean days absen t1/year

Mean $/day absent!

Mean lbs/day absent!

Characteristic

1 Days absent from dock. Consistent with cycles of boom and bust in this fishery,

the next few years are likely to see declining yields and
_ Serchuk and Murawski: The Offshore Molluscan Resources of the Northeastern Coast of the United States 61

concomitant low profits for the fleet. The effort reduction scheme imposed under Amendment #4 should

eventually result in lower fishing mortality rates, and

thus higher and more stable yields (New England Fishery Management Council, 1994). Replacing maximum

meat count regulation with minimum ring sizes for

dredges will result in increased harvests of very small

scallops, even smaller than those landed under the

meat count regulations.

The fishery will likely focus in the New York Bight

and offthe Delmarva Peninsula during 1994-96, as the

abundance on the U.S. portion of Georges Bank is at a

record-low and recruitment indices are poor. If the

management program is successful in significantly reducing mortality rates, then the pressure to target beds

of very small scallops will be reduced.

As of 1994, scallops in excess of 40 and 50 count were

being landed. These small scallops compete with lowerpriced imported bay scallops from a number ofsources.

Larger size (e.g. 15-30 count) sea scallops are worth at

least double the per-pound value of small ones. If successful, the management program should reestablish

the sea scallop as a premium value product and provide

nearly $200 million of ex-vessel value annually. The

current fleet of over 400 vessels is far larger than can be

profitably supported by the resource. Pressure will increase to enact measures that will allow fleet consolidation to occur.

Summary _

The ocean clam and sea scallop fisheries are among the

nation's most valuable, producing nearly $200 million

in ex-vessel value and supporting thousands ofjobs in

the harvesting, processing, and support industries. These

fisheries are typical of those conducted on sedentary

animals, in that they are particularly vulnerable to both

growth and recruitment overfishing. The example of

the surfclam fishery proves that stable fisheries can be

achieved even for those species that exhibit aperiodic

recruitment events. Despite the virtual absence of good

recruitment for more than a decade, the low natural

mortality rates on the stock have allowed a stockpiling

of the resource and a gradual fishing down of the

population. Development of the ocean quahog fishery

should proceed cautiously, given the very limited annual productivity ofthe stock and its extreme longevity.

The Canadian experience in sea scallop fishery regulation on Georges Bank shows that this species can also

be stockpiled. Reduced fishing mortality rates under

amendment #4 to the U.S. scallop fishery should result

in higher overall yields of larger, more valuable scallops, with lower year-to-year variability. The short-term

trade off for establishing the fishery on a more sustainable basis will be substantially less fishing time per

vessel. Ifthe surfclam fishery is an appropriate example,

there should be increased pressure to reduce the size of

the scallop fleet, thereby allowing the remaining vessels

and crews to be fully utilized.

The U.S. scallop industry is less vertically integrated

than either the ocean clam fishery or the Canadian sea

scallop industry. It remains to be seen how effort reductions in the U.S. fleet will affect patterns of ownership

and employment. At one time, the sea scallop fishery

propelled the port of New Bedford, Mass., to the number one fishery producer, by value, among all U.S.

ports. It may be so again if prudent management policies are instituted to conserve the resource and enhance the value of the fishery.

Literature Cited

Doherty, R. M., G. P. Draheim, D.]. White, and C. L. Vaughn.

1964. Economic study ofsea scallop production in the United

States and Canada. Fish. Ind. Res. 2(3) :57-79.

Fogarty, M.]., and S. A. Murawski.

1986. Population dynamics and assessment of exploited invertebrate stocks. In G. S. Jamieson and N. Bourne (eds.),

North Pacific workshop on stock assessment and management of invertebrates, p. 228-244. Can.]. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

Spec. Publ. 92.

Kraus, M. G., B. F. Beal, S.-R. Chapman, and L. McMartin.

1992. A comparison of growth rates in Arctica islandica

(Linnaeus, 1767) between field and laboratory populations.

]. Shellfish Res. 11 (2) :289-294.

Lutz, R. A., R. Mann,]. G. Goodsell, and M. Castagna.

1982. Larval and early post-larval development of Arctica

islandica.]. Mar. BioI. Assoc. U.K. 62(4):745-769.

MacKenzie, C. L.,Jr.

1979. Biological and fisheries data on sea scallop, Placopecten

magellanicus (Gmelin). Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NEFC, Sandy

Hook Lab, Tech. Ser. Rept. 19.

MacKenzie, C. L.,Jr., A. S. Merrill, and F. M. Serchuk.

1978. Sea scallop resources off the northeastern U.S. coast.

Mar. Fish. Rev. 40(2):19-23.

McGarvey, R., F. M. Serchuk, and I. A. McLaren.

1992. Statistics of reproduction and early life history survival

of the Georges Bank sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus)

popUlation.]. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 13:83-99.

1993. Spatial and parent-age analysis ofstock-recruitment in

the Georges Bank sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) population. Can.]. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 564-574.

Merrill, A. S. and]. W. Ropes.

1969. The general distribution of the surf clam and ocean

quahog. Proc. Nat. Shellfish. Assoc. 59:40-45.

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

1994. 1995 optimum yield, domestic annual harvest, domestic annual processing, joint venture processing, and total

allowable level of foreign fishing recommendations for

surfclam and ocean quahog FMP. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover, Delaware.

Murawski, S. A., and F. M. Serchuk.

1979. Shell length-meat weight relationships of ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica, from the Middle Atlantic shelf. Proc.

Nat. Shellfish. Assoc. 69:40-46.
62 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

1989. Mechanized shellfish harvesting and its management:

The offshore clam fishery of the eastern United States. In].F.

Caddy (ed.), Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment

and management, p. 479-506.]. Wiley & Sons, New York.

Murawski, S. A.,]. W. Ropes, and F. M. Serchuk.

1982. Growth of the ocean quahog, Arctica islandica, in the

Middle Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull. 80(1):21-34.

New England Fishery Management Council.

1994. Final amendment #4 and supplemental environmental

impactstatement to the sea scallop fishery management plan. New

England Fishery ManagementCouncil, Saugus, Massachusetts.

Posgay,]. A.

1957. Sea scallop boats and gear. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish.

Leaflet 442, 7 p.

1968. Trends in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Comm. Fish.

Rev. 30(5):24-26.

1979. Population assessment of the Georges Bank sea scallop

stocks. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 175: 109-113.

Premetz, E. D., and G. W. Snow.

1953. Status of the New England sea-scallop fishery. Comm.

Fish. Rev. 15(5):1-17.

Ropes,]. W.

1968. Reproductive cycle of the surf clam, Spisula solidissima,

in offshore New Jersey. BioI. Bull. (Woods Hole, Mass.)

135:349-365.

Ropes,]. W., and S. A. Murawski.

1983. Maximum shell length and longevity in ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica, Linne. ICES C.M. 1983/K:32, 8 p.

Ropes,]. W., and D. Pyoas.

1982. Preliminary age and growth observations of ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica, Linne, from Georges Bank. ICES

C.M. 1982/K:I5, 6 p.

Royce. W. F.

1946. Gear used in the sea scallop fishery. Comm. Fish. Rev.

8(12):7-11.

Schmitzer, A. C., W. D. DuPaul, and]. E. Kirkley.

1991. Gametogenic cycle ofsea scallop (Plawpecten magellanicus

(Gmelin, 1791» in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. j. Shellfish Res.

10(1):221-228.

Serchuk, F. M., and S. E. Wigley.

1986. Evaluation of USA and Canadian research vessel surveys for sea scallops (Plawpecten magellanicus) on Georges

Bank.]. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 7(1): 1-13.

Serchuk, F. M., P. W. Wood,]. K. Posgay, and B. E. Brown.

1979. Assessment and status of sea scallop (Placopecten

magellanicus) populations off the northeast coast of the

United States. Proc. Nat. Shellfish Assoc. 67:161-191.

Smolowitz, R.]., and F. M. Serchuk.

1987. Current technical concerns with sea scallop managemen,. In Proceedings of Oceans '87-The Oceans, An International Workplace, p. 639-644. William McNabb and Son.

1989. Developments in sea scallop gear design. Proc. 1988

World Symp. on Fishing Gear and Fishing Vessel Design

(St.John's, Newfoundland, Canada) :531-540.

Smolowitz, R.j., F. M. Serchuk, and R.]. Reidman.

1989. The use of a volumetric measure for determining sea

scallop meat count.]' Shellfish Res. 8(1):151-172.

Thompson, I., D. S.Jones, and D. Dreibelbis.

1980. Annual internal growth banding and life history of the

ocean quahog, Arctica islandica (Molluska: Bivalvia). Mar.

BioI (Berl.) 57:25-34.

USDOC.

1993. Status of fishery resources off the Northeastern United

States for 1993. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMF5-F/NEC-I01, 140 p.

1994. Fisheries of the United States, 1993. Curr. Fish. Stat.

No. 9100.

Yancey, R. M., and W. R. Welch.

1968. The Atlantic coast surf clam - with a partial bibliography. U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv., Circ. 288:1-13.
The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine

DANA E. WALLACE

Maine Department ofNatural Resources (Retired)

3081 Mere Point Road

Brunswick, Maine 04011

ABSTRACT

Maine has been the largest producer of softshell clams, Mya arenaria, in eastern North

America throughout the 1800's and most of this century. The state also produces blue

mussels, Mytilus edulis; sea scallops, Placopecten mageUanicus; mahogany quahogs, Arctica

islandica; Eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica; European oysters, Ostrea edulis; northern

quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria; and periwinkles, Littorina littorea. Native Americans ate

softshells, as the early colonists did later. Fishermen usually have used multi-tined hoes

(hacks) to dig them. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, finfishermen used softshells as bait

as well as for food. In recent years, they have been sold in the shell as "steamers" and as

meats for frying. Production has ranged between 150,000 and 400,000 bushels since 1940.

The mussel fishery has grown after markets were found in the 1970's. The mussels are

harvested from wild beds and are farmed by transplanting seed to bottom leases for growth.

Total landings ofsea scallops from Maine's combined inshore and offshore fisheries ranged

between 602,000 and 1,530,000 pounds of meats between 1979 and 1990; landings within

4.8 km comprised 32-89% of the catch. The maximum number of boats harvesting them

varied from 217 to 271. The fishery for mahogany quahogs, mainly with a shell length of 40-

60 mm, has existed since 1976; in 1991, 39,000 bushels were landed. Since 1988, oyster

production has been about 3,000 bushels/year. Landings of European oysters and northern

quahogs have been relatively low. The periwinkle has been harvested for many years, with as

many as 180 fishermen harvesting in anyone day, each landing about 100 pounds/day.

Introduction

Maine has been one ofthe largest producers ofsoftshell

clams, Mya arenaria, in the United States (Fig. I). In

addition, the state has substantial fisheries for blue

mussels, Mytilus edulis; sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus; and mahogany quahogs, Arctica islandica, and

small fisheries for eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica;

European oysters, Ostrea edulis; northern quahogs,

Mercenaria mercenaria; and periwinkles, Littorina littorea

(Table I).

Softshell Fishery _

Fossils dated by carbon-14 methods indicate softshells

(called "clams" in Maine), have been present in Maine

for 1l,800±240 years (Bradleyl), and kitchen middens

I Bradley, W. H. 1958. Chief Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Wash.,

D.C. Personal commun.

Table 1

Landings of molluscan shellfish in Maine, 1991.

Species Bushels (U.S. std.) Source

Softshell 103,000 Natural beds

Mussels 40,000 Natural beds

Sea scallops 263,000 atural beds

Mahogany quahogs 39,000 Natural beds

Eastern oysters 3,000 Natural beds

Eastern oysters 5,000 Hatchery-reared

European oysters 880 Hatchery-reared

Northern quahogs 500 Natural beds

Periwinkles 17,500 atural beds

left by Native Americans have been aged at 1,710±160

years (Bradley, 1957). They probably dug for softshells

in firm sediments with sticks or with tools made from

bones, and with their hands in softer sediments. Besides

63
64 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

making softshells part of their diet, natives south of the

Kennebec River attached large Mya shells to sticks to use

as hoes for tilling their com, beans, and squash.

The early colonists from Europe ate softshells but

only in times of great need. In his 'Journal of Maine

History," Sprague (1913) wrote: "In 1781 food was scarce

with many at the Kennebec. Mr. Bailey knew families

without bread for three months at a time. Many even 20

miles (32 km) inland sought the clam banks."

In considering the softshell flats as a "food bank," the

colonists were well within their legal rights. The ~assachusetts Bay Colony's Colonial Ordinances of 1641-

1647 protected the rights of "every householder for

free fishing and fowling as far as the tide doth ebb and

flow within the town where they dwell unless the free

men of the same town or the general court have otherwise appropriated them." It was then determined that

proprietors of adjoining lands "shall have property to

the low water mark where the sea doth ebb above 100

rods [l rod = about 5 m or 16.4 feet] and no more

wheresoever it ebbs further." However, they could not

prevent "free fishing and fowling" (Anonymous, 1970).

These rights became important about 260 years later

in the early 1900's, when the state attempted to encourage the owners of riparian property to farm softshells

(Nickerson, 1905). This approach may also be important in the future of aquaculture.

Upon becoming a state in 1820, Maine embraced the

tenets of the colonial ordinance as part of its common

law. The first legislature (1821) gave the responsibility

for regulating local softshell harvesting to municipal

governments. Local inhabitants were assured that they

could take shellfish at any time for personal and family

use (P.L. 1821, chapt. 179).

Lubec

Softshell Habitat

Figure I

The coastline of Maine.

Softshell diggers have always harvested

only during low tides and usually with

hoes. They normally have had about 4

hours in which to harvest, but could

dig longer and harvest more softshells

The Diggers

The ~aine tideline coast, about 8,366

km (5,200 miles) long and with many

small embayments, has about 20,000

ha (50,000 acres) of intertidal flats.

Depending on location, the tidal range

varies from 2.4-6 m (8-20 feet), and

exposed flats at low tide vary in width

from a few meters to at least 1.5 km (1

mile). The exposure time offlats varies

with gradient and tidal range (Dow and

Wallace, 1961).

Softshells usually grow in sand, but

sediments vary from silt and marine

blue clay to sand-cobble mixtures, in a

zone extending from below extreme

low water to nearly mean high water.

Commonly occupying the same habitat

are polychaete worms, including Nereis

virens and Glycera dibranchiata; other

bivalves, such as the baltic macoma,

Macoma balthica, and amethyst gemclam, Gemma gemma; and such gastropods as the threeline mudsnail, Ilyanassa trivittata, and periwinkle, Littorina

littorea.

Bay

\

\

Gulf of Maine

Mount Desert Island

Washington

Bay

Piscataqua River

Kittery

80 Kilometers

M A I N E

70 0

50 ~iles
__________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 65

Table 2

Data profile of the Maine softshell, Mya arenaria, industry in various years.

Mean annual landings Mean annual Mean price Mean landed

Years (1,000 bushels) no. diggers per bushel ($) value ($1,000)

1887 500 Unknown $0.81 $409

1888 693 500 0.54 374

1917-1941 420 Unknown 0.72 302

1942-1945 353 1,385 1.74 614

1946-1949 573 2,615 2.78 1,593

1950-1959 240 2,105 5.04 1,210

1960-1969 167 1,559 6.67 1,133

1970-1972 420 4,494 13.32 5,594

1973 487 5,927 11.78 5,737

1977 507 5,291 17.70 8,974

1980-1989 293 3,540 40.80 11,954

1990 167 1,748 52.80 8,818

1991 100 1,786 48.55 4,855

1992 147 1,683 52.02 7,647

during a full moon or minus tide. In the long days of

spring and summer, fishermen often worked two tides/

day, but in the short days ofwinter they could work only

one.

Traditionally, diggers did not harvest year-round, but

worked at other manual jobs such as various types of

finfishing, lumbering, blueberry picking, or potato digging. From 1947 to 1956, 87% of diggers harvested

softshells for only 2-9 months a year.

Before 1942, records of the number of softshell diggers did not exist, with one exception: In 1898, 550

men were counted digging for 8 months of the year,

producing 577,935 bushels ofsoftshells or about 6 bushels/man/day (Nickerson, 1898). They were paid an

average of$0.69/bushel. This effort and yield is considered to be somewhat representative before World War

II. Although softshells comprised only 13% of all commercial fisheries products in 1907-08, Commissioner

A. R. Nickerson (1906) said, 'The success ofthe softshell

industry directly or indirectly affects more people of

this state than that of any other of the fisheries." Numerous commissioners commented on the swings in

softshell abundance and expressed concerns for the welfare of people dependent upon the softshell harvest.

The number of diggers has varied through the years.

In 1942, the state issued 1,350 softshelllicenses, but the

number rose in 1948 to 3,326. It then declined, ranging

from only 1,000-1,200 from 1958 until 1964, when it

increased sharply afterward. From 1972 to 1985 it ranged

from 3,500-5,927, but has since fallen, and in 1992 was

only 1,683 (Table 2). The number of diggers active in

anyone day is less than the number possessing licenses.

With fewer diggers and less production in recent years,

a larger proportion works full time, with about half

harvesting nearly 6 months a year and half harvesting

10-12 months, depending on winter ice and availability

of open flats.

Legal Intervention

During the late 1880's, the softshell resource and industry gained increasing attention from the state legislature and institutions. In 1894 the Sea and Shore Fisheries Department (SSFD) was established as a permanent state cabinet level agency (Whitten, 1894). Its

commissioner was appointed by the governor.

In the early period, the legislature was active in dealing with the ways of improving the fishery and dealing

with town concerns. There were no state licenses, but in

1901, towns were authorized to license their diggers

and fix times for harvesting (P.L. 1901, chapt. 284). In

1905, the SSFD Commissioner was authorized to set

aside flats where small softshells could be planted, to

enhance production (Nickerson, 1905).

In 1911 the legislature authorized each town to lease

as much as one-fourth of its flats for private softshell

reservations. This provision is still a part of Maine's

Fisheries Laws (MRSA chapt. 623, 6673). In 1917 a law

was enacted enabling upland owners to give consent to

have a state softshell reservation located on their flats

for a period of 3 years (P.L. 1917, chapt. 281). When

the flats opened, only licensed diggers could dig softshells, and it was advocated that only softshells >21

/2

inches (>63.6 mm) long could be taken (Sanborn, 1918).

The attributes of a reservation, as stated by Commis-
66 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

sioner Edwin W. Gould in 1920, were: "sandy soil, free

from rocks, good currents, located within view of the

riparian owner, so that trespassers may be warned or

prosecuted." In 1920, a state boat planted softshells on

12 reservations as demonstration farms. In 1922, 22

reservations were licensed for 10 years (Gould, 1919-

22). Because local people have wanted the flats open

for public digging, attempts to privatize or control even

limited areas of flats have failed to gain momentum.

Therefore, few people have ever tried to establish leases

since that time, despite valid laws (Anonymous, 1970).

Tradition and customs of public use have continued,

with great resistance to change.

Town Control of Flats

From 1895 to World War II, town control and exclusive

use offlats was strengthened by succeeding legislatures,

which passed private and special laws giving municipalities the power to license diggers and restrict commercial digging to residents. The SSFD was responsible for

enforcement.

Municipal controls, growing stronger each year, were

not without court challenge. Constitutional rights were

claimed and discrimination charged, but in a 1909 case

involving the town of Scarboro, the Maine Supreme

Judicial Court upheld the right oftowns to discriminate

between resident and nonresident diggers (State vs.

Leavitt, 1909). By this time, the traditional view oflocal

public ownership set by municipal boundaries had been

firmly established. Nevertheless, legal challenges to the

rights of towns to restrict softshell harvesting to residents continued after World War II. Statevs. Alley (1970)

challengedJonesboro, and State vs. Norton and Mahonen

(1975) challenged North Haven, but the courts upheld

the municipal rights when actions were based on the

towns' conservation and management programs.

Softshell Uses

Softshells have traditionally been used for both food

and bait. For nearly 250 years after the first European

settlement, softshells were dug almost entirely for local

subsistence. Commercial sales began around 1850, when

a market for steamer softshells in the shell was developed locally and in Boston. In addition, inshore fishermen used fresh softshells for bait. Mter 1880, new markets opened for steamed-out salted meats for use as bait

by offshore cod fishermen from North America and

Europe. In winter, softshells were dug and steamed

open in large vats on shores, and then salted and stored

in barrels. As late as 1912, Portuguese boats purchased

them from villages along the coast (Dow and Wallace,

1961). Shell mounds from these operations are often

mistaken for Native American middens.

Canning Softshell Meats

In the late 1800's, most softshells for eating were canned.

Maine cannery workers cut off and discarded the black

tissues and siphons, canning the remaining meat and

juice. In 1904, the canneries packed 65,116 cases of

softshell meat and 5,113 cases of juice (a bushel of

softshells produces a case of 48 cans, each containing 5

ounces of meat). That year, fishermen were paid an

average of $0.77/bushel (Nickerson, 1905). Before

World War II, cannery-owned vessels normally carrying

sardines in Maine's Washington County occasionally

transported Canadian softshells to the canneries for

processing.

From 1901 until the depression years of the 1930's,

the state limited the canning season to 15 September-l

June to conserve the softshells, and did not allow

softshells to be shipped out of state during that period

(P.L. 1901 chapt. 248). Canning dominated the fishery

from 1900 to 1940 when up to 18 factories operated. In

1935, at the industry's peak, 63% ofsoftshells harvested

were canned, and factories employed from 30-200 workers each (Look2). Factory employees canned softshells

in winter and packed sardines in summer. When summer markets developed for fried softshells and steamers, arguments began within the state legislature between the canning interests who wanted the season closed

in summer and those in the fresh softshell industry who

wanted it opened in summer and closed in winter.

Those who wanted softshells for canning argued that

summer digging would kill too many softshells by exposing them to excessive heat, while the fresh softshell

industry maintained that freezing in winter killed too

many. The ban on summer digging in the state's three

southwestern counties was lifted in 1937 (P.L. chapt.

241) because the market demand for whole and shucked

softshells was increasing in Maine and Massachusetts.

Softshells were shucked in local homes, commonly by

the diggers and their families. However, the law was

maintained year-round in the four northeastern counties, because of a perceived economic need for winter

canning. In 1935, the state had passed a 2-inch (50.8

mm) minimum-size law to prevent smaller softshells

from going into the "steamer" market (P.L. chapt. 120,

1935).

In 1941, Lincoln County was allowed to ship softshells

out of state in summer to meet a growing demand, as

fried softshells were becoming popular at "take-out"

2 Look, A. 1992. Former owner, A.M. Look Canning Co., East Machais,

Maine. Personal commun.
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 67

Figure 2

Shucking softshells at A. M. Look Canning Co., East

Machais, Maine, 1965. Photograph by L. Varney.

stands and restaurants in both Massachusetts and Maine.

Development of improved equipment and frying techniques was largely responsible for this popularization.

During World War II, there were far fewer men to dig

softshells, but after the war, production reached its

second all-time high-653,000 bushels-owing to 1)

high demand for protein foods, 2) large labor supply,

and 3) accumulation ofsoftshells in flats during the war

years. Finally, in 1949, all counties removed restrictions

on summer digging and on transporting softshells out

ofstate (Dow and Wallace, 1961).

The industry gradually shifted from home shucking

to shucking plants for local and out-of-state distribution

of meats for frying. Plants were built at inland sites as

they did not need to be on the shore. Shells went into

landfills. Ten plants were built in southwestern Maine

and three in northeastern Maine. By this time, the will

ofthe canning industry no longer dominated the Maine

Legislature, and by 1958, canned softshells declined to

less than 10% of the total production. Over the next 10

years canning was practically phased out, and now, only

one small plant remains; the A. M. Look Canning Co.3

3 Mention of commercial firms or products does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.

Figure 3

Washing softshell meats after shucking, at A. M. Look

Canning Co., East Machais, Maine, 1965. Photograph

by L. Varney.

in northeastern Maine cans softshells as it has since

1917 (Fig. 2, 3, 4) (Look2). The fried and steamed

markets have claimed almost the entire harvest.

By 1964, Maine had 27 certified dealers handling

shucked and whole softshells, and the number increased

to 184 by 1977. Many were handling various other marine fishes and shellfishes also (Varney4). From 1986 to

1992, the number ofshellstock shippers was constant at

about 100, while the number of shucker-packers decreased by 50% to 29 (Interstate Certified Shellfish

Shipping Lists, U S. Food and Drug Admin., Wash.,

D.C.). Current high prices ofwhole softshells, along with

the availability oflow-priced shucked softshellsfrom Maryland and Canada, discourage shucking in Maine.

Softshell Management

Commitments made by the Maine Sea and Shore Fisheries Department before World War II to aid towns in

managing their softshell fisheries were reactivated in

1946. A program of close cooperation with individual

towns and regions was instituted to gain information

about their softshell flats and develop management

techniques to enhance productivity.

It soon became apparent that survey techniques and

analysis methods to determine softshell flat productiv4 Varney, L. 1991. Maine Shellfish Certification Program, Dep. Marine Resources, Augusta, Maine (Retired). Personal commun.
68 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

FIgW"e4

Packing juice of softshells at A. M. Look Canning Co.,

East Machais, Maine, 1965. Photograph by L. Varney.

ity had to be developed to conserve and manage the

fishery. SSFD research director Robert L. Dow conducted such an experimental survey and analysis program from 1947 to 1951 (Dow, 1952), using softshell

volume tables developed by David L. Belding (1930) in

Massachusetts.

Critical to managing each flat was knowledge of

softshell size, composition, and density (Dow, 1952).

Verification of the accuracy of the methods came from

daily records kept of commercial production from flats

that were surveyed and then harvested (Dow5). Later,

new tables were developed from Maine coast data

(Stevenson et al. 6). Early management efforts included

transplanting small softshells by hand digging, measuring growth rates, and rotating the opening of flats to

allow small softshells time to grow for increased harvests (Dow and Wallace, 1961).

In 1948, a U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

softshell investigation directed by John B. Glude was

5 Dow, R. 1955. Additional notes on shellfish surveys. Fifth Cont un

Clam Res. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Boothbay Harbor,

Maine, March 1-3. linpubl. rep., p. 18-19.

" Stevenson, D. K., D. B. Sampson, and W. S. Foster. 1981. A method

ofimproving mean density estimates obtained from intertidal clam

census surveys. Maine Dep. Mar. Resour., rep. pres. at 1981 Boothbay

Harbor Clam Conference.

established at Boothbay Harbor. Among the findings of

cooperative state-federal research was that fishermen

kill about 50% of undersized softshells, mainly by burial,

when they harvest market softshells (at least 2 inches

long) (Glude, 1954). Breakage of harvestable size softshells averaged about 20% (Dow and Wallace, 1961;

Taxiarchis et aI, 1954). That information, along with

experimental data on destruction of small softshells,

was valuable in making decisions about closing flats to

protect undersized softshells.

After 1959, the towns were responsible for enforcing

private and special laws (Maine P.L. 1959). In 1963, the

statewide 2-inch softshell law was repealed, and towns

were given rights by the Maine legislature to establish

ordinances, with Department of Marine Resources approval (Maine P.L. 1963). By ordinance, towns can

now: 1) license resident and nonresident diggers, 2)

establish fees, 3) control digger numbers, 4) close and

open conservation areas, 5) determine size, quantity,

timing, and permitted locations for softshell harvest,

and 6) enter into agreements with other towns to adopt

joint programs with reciprocal harvesting privileges,

such as under the Brunswick-Harpswell-West Bath Regional Commission (12 MRSA Chapt. 623, Sec 6671).

To assist towns in management, the DMR divided the

state into four regions, each with an area biologist

whose primary function was to help community shellfish committees and town officials develop and maintain conservation and management programs. Enforcement of ordinance provisions by local officers was an

integral part of effective programs.

Towns can now control their softshell resources. Limiting entry by restricting the license numbers is an

effective tool to control digger numbers and digging

pressures on the flats. Some towns have limited entry.

Brunswick, for example, issues a limited number of

softshell licenses to its residents on a "first come first

served" basis, and also a limited number to nonresidents by lottery. Some towns place no restriction on the

number of licenses to local and Maine residents.

An economic evaluation of restricted entry in the

Maine softshell industry showed a 15% larger yield

from towns with managed flats (Townsend, 1985). By

1979,59 communities had ordinances-more than 50%

of the total with shellfish-producing potential. In 1984,

the 2-inch softshelllaw was restored to control harvesting ofsmall softshells (MRSA Chapt. 623, Sec. 6676). In

1991 only 41 towns in the town management program

had ordinances and authorization for a total of 1,305

municipal resident diggers with each community selling an additional 10% of its allotment to nonresidents.

Annual fees for commercial resident diggers ranged

from $13-$150. Nonresident fees cannot be more than

twice the resident fees, or a maximum of $400 (12

MRSA 6671, para 3b, 1991). Resident recreational fees
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 69

Green Crab Predation

Transplanting Softshells

Pollution Effects

Pollution has been an ever-present problem for the

softshell industry and the DMR. As a marine resource

agency, the SSFD was responsible for protecting and

enhancing the resources. In 1946, four state agencies

began field and laboratory research to identify polluted

waters that had to be closed under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. The SSFD enforced softshell

flat closures. Some closures had been initiated before

World War II, but were not generally enforced during

the war. In 1946-47. 58 classified areas were closed. In

1949, DMR laboratory facilities were constructed to

help the Department of Agriculture process water

samples and classify waters and flats. In 1963, the SSFD

replaced the Department of Agriculture, becoming totally responsible for the state-federal industry certification program. Current regulations are found in 12 MRSA

Chapt. 607, 6172, and in DMR Regulations, Chapt. 7.

Some abatement programs have been implemented to

curb the spread of pollution. In 1974, Maine had 15

municipal treatment plants and 3,420 residential direct

discharges on its coast. Currently it has 59 municipal

plants and 2,446 residential treated discharges (Purington7).

Since 1963, softshells harvested from restricted flats

and waters under control ofthe DMR and the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) have been depurated in

plants. They are held for at least 48 hours in flowing salt

water purified by ultraviolet light (Stearl, 1964). As

many as five private plants have operated at a time.

depurating from 8,000 to 25,000 bushels of softshells

annually. Currently, only one plant depurates softshells

and one depurates quahogs and oysters as specialty

products (Lewis8).

In the 1950's, state management efforts shifted from

transplanting softshells to developing fences to keep

crabs out of beds. Fences were constructed of 13 mm

(Y2-inch) wire mesh, 46 cm (18 inches) high with a 15

cm (6-inch) wide flange on top, and a 15 cm deep skirt

that was buried. By law, anti-green crab fencing was

made a part of the mandated program of the DMR,

which had discretionary authority to take money from

the shellfish fund to match town proposals (P.L., 1963

Chapt. 277). But in the late 1960's and early 1970's,

lower temperatures and heavy ice covers resulted in a

sharp reduction in crab numbers. Softshells became

more abundant, production increased, and communities quit building fences. Attention shifted to renewed

attempts to transplant small softshells.

10

Dollars

Soft Clams

400

oo

52300

'":!200

'"III"

100

500,--------------------.

In the 1950's, green crabs, Carcinus maenas, began decimating softshell populations. They had appeared first

in southern Maine in the early 1900's and by 1950 were

abundant along the entire Maine coast (Scattergood,

1952). Rising water temperatures enabled them to extend their range (Welch, 1969). The crabs feed mostly

at night, are highly mobile, hide under seaweed or

burrow into coastal banks during the day, and can

survive several hours of air exposure. They can crush

and consume softshells of almost any size and can consume northern quahogs up to about 50 mm (2 inches)

long. The decrease in softshell production from 1950

to 1970 was caused by green crab predation (Fig. 5).

range from $0-$25, and non-resident recreational fees

range from $0-$75. Where ordinances do not exist,

anyone may dig softshells commercially with a state

commercial license, in "open areas." In 1993 a state

commercial shellfish license cost $63.

o 0

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1965 1990

Transplants ofsmall softshells by towns that used hand

labor were not cost-effective because labor costs were

high and production low. Therefore, the U.S. Bureau

of Commercial Fisheries and State of Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) developed a mechanical transplanting method using hydraulic water

jets. In the most productive day, about 400,000 softshells

5-25 mm long (20,000/bushel) could be transplanted

in this way. When planted in sand substrates, the

softshells did well in southern Maine, where 13-25 mm

(0.5-1 inch) softshells grow to 50.8 mm (2 inches)

within two growing seasons.

Figure 5

Maine production and price/bushel ofsoftshells, 1940-1990.

7 Purrington, O. 1992. Oep. Environmental Protection, Augusta,

Maine. Personal commun.

8 Lewis. R. 1991. Oep. Marine Resources, Augusta, Maine. Personal

commun.
70 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Tight controls and restricted entry are exercised by

the state from harvest to transport to operation ofdepuration plants. The number of restricted flats has varied

over time, as pollution has changed seasonally or annually. The holder of a certificate for a depuration plant

must offer digging privileges to a town resident for

each nonresident employed. The plant owner must

also pay $0.50 for each bushel dug in the town (12

MRSA 6856, para 8, 1992).

Recent Fishery

In recent years, the softshell fishery has been carried on

all year. Diggers harvest only during low tides, obtaining about 2 bushels/tide. By law, softshells can be dug

only with hand instruments (12 MRSAchapt. 621, 6623).

Softshell diggers need little equipment besides hip boots.

They normally use hoes to turn over the sediments and

then pick out the softshells. The hoes have four or five

tines, 15 cm (6 inches) long, and handles 30 cm (12

inches) long (Fig. 6). In extremely soft, fine silt-clay

flats, however, diggers pick out the softshells with their

Figure 6

Commercial softshell digger, Brunswick, Maine. Photograph by D. E. Wallace.

gloved hands and put them in various containers, such

as 1/2-bushel hand-made "hods" or "rollers," pails, or

burlap and onion bags. Many have small boats to carry

the softshells ashore. From the 1940's into the 1970's,

softshell dealers drove their trucks to shores near the

beds, competing with one another to purchase softshells.

Most diggers now have small trucks or automobiles to

take their softshells to dealers.

Production Decline

In the 1980's, production declined mainly because light

sets caused softshells to become scarce in Maine's two

northeastern counties, Washington and Hancock. Historically the two counties produced 50-70% ofthe state's

total, but in 1991, this dropped to only 29%, and in

1992, to only 24%. Many citizens had relied on the

softshells for employment. For example, in 1979, the

town of Addison, Washington County, had 920 residents, of which 231 were commercial softshell diggers

(Foster and Wallace, 1979). But only 100 licenses were

issued in 1991.

In sharp contrast, Cumberland County in southwestern Maine has received regular abundant softshell sets,

and the towns of Brunswick, Freeport, West Bath, and

Harpswell in upper Casco Bay have been big soft-shell

producers and maintained active management programs.

State Production

Annual softshell production was about 400,000 bushels

from 1940 to 1950, but fell to around 150,000 bushels

from 1955 to 1965. Thereafter, it increased to over

400,000 bushels again from 1975 to 1980, but has since

fallen (Fig. 5).

In 1991, 103,000 bushels ofsoftshells were produced

(Table 1), with a landed value of $4,784,000. In 1992,

several previously polluted areas were opened after

abatement programs were implemented, and production from open areas in southwestern Maine increased.

Preliminary 1992 data showed that landings increased

47% to 151,000 bushels with a value of$7,863,000. The

landed price/bushel was $52.07, a 7% increase over

1991.

Currently, about 60% of Maine softshells are shipped

out ofstate as shellstock to markets centered in Boston

(Lewis8). In recent years, shucked softshells from Maryland and Canada have dominated the Maine restaurant

trade (Markos9).

9 Markos, J. 1992. Manager, Maine Shellfish Company, Ellsworth,

Maine. Personal commun.
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 71

Softshell Hatchery

In 1987 the first regional public shellfish hatchery was

built on Beals Island in northeastern Maine, producing

seed softshells to enhance productivity on Maine's public flats. The hatchery was part of a public aquaculture

program developed by private individuals, foundations,

10 participating communities, and academic leaders

and centered at the University of Maine in Machias. An

education center was also located on Beals Island.

Each year, about 1 million softshells have been produced in the hatchery for each town, which spreads the

seed on its local flats. Production has not increased

much as yet as a result of this, but the future is bright.

At the Dana E. Wallace Educational Center, visitors

may watch a series of videos showing all aspects of the

hatchery program, including softshell spawning, algal

production, nursery rearing, research, and transplanting, and see historical photographs ofthe industry (Beal

and White10) .

Sanitary Classification of Flats and Waters

Since 1986, increased adherence to Interstate Shellfish

Sanitation Conference (ISSC) and FDA guidelines for

classification of shellfish producing areas has led to a

decline in commercial production in many Maine

softshell flats, because shellfish areas have been reclassified and closed. From about 1950 to the late 1980's,

from 17-20% of the flats were closed owing to pollution. Now, the percentages are unknown, but new criteria of encompassing water areas has expanded the classified acreage. There are 240 inshore beds classified as

prohibited, approved, conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted (Fosterll). The National Shellfish Register of 1990 credits Maine with

33,600 ha (83,000 acres) of prohibited beds and waters

(Leonard et aI., 1991).

The Future

It will be important for the state government and local

communities to look upon the softshell resource as a

valuable part of Maine's economy and food production. Positive responses are needed to maintain research

and management enhancement efforts. Public confidence must be kept high regarding the safety and wholeIOBeal, B., and S. White. 1991. The Beals Island shellfish hatchery.

Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant College Program, University of

Maine, Machias, 8 p.

llFoster, W. 1991. Dep. Marine Resources, Augusta, Maine. Personal

commun.

someness of the shellfish. A more realistic indicator of

dangers to human health by pathogens and viruses

must be developed by the Federal government to supplant the non-scientific fecal coliform standard.

In the future, our marine environments must not

only be protected from fecal pollution, but from excessive nutrients that produce harmful algal blooms. As an

example, in September 1988, a bloom ofthe dinoflagellate Gyrodinium aurealum, combined with hydrographic

and meteorological conditions during a period of high

nutrient and abnormally low oxygen concentrations,

may have killed about 30% of the shellfish in Maquoit

Bay (Heinig and Campbell, 1992).

Initiatives important to future protection and development of Maine's softshell resources are:

1) research work must continue on predator control,

e.g. screening and fencing, to increase productivity

on intertidal flats;

2) expanded use of seed from hatchery and natural

stocks;

3) development ofmore efficient equipment to harvest and

transplant small softshells from dense concentrations;

4) research on ways to encourage natural sets and shellfish survival in depleted flats;

5) a close working relationship between the DMR and

each town or group of cooperating towns having

ordinances, with all possible DMR technical assistance to programs;

6) research and full management demonstrations of

public and private, community, regional, or cooperative softshell aquaculture supported by the DMR

and University ofMaine Aquaculture Association and

other organizations, for optimum yield and quality;

7) expansion of enforcement of ordinances and flat

management, for efficiency and effectiveness (action taken must be based on seasonal industry needs

and knowledge of abundance, size distribution, and

growth of softshell populations on a flat-by-flat basis); and

8) better care of softshells and greater assurances of

seafood safety to keep demand and prices for

softshells high.

Recently, towns lacking ordinances and limitations

on diggers or entry have experienced a resurgence of

interest in ordinances and regional management programs. In such situations, the "tragedy of the commons" (Hardin, 1968) has prevailed in the past, with

softshell beds seriously depleted. Towns with newordinances and regional programs have been aware ofsuccessful management programs, e.g., opening and closing offlats and transplanting shellfish to depleted areas

like Brunswick, Harpswell, West Bath, Phippsburg,

Freeport, and Scarboro. This increase in management
72 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

effort should continue as softshell supplies in clean

waters fall behind the increasing human populations

and demand for seafoods.

Mussel Fishery _

Mussels are common on intertidal flats and in subtidal

zones, usually to about 3 m below low water, all along

the Maine coast. In northeastern Maine, however, they

are found as deep as 20 m (NcwellI2).

Early Uses

Native Americans used mussels for subsistence. as evidenced by their kitchen middens (Bradley, 1957). European colonists used them for subsistence and fish

bait (Dow and Wallace, 1954a). Maine residents have

traditionally considered mussels inferior to softshells

and oysters, and before World War II did not eat them

to any extent, although limited attempts were made to

promote and publicize them. They were harvested in

small quantities from Long Island. N.Y., to Maine (Miller,

1980) ,with most sent to Fulton Market in New York City

(Lutz et aI., 1977). A considerable share came from

Casco Bay via Portland by regular steamship service

through the 1930's, until the onset of World War II

suspended this commercial link (Smith13).

In 1942, Maine whole mussel production was only 21

tons (t) (about 767 bushels). During 1943-46, however,

production jumped to an average of 1,140 t (41,767

bushels) /year, spurred by the wartime need to produce

protein foods (Dow and Wallace, 1954). The mussels

were canned, most by four small factories employing a

total of 400 people. One factory at Bar Harbor had 200

employees (Ki nneyI4). Mussels were sold as a

nonrationed food. Maine led the United States with

about 70% of total production-a lead that continued

into the early 1980's (DMR Files, 1991).

The potential for expanding mussel production was

good because a large supply, relatively free of pearls,

was available from mid-state to the Canadian border.

However, six areas along the coast were unsuitable for

canning purposes because the mussels contained a high

number of pearls (Scattergood and Taylor, 1949).

In 1947, production fell to only 18 t (667 bushels),

because demand declined with the return of other

protein foods to markets. Again, attempts to publicize

12Newell, C. 1992. Great Eastern Mussel Co., Tenants Harbor, Maine.

Personal commun.

13Smith, W. 1992. Fisherman, Brunswick, Maine. Personal commun.

14Kinney, R. E. 1992. Former owner, North Atlantic Packing Co., Bar

Harbor, Maine. Personal commun.

mussels as a desirable seafood were not effective because many mussels were of poor quality (containing

pearls and were ungraded and ofmixed sizes), consumers were unfamiliar with them, and handling and refrigeration were poor. Therefore, dealers shipped them

only to restaurants that served European foods or to

ethnic markets in large cities (Varney4). From 1947 to

1967, production ranged from 1-203 t (Avg. 62.7 t, or

2,300 bushels) /year (Lyles, 1969).

Fishery Development

Gradually, technological changes improved mussel harvesting and processing. In 1965, fishermen in the Casco

Bay and Stonington areas modified sea scallop drags

(the local term for dredges) to harvest mussels during

high tides. A fisherman in Casco Bay used his 112 cm

(44-inch) wide twin drags, towed with a bridle, to harvest

mussels. Previously, fishermen had harvested mussels at

low tide by hand picking, raking, or forking from intertidal mussel bars or pitchforking the mussels into small

flat-bottomed boats partially filled with water during low

water. To prepare mussels for market, fishermen walked

on them to break the dumps apart, then washed them on

the shore. Later, steel-ribbed rotating drums were developed and installed on boats to mechanize washing.

In 1969, the Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries

began again to promote mussel sales, with some success. The emphasis was on mussel preparation for markets, home use, and restaurants (BouchardI5).

Slabyj and Hickle (1976) found that 1) pearl incidence was a function of age (no pearls more than 1 mm

in diameter occurred in mussels <5 years old), 2) pearls

undetectable to the consumer (under 1 mm) grew more

slowly in mussels held in water and in beds where mussels were not in dense concentrations, and 3) suspended

cultured mussels became a high quality marketable

product in 12-13 months (Lutz, 1980a). They also found

that mussels kept twice as long on ice (near O°C) than

at normal refrigeration temperatures (5°C), and that

reimmersion in water after mechanical sorting on boats

substantially improved shelf life (NewellI2 ).

Fishermen were becoming more interested in harvesting mussels, as demand rose due to persistent and

well-focused state promotions (Bouchard15). State authorities believed that granting leases to individuals

or companies would provide sufficient incentive to develop the best growing techniques and get mussels to

market in top condition.

A 1973 state law permitted the lease of designated

producing areas from the state. and the DMR became

15Bouchard, R. 1992. Dep. Natural Resources, Augusta, Maine (Retired). Personal commun.
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 73

the leasing state agency (MRSA, Chapt. 12, Sec. 6072-

6073). This meant that seafood companies and individuals could venture into new operations with hope of developing markets supplied by their own cultured products.

When people began to lease bottoms from the state,

the first ventures were confined to suspended culture

(Myers, 1980). One company, Abandoned Farms, is still

functioning with lease permit #1. In subsequent years,

most growers found that the method was too laborintensive and costly and abandoned it for bottom

culture.

Expanded Mussel Promotion

On 1-7 April 1973, a national boycott on beef, supported by politicians (including President Richard M.

Nixon), the Maine legislature, housewives, and consumer groups, was aimed at bringing down beef prices.

The marketing specialist of the SSFD seized upon this

event to answer the question: "If not beef, what should

we eat?" A campaign was quickly launched emphasizing

the relative low cost, tastiness, and wholesomeness of

Maine mussels. Newspapers were receptive to boycottrelated stories. Tasting opportunities and cooking demonstrations accompanied by free recipes were promoted

in grocery stores, retail outlets, and a variety of food

service facilities. Just before the boycott, and continuing into late spring, radios and newspapers ran the

stories throughout much of the United States. Special

articles and photographs appeared in regional and national newspapers. Typical was a big cartoon in the

Detroit Free Press in 1973, entitled "Mussels Muscle in on

Meats." The shellfish were served and appreciated at

the National Restaurant Convention in New York and

at regional conventions in Boston, Chicago, and New

Orleans, as well as in New England supermarkets and

other retail outlets. Soon, demand for more information came from housewives, restaurants, and seafood

markets (Bouchard, 1973).

With this enthusiastic response from the restaurant

trade and consumers, the demand was so large that,

initially, the Maine harvesting and distribution system

was not ready to meet it. As problems of quality and

availability were being solved, mussel acceptance increased, as shown by landings data and prices. A number of dealers launched promotions and quality enhancement programs. Especially aggressive was Great

Eastern Mussel Farms, Inc., of Tenants Harbor, which

invested at least $1 million in mussel promotion.

In 1977 the demand for quality mussels increased

sharply, and harvesting became a year-round industry.

Maine mussels had good meat yields, lacked grit, and

had no pearls. Throughout the 1980's, the region from

Casco Bay to Penobscot Bay was the largest production

area (ChenowithI6). From 1980 to 1991, the catches

from leased beds ranged from 8-20% (avg., 12%) of

the total.

By 1979 the state had issued 30 leases totalling at least

700 acres (283 ha) to individuals and companies, many

of which formed partnerships with Great Eastern Mussel Farms. The company marketed mussels in the shell

and as fresh and frozen meats packaged in quantities

ranging from 2-50 pounds (DavisonI7). It used modern

equipment and established rigid standards for pearl

control, self-cleansing, debyssusing, grading, packaging, and distribution. It also ran a research program to

study growth and meat quality in relation to the density

of mussel patches, patch sizes, and mussel locations

relative to current velocity on its leases (Newell, 1990a).

With its 18-m (60-foot) boat, Great Eastern Mussel

Farms dredges about 40,000 bushels of seed mussels

each year from beds with dense concentrations and

plants them on 61 ha (150 acres) of leased beds. An

additional 11 fishermen, using their own 10.5-12 m

(35-40 foot) boats, harvest mussels from the company's

leased beds and public beds year-round (Davison17) (Fig.

7). The state has seven other mussel dealers and 13 boats;

mussel shipments are made from many ports (Lewis8).

Leases and Licenses

With private leases of mussel bottoms came problems

associated with leasing public property for private use

and involving conflicting rights to the resource (Flatbo,

1986). However, due to the lesser amount of exclusive

use required by bottom leases and their being out of

sight, their acceptance has been greater than for leases

where suspension culture of mussels was practiced.

The DMR has jurisdiction over all fish and shellfish

leases (12 MRSA-6072, 1991. DMR Rules Chapt II).

Adjudicatory hearings are held and site reviews made

to determine effects on commercially and ecologically

important flora and fauna, and to settle conflicts with

traditional fisheries. Any conditions imposed are intended to insure multiple compatible uses oflease tracts.

The highlights are 1) leases are in 5-acre (2-ha) tracts,

2) there is an application and site review, 3) rents are

not less than $50/acre ($123.50/ha), 4) leases are limited to 10 years, and 5) only 100 acres (40.5 ha) may be

granted per lease, with no person holding an aggregate

of more than 150 acres (60.7 ha).

Since the program's inception in 1973, the largest

number of mussel leases has been 32 sites that com16Chenoweth, S. 1992. The blue mussel in Maine. Maine Dep. Marine Resources Leaflet, 4 p. West Boothbay Harbor, Maine.

17Davison, E. 1991. Great Eastern Mussel Co., Tenants Harbor, Maine.

Personal commun.
74 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Figure 7

Blue mussel dredge boat. The drags, washer, and bags of mussels are visible, 1985.

Photograph by P. Blais.

prised 686.9 acres (278 ha) in 1988. A sharp decline

followed, however, and in 1992, there were only eight

remaining leases, totalling 149.2 acres (36.8 ha) (Honey

and Churchill, 1992).

In 1988, mussel boats and hand operations were licensed. That year, Maine had 39 boats; in 1989, 32; in

1990, 38; and in 1991, 25 harvesting wild mussels in

coastal waters, dredging in depths from 2 to 9 m. The

boats are Nova Scotia-style, 12-15 m long. Operating

with a captain and crew oftwo, each boat harvests about

200 bushels of mussels a day. Since the 1970's, the boats

have increasingly been outfitted with hydraulic mussel

washers. The washers have spaces of 16-19 mm (0.6-

0.75 inches) that allow mussel shells and seed to return

to the bottom as "cultch" for catching new mussel sets.

Meanwhile, hand operators had decreased, from 76 in

1988 to 49 in 1989, to 29 in 1990, and to 22 in 1991

(Lewis8). oncommercial harvests were limited to 2

bushels/day (PL 1988, Chapt. 626).

Seed Areas

Since the 1970's, the industry has gained increasing

knowledge of high quality seed mussel areas. Seed mussels have been a major concern because of a large

demand for seed 32-50 mm (1 1/4-2 inches) long, to

replenish depleted farms and supply the public fishery.

But because wild mussels are available in large concentrations, pressure on seed beds is low and many beds

"go by", i.e., reach 5-6 years old, become blue, and

develop pearls before use by the industry (NeweIl12).

In 1988, the DMR promulgated rules to 1) limit the

width of drags to 6.5 feet (2 m), 2) prevent nighttime

harvesting, and 3) set seed mussel counts and tolerances. Four seed areas were established in northeastern

Maine as conservation areas from which leaseholders

could take seed for planting. The DMR conducts surveys of mussel abundances and size distributions in the

four areas and grants permits for controlled harvesting.

A seed removal system monitors harvest activities and

ensures maintenance of 40-50% of the initial standing

crop. The controls are intended to allow for consistent,

long-term availability of seed mussels (ThayerI8). The

beds were used during the first 2 years, but not since,

because demand for seed for aquaculture sites declined

when high quality wild mussels became available in

large quantities in Massachusetts (Chenowith 16).

IrlThayer, P. E. 1988. Maine seed mussel conservation areas-mussel

count/volume/standing crop. Unpub!. data file. Dep. Marine Resources, West Boothbay Harbor, Maine, 4 p.
____________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 75

In a report on economic issues in the mussel fishery,

Wilson and Flemming19 stated, "The cultured mussel

industry has been very beneficial to the wild fishery in

terms of marketing, prices, income, and employment.

The leasehold arrangements in the mussel fishery have

transformed the private incentives and abilities for the

development of new seafood markets. The economic

effects have been extremely positive for both the cultured and wild segments of the industry and for the

state as a whole. Discontinuation of the leasehold arrangement or even the insertion of considerable uncertainty about its continuation would seriously undermine the positive incentives and the economic growth

that have occurred to date. A new and valuable industry

has been created within the state. There are strong

indications that its growth will continue well into the

next decade or beyond. "

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP)

and Dornoic Acid

F multiseries (Marcot, 1990), it has caused illness and

death in eastern Canada and on the west coast of North

America. However, it has not been found in Maine

mussel harvesting areas.

Mussel Production

The 1983 production of cultured mussels totalled 1,855

t (68,000 bushels), and in 1985, cultured mussels, most

of them produced by Great Eastern Mussel Farms and

associates, contributed 20% ofMaine's total. Mter 1989,

production of cultured mussels fell and stabilized at

about 900 t (33,000 bushels)/year and, in 1991, comprised 7% of the total landings. Since the late 1980's,

when a huge bed of high-quality wild mussels was discovered near Nantucket, Massachusetts, there has been

a large increase in Massachusetts mussel production.

This has led to a concurrent major decline in demand

for wild and cultured Maine mussels (Fig. 8), and the

state's production dropped 56% between 1988 and 1990.

o 0

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

5

Blue Mussels

400

oo

S2300

OJ

~200

OJ

:::l

tlI

100

500 -,-----------------------,.-

The Future

The availability of good quality Maine mussels appears

to be excellent, although an immediate bottleneck to

production is limited markets. As wider markets are

developed and aquaculture ventures are enlarged, however, private leases will require more tolerance from

coastal residents.

In the wild fishery, harvesting and handling practices

must continue to improve and more attention must be

given to identifying fast-growing beds for good meat

quality and freedom from detectable pearls. Suspended

culture may prove economically feasible for supplying

Blooms of the toxic dynoflagellate, Protogonyaulax

tamarens, are a common seasonal occurrence in the

Gulf of Maine. They are a health hazard because shellfish accumulate their toxin, i.e., PSP. This prevents

optimal use ofshellfish resources (Shumway et al., 1988).

PSP was identified in Maine in 1957, when waters were

sampled in Washington County following years of closure in the adjoining Canadian waters to the north

(Medcof et al., 1947). In 1958, a section ofthe waters in

the nearby Town of Lubec, near the Canadian border,

was closed to the taking of clams and mussels because

PSP concentrations were too high. The mussel is used as

the indicator organism for concentrations of poisons, as it

accumulates them faster than most other bivalves.

The DMR has developed an extensive monitoring

program along the entire coast to manage the closing

and opening of flats and waters to harvest of affected

species. It follows FDA and ISSC guidelines, and works

closely with authorities in Canada, New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, and other states as a part ofthe National

Shellfish Sanitation Program. From May into September, southwestern Maine is usually closed to the taking

of mussels and frequently other mollusks. At times the

impact of PSP can be great on shellfisheries. Closure of

the entire Maine coast during September 1980 was

considered an economic disaster, with a loss to the

economy of at least $4 million (Lewis8).

Another feared toxin is amnesic shellfish poison, or

domoic acid. Associated with the diatom Nitschiapurgens

19Wilson, j., and D. Flemming. 1989. The economics of the Maine

mussel industry. Rep. to Maine Legislature Marine Resources Committee, Dep. Econ., Univ. Maine, Orono, 15 p.

Figure 8

Maine production and price/bushel of blue mussels,

1945-1991.
76 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

high quality markets, as improvements in grow-out techniques continue. Price will also be a big factor, spurring

or suppressing initiatives.

Inshore Sea Scallop Fishery _

Sea scallops occur along the entire Maine coast. Although a fishery for them probably began along coastal

Maine in the mid-1880's, landings were not recorded

until 1887 (Lyles, 1969). Inshore Maine scallop landings refer to those made from within Maine's territorial

zone of 4.8 km (3 miles), while offshore landings are

from outside this zone.

Initially, inshore scallops were harvested with scoop

nets attached to long poles. Mter that, small triangular

drags hauled astern of rowboats or sailing craft were

used (Ingersoll, 1887). Eventually, heavy drags were

constructed, the first made from frames of Model T

Fords. Currently, at least three types of scallop drags

are used: 1) chain sweeps on relatively flat and hard

bottoms (Fig. 9), 2) rock drags on rough rocky bottom

(Fig. 10), and (3) the much less common Icelandic

drag, a hybrid between a chain sweep and a rock drag

(Creaser20). Scallops are harvested both by dredge boats

and scuba divers (Table 3).

The boats average slightly over 11 m (36 feet) long

and usually have a crew of two. Inshore boats usually

tow one chain sweep drag measuring 175-182 cm (6.75-

7 feet) wide or three rock drags measuring 213-229 cm

(8.4-9 feet) wide, with chain sweeps being a little more

efficient. Dredging scallops in an average depth of 27-

28 m (90-92 feet), each boat makes 28 or 29 tows/day

of 12-13 minutes each. The total bottom time for the

tows is 5.2-5.5 hours/day. Boats make $26-42/m of

drag width/hour towed (Creaser~o). A limited number

(4-5) of boats >21 m (70 feet) long have Federal permits to dredge scallops in offshore waters and sell their

catch in Portland.

20Creaser, E. 1992. Dep. Marine Resources Laboratory, West Boothbay

Harbor, Maine. Personal commun.

-----_._-_.

Table 3

Number of boats and divers in the inshore fishery for

the sea scallop, Placopecten megellanicus, in the Gulf of

Maine, 1948-19901,

Year Boats Year Boats

1948 160 1970 225

1949 245 197] 300

1950 300 1972 500

]95] 220 1973 592

]952 120 1974 542

]953 115 1975 583

1954 100 1976 600

1955 108 1977 442

1956 100 1978 N/A2

1957 90 1979 N/A

]958 60 1980 N/A

1959 62 1981 N/A

1960 63 1982 N/A

1961 63 1983 N/A

1962 70 1984 N/A

1963 80 1985 698

1964 105 1986 529

1965 135 1987 525

1966 120 1988 574

1967 105 1989 676

]968 225 1990 478

]969 190

Divers

267

170

224

247

244

133

Figure 9

Chain sweep drag on sea scallop boat, Harpswell, Maine,

1993. Photograph by D. E. Wallace.

I Sources: R. L. Dow, 1948-1977; DMR License Statistics 1985-

1990

z 1978-1984-(N/A) Fleet composition relatively static.
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 77

Between 1979 and 1990, the maximum number of

scallop boats fishing was 217-271 (Morrill21 ). Total landings and value of Maine's combined inshore and offshore fisheries ranged from 100,000-255,000 bushels

(602,000-1,530,000 pounds ofmeats), and inshore landings comprised 32-89% of the catch (Table 3). Most

meats weighed from 10-30 g each, and few exceeded

100 g (Creaser20). Recorded landings do not show the

total inshore catch because direct sales to local markets

are not included.

Inshore scallop fishing is limited by law to the colder

months of 1 November-15 April. This fishery provides

off-season employment for lobstermen and small finfish draggers. Commercial fishing boats pay an annual

license fee of $89. The license fee for scuba divers and

recreational fishermen is $8.00, and they are permitted

to take up to 4 quarts of meats or 2 bushels of whole

scallops/day (12 MRSA, 1991, sec. 6701,6702.6703).

During 1-30 November, drags or combinations in excess of 5.5 feet (1.7 m) in width are prohibited, and

during 1 December-15 April, drags may not be wider

than 10.5 feet (3.2 m). Fishing times and areas can be

21Morrill, R. 1992. Fisheries Statistics Branch, Nat!' Mar. Fish. Serv.,

NOAA, Portland, Maine. Personal commun.

controlled by DMR Rules Chapter 11. Established fishing zones are subject to change to protect the scallopers

and lobster fishermen from gear conflicts. This is necessary where and when fishing seasons overlap and

where restrictions for scuba harvesters may differ from

scallop dragging.

Scallop abundances and catches have fluctuated

widely, with production peaks in 1910, 1933, 1953, and

1961. In 1980, inshore landings were triple than those

of 1979, the result of a scallop population explosion

32-48 km (20-30 miles) offshore ofthe Rockland-Kittery

area; 68% of Maine's landings were taken from that

zone (Schick22). But by 1985, inshore landings comprised 89% of the total. In 1991, scallop landings were

263,000 bushels (1,579,000 pounds of meats) (Table 4).

Federal regulations govern fishing for sea scallops

within that portion of the Atlantic Ocean over which

the U.S. exercises fishery management authority (50

CFR ch VI Section 650). Primary Federal regulations

have been adopted in the past by the DMR such as one

specifying that shucked scallop meats must not exceed

30 meats/pound (DMR Rules 1987, Ch. 11).

22Schick, D. 1992. Dep. Marine Resources Laboratory, West Boothbay

Harbor, Maine. Personal commun.

Figure 10

Sea scallop dragger with tooth rock drag, Penobscot Bay, Maine, 1993. Photograph by

P. Venno.
78 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Table 4

Maine total landings and inshore landings of sea scallops, Placopecten megellanicus, 1979-91 1.

Total landings Inshore Percent

of meats landings inshore

(I,OOOlb) of meats landings

1979 1,163 602 52%

1980 3,213 1,015 32

1981 3,725 1,286 35

1982 1,597 707 44

1983 1,977 1,137 58

1984 1,615 1,145 71

1985 812 721 89

1986 722 541 75

1987 1,239 695 56

1988 1,311 931 71

1989 1.715 1,530 89

1990 1,366 1,112 81

1991 1,579 1,086 69

1992 1,420

1 Data are from Annual Maine Landings Bulletins, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, and Department of Marine

Resources, 1979-91.

The Future

The New England Fisheries Council's scallop plan,

known as "Amendment Four," eliminated the meat

count/pound and recognized the unique nature of the

Maine scallop fisheries. Under the regulations no more

than 400 pounds of meats can be landed/trip nr 5

bushels of whole scallops with a shell height of 3 Y2

inches or less. Exempted from Federal permits are the

small inshore boats. DMR rules will control the Maine

fishery (Brennan23).

Recent developments in finfish aquaculture may influence the culturing of sea scallops. Since 1985, leases

for the pen rearing ofsalmon have grown from 0 to 36

in Washington and Hancock Counties. Salmon and

trout are grown in large moored net pens and, in the

future, their net landed value may equal or exceed the

combined landed value for Maine lobsters, softshells,

and scallops.

More than half of the 70 aquacultural leases currently held along the coast include the sea scallop as a

potential species to raise in these privately controlled

areas. An experimental program is underway at the

Beals Island shellfish hatchery to raise them (Beal and

23Brennan, W.J. 1993. Maine Dep. Sea and Shore Fisheries. Personal

commun.

Chapman24). Grow-out sites using twine nets and benthic

cages, including polyculture under salmon nets, are

planned for Cobbscook Bay, Washington County. Scallops may be produced for the wholesale trade and

specialty products (BeaI25).

The prices that Maine dealers pay for inshore scallop

meats are important to the incomes of Maine fishermen. Values closely follow the prices paid at the New

Bedford, Mass., auction (Plante, 1992a). Therefore, the

future scallop plans of the New England Regional Council and implementation of Federal offshore regulations

will have impacts on the future economic health of our

inshore fisheries.

Harvesting gear needs to be developed to catch adult

scallops in ways less destructive to the small scallops and

causing less disturbance to the bottom sediments and

benthos (Venn026).

Mahogany Quahog Fishery _

Mahogany quahogs occur along the entire Maine coast

(Card et al., 1978). In 1976 a new and profitable fishery

for them was founded in the near-shore waters of

Machias Bay. Fishermen discovered quahogs that measured about 50 mm (2 inches) long in a bed about 30 m

(100 feet) ofwater. They believed the quahogs could be

sold on the half shell, along with littleneck and

cherrystone northern quahogs (Clifford27). Two fishermen procured a market in southern New England and

points south.

Initially, fishermen harvested mahogany quahogs with

drags used for that fishery in other states (Averi1l28).

Soon after this venture began, other fishermen developed more markets, and the "dry" drag that was introduced. Cheaper to build and easier to use, it consisted

of a large wire-framed cage about 120 cm (4 feet) across

the bottom, 120 cm high and 180 cm (6 feet) long (Fig.

11, 12). The headgear attached to the front was made

of discarded scallop drags. Adjustable teeth 15 cm (6

inches) long were attached along a bar at its mouth.

The boats range from 9.8 to 15.2 m (32-50 feet)

long. Most have a captain and one crewman, while a few

have two crewmen. One southern dredge boat, used for

about 2 years, was 24.4 m (80 feet) long and had a crew

tlBeal, B., and S. Chapman. 1987. Raising sea scallop larvae through

to metamorphosis. Maine Sea Grant College Program, Orono,

unpub!. rep., 6 p.

25Beal, B. 1992. University of Maine, Machias, Maine; Consultant,

Beals Island Shellfish Hatchery. Personal commun.

26Yenno, P. 1992. Fisherman, Brooksville, Maine. Personal commun.

27Clifford, D. 1992. Dep. Marine Resources, East Machias, Maine.

Personal commun.

28Averill, P., 1992. Dep. Marine Resources, South Bristol, Maine.

Personal commun.
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 79

of four. It initially used a converted hydraulic jet-type drag but then switched to a dry

drag.

In the peak production years from 1978 to

1988, the fishery consisted of about 120 boats

operating full time or part time. Most

dredged in 61-91 m (200-300 feet) of water

and harvested 60 to 70 bushels of quahogs/

day. Early prices ranged from $14-22/bushel.

As the quahog beds were depleted in the

nearshore areas, the fishermen began to explore and dredge in beds 9.7-12.9 km (6-8

miles) from shore. But such distances were

outside practical fishing limits for these small

boats, and several capsized and sank while

hauling back. Fortunately, no one drowned

(Clifford27) .

Fishermen also found sizable beds east of

Jonesport and off Gouldsboro and Bar Harbor. The beds are usually comprised of quahogs of the same year class. Annual recruitment ofjuveniles is considered excellent in

northeastern Maine (McGowan29).

About 45 boats are now dredging mahogany quahogs, using ports from Cutler

to Gouldsboro. They dredge only 1-3

days/week, as the market is limited. PSP

closures also periodically disrupt fishing

in some waters. About 15-20 bushels/boat

are landed daily in l/2-bushel bags. The

landed price/bushel is $40-45. Most quahogs are offloaded on the day they are

dredged and are shipped south to markets. The remainder are held in cold storage rooms for a day or two, or in wet

storage for longer periods (McGowan29).

The old age of quahogs caught is of

concern to the industry, particularly in

the states south of Maine (Ropes and

Murawski, 1983). In beds offMachias, the

50 mm (2-inch) quahogs are about 30

years old. Early growth can be as much as

5 mm/year, with a slowing down to only 1

mm/year as the quahogs approach market size (Kraus30).

Some beds consist of mixed sizes. Fishermen do not harvest quahogs too big for

the half-shell trade. The prices obtained

for big quahogs in states to the south are

usually lower than for small quahogs from

Figure II

Boat fitted for dredging mahogany quahogs, Beals Island, Maine,

1993. Photograph byJ. McGowan.

Figure 12

Emptying mahogany quahogs from 1.2x1.8-m (4x6-foot) cage dredge,

Eastern, Maine, 1993. Photograph byJ. McGowan.

29McGowan,j. 1993. Biologist, Maine Dep. Marine

Resources, Gouldsboro. Personal commun.

3°Kraus, M. G. 1992. Biology Department, University of Maine.

Machias. Personal commun.

"Down East" Maine. As an example, in 1992, fishermen

in NewJersey received $3.74/bushel for large mahogany

quahogs to be used for canned products, while fisher-
80 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

31Hurst,j. W. 1992. Maine Dep. Marine Resources, West Boothbay

Harbor. Personal commun.

Table 5

Maine landings and value ofmahogany quahogs, Arctica

islandica.

men in Maine received $40.37/bushel for small mahogany quahogs for the half-shell market (Morri1l2!).

The fishery is regulated by state licenses, areas fished,

gear size, landing tax, and Federal status. The DMR

licenses boats to harvest from areas not closed because

of pollution or marine toxins, and it restricts the length

ofthe drag's cutting bar with teeth to 36 inches (90 cm)

(DMR Rules, Chapt. 10, 1991). The department has a

program to protect public health by monitoring the

PSP concentration in mahogany quahogs (12 MRSA

6731-6731A, 1991). Producing beds are regularly

sampled by department personnel aboard fishing vessels in designated areas (Hurst31 ), a service partially

financed by a $1.20/bushel tax paid by quahog dealers

(12 MRSA 4712,1991). Boats dredge with Federal permits issued under the Temporary Exclusion Clause on

the east coast allotment program, as established by the

National Marine Fisheries Service or the Middle Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (FMC).

The Maine fishery has a unique association with the

FMC's. In 1990, the Middle Atlantic Fisheries Management Council learned that Maine had a mahogany

quahog fishery and challenged its status in light of

Amendment 8 of the Middle Atlantic FMC Surf Clam/

Ocean Quahog Plan. The National Marine Fisheries

Service considered it a separate stock, and the New

England Council sought separate management authority over it. Meanwhile, the fishery operated as an "experimental fishery" with its own logbook requirements

(Plante, 1992b).

In 1986 and 1987, respective state landings of mahogany quahogs were 110,000 and 127,000 bushels (1.1

and 1.27 million pounds of meats) with corresponding

values of $1.38 and $1.95 million (Table 5). In 1992,

the fishery was valued at $1,776,000, when 45,300 bushYear

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

Landings

(bushels)

111,200

126,700

97,800

86,900

55,300

39,000

45,300

Value

($1,000)

$1,954

1,381

1,857

2,364

1,494

1,409

1,776

Price/

bushel

$17.60

10.30

19.00

27.20

27.00

36.10

39.20

els (453,000 pounds of meats) were landed (Table 1).

Of 36 marine species having values of over $50,000,

mahogany quahogs ranked fifteenth in the state

(Lewis8).

The Future

The future of this fishery will hinge on how well it is

managed and whether 1) littleneck stocks can continue

to be found, 2) quality can be maintained, and 3) the

fishery has some freedom from PSP closures. Its future

also hinges on its relationship with the regional FMC's

and its adjustment to Amendment 9. This includes 1)

the fishery zone north of 43°50'N, 2) a 3" maximum

size limit on the catch, 3) a dredge-bar length of 36",

and 4) other qualifications to separate the Maine fishery from the remaining Atlantic quahog fishery.

Eastern Oyster Fishery _

Massive middens at the mouth of Salt Bay in the

Damariscotta River show that Native Americans ate large

quantities of oysters. Considered among the largest in

the world, these middens total about 8 million feet3

(226,629 m3). The shells are 1,800 ±160 years old as

shown by carbon-14 dating (Bradley, 1957). One such

oyster shell, 35.6 cm (14 inches) long, is thought to be

the largest of the species ever found (Ingersoll, 1881).

Smaller middens are present in various other places along

the coast. Ingersoll (1881) wrote that, when the Europeans arrived, they found live oysters in the Damariscota

River, in Sheepscot and Casco Bays, and at Mount Desert

Island. The Damariscota River is now an oyster production center based on aquaculture operations.

Substantial quantities of wild oysters were last harvested from Damariscotta's Salt Bay in the 1840's; few

have been found there since. Their habitat was probably destroyed when settlers cleared the forests and

constructed sawmills, covering the beds with sawdust

and wood debris (Ingersoll, 1887). Some coastal beds

did persist for many years, and fishermen took 3,000

bushels from the Sheepscot River over a distance of

4.8-8 km (3-5 miles) in one year (Donahue, 1910).

Small oyster beds were still present in several locations along the coast in the 1960's. The Piscataqua

River had the largest quantity, with 23,000 bushels on

25 ha (61 acres) (Harriman and Sterl, 1964). From

1954 to 1968, fishermen harvested about 385 bushels/

year from the Sheepscot River using drags from small

3.7-7.3 m (12-24 foot) boats and also with scuba gear

(Pearson and Cowger, 1975).

The Piscataqua River beds, closed because of pollution in 1947, are now commercially productive year-
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 81

round. Mter being harvested, oysters are depurated in

a local plant for 48 hours. Since 1988, production has

been about 3,000 bushels/year, with good potential for

expansion (HoweIl32).

As oyster prices have increased, lease sites have become more tempting to poachers and a 1992 state law

was designed to protect against the poaching of aquacultural products. It states that prior to retail sale, no

one can possess cultchless American oysters other than

a grower with a license and bill ofsale. The license fee is

$10.00 (P.L. Chapt. 876,1992).

The entire oyster industry, from hatcheries to harvesting, is evolving technologically. One project underway aims to identify the causes of intermittent heavy

mortalities ofjuvenile oysters. This will be an expanding industry, as aquaculture becomes more accepted

and the high quality of Maine oysters becomes more

well-known.

Shellfish Hatcheries

In 1972, the University of Maine, assisted by the Sea

Grant Program, began research on culturing oysters. A

laboratory and research hatchery were founded at the

university's Darling Marine Center in Walpole, on the

Damariscotta River (Hidu and Richmond, 1974). Two

private hatcheries were also built there.

Since then, this river has become the oyster capital of

mid-coast Maine, and the site of an annual oyster festival. There have been about eight different operations

on the Damariscotta at one time, but now five companies farm the oysters on six leases totalling 23 ha (55.6

acres) and employ about 30 full-time and 20 part-time

people. The leased bottoms are predominantly sand,

gravel, and firm clay. They are free from Atlantic oyster

drills, UTOsalpinx cinerea, and relatively free of green

crabs, Atlantic rock crabs, Cancer irroratus; starfish,

Asterias forbesi; and flatworms, Stylochus ellipticus. About

30% of the oysters reach commercial size in 18 months

and 70% in 36 months (Clime33).

Since the late 1970's, various methods have been

used by the hatcheries in nursery grow-out, predator

control, and harvesting, with constant adaption to conditions, as experience and new knowledge have dictated. Bottom culture replaced earlier suspended culture, because cultch fouling by mussels, tunicates, polychaetes, and barnacles were a biological and economic

burden. The trend has been toward using more handson labor to produce high quality oysters year-round

32Howell, T. 1991. Spinney Creek Oyster Co., Eliot, Maine. Personal

commun.

33Clime, R. 1991. Aquaculturalist, Dodge Cove, South Bristol, Maine.

Personal commun.

with limited equipmem and increased use of wood and

non-corrosive materials.

The hatcheries and culturists use upwellers to grow

tiny seed and floating screened trays for larger seed

(Mook34). Periwinkles are held in trays to keep oyster

shells clean. Each autumn, after most predators become inactive, workers transfer small oysters from the

trays to the bottom, where they overwinter below the ice.

The companies use drags from small boats to harvest

them and about 5.,000 bushels of oysters are produced

annually for the half-shell trade (Table 1) (Clime33).

The two hatcheries on the river also sell seed of

cultchless eastern and European oysters, northern quahogs, softshells, bay scallops, Argopecten irradians; and

Atlantic surfc1ams, Spisula solidissima, to other U.S. growing areas. Annual production is about 75 million seed

(Mook34).

European Oyster Fishery _

European oysters were introduced to Maine in 1949 by

the cooperative efforts of the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the SSFD. The intent was to establish

a new commercial fishery in a shallow subtidal zone

that did not usually support softshells. The introduction was initiated by Victor L. Loosanoff of the Federal

shellfisheries laboratory in Milford, Connecticut, and

the stocks came from the Oosterchelde in Holland, as

arranged by Peter Korringa of that country. Trays of

3,600 oysters were held in Boothbay Harbor, 1,060 in

Basin Cove, Harpswell, and 1,060 in Taunton River,

Franklin. The Taunton River oysters did not survive

beyond 1953, and no progeny were discovered in that

area. But seed oysters from the plantings were discovered in Boothbay Harbor in 1952 (Welch, 1963) and in

Harpswell in 1954..

From 1954 to 1961, state biologists made five more

introductions in the Damariscotta River and Casco Bay,

both from progeny ofthe Milford Laboratory introductions and also directly from Holland. During this period, the Boothbay Harbor stocks, at water depths of

from 0.6-1.3 m (2-4.25 feet), were increasing in abundance. In the early 1960's, individual oysters or small

beds were found at a number of sites, primarily in

Casco Bay.

Maine's success in inrrodllcing European oysters and

their progeny stimulated the founding of a succession

of small hatcheries to provide seed of this species for

prospective growers, and the first of these was built in

1968 (Fosterll). As both a public service and an incentive for commercial ventures, University of Maine re-

'4Mook, W. 1!J91. Mook Shellfish Hatchery, Walpole, Maine. Personal commun.
82 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

searchers gave 33 private individuals along the Maine

coast, from Cutler to Harpswell, several hundred oysters each, as well as trays to hold them for their own

growth and survival tests. Average survival in winter was

61 % in 1973-1974 (a warm winter) (Packie etal., 1976).

Suitable sites for culture were identified in Washington and Hancock Counties (Foster, 1976). Interest in

culturing grew in more areas, as other hatcheries were

built and seed became available. Seed was also purchased from Pacific Mariculture and International Shellfisheries Co., Inc., in California. Five small hatcheries

began producing the seed in the 1970's.

Throughout the 1970's, fishermen and others found

small beds of European oysters throughout Casco Bay,

below -1 foot MLWand primarily on sand, gravel, and

shelly bottoms, where currents were strong between islands and ledges (Heinig and Tarbox35). Small drags and

scuba gear were used to gather them for local sale, and

some were harvested as a sport fishery. Oysters set heavily

in 1978, and a period of high commercial abundance

followed in 1982 and 1983. In the 1980's, fishermen marketed 31,000 bushels ofEuropean oysters from Casco Bay,

using scuba and drags from small boats year-round.

In 1984, the DMR became concerned that the harvests would lead to depletion of the oysters, so prohibited harvesting each year during the oyster's main spawning period, from 15June to 15 September. It also established a minimum marketing size (longest diameter) of

5 cm (2 inches) (DMR Rules, Chapter 14,1985).

In the last few years, stocks have not fared well, as

natural events have had devastating effects. For example, in December, 1989, temperatures were below

average (Smith, 1991), and the next spring fishermen

and residents observed many dead oysters (Waddle36).

In the subsequent summer, Casco Bay and adjacent

waters experienced massive mortalities of menhaden,

Brevoortia tymnnus, that had been driven into shallow

waters by bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix; oxygen concentrations fell to nearly zero. Since then, live oysters have

been virtually nonexistent in one section of the bay,

and spat has not been seen in it.

As European oyster culture expanded in the

Damariscotta River during the late 1970's and 1980's,

800-1,600 bushels of oysters were marketed annually

(Clime33). But the 1990's have seen mortalities, slow

growth, and poor sets in Damariscotta and Casco Bays.

probably due to infection by the parasite Bonamie ostreae

(Davis37).

35Heinig, C., and B. Tarbox. 1984. A range and distribution study of

the natural European oyster, Ostrea edulis population, in Casco Bay,

Maine. Unpub!. Rep. Dep. Marine Resources.

36Waddle, R. 1990. Shellfish dealer, Quahog Bay, Harpswell, Maine.

Personal commun.

37Davis, C. 1992. University of Maine Research Center, Walpole.

Personal commun.

In 1991, landings ofEuropean oysters. all from hatchery-produced seed, totalled about 880 bushels (Table

1). The species was filling an important nitch in our

fishery, and we hope it can recover to its former status

and be further developed.

Northern Quahog Fishery _

Northern quahogs have occasionally been a "feast," but

usually a "famine" resource in Maine. In relatively cool

Maine waters, big natural sets concentrated in the upper portion of Casco Bay occurred in 1939, 1947, and

1952 (Dow and Wallace, 1954a). After the quahogs

grew to market size, 50 mm (2 inches), they supported

fisheries. In beds in that area, the quahogs set too

densely for adequate growth and survival. One 3.2 ha

(8-acre) bed had 433 quahogs 1.2 mm in diameter per

cm2 (279/inch2), or about 168 billion. Noncommercial

quantities also grew in the Daramiscotta Estuary,

Madomac River, Union River Estuary, the west side of

Mount Desert Island, and Piscataqua River.

Quahogs occur in sand, silt. marine blue clay, and

sand-cobble mixtures, in a zone extending from below

low water to mean high water. Occupying the same

habitats are polychaete worms, including N. virens and

G. dibranchiata; and other mollusks, such as the baltic

macoma, amethyst gemclam, threeline mudsnail, and

periwinkle. Green crabs are predators, as are herring

gulls, Larus mgentatus. which drop the quahogs on rocks

and ledges to break them.

Fishermen harvested Casco Bay quahogs in intertidal

flats, using short-handle rakes with 75 mm (3-inch)

tines. In the 1930's, annual production from the upper

bay was about 13,000 bushels; in 1945, 20,000 bushels;

and in 1949,39,000 bushels. In 1961, it fell to less than

100 bushels and has since been about 500 bushels annually (Table 1).

In 1950, fishermen and local residents transplanted

stunted quahogs to save them from winter mortalities

and to give them growing space. Initially, they were

raked up by hand and transplanted with harvesters'

boats. Finally, an old World War II personnel carrier 10

m (33 feet) long was rigged with a herring sucker pump

and a 15-cm (6-inch) diameter hose (Dow and Wallace,

1951) to collect seed and spread it thinly in commercially depleted areas. Ahout 38,000 bushels ofseed were

transplanted by hand and hYdraulic dredging gear between 1950 and 1959.

As a result of the transplantings, more quahogs were

available. The average number of harvesters holding

licenses in the region was 357 during the highest production years of the 1950's; only about 20% were parttime diggers. Quahogs have not set in commercial quantities since 1952.
___________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 83

Periwinkle Fishery _

The common periwinkle38, which occurs mostly on rocky

shores, has been haIVested commercially for many years.

The fishery is centered in Washington County in northeastern Maine, where the ''winkles,'' as they are called, are

largest and most abundant They have shaped the rocky coast

by controlling the algal community and the substrate on

which it grows. Their foraging action removes large quantities of algae and loosens the sediment, leaving exposed

rocky shores. Periwinkles are not filter feeders and therefore do not accumulate paralytic shellfish poison.

Nearly all harvesters are part-timers who also work in

other fisheries or land-based jobs. They also harvest

softshells or marine worms and seasonally pick blueberries, make Christmas wreaths, and cut wood. People

can enter the fishery with minimal investment in equipment. This is important in coastal towns where employment opportunities are limited. Periwinkles are haIVested

by hand at low tide, sometimes with the aid of a dip net

squared off at the end, in intertidal and shallow subtidal

bottoms consisting of ledge, rock, or sand. Many easily

accessible areas have been depleted, and fishermen now

routinely haIVest on offshore ledges and islands. Some

fishermen tow lightweight dredges from small outboardmotor boats to haIVest in slightly deeper waters.

During peak periods, about 150-180 people harvest

periwinkles on any given day. A typical fisherman harvests about 100 pounds of rough-culled periwinkles a

day. The dealer then culls them and

pays the fisherman for those that

are salable, usually about 60-80

pounds.

The state has no management

regulations for the fishery other than

a requirement that fishermen have

commercial fishing licenses. Estimates have not been made of the

amount of fishing the resource can

sustain and still remain productive

in the future.

Landings data date back to 1969,

but before 1987, landings were vastly

under-reported. For 1969-86, average annual landings ofmeat totalled

22,412 pounds (range in pounds,

3,000 in 1986 to 81,000 in 1981); 4

pounds ofshellstock yields 1 pound

ofmeat. The fishery peaked in 1989,

when nearly 1 million pounds of

meats were landed at a value of$I,343,000. Since 1987,

landings have been stable, between 330,000 and 360,000

pounds. The landed price per pound of shellstock has

increased considerably: In 1969, it was $0.06; in the 1970's,

$0.25; in the 1980's, $0.34; and in the 1990's, $0.41.

In 1992, 11 dealers purchased periwinkles in Washington County. Most also handled softshells, blue mussels, ocean quahogs, whelks, sea urchins, crabs, lobsters, and seaweeds. Dealers do not process periwinkles

beyond culling and bagging.

Maine periwinkles have supplied ethnic markets across

the United States and also are shipped to Europe and

Asia. The foreign markets are relatively new and have

created more demand. In retail markets, periwinkles

frequently are prepared by cutting off the tip of the

shell's spire and removing the operculum from the

meat. They then are cooked in sauce or lightly boiled in

seawater. Periwinkles are served in the shell; the consumer removes the meat with a small pick or sucks it out.

ShellfISh as Food in Maine

Due to an aggressive marketing program initiated by

the Maine Department of Marine resources, mollusks

are sold all year in supermarkets and fish markets.

Softshells, scallops, and oysters are traditional favorites

and are usually fried. An exception is the European

oyster, eaten raw on the half shell (Fig. 13). Next in

38This section is summarized from Chenoweth, S., and]. McGowan. 1995. Periwinkles

in Maine, fishery and biology. Maine Dep.

Mar. Res., West Boothbay Harbor, Res. Ref.

Doc. 95-2, 14 p.

Figure 13

Packing European oysters in Damariscota River, Maine, 1982. Photograph by

R. Howard.
84 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

popularity are stews and chowders. Oyster and scallop

stews consist mostly of milk, cream, shell liquor, butter,

potatoes, and onions; no herbs arc added. Steamed

softshells, cooked in a little saltwater and served hot

with a side dish of melted butter and cup of clam

bouillon (broth from the kettle) are also popular, as

are pan-fried clam cakes made of chopped softshells or

quahogs, cracker crumbs, and eggs.

Until recently, mussels were not eaten by Maine residents, except those with European ethnic backgrounds.

Nearly all mussels were shipped out of state. However,

due to population mobility of recent decades, mussels

are now found on local restaurant menus, especially

steamed with wine, olive oil, and garlic, and they are

also consumed at home. Few ocean quahogs are eaten

fresh in Maine; they are shipped with northern quahogs to inland states. They are competitively priced and

find good markets when served on the half-shell

(Wallace39 ) .

Literature Cited and Selected References __

Anonymous.

1970. Marine law affecting Maine resources. Portland Univ.

School Law, 2:189.

1991. Increasing clam harvest in Maine. Maine/N.H. Sea

Grant ColI. Program and Maine Dep. Mar. Res., Grant NA

81AA-D-00035 from Natl. Oceanic Atmospheric Admin.,

p.60.

An Act to Prevent the Poaching of Aquacultural Products.

1992. PL 876. 12 MRSA 6073 sub-para. 2-a. Maine Dep. Mar.

Res.

Belding, D. L.

1930. The soft-shell clam fishery of Massachusetts. Commonwealth Mass., Dep. Conserv., Div. Fish Game, Mar. Fish. Ser.

1,65 p.

Bouchard, R

1973. An underutilized species: Maine musselsjoin the ranks.

Rep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta, Maine, 147 p.

Bradley, W.

1957. Radiocarbon age of Damariscotta shell heaps. Ann.

Am. Antiquity 22:296.

Briggs, H., R Townsend, and]. Wilson. .

1982. An input-output analysis of Maine's fisheries. Mar. FIsh.

Rev. 44(1):1-7.

Card, D.].,]. Derocher, and B. S. Sterl.

1978. An ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) survey of western

Maine waters. Ref. Doc. 78/2 Maine Dep. Mar. Res., Fish.

Res. Lab., West Boothbay Harbor, Maine.

Castner, H.

1950. The prehistoric shell heaps of the Damariscotta River.

Lincoln County Publ. Co., Daramiscotta, Maine, 24 p.

Chalfant,]. S., T. Archambault, and A. E. West.

1980. Natural stocks of mussels: growth, recruitment and

harvest potential. Tn R A. Lutz (ed.), Mussel culture and

harvest: A North American perspective, p. 38-64. Elsevier

Sci. Publ. Co., N.V.

39Wallace, M. T. 1993. Housewife, Brunswick, Maine. Personal

commun.

Clifton,]. A.

1980. Some economics of mussel culture and harvest. Tn R. A.

Lutz (ed.), Mussel culture and harvest: A North American

perspective, p. 312-338. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., NY

D,.troit free Press.

18 April 1973. Title unknown.

Donahue,]. A.

1910. Biennial Report. Maine Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta,

21 p.

Dow. R.

1952. Shellfish survey methods. Maine Dep. Sea Shore Fish.,

Tech. Bull. 1, 15 p.

1972. Fluctuations in Gulf of Maine sea temperature and

specific molluscan abundance.]' Cons. 34(3):532-534.

Dow. R, and D. Wallace.

1951. A method of reducing winter mortalities of quahogs,

Venus 1I1,'rcenaria, in Maine waters. Maine Dep. Sea Shore

Fish., Res. Bull. 4:3-31.

1952. Observations on green crabs (G. mamas) in Maine.

Maillc Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Circ. 8:8-15.

1954a. Seed quahog dredge Venus M. Maine Dep. Sea Shore

Fish., Circ. 15, 6 p.

1954b. Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) in Maine. Maine Dep.

Mar. Resour., Fish. Bull., 5 p.

1957. The Maine clam. Maine Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta,

35 p.

1961. The soft shell clam industry of Maine. U.S. Dep. Inter.,

Fish Wildl. Serv., Cire. 110, 36 p.

[low, R., D. Wallace, and L. Taxiarchis.

1954. Clam (Mya armaria) breakage in Maine. Maine Dep.

Sea Shore Fish., Res. Bull. 15:4.

Flatbo, G.

1986. State of Maine joint standing committee on marine

resources study on the blue mussel resource and harvesting

in Maine. Off. Policy Legal Anal., Augusta. Maine. 22 p.

Foster, W.

1976. Ecological considerations in oyster bottom culture.

Maine Coast. Resour. Cent., Bar Harbor, Res. Bull. 37, 12 p.

Foster, W., and D. E. Wallace.

1979. Shellfish management in Maine towns-production and constraints in production. Maine Dep. Mar. Resour. Bull., 98 p.

Glude,]. B.

1954. Survival ofsoft-shell clams, Mya armaria, buried at various depths. Maine Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Res. Bull. 22, 26 p.

Guggins, P.,]. Hurst, and P. Mooney.

] 964. Laboratory studies on shellfish purification. Tn P. L.

Goggins (ed.), Softshell clam depuration studies. Maine

D..p. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta. 38 p.

Gould, E. W.

1919-1922. Biennial report. Maine Dep. Mar. Res. 1919-20,

p. 39-60; 1921-22, p. 18.

Gustafson, A.

1977. Quahog, Mercenaria mercena·ria. in Maine and their relevance to the State Critical Area Program. Rep. prep. for

Maine Critical Area Program, State Plan. Off., Augusta, 24 p.

Hanks, R.

1963. The soft-shell clam. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv.,

Cire. 162, 16 p.

Hardin, G.

1968. Tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248.

Harriman, D., and B. Sterl.

1964. York County survey of shellfish growing areas. Tn P. L.

Goggins (ed.), Softshell clam depuration studies, p. 37-44.

Maine Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta.

Heinig, C., and D. Campbell.

]992. The environmental context of a Gyrodinium aureolum
_____________________________ Wallace: The Molluscan Fisheries of Maine 85

bloom and shellfish kill in Maquoit Bay, Maine, Sept. 1988.

]. Shellfish Res. 11(1):111-122.

Hidu, H., and R. Lavoie.

1991. The European oyster, Ostrea edulis, in Maine and eastern Canada. In W. Menzel (ed.), Estuarine and marine

bivalve culture, p. 563-575. CRC Press, Boston.

Hidu, H., and C. Newell.

1989. Culture and ecology of the softshell clam Mya arenaria.

In]. Manzi and M. Castagna (eds.), Clam mariculture in

North America. p. 277-292. Elsevier Sci. Publ., N.¥.

Hidu, H., and M. Richmond.

1974. Commercial oyster culture in Maine. Univ. Maine, Sea

Grant Pub!. 2, 59 p.

Honey, K., and L. Churchil!.

1992. Aquaculture lease inventory. Maine Oep. Mar. Resour.

Lab., West Boothbay Harbor. Rep., 65 p.

Incze, L. S.

1980. Mussel culture: An east coast perspective. In R. A. Lutz

(ed.), Mussel culture and harvest: A North American perspective, p. 99-137. Elsevier Sci. Pub!., NY

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Wash., 251 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone industries. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States, p. 507-626. Sect. II. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Wash.

Kraus, M. G., B. F. Beal, S. R. Chapman, and L. McMartin.

1992. A comparison of growth rates in Arctica islandica between field and laboratory populations. ]. Shellfish Res.

11 (2) :289-294.

Leonard, O. L., E. A. Slaughter, P. V. Genovese, S. L. Adamany,

and C. G. Clement.

1991. The national shellfish register of classified estuarine

waters. U S. Oep. Commer., NOAA, Nat!' Ocean Serv.,

Rockville, Md., 100 p.

Loosanoff, V. L.

1955. The European oyster in American waters. Science

121 (3135) :119-121.

Lutz, R. A.

I980a. Introduction: Mussel culture and harvest in North

America. In R. A. Lutz (ed.), Mussel culture and harvest: A

North American perspective, p. 1-13. Elsevier Sci. Publ.,

N.¥.

I980b. Pearl incidence: Mussel culture and harvest implications. In R. A. Lutz (ed.), Mussel culture and harvest: A

North American perspective, p. 193-220. Elsevier Sci. Pub!.,

NY

Lutz, R. A., L. S. Incze, K. K. Chew,]. A. Clifton, R. Haley, B. A.

Miller, W. Brownell, L. Chaves-Michael, M. W. Blumenstock,

K. P. Hayes, A. Weldon, R. Dearborn, and O. Lloyd.

1977. A comprehensive review of the commercial mussel industries in the United States. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., U.S.

Gov. Print. Office, Wash., D.C., Stock No. 003-020-00133-5,

134 p.

Lyles, C. H.

1969. Historical catch statistics (shellfish). U.S. Oep. Inter.,

Fish. Wildl. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 5007, 116 p.

Marcot, B.

1990. Marine hazards demand new approach to human health

risk assessment. Maine Oep. Mar. Resour. Rep., 15 p.

Medcof, C., A. Leim, A. Needler, W. eedler,]. Gilbard, and

]. Nanbert.

1947. Paralytic shellfish poisoning on the Canadian Atlantic

coast. Bul!. Fish. Res. Board Can. 7:490-504.

Miller, B. A.

1980. Historical review of U.S. mussel culture and harvest. In

R. A. Lutz (ed.), Mussel culture and harvest: A North American perspective, p. 18-35. Elsevier Sci. Pub!., N.¥.

Myers, E.

1980. The evolution of a commercial culture operation. In R.

A. Lutz (ed.) Mussel culture and harvest: A North American

perspective, p. 266--311. Elsevier Sci. Pub!., N.¥.

Newell, C. R.

1990a. The effects of mussel (Mytilus edulis, Linneaus) positions in seeded bottom patches on growth at sub-tidal lease

sites in Maine.]. Shellfish Res. 9(1):113-118.

1990b. Guide to mussel quality contro!' Great Eastern Mussel

Farms, Inc. Univ. Maine Sea Grant Mar. Advis. Program

Bull., Grant IVA 89-AA-O SGO 20, Orono.

1991. Softshell clam, Mya arenariaL. in North America. In W.

Menzel (ed.), Estuarine and marine bivalve mollusk culture, p. 1-10. CRC Press, Boston.

Newell, C. R., S. E. Shumway, T. L. Cucci, and R. Selvi.

1989. The effects of natural seston particle size on feeding

rates, feeding selectivity and food resources available for the

mussel Mytilus edulis Linneaus 1758 at bottom culture sites

in Maine.]. Shellfish Res. 8(1):187-196.

Nickerson, A. R.

1898. Biennial report. Maine Oep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta.

1905. The clam and scallop fishery: Detailed information

including disposition of product of that fishery for the State

of Maine for the year 1904, p. 56. In Biennial report, Maine

Oep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta.

1906. Biennial report. Maine Oep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta.

Packie, R., H. Hidu, and M. Richmond.

1976. The suitability of Maine waters for culturing American

and European oysters, Crassostrea virginica and Ostrea edulis.

Univ. Maine Sea Grant Tech. Rep. TR-I0-76, 30 p.

Pierson, E., and]. Cowger.

1975. The American oyster. Critical Area Program, Maine

State Plan. Off., Augusta, 5 p.

Plante,].

1992a. Scallop amendment 4. Com mer. Fish. News,

Stonington, Maine, Dec., p. 18A.

1992b. Maine quahogers get experimental fishing extension.

Commer. Fish. News, Stonington, Maine, Nov., p. 18B.

Riley,]. G., and N. Smith.

1981. Development of a harvester for seed clams. Am. Soc.

Agric. Engr., Pap. NR 84-609. St.Joseph, Mi., p. 6.

Ropes,]. W., and S. A. Murawski.

1983. Maximum shell length and longevity in ocean quahogs, Arctica islandica Linne. ICES/CM I983/K:32. Shellfish

Committee, 8 p.

Sanborn, C. A.

1918. Biennial report. Maine Oep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta.

Scattergood, L.

1952. The distribution of green crabs (Carcinides maenas) in

the northwest Atlantic. Maine Oep. Sea Shore Fish. Circ.

8:1-10.

Scattergood, L., and C. C. Taylor.

1949. The mussel resources of the North Atlantic region.

Part 1. The survey to discover the locations and areas of the

North Atlantic mussel-producing beds. Commer. Fish. Rev.

11(9):1-10.

Shumway, S. E., S. S. Caswell, and]. W. Hurst.

1988. Paralytic shellfish poisoning in Maine: Monitoring a

monster.]. Shellfish Res. 7(4):643-659.

Slabyj, B. M., and C. Hinkle.

1976. Handling and storage of blue mussels in shell. Univ.

Maine, Orono. Res. Life Sci. 23(4):1-13.
86 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Smith, D. B.

1991. Monthly and annual means ofsea surface temperature,

Boothbay Harbor, Maine, 1905-1990. Maine Dep. Mar.

Resour., Mar. Sci. Lab., West Boothbay Harbor, Res. Ref.

Doc. 91-3, 8 p.

Sprague,].

1913. Loyalists of the Kennebec. Sprague]. Maine Hist.

5(5)252.]. F. Sprague. Publ. Dover-Foxcroft, Maine.

State vs. Alley.

1970. 274 A. 2d 718, 274. At!. Rep. 2nd Ser: 118-126. State

Law Libr., Augusta.

State vs. Leavitt.

1909. 105 Me 70-72 A 875. State Law Libr., Augusta.

State vs. Norton and Mahonen.

1975. 335A. 2d 607, 335. Atl. Rep. 2nd Ser: 607-617. State

Law Libr., Augusta.

Stear!, B., P. Derocher, and]. Hurst.

1964. Design and operation of a cleansing plant. In P. L.

Goggins (ed.), Softshell clam depuration studies. Maine

Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta. 38 p.

Stubbs, L.

1982. Mya arenaria, the steamer clam. Maine Dep. Mar. Resour.

Fish. Educ. Unit 15, 24 p.

Taxiarchis, L., R. Dow, and F. Baird.

1954. Survey of the oyster beds, Crassostrea virginica, in the

Sheepscot River and its tributaries. Rep. Maine Dep. Sea

Shore Fish., 8 p.

Townsend, R.

1985. An economic evaluation of restricted entry in Maine's

soft-shell clam industry. N. Am.]. Fish. Manage. 5:57-64.

1986. Evidence from controlled harvest for potential economic benefits from management of softshell clams, Mya

arenaria. N. Am.]. Fish. Manag. 6:592-595.

Welch, W.

1963. The European oyster, Ostrea edulis in Maine. Proc. Nat!.

Shellfish. Assoc. 54:7-23.

1969. Changes in the abundance of green crabs (Carcinus

maenas L) in relation to recent temperature changes. Fish.

Bull. 67:337-345.

Whitten, O. B.

1894. Letter to Gov. Henry B. Cleves. In 13 April Commissioner's "Report to the Governor." Maine Dep. Sea Shore

Fish., Augusta, First Biennial Rep., p. 1.
The U. S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay

Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J.

CLYDE L. MACKENZIE,jR.

James]. Howard Laboratory

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Highlands, NJ 07732

ABSTRACT

The region from Massachusetts Bay through Raritan Bay has long been an important

producer ofmollusks. The oyster, Crassostrea virginica; northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria;

and softshell clam, Mya arenaria, have been harvested since pre-colonial times. The bay

scallop, Pecten irradians, has been harvested since the 1800's, the smooth conch, Busycotypus

canaliculatus, since the 1930's, and since the 1980's and 1990's, the surfclam, Spisula

solidissima, and blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. The oyster industry expanded during and after

the 1820's when immense quantities of oysters were imported from Chesapeake Bay to Long

Island Sound and Raritan Bay for planting. Owing to the imports and shelling of the seed

beds, the industry grew to a production peak of 4,250,000 bushels a year in the 1890's and

early 1900's. Mter 1900, the oyster industry declined because of poor demand and small

supplies. The oyster industry in Connecticut has recently grown substantially.

From the 1700's to the early 1900's, fishermen developed tongs and various types of

rakes to harvest northern quahogs, mostly from boats, and, since about 1940, dredges also

have been used. Softshells have been harvested in several areas of the region with multitined diggers and churning hoes used with scoop nets. From the 1800's into the 1940's, the

clams were commonly shucked in fishermen's homes and peddled locally. Surfclams have

traditionally been harvested on the north shore of Massachusetts, and recently with hydraulic dredges in Long Island Sound, where production ranged between 41,000 to 516,000

bushels/year from 1985-91. Bay scallops have traditionally been harvested mostly in bays

and ponds from Massachusetts through Long Island, N.Y., in the fall and winter. The blue

mussel fishery developed, especially in Massachusetts, in the last 10 years or so, when a

market demand for them developed. They were harvested in coastal bays and from an ocean

bed. Conchs have been harvested with pots. In 1990, the number of active fishermen on the

molluscan beds was about 3,350 in the summer and 2,336 in the fall. A comparison of

landings in the past with those in 1990 shows that several species have declined in abundance. Total production has declined from 3,712,000 bushels in 1901-02 to 2,380,000

bushels in 1990, when about 6% of landings were from hatchery-produced seed.

Introduction

The estuaries and bays of the U.S. northwest Atlantic

coast, which extend from Massachusetts Bay through

Raritan Bay, include the states of Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, and northern NewJersey (Fig. 1). They have been and remain important

producers of molluscan shellfish. Since the days of the

Native Americans and European colonists, the oyster,

Crassostrea virginica; northern quahog, Mercenaria

mercenaria; and softshell, Mya arenaria, have supported

valuable fisheries. In the late 1800's the bay scallop,

Argopecten irradians, began to be harvested, by the 1930's

the fishery expanded to include the smooth conch,

Busycotypus canaliculatus, and, mainly in the 1980's and

1990's it has included the Atlantic surfclam, Spisula

solidissima, and the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis.

Most northern quahogs and all softshells, bay scallops, conchs, surfclams, and blue mussels have been

harvested from public beds, whereas in the past, large

areas in Wellfleet Harbor, Mass., Narragansett Bay, R.I.,

the Connecticut coast, bays around Long Island, N.Y.,

87
!:I 8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

MASSACHUSETTS

43'

Massachusetts Bay

42'

Atlantic Ocean

\

\

\

75' 73' 72'

Narragansett Bay

71' 70'

41 '

40'

Figure 1

The region from Massachusetts Bay to Raritan Bay.

and Raritan Bay, N.Y. and Nj., have been privately

leased for growing oysters. Some leased bottoms including all those in Narragansett and Raritan Bays have

since reverted to public use. Management of public

beds in the region has been generally controlled by the

states, but some towns, especially those in Massachusetts, have considerable control over their local shellfisheries. The states and towns collect license fees, establish seasons, and set limits on daily catches.

In oyster, northern quahog, softshell, and bay scallop

fisheries, the fishermen have included "regulars" who

worked in them year-round, as well as "part-timers" who

took time olf from other jobs or were temporarily unemployed. Since the 1940's, the part-timers have also

included students working during summer vacations.

The number of fishermen has expanded during depressed economic periods.

Habitat

The bottoms of estuaries and bays in the region (Fig. 2,

3) consist mostly of mixtures offine and coarse sand or

gravel, or sand and mud; some bottoms are mud and

some are covered with oyster shells (Sanders, 1956;

McMaster, 1960; Reid et ai., 1979). Salinity ranges from

21-34%0 in Plum Island Sound, Mass. (jerome et aL.

1986),18-32%0 in Narragansett Bay (Pilson, 1985),25-

28%0 along the Connecticut coast (MacKenzie, 1981),

and 18-32%0 in Raritan Bay (MacKenzie, 1990, 1992b).

Water temperatures generally range from about 0.2°C

in winter to 24°C in summer (Riley, 1955), although in

Great South Bay, Long Island, and the Navesink River,

Nj., they may reach about 27°C in summer. The region

is the most heavily urbanized in North America resulting in physical damage and pollution in some shellfish

growing areas.

Oyster Industry _

Oysters have occurred in all five states of the region

(Fig. 2, 3). In prehistoric and colonial times, oyster

beds were present in river and estuarine areas where

the salinity ran from about 7-15%0, and most were at

depths of about 0.6-5 m (2-16 feet). Oyster predators

included bay anemones, Diadumene leucolena (common

only in Raritan Bay), xanthid crabs, and blue crabs,

Callinectes sapidus. Other associates were sponges, bryozoans, polychaete worms, blue mussels, Mytilus edulis;

and barnacles.

When the oyster industry expanded to zones ofhigher

salinity, mostly 20-27%0, associated animals also included Atlantic oyster drills, Urosalpinx cinera; starfish,
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 89

Figure 2

Shellfishing areas of Massachusetts. Hatched area east of Nantucket represents a mussel bed.

Massachusetts

Pleasant

Bay

Cape Cod

MILES

o 10 20 I I' I I

o 15 30

KILOMETERS

Nantucket

Massachusetts Bay

Plymouth

Bay

Bass

<0"" River

0"· J?

~"iw ePantucket Sound

<ov 0 d? c::!J Nantucket I Shoals

Cuttyhunk oQ,. @

Martha's

Vineyard

_ Newburyport

Newbury

IpSWich

Essex

Basta

than supply. From at least 1950 to the mid-1980's, oyster

production was usually limited by inadequate supplies.

Oysters occurred in various bays and brackish ponds in

Massachusetts, but in far smaller quantities than in

other states in the region (Fig. 4). Wellfleet Harbor had

the only substantial oyster industry. Mter the harbor's

native oysters were depleted by the early 1800's, the

local fishermen imported seed oysters for bedding, first

from neighboring states to the south and then from

Virginia. In the mid-1800's, as many as 100,000 bushels

of Virginia seed were laid down each year (Ingersoll,

1881). Although the industry declined soon after the

turn of the century, the trade in southern oysters continued until shortly after World War I.

In the early part of this century, Connecticut growers

leased bottoms in Wellfleet Harbor and planted seed

oysters imported from their own state. But the oyster

MASSACHUSETIS

Asterias forbesi; and Atlantic rock crabs, Cancer

irroratus, all predators.

Native Americans ate oysters extensively, as

shown by their middens along various river

ban ks, and by accounts of early explorers

(Bakeless, 1961). For instance, in the 1740's,

Peter Kalm (1937), a Swedish naturalist, observed them gathering oysters near New York

City and noted their middens of oyster and

mussel shells.

In the 1600's and 1700's, coastal European

colonists gathered oysters with tongs from rowboats and dugout canoes. The colonists shucked

the oysters in their homes and in shanties on

the river banks, and peddled the meats in coastal

and inland communities (Ingersoll, 1881).

In the late 1700's, oysters were becoming

much scarcer because fishing was heavy and

siltation from soil erosion degraded their habitats. States passed laws to conserve them by

restricting catches. By the early 1800's, sloops

with dredges were used to harvest oysters, which

then declined sharply in abundance throughout the region while demand for them was

strong.

In the 1820's, the oyster industry expanded

beyond the 7-15%0 zones to areas where salinity was mostly >20%0, when oystermen imported

immense quantities ofseed oysters each spring

from Chesapeake Bay (Virginia and Maryland)

for planting on beds they had leased. Oysters

became abundant again thereafter. They were

usually left to grow only one summer and were

marketed in the fall and early winter (Ingersoll,

1881). Oyster drills were not controlled on any grounds,

and they caused large losses of seed oysters thereafter.

(In the late 1940's some Connecticut grounds began to

be cleared of the drills by a suction dredge, and now

most are cleared of drills by suction dredges.) Some

control ofstarfish was achieved with mops in the 1800's

(Ingersoll, 1881); mops remain in use in the 1990's.

Despite predation on seed (mainly by drills and starfish), the region's oyster industry grew large and reached

a production peak in the 1890's and early 1900's; in

1910, 6.25 million bushels of oysters (21,000 metric

tons of meats) were produced (Fig. 4). By then, scores

of companies had shucking and packing houses throughout the region, and they employed hundreds of men,

women, and children. Peripheral industries dependent

on the oyster industry were freight boats, boat yards,

blacksmith shops, basket factories, hardware and can

manufacturers, lime kilns, and railroads. Since then,

the oyster industry has declined markedly.

From at least 1900 to 1938 and again from 1988 to

1996, oyster production was limited by demand, rather
90 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Long Island

N - Mattituck

O-Mt. Sinai

p - Northport Bay

Q- Oyster Bay

Peconic Bay

Great South Bay

CT

Connecticut

I -Norwalk

J -- Bridgeport

K-Milford

L-NewHaven

M- Niantic River

L

J K

\j )l_~r_---~

Sound

\..ong \s\a.nd N...,..

NJ

\

New Jersey "-

A- Shrewsbury River

B- Navesink River

C - Highlands

D-Arthur Kill F '" E - Newark Bay E...,..

, NY \

New York

F - Hudson River

G - New York City

H - East River

\..

\

Figure 3

Shellfishing areas from Narragansett Bay to Raritan Bay.

Rhode Island

The granting of bottom leases to Rhode Island fishermen began in 1822, when authorities sought to encourage development of the oyster industry in Narragansett

Bay. Fishermen imported seed oysters from

Chesapeake Bay and Great South Bay for

planting on leases in the upper part of the

bay; the oysters were marketed after one

season of growth (Kochiss, 1974). Seed imports continued every year, and by 1878 the

industry had grown to a substantial size with

about 500 men, 100 boats, and annual production of 660,000 bushels (Table 1).

After 1880, Connecticut growers gradually took over oystering in Narragansett Bay,

as they did in Wellfleet Harbor. They planted

the beds with oysters, 2-4 years old, in the

spring and marketed them during the subsequent fall after one growing season. By 1908,

at least 100 large motor-propelled oyster

boats were working in the bay (Kochiss,

1974). The companies had leased about

9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) for growing

oysters, and in a few ports they constructed

large plants in which their oysters were

shucked and packed and boat equipment

1955 1970 1985 1990

*"" Massachusetts

-& Rhode Island

Connecticut

-A- New York

1925 1940

Oysters

1895 1910

0*=r:::;:::~.,.--,--,----r~:;=;~:::;:=~"";;;~FT=~~

1880

500

2500

3000 1 --------------;=====-.:--===1,

~1500

III

Qj

.s:::.

1000

CC

82000

o,....

Figure 4

Landings of oysters from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, 1880 to 1991 (Lyles, 1969; Statistics Division,

National Marine Fisheries Service, OAA, Wash., D.C.).

industry declined throughout the region after a severe

hurricane struck the northeast coast ofthe United States

in 1938. By ] 973, only 26 hectares (65 acres) of ground

were leased for oystering in this harbor (Kochiss, 1974).

Small- scale oyster culture continued in the 1990's.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 91

====~~-

~==!~

Figure 5

A "sharpie" used to harvest oysters in Connecticut from

the mid-1800's to early 1900's. From Collins, 1891.

r

100

390

962

100

150

350

Amount

148,000

512,000

$600,000

$0.90-1.50

Item

Planters (no.)

Area planted

Hectares

Acres

Boats (no.)

Men hired all year (no.)

Men hired half year (no.)

Production

Native oysters (bushels)

Southern imports (bushels)

Value of oysters produced

Price/bushel or gallon

was repaired. Oyster shells were saved for spreading as

cuItch on the Connecticut seed beds (Usinger1).

The industry continued at a substantial size until the

1938 hurricane buried most of the oysters, destroyed

many oyster boats, and damaged much shore property.

A sharp decline followed, in part because little Connecticut seed was available to plant (Kochiss, 1974).

Since the 1960's, few oysters have been planted and

harvested in Narragansett Bay (Fig. 4). But in 1993 and

1994, oyster sets occurred on public beds around the

bay, and in 1996, commercial fishermen harvested an

estimated 30,000 bushels of market-sized oysters

(Ganz2).

Table 1

Size of the oyster industry in Rhode Island in the late

1870's (Ingersoll, 1881).

Connecticut

New Haven has been the main oyster center in Connecticut, with most beds being 3-12 m deep. In the

1800's and most of the 1900's, its beds were farmed

more intensively than any others in the nation, involving spreading shells, transplanting seed among beds

usually every year, and controlling starfish. It was also

the region's largest producer of seed oysters. Other

prominent oystering areas were beds off Bridgeport

and Norwalk.

From the mid-1800's to early 1900's, the "sharpie"

was the prominent Connecticut boat for tonging and

dredging oysters (Fig. 5). Sharpies were 6.7-10.7 m

(22-35 feet) long with drafts of only 60 cm (2 feet), and

I Usinger, E. 1991. President (reL), Bluepoints Company, West

Sayville, N.V. Personal commun.

2 Ganz, A. 1992, 1997. Department of Environmental Management,

Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wakefield, R.I. Personal commun.

had sharp bows, flat bottoms, 1-2 masts, and carried up

to 125 bushels. Fishermen also used dugout canoes,

sloops, 9-12 m (30-40 feet) long, and schooners for

oystering. Small dredges were hauled by hand and larger

dredges by hand winches (Collins, 1891).

The importation of Chesapeake oysters to Connecticut probably began in the 1830's. In the 1850's, about

80 schooners carrying 2,000-4,500 bushels apiece were

supplying New Haven with 500,000-750,000 bushels of

those oysters each year; the Chesapeake imports continued afterward and, in 1879, 450,000 bushels were

imported (Ingersoll, 1881). About 75% were opened

immediately and distributed to customers throughout

the state and in New York City. The remainder were

spread on beds in the spring and harvested the subsequent fall, after having increased about one-third in

size (Collins, 1891).

From observing sets of local spat on the imported

Chesapeake oysters, growers learned that local seed

could be produced by spreading shells over their beds,
92 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 6

Spreading shells on an oyster setting bed in New Haven, Connecticut, ca. 1910. From

Churchill, 1921.

Table 2

Size of the oyster industry in Connecticut in 1889

(Collins 1891).

cabin, and installed an engine; to haul the dredges, they

added hoisters, a post, and rollers. Soon after 1900, most

oyster vessels had the same general layout: A clear deck

forward and a cabin and pilothouse aft (Kochiss, 1974).

The vessels held from 1,000 to 2,400 bushels of oysters.

From the early 1800's (Ingersoll, 1881) to the early

1900's, after fishermen harvested oysters from the beds

for marketing, they put them in brackish water areas

and by 1900 they were spreading large quantities of

shells (Fig. 6). They towed 3 m wide "mops" of cotton

bundles to control starfish. Seed cultivation eventually

encompassed all available inshore bottoms (Kochiss,

1974). With local seed available in increasing amounts,

companies imported far less from Chesapeake Bay but

they continued importing some into the 1930's.

In the 1870's, oystermen installed steam plants consisting of a boiler and an engine in some of their oyster

sloops and schooners. The engines propelled the vessels and retrieved the dredges, which were towed from

each side of the boat and held 10-12 bushels each.

Dredges were hauled over rollers on the gunwales. Six

deckhands, three on each side of each boat, emptied

oysters from the dredges and shoveled them onto a pile

amidships (Kochiss, 1974). By the late 1800's, the Connecticut oyster industry had grown to a substantial size

with about 1,244 persons working on the beds and

ashore, 662 boats of all sizes, and a production of nearly

1.5 million bushels of oysters/year (Table 2).

Vessels thereafter increased in size and were from

12-24 m (40-80 feet) long, while engines and hoisting

machinery underwent steady refinement. Oystermen

tested gasoline, naphtha, electric, oil, and kerosene

engines. They chose gasoline engines because of their

reliability, power, performance, and lower cost. In converting sloops and schooners to motor boats, workers

removed the sails and mainmast, shortened the bowsprit and foremast, built a pilot house over the aft trunk

Item

Oystermen on water (no.)

Shun'men and women preparing

oysters for market (no.)

Steam vessels (no.)

Sail vessels (no.)

Small boats (no.)

Bushels of shells spread

per year on setting beds

Bushels of southern seed spread

A.rea plan ted wi th oysters or shells

Hectares

Acres

Bushels of oysters produced

Value of oysters produced

Amount

593

651

54

59

549

1,914,000

115,000

6,200

15,400

1,486,000

$1,055,807
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 93

for about 18 hours. The oysters were spread on creek

bottoms, on planks covering soft shorelines, or in floats

measuring 3x6 m (10x20 feet) and 0.5 m (1.5 feet)

deep. The practice allowed the oysters to clear their

mantle cavities of any mud and sand and caused their

meats to bloat nearly 30% in volume from osmotic

absorption of brackish water.

Shortly after 1900, state health authorities forbade

the practice because some brackish waters had become

polluted. To accomplish the cleaning and bloating of

meats, planters have since held shucked oyster meats in

"blowers" (tanks holding 100-200 gallons offreshwater

agitated with bubbling air) for about 10 minutes before

packing them in cans.

The Connecticut oyster industry declined after 1906,

when the Federal government passed several food laws.

Before then, companies handled oysters without any

government restrictions. The new laws required that

every condition surrounding oyster production, from

bed to consumer, be sanitary (Anonymous, 1910). Some

illnesses associated with eating oysters had been highly

publicized in newspapers. People began to eat fewer

oysters and more meat (Kochiss, 1974). As demand for

oysters fell, so did their relative prices, and the companies made only small profits (Anonymous, 1917).

By the 1920's, Connecticut had about 24 oyster companies, half of which were sizeable operations. Each of

the latter had 6-8 dredge boats with crews of 6-8 men

who lived aboard during the week. The companies also

had blacksmith shops to make and repair boat equipment (Usingerl ). There were 16 shucking and packing

houses in New Haven, 1 in Milford, 1 in Bridgeport,

and 6 in Norwalk (Churchill, 1921).

Every year. companies spread 2-3 million bushels of

shells on their beds, mainly in New Haven and Bridgeport. The beds usually received light sets of oyster spat,

but got heavy sets every few years. At times, at least

4,000 hectares (10,000 acres) of bottom were planted

with oysters and shells. The companies usually transplanted seed oysters among beds every April and May to

spread them as they grew. The transplanting also broke

up the larger clusters of perhaps 4-12 oysters into much

smaller ones, enabling the oysters to grow in a desirable

oval shape by the time they were market size. Besides,

oysters as singles or doubles were less expensive to cull

and pack for sale when sold whole. Companies slored

some oysters resulting from the heavy sets on deepwater beds (10.5-13.5 m; 35-45 feet) where they grew

slowly. When crops would otherwise be small from years of

light sets, the stored oysters were transplanted as needed

to inshore beds in the spring for fattening and sold in the

fall. Thus, companies always had a crop to sell (Usinger1).

Another source ofseed oysters was the public bed, of

about 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres), off Bridgeport. It

often supported a fleet of 30-40 sloops, each with a

crew of three who hand-pulled five I-bushel dredges to

gather seed from the bed (Kochiss, 1974). State authorities ruled the sloops had to be propelled by sails

rather than by engine. After a day of harvesting as many

as 200-300 bushels of seed, each crew ran its sloop to

company beds and sold them. The public bed was never

enhanced by the spreading of shells before the 1980's,

but it continued to produce oysters until the mid-1940's

when it became barren of shells and oysters. The bed

produced oysters again in the 1980's and 1990's when

the state ofConnecticut spread shells on it (see below).

The Connecticut oyster industry was severely harmed

by the 1938 hurricane, which buried most oysters and

damaged vessels and shore property. A lack of manpower during World War II further limited it. During

the war, companies installed a new dredging and offloading system on boats, fitting each with 2 boom

dredges and a water hose and pump. The system enabled companies to compensate for a laborshortage by

reducing the number ofdeckhands needed from 6 to 2;

the captain still handled the controls. After being retrieved from the bottom, each dredge was hoisted to

about chest level above the deck at the end of one of

the booms. A deckhand unlatched a door at its bottom

to dump the oysters on deck. To spread seed oysters on

another ground, the deckhands washed them overboard

with a strong stream from the water hose rather than

shoveling them. A crew could load about 2,400 bushels

of oysters from a well-stocked bed onto their boat in

about 4 hours and wash them onto another bed in half

an hour. Another innovation was the hydraulic suctiondredge system installed on 1 or 2 boats to remove shells

and oyster drillsfrom bed surfaces by sucking them through

a head and pipe onto their decks (Kochiss, 1974).

Connecticut companies were slowly increasing their

oyster production in the 1940's, but a severe storm in

November 1950 again buried nearly all the oysters on

beds. As a result ofvarious hurricanes and storms, many

beds had dense concentrations of shells buried at least

30 cm (1 foot) deep in them. After the 1950 storm,

companies had only about 200,000 bushels ofshells/year

to spread on setting beds and much less seed was produced. Anothersetback came in 1957, when starfish, scarce

for many years, became abundant. From then until the

mid-1960's, the starfish destroyed most oyster seed.

In the mid-1970's, the industry had a modest surge in

production when companies in South Norwalk and

New Haven improved their cultivation methods beginning in the late 1960's, by 1) widespread use of granulated quicklime (CaO) to control starfish, 2) controlling oyster drills with a suction-dredge and a chlorinated benzene poison called Polystream3, and 3) re3 Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
94 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

ducing the suffocation ofseed in silt each spring (from

7 to 50% died from this cause each spring) by rescheduling seed transplanting from late April and May (when

the oysters had already begun to pump water) to Marchearly April when they were still inactive. Oyster production in the area rose from about 45,000 bushels in 1967

to 350,000 bushels in 1975 (MacKenzie, 1981). The use

of Polystream on shellfish beds was banned by the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration in 1967 after 2 years of

use on about 100 hectares (250 acres) of beds, but

while in use companies observed that controlling oyster

drills led to large increases in oyster production.

The disease MSX, Minchinia nelsoni, which kills many

oysters in some areas of Massachusetts, Great South

Bay, and Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, has not killed

oysters in Connecticut, probably because water temperatures, which do not rise above 23°C, are too cool.

The oysters are not resistant to the disease and most die

within a year if they are transplanted to salinities above

15%0 in infected areas, such as Delaware Bay, where

summer water temperatures reach as high as 30°C.

Nearly all oysters in the region currently are produced in Connecticut, with much lower quantities in

Oyster Bay, and much less than that in Wellfleet, Mass.

The Connecticut oyster industry is almost entirely controlled by the Tallmadge Brothers Company3 of South

Norwalk. The company has leased from the state nearly

all the good oyster beds previously leased by other

companies that have since gone out of business, a total

of about 8,000 hectares (20,000 acres) (Fullilove, 1992).

It has a fleet of about 25 oyster vessels, mostly 15-20 m

(50-65 feet) long, but 3 are slightly over 30 m (100

feet). The boats mine and spread shells as cultch for

oyster larvae, clean their beds of starfish and oyster

drills, and transplant and harvest oysters.

The company sells some of its oysters and all its

northern quahogs from a packing house in South

Norwalk, but most oysters are trucked to its plants in

Bivalve, NJ., on the shore of Delaware Bay, where they

are packed in the shell or shucked and then distributed. The oysters are sold throughout the Unitpd States

and in Canada. The company employs about 100 people

on its boats and ashore in South Norwalk and 50 more

as shuckers and packers in Bivalve. In addition, about

60 independent people in 30 boats gather seed oysters

in good weather from the public oyster bed off Bridgeport to sell to the Tallmadge Brothers Company or to

plant on their own small leases. While the number of

oystermen and boats in Connecticut is now much smaller

than during most of the 1800's and the early 1900's,

nearly all the equipment used is much larger and more

efficient.

During the 1980's and 1990's, oysters became relatively abundant on Connecticut beds when the

Tallmadge Brothers Company and the State of Connecticut vastly increased the quantities of shells spread

on the beds as cultch for oyster larvae. Every year, the

company spread from 250,000 to 1 million bushels of

shells on its setting beds, while from 1988 to 1991 at

least, the Connecticut Division of Aquaculture, headquartered in Milford, spread 1 million bushels/year

over the 1,200 hectare (3,000-acre) public oyster bed

off Bridgeport. Oyster sets on the shelled beds have

ranged from light to heavy, and the beds now contain a

few million bushels of oysters, a supply that exceeds

demand. Connecticut oyster production has risen

sharply (Fig. 4).

The future of the Connecticut oyster industry appears to be bright, but "Dermo" (Perkinsus marinus) was

found in the oysters in 1992 and small numbers of

oysters in well-stocked beds in about 3 m (10 feet) of

water died from this disease. The "Dermo" infections

have since declined, and the industry should continue

to prosper as long as large quantities ofshells are spread

on the setting beds and starfish and oyster drills are

controlled.

New York

Great South Bay, which extends along the south side of

Long Island for nearly 50 km (30 miles) and is mostly

about 1.8 m (6 feet) deep, was the state's prominent

oyster bay. A barrier beach, currently with one inlet,

separates the bay's south side from the Atlantic Ocean.

The bay once consisted oftwo ecological zones. In its

eastern part, the salinity was <15%0 and oysters set

regularly on scattered natural beds that covered nearly

one-tenth ofits area; salinity kept the beds free of oyster

drills. In its western part, inlets to the Atlantic Ocean

kept the salinity above 15%0, few oysters occurred naturally, oyster drills were present, but planted seed oysters

grew more rapidly than those in the eastern part. A

large oyster industry developed when growers in the

western part purchased seed from fishermen in the

eastern part and also from those in Newark Bay, the

Hudson and East Rivers, and New Haven, Conn., and

planted it on beds they had leased (Taylor, 1983).

By the 1870's, about 1,500 men using 500 catboats,

sloops, and rowboats were farming oysters in the bay.

Each year, western bay growers planted about 100,000

bushels ofseed from the eastern part and an additional

100,000-200,000 bushels from the other sources. Afterward, the local seed was steadily supplanted by Connecticut seed (Taylor, 1983). In 1909, production of

market oysters from the bay was 450,000 bushels of

shell stock and 101,000 gallons ofmeats (Kochiss, 1974).

The industry continued about as well as Connecticut's

oyster industry did with relatively poor prices for oysters

in the 1910's, 1920's, and 1930's. The 1938 hurricane
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 95

also inflicted heavy damage to the beds, boats, and

shore property and created wide inlets through the

barrier beach. Ocean water intrusion increased overall

bay salinity to >15%0 enabling oyster drills to spread

throughout the bay and destroy nearly all seed oysters.

With the seed supply from Connecticut much reduced

after the hurricane, the bay's oyster industry declined

sharply. From the 1940's through the 1950's relatively

small quantities ofseed were planted and grown in the

bay. In the 1960's the oyster disease MSX was introduced and killed nearly all planted oysters. The industry has since planted only small trials of oysters.

Other less prominent places on Long Island for growing Connecticut seed to market size were Oyster,

Northport, Peconic, and Gardiners Bays. For some undetermined reason, spat sets were sparse in them, at

least during most of this century, despite the presence

of large numbers of adult oysters at times.

In the 1970's, three hatcheries were producing seed

oysters on Long Island, but two have since ceased operations because they were not cost-effective. The remaining one, operated by the F. M. Flower Company,

has been producing "cultchless" seed (larvae set on

shells about 3-4 mm in diameter and seed appears to

be cultchless), growing them in trays until they are 25-

50 mm (1-2 inches) long, and then planting them on

its leased beds in Oyster Bay. In the 1980's and early

1990's, production of market oysters from the hatchery

seed comprised about 90% of New York's oyster production of 30,000-80,000 bushels/year. In addition,

oysters have set naturally in Oyster and Northport Bays,

and small-scale commercial harvesting has taken place.

Raritan Bay

The northern half of Raritan Bay is under New York

jurisdiction, while the southern half is under that of

New Jersey. In the 1820's, imports of Chesapeake Bay

seed oysters began each spring for planting on leases in

the bay, and they rose later to as much as 300,000

bushels/year (Ingersoll 1881). Growers also obtained

as many as 100,000 bushels of seed from local areas,

such as Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and Raritan River, for

planting (MacKenzie, 1990, 1992a). In the 1800's, workers harvested most market oysters with tongs and rakes,

and the remainder with dredges. Their boats were square

stern, flat bottom, clinker-built rowboats, the largest of

which were 6.7 m (22 feet) long (Hall, 1894). Besides

these, about 50 sloops and some schooners and catboats comprised the bay's oyster fleet (Ingersoll, 1881).

In the mid-late 1800's, growers also farmed oysters

on about 160 hectares (400 acres) of bottom in the

Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers, that flow into southeastern Raritan Bay (Hall, 1894). About 250 men worked

in this industry, relaying seed oysters to the rivers and

harvesting market oysters (Ingersoll, 1881). They

shipped oysters to New York City in flour and sugar

barrels by steamer and rail (Hall, 1894).

In the late 1800's, about 600 oystermen worked on

Raritan Bay and ashore, and an additional 200 men

tonged oysters in Newark Bay (Lockwood, 1883). Annual oyster production from Raritan Bay was about

300,000 bushels (Lockwood, 1883; Bayles, 1887). Planters shipped the oysters by sloops or passenger-freight

steamers to markets in New York City (Ingersoll, 1887).

By the early 1900's, planters had converted their sloops

to motor boats and installed power hoists to retrieve

their 8-bushel dredges for harvesting oysters (MacKenzie, 1990, 1990a).

After 1915, the oyster industry in Raritan Bay declined, when the western part of the bay became polluted. A score or more people contracted typhoid fever

from eating oysters harvested from there. By 1925, pollution had worsened, more people had become ill from

eating the oysters, and the industry ceased operating.

Unfortunately, accusations through radio and newspapers about Raritan Bay's polluted oysters causing illnesses made people so suspicious of eating oysters that

demand for them fell throughout the eastern United

States (McCarthy, 1925). The question for the remaining oyster industry was how to assure the public that

oysters were free of pathogenic bacteria; since inspection programs had not yet been established, consumers

had no assurance that any shellfish were safe to eat

(Galtsoff,1958).

In the mid-1920's, meetings initiated by the

shellfishing industry and government officials led to

the establishment of the National Shellfish Sanitation

Program, which set health standards and guidelines for

harvesting and marketing shellfish. Every state thereafter developed its own program to inspect the waters

and to assure that shellfish were harvested from certified, clean waters. Processing plants were also required

to adhere to strict sanitary practices.

Due to pollution also, the oyster industry in the

Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers ended in the 1920's

only a few years after the Raritan Bay industry ended.

Raritan Bay and the two rivers have since remained too

polluted to be used for growing oysters for market.

Northern Quahog Fishery

Northern quahogs (usually called quahogs or hard

clams) occur in salinities >15%0, from low tide lines to

the deepest bottoms of bays, mostly in sand, sand-shell,

and sand-mud, but also in mud. Fishermen have harvested them in all five states in the region (Fig. 2, 3).

Shrimps, crabs, boring gastropods, and starfish are the
96 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 7

The first long-handled northern quahog rakes like these were used in

Raritan Bay in the 1860's. Drawing (late 1800's) from Archives, NMFS

Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, NJ.

principal known predators ofjuvenile

quahogs (Belding, 1912; Landers, 1954;

Carriker, 1951, 1955; MacKenzie, 1977;

Vitaliano and MacKenzie, 1989).

Native Americans gathered quahogs

by treading at wading depths. They ate

the meat and used the shells for money,

ornaments, and tools. Quahogs were

featured in their "green corn" festival,

in which they roasted them with corn

and seaweed. The custom, adapted by

the European colonists (Ingersoll,

1887), has persisted as the clambake.

From the 1700's to the early 1900's,

fishermen and blacksmiths developed

four different harvesting gears. The first

was the claw-shaped metal rake, about

25 cm (l0 inches) wide with a wooden

handle 2 m (6 feet) long, which fishermen used at wading depths. The remaining three gears were used from

boats. One was tongs, similar to oyster

tongs, but with slightly longer teeth.

The third gear was the "bull" or

Shinnecock rake, 45-60 cm (l8-24

inches) wide, with curved metal teeth,

and wooden handle 6-7 m (20-23 feet)

long (Fig. 7) (Ingersoll, 1887). The

first record ofthe bull rake's use was in

Raritan Bay in 1863 (Leonard, 1923).

The fourth gear, the basket rake used

from anchored boats in Massachusetts,

had about 16 teeth 38 mm (1.5 inches)

long, a basket 20 cm (8 inches) deep,

and a wooden handle 4.25 m (14 feet)

long (Belding, 1912).

From the late 1800's and into the

1900's, people in the northeastern and

mid-Atlantic states ate a great many

oysters raw on the half-shell during the

fall-winter-spring oyster season. Littleneck northern quahogs, nearly always

eaten raw on the half-shell, partially substituted for the

half-shell oysters during the summer when oysters were

not harvested. Hundreds of men were digging the quahogs and many oyster dealers handled them. Some

diggers worked as crewmen on oyster dredge boats and

as tongers during the oyster seasons. The consumption

oflittlenecks was far less than that ofraw oysters during

the colder months (Anonymous, 1897). Belding (l912)

believed that popular demand for littlenecks in the

1890's and early 1900's stimulated the development of

the quahog fishery.

From the late 1800's through the 1920's, quahog

landings were relatively low, but in contrast to oysters

y

.. - = ..

and softshells, they rose dramatically afterward until

about 1970. They have since declined somewhat (Fig.

8). The cause of the rise was increased demand for the

quahogs and improved fishing gear, rather than increased quahog abundance. Since the late 1800's, at

least, quahogs have been sold in three principal size

categories: 1) littlenecks, 11

/2-21/4 inches (38-57 mm);

2) cherrystones, 21/4-3 inches (58-76 mm); and 3) chowders (also termed "sharps" or ''blunts'') >3 inches (Belding,

1930). On a bushel basis, littlenecks, whose numbers total

about 750/bushel, have brought the highest prices;

cherrystones (l80-200/bushel), the middle prices; and

chowders (l00-150/bushel), the lowest prices.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 97

Massachusetts

Bays in southern Massachusetts have long produced

northern quahogs, locally termed quahogs, a Native

American term. The prominent bays include Wellfleet

Harbor, Pleasant Bay, Cotuit Harbor, Bass River, Buzzards Bay, and those on Martha's Vineyard (Fig. 2). In

the early 1900's, about 745 fishermen were digging

quahogs in the state in the summer. Most of the same

fishermen dredged bay scallops in the late fall and

winter (Belding, 1912). Quahog production in the state

increased from 8,000 bushels in 1880 to III,000 bushels in 1925; it has since fluctuated from 96,000-219,000

bushels (Fig. 8).

Quahog production from bays on Cape Cod has declined in recent years because 2,000-2,800 hectares

(5,000-7,000 acres) of beds have become closed due to

pollution. In 1990, commercial diggers in Massachusetts landed about 100,000 bushels of quahogs (Table

3), while sport diggers landed about 36,000 bushels

(Anonymous, 1992a).

Rhode Island

Since the 1920's, Narragansett Bay has been a major

producer ofnorthern quahogs, locally termed quahogs.

In the 1870's, about 75 fishermen dug quahogs

(Ingersoll, 1887). They rowed to the beds in boats 3-4

m (10-14 feet) long and used tongs for harvesting

(Desbonnet and Lee, 1991). They were limited to

quahoging depths of 3.7 m (12 feet) or less with the

tongs. In the early 1900's, the fishermen were usually

towed to the beds by motor boats (Boyd, 1991). By the

late 1930's, they had outboard motors of about 7 hp to

propel their own boats (Braiton4 ). As the oyster industry declined in the bay in the 1940's, the quahog fishery

became more important. Some expansion was related to

the opening of new beds where oyster leases had been

abandoned and also to increased market demand.

During World War II, about 40 boats, 9-10.6 m (30-

35 feet) long, with crews of three, began harvesting

quahogs with rocking chair dredges. A state regulation

limited each boat to a harvest of 40 bushels/day

(Braiton5). The dredge fishery ended in 1956, when

the state legislature banned it as a result of pressure

from fishermen using rakes.

In the 1940's and 1950's, many quahogs being harvested were of chowder size and were sold to a national

soup company. Fishermen shipped any littlenecks to

New York City by boat (Braiton4, Manchester6).

4 Braiton, B., Sr. 1991. Fisherman, Kingston, R.I. Personal commun.

5 Braiton, B.,Jr. 1991. Fisherman, Kingston, R.I. Personal commun.

Table 3

Commercial landings of molluscan shellfish, Massachusetts Bay to Raritan Bay, and percent from hatchery-reared seed, 1990.

Landings Percent from

Species (l,000 bushels) hatchery seed

Oysters

Massachusetts' 4.5 33

Rhode Island 0

Connecticut' 3802 0

New York 106 92

Northern quahogs

Massachusetts3 100 20

Rhode Island! 2104 0

Connecticutl 1025 0

NewYorkl 225 8

Softshells

Massachusettsl 986 0

Rhode Island] 1 0

NewYorkl 12' 0

Surfclams

New York! 516 0

Bay scallops

Massachusetts] 42 5

NewYorkl 2 0

Mussels

Massachusetts! 277 0

Conchs

Massachusetts8 95 0

Rhode Islandl 3 0

Connecticutl 5 0

NewYorkl 6 0

Totals 2,184.5 6

I Source: NMFS Stat. Div., Wash., D.C.

21,047,120 bushels in 1994; 654,450 bushels in 1995.

3 Source: Anonymous, 1992.

4 134,410 bushels in 1994.

5 100,000 bushels in 1994.

698,667 bushels in 1993.

, 8,178 bushels in 1993; 2,753 bushels in 1994.

8 Source: MacKenzie, 1992b.

From the late 1800's to the early 1920's, about 15,000

bushels/year were landed, but afterward production

increased and reached 425,000 bushels in 1955. It fell

afterward as authorities banned rocking chair dredging

and closed some beds to harvesting because of pollution (Boyd, 1991). In 1974, production was 210,000

bushels, but it rose afterward (Fig. 8). Fishermen using

bull rakes were able to dig in bottoms as deep as 7.6 m

(25 feet), and thus they had nearly twice the area avail6 Manchester, F. 1992. Owner (ret.) , Manchester Sea Foods, Tiverton,

R.I. Personal commun.
98 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 9

Locations of tong and bullrake fishermen harvesting northern quahogs in

Narragansett Bay, September 1959 to August 1960. From Campbell, 1961.

Figure 8

Landings of northern quahogs in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Connecticut, and New York, 1880 to 1990 (Lyles, 1969; Statistics

Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Wash., D.C.).

BULLRAKERS

Northern Quahogs

7 Smith, R. 1991. Fisherman, Charleston, R.I. Personal commun.

8 Dykstra,]. 1991. Fisherman, Kingston, R.I. Personal commun.

O~;=;~~~~;::,+-,-M'==F==r=*==;:::;:==:::~_,__~"

1880 1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 1990

100

700 T'-;======:;------------;---, II -'fir -Massachusetts

600 1i -e- Rhode Island

----*- Connecticut

-b- New York

!!1300 C1l

.s:::.

rn

!il200 -

0 500

o

o

,.... 400

X

TONGERS

able for digging than had they used tongs

(Fig. 9) (Pratt, 1988).

Larger raking boats became available

through the years, and, by the 1970's, most

were about 5.5 m (18 feet) long, 1.6 m (5 feet)

wide, and constructed offiberglass. Many boats

currently are equipped with radios, Loran navigational equipment, and depth sounders used

to determine depth and bottom type, the latter being an important factor affecting quahog abundances (Smith7).

Since the early 1970's, some scuba divers

have been gathering quahogs commercially.

They loosen the bottom with a small hand

rake and then pick up any quahogs in the

raked area, fill their mesh bags with them,

return to the surface, and empty the bags in

their boats. During a day, each can harvest a

few bushels, a larger quantity than individual

bull rakers obtain (Smith7).

In the 1980's, quahog production peaked

at about 350,000 bushels (Fig. 8)

as more productive beds became

available when the state opened

areas to quahoging in the northern part of the bay that had been

closed previously. In the past 30

years or so, recreational quahoging has become important

(Dykstra8) .

In Narragansett Bay, the regular quahog fishermen now include

about 600 bull rakers and 100

tongers, both groups using outboard motor boats, besides some

waders using short-handled rakes,

and 40 scuba divers. The number

ofrakers increases when students

and othersjoin in the digging in

summer, bringing the total number ofquahog fishermen to about

1,500 (Smith7). The fleet of outboard motor boats used by the

Narragansett Bay quahogers is

probably the largest such commercial fleet in North America.

The typical daily catch/digger is

1,000-2,000 littlenecks (1.3-2.7

bushels) with a landed value of

$150-$300. The landed value of

quahogs in Rhode Island is $13-

$14 million/year. In 1996, the

fishermen discovered unusually

large quantities of seed in Rhode Island beds (Ganz2).

Catches are likely to increase in the future.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 99

In recent years, on a good summer weekend day, at

least 1,000 additional people harvest quahogs for sport

in Narragansett Bay and the coastal ponds of Rhode

Island. Most are waders using short-handled rakes (Ganz2).

About one-third of the quahog grounds in Narragansett Bay, mainly in the north end, contains dense

concentrations of quahogs, but the water is polluted

(Ganz2). While most polluted areas are permanently

closed to digging, some portions are open during dry

weather. When it rains steadily and at least 12.5 mm

(0.5 inches) of rain falls, water runoff from land and

overflows from sewers force state authorities to close

those portions for at least 7 days. If heavy rain (at least

25 mm [l inch)) falls, closures extend to 10 days

(Smith7) .

Limited bed access is a critical feature affecting Rhode

Island quahoging. Since the 1970's, fishermen have

found it difficult and expensive to get dock space for

their boats as a result of marina expansion for increasing numbers of pleasure boats. The marina owners do

not like to rent space to commercial boats because they

have a poor appearance. Many fishermen have had to

trailer their boats every day, but even that has become

increasingly difficult as roads to the shore and parking

spaces have become congested.

Connecticut

Harvesting northern quahogs (locally termed clams)

was less important in Connecticut than in other states

in the region. In the 1920's and 1930's, perhaps 50

fishermen working from rowboats harvested quahogs

with tongs in the entire state (Usingerl ). In 1946, fishermen brought three rocking chair dredges to Connecticut and deployed them from three motor boats,

each about 12 m (40 feet) long. In 1958, two oyster

companies replaced the rocking chair dredges with

hydraulic dredges and used them on 3-4 boats to harvest quahogs in the late winter and spring when oystering was slow. Since then, a few boats have been harvesting quahogs with hydraulic dredges. Connecticut has

few hand rakers or tongers. Production was small (usually <10,000 bushels landed/year) before 1955, but rose

sharply to an average of 24,000 bushels/year from 1960

to 1967 (Lyles, 1969), and then to 70,000 bushels in

1985 and 95,000 bushels in 19909 (Fig. 8).

Nearly all quahogs are produced by the Tallmadge

Brothers Company of Norwalk; its boats gather them

year-round with hydraulic dredges. The company lands

125,000-150,000 bushels of quahogs/year9 (Fullilove,

1992).

A large quantity of quahogs set and survived in the

early 1990's in many Connecticut grounds, mainly from

Milford through beds east of New Haven-a distance of

at least 20 km. In 1996 and 1997, a large littleneck crop

was harvested by Tallmadge Brothers and many small

leaseholders, all using hydraulic dredges. Some fishermen abandoned lobstering, mounted dredges on their

boats, and leased public grounds to harvest the littlenecks. Production will probably increase for the next

several years.

New York

Long Island has been a major producer of northern

quahogs (locally termed clams) since the 1800's. In the

1870's, fishermen harvested the quahogs in bays on the

island's north shore and in Great South Bay, where

about 500 men and 200 boys tonged and raked them

from boats. Each gathered about 3 bushels of quahogs/

day. They sold them in New York City as well as to the

many hotels on the island in summer (Ingersoll, 1887).

Long Island continued to be a large supplier of quahogs afterward, with the north shore bays producing

about as many as Great South Bay.

In the early 1960's, quahogs set densely in 2 years

spaced 2-3 years apart in Great South Bay. They grow

slowly in the bay, and, after attaining littleneck size in

4-5 years, they take 2-4 years to reach cherrystone size.

A huge stock of littlenecks resulted. In the late 1960's

and the 1970's the number of fishermen, which included seasonal part-timers (ordinarily school teachers, students, and firemen), increased to a few thousand on good summer days to dig them. Most dug from

flat-bottom wooden garveys, about 5.5 m (18 feet) long,

propelled by outboard motors, while some also used

rowboats and 9.75-m (32-foot) motorized sloops

(Usinger 1). At the peak in the 1970's, most fishermen

using bull rakes harvested 7-8 bushels of quahogs/day,

and total production was a little above 700,000 bushels in

each ofthe three biggest years (Fig. 8) (Anonymous, 1987).

During the 1940's and 1950's, most fishermen used

tongs in Great South Bay and they dug mostly on former

oyster beds that had large quantities of surface shells.

The quahogs were much more abundant on those beds

than on others without the shell cover, probably because the shells hid juvenile quahogs from predators.

In the 1960'sand 1970's, the fishermen using bull rakes

removed most of the shells, and the quahogs became

much sparser there (Klaassen10). Quahogs now are most

abundant in bottoms having large quantities of shell

9 Some annual landings data for specific species presented in this

chapter vary for the same years. The reason is that data from states,

the Federal government, and reporters is collected differently. The

landings data should be considered as approximations.

IOKlaassen,j., 1991. Fisherman, West Sayville, NY Personal commun.
100 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

fragments mixed with sand (Strongll). A similar relationship exists in Wellfleet Harbor, Mass., where, in bottoms

with a cover of surfclam shells spread by fishermen as

cultch for oyster larvae, quahogs from natural sets are

sufficiently abundant for commercial digging. The quahogs are scarce in nearby bottoms with few shells (Rask12).

In Great South Bay, about 250 rakers and 50 tongers

currently harvest about 1,000 quahogs/raker/day on

public bottom. Besides, the Bluepoints Company owns

or hires nine hydraulic dredge boats that each gather

10-12 bushels/day from the 94 km2 (36 miles2) of

Great South Bay bottom, or about one-fourth ofthe bay

area, that the company owns.

In the 1980's and 1990's, the abundance of quahogs

has remained relatively low in the bay. The recurring

presence of dense "brown tide" blooms probably is

detrimental to them. The blooms are caused by the

microscopic brown alga Aureococcus anophagefferens.

In the mid-1990's fishermen discovered and began

harvesting a large quantity of littlenecks in grounds

along the south shore of Long Island Sound. Since the

shelf on which quahogs occur is much narrower than

the one in Connecticut, production probably will not

increase as much in New York. Long Island currently

has three hatcheries producing northern quahog seed.

Raritan Bay

In the 1870's, Raritan Bay fishermen harvested northern quahogs (locally termed clams) by hand raking

from rowboats, dredging from sloops, using shorthandled rakes while wading, and treading. Production

was about 150,000 bushels/year (Ingersoll, 1887). Fishermen with sloops modified bull rakes to dredge for the

quahogs in beds 6-9 m (20-30 feet) deep (high tide

depth) with mud bottoms. They added four more teeth

to the rakes, cut the long handles down to 1.5 m (5

feet), towed each with a rope, and termed them

"dredges." The sloops, with crews of two, each towed

four such dredges off one side as they drifted in the

winds and currents, retrieving them by hand. Their

daily catches were from 10-30 bushels of quahogs/

sloop. The number of dredging sloops was about 40 in

the 1920's but declined to 14 by the 1950's (MacKenzie,

1990, 1992a).

About 12 hand rakers dug quahogs during the 1920's,

but their numbers rose to 700 in the 1930's, because

the quahogs had set densely in the bay and the nationwide economic depression forced many unemployed

ilStrong, C. 1992. Bluepoints Company, Atlantic Avenue, West

Sayville, N.V. Personal commun.

12Rask, K. 1993, 1996. University of Massachusetts, Cooperative Extension, Barnstable. Personal commun.

men to seek work raking quahogs (MacKenzie, 1990,

1992a). Each hand raker dug 6-10 bushels/day.

In 1946, some Raritan Bay fishermen began using

rocking chair dredges to gather quahogs during the

colder months. About 20 eventually were in use every

day. They were towed from motor boats with crews of 3;

each boat harvested about 40 bushels of quahogs/day.

FromJuly to October each year, the 60 men switched to

otter trawling, purse seining, and gill netting for scup,

Stenotomus chrysops (MacKenzie, 1990, 1992a).

As pollution increased in Raritan Bay in the 1920's,

New York authorities had to prohibit further quahoging

in their halfofthe bay. Pollution continued to increase,

and in 1942 NewJersey authorities closed about 60% of

their half ofthe bay; by 1960, they left only a small area

in New jersey's eastern end open for quahoging. In

1961, about 50 people contracted infectious hepatitis

from eating quahogs from the bay, and harvesting them

was then prohibited. In the 1960's and early 1970's,

part of the eastern end was opened briefly again for

quahoging. Fishermen harvested quahogs with bull rakes

and sail dredges. Thus, the two gears had been employed in the bay for around 100 years at that point.

Since the early 1970's, the entire bay has been closed to

direct marketing of quahogs.

A quahog depuration plant operated on Staten Island, N.Y., from 1979 until 1983, when it was closed

because it was not cost-effective. The year it closed, a

new plant opened in Highlands, Nj., but it closed in

1988 for failure to adhere to depuration guidelines.

When it reopened in 1992, it wasjoined by a new plant

in nearby Sea Bright, and a second new facility began

operating in Highlands in 1994.

Beginning in 1983, New York and NewJersey authorities have permitted fishermen to rake northern quahogs from Raritan Bay, which is uncertified, and relay

them to leased areas in certified waters in eastern Long

Island and Barnegat Bay, Nj., respectively. In 1990,

about 50 diggers in New York waters of the bay dug

48,000 bushels of quahogs, and 15 diggers in New Jersey waters of the bay (Fig. 10) dug 10,000 bushels for

relaying (MacKenzie, 1992a); in 1991 and 1992, the

number of New Jersey diggers on the water daily had

increased to about 30; in 1993, New York had 30 diggers and New Jersey had 40-45 diggers (about onethird ofNewjersey's diggers were selling their quahogs to

a depuration plant in Sea Bright, NJ.). Most New York

boats have two persons, a digger and a culler, while the

NewJersey boats have one. Biologists in New York (Fox13)

and NewJersey (Joseph14) estimate that as much as 25%

13Fox, R. 1992. State of New York, Department of Environmental

Conservation, SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook. Personal commun.

14Joseph, J. 1993. State of New Jersey, Division of Shellfisheries,

Nacote Creek. Personal commun.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 101

Figure 10

Northern quahog fisherman in his boat in Raritan Bay, ca. 1987. Note rake and

aluminum handle. Littlenecks have been separated from the cherrystones and chowders. Photograph by the author.

of their states' production of quahogs is from the relayed

transplants from uncertified to certified waters.

Current Regional Overview

Northern quahogs in the region have fared much better than oysters, softshells, and bay scallops. In the past

decade or so, competition for the quahogs has been

keen. Most quahogs landed have been littlenecks, because nearly all were raked or dredged before they

could grow to larger sizes. In Narragansett Bay, rakers

have attempted unsuccessfully to ban commercial scuba

diving for quahogs, claiming the method is too efficient

and depletes the supply (Fleet, 1992). And in Oyster

and Northport Bays, rakers have been trying to convince state authorities to force companies to surrender

their long-held oyster leases, to provide them with more

public ground territory for quahoging.

Since the 1970's, the States of Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, and New York have enhanced their public quahog fisheries by transplanting dense concentrations of

northern quahogs from uncertified (polluted) to certified (unpolluted) waters (Fox13, Ganz2, Merritt15). This

15Merritt, C. 1992. Shellfish warden. Town ofBourne, Mass. Personal

commun.

has served the dual purpose of depleting the quahog

stocks in uncertified waters, where they had been a

temptation for poachers to dig them for sale, and increasing quahog stocks in certified waters. Authorities

in Massachusetts (MerrittI5) and New York (FoxI3) hired

boats with hydraulic dredges, while those in Rhode

Island (Ganz2) hired bull rakers to do the transplanting. The quahogs have had to remain at least 21 days on

the certified beds before being harvested for market.

Rhode Island authorities found such transplanting was

much more cost-effective than purchasing hatchery seed

for planting (Ganz2).

Fishermen who dig northern quahogs on public beds,

especially in Narragansett Bay, on Long Island, and in

Raritan Bay, strongly oppose the leasing of additional

bottoms, and so the future development of hatchery

operations using additional private grow-out areas will

be slow or unlikely at least in those areas. Instead,

hatchery production will be confined to existing leases

or would have to be for the benefit of the public fisheries. Two hatcheries on the shores of Great South Bay

currently are producing quahog seed and distributing

it on beds in the bay without using protective screens.

The seed is too large for shrimps but not for crabs to

deslroy them. Hatchery personnel do not know the

survival rates. Quahog production on natural beds might

be enhanced by spreading broken shells over them and
102 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

by developing additional means of enhancing survival

of natural and hatchery seed. (A later section describes

hatchery-produced seed quahogs in Massachusetts.)

Softshell Fishery _

Softshells occur throughout much of the region, but

the most important producing areas have been 1) the

north shore of Massachusetts from Newburyport to

Ipswich and Boston Harbor, 2) bays on the north shore

ofLong Island, 3) Raritan Bay, and 4) the Navesink and

Shrewsbury Rivers. Less important areas have been

Barnstable Harbor and bays in southern Massachusetts,

Narragansett Bay, the Connecticut coast, and eastern

Long Island (Fig. 2, 3). In most areas, fishermen usually

dig the clams on bare flats during low tides.

Softshells grow in dense numbers in broad, intertidal

flats and narrow beaches as well as subtidally in bottoms

at least 3 m deep. The broadest flats are along the

shores of Massachusetts north ofBoston, where the tide

remains sufficiently low for fishermen to dig 4-5 hours

each day, and, until the early 1900's, the south shore of

Raritan Bay. The depths that softshells burrow vary,

apparently according to sediment coarseness. In sandy

flats on the north shore of Massachusetts, the softshells

are 25-45 cm (10-18 inches) deep. They are shallower

in Boston Harbor, and only about 2.5-7.5 cm

(1-3 inches) deep in firm mud-sand flats in Raritan

Bay, NJ.

The main predators of softshells in northern Massachusetts are the mummichog, Fundulus heteroditus, which

preys on soft~hells 2-11 mm (0.0~.4inches) long (Kelso,

1979), and the green crab, Carcinus maenas. While softshell

predators have hardly been studied in other areas of the

region, mummichogs also prey on softshells in NewJersey

and crabs may be universal predators. Other invertebrate

associates include polychaete worms that are commonly

dug in and near the clam flats for fish bait.

Native Americans dug softshells for food, as evidenced

by those shells in their middens (Belding, 1930). They

probably used sticks and large northern quahog shells

as digging tools.

The earliest European colonists dug softshells for

food year-round (Pearson, 1972) on bare flats mainly

using a "digger," a fork with six thin tines about 30 cm

(12 inches) long attached perpendicularly to a wooden

handle about 40 cm (15 inches) long (Fig. 11), or with

a "drag," which was similar to the digger but with 4-5

teeth each about 15 mm (0.67 inches) wide and 15 cm

long (6 inches) (Fig. 12). Each fisherman usually took

2-3 bushels ofsoftshells during a low tide.

The digger and drag have remained in use along with

four other gears. One of these, no longer employed,

was the "sea horse" used mainly on Martha's Vineyard.

Figure 11

A digger used to harvest softshells in northern Massachusetts, ca. 1992. Photograph by the author.

Mass., in the early 1900's and probably earlier. It was 35

cm (14 inches) wide and had metal tines 30-35 cm (12-

14 inches) long and a wooden handle about 1 m (3

feet) long attached perpendicularly. The handle had a

belt that went around the fisherman's waist. Two men

were required for the work. In about 30 em (1 foot) of

water, one pushed the tines into the sand at an angle

and dragged it along, plowing out the softshells. His

partner followed and gathered them (Belding, 1930).

The second gear is the churning hoe. It has a blade

10x20 em (4x8 inches) attached perpendicularly to a

handle 1.8-2.7 m (6-9 feet) long. The fishermen churn

while wading in shallow water or standing in a boat

anchored in water 1.1-2.1 m (4-7 feet) deep or standing on ice. By moving the hoe up and down vigorously

(churning) just below the sediment surface of a bed,

the fishermen lift out the softshells, and gather them

with a scoop net or rake. Churning hoes have been

used in New Jersey since at least the early 1900's

(MacKenzie, 1990, 1992a).

The third gear, currently used around Cape Cod,

Mass., is a plumber's plunger on a handle about 1 m (3

feet) long. Used much like the churning hoe, the fishermen work it up and down at the sediment surface to

lift out the softshells and then scoop them up with a net

attached to the opposite end of the handle (Chadwick

and Kennedyl6).

16Chadwick, D., and]. Kennedy. 1992. State of Massachusetts Depuration Facility, Plum Island, Newbury. Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 103

Figure 12

A drag (mid, lower) and fork (mid, upper) used for

harvesting softshells; the shon-handled rake (right) is

used for harvesting northern quahogs in eastern Long

Island, ca. 1992. Photograph by the author.

The fourth gear, currently used mostly on southern

Cape Cod (Kalweit17) and Martha's Vineyard where the

softshell beds never fall bare, is a water jet from single

or multiple nozzles. A pump in the outboard motor

boat delivers water at high pressure through a hose with

a narrow end. Standing in water knee-ta-waist deep, they

move the nozzle(s) across the bottom to wash the softshells

onto the surface and then gather them with a rake. This

gear was first used in the 1940's (MacKenzie, 1992b).

Massachusetts

Early in the 1800's, softshells, locally termed soft clams

or softshell clams, were in demand as food as well as

bait for offshore finfisheries using hooks on trotlines.

As demand for the softshells grew, large numbers of

17Kalweit, D. 1992. Department of Natural Resources, Town of

Barnstable, Mass. Personal commun.

people in towns like Newburyport, Essex, Ipswich,

Chatham, and Boston, dug and shucked them for both

markets (Fig. 13). Finfishermen in the ports of Gloucester, Boston, and Provincetown bought the meats

fresh or salted. In the 1920's, use of softshells as bait

probably ended when fishermen substituted otter trawls

for trotlines in New England fisheries. For conservation

purposes, Massachusetts has not allowed diggers to land

softshells <2 inches (50.8 mm) since the early 1900's

(Belding, 1930).

Since the early 1900's, fried clams have become a

popular food, especially at seashore resorts in summer

but also year-round in inland restaurants of the state,

and the demand for softshells has risen more. At least

95% of softshells have since been shucked and fried,

the remainder steamed. From Newburyport to Ipswich,

about 100 fishermen used to sh uck softshells in their

homes for the frying market, and the practice continues on a small scale. Nowadays, about 95% of the

softshells produced, including many of those in other

parts ofthe state, are shucked by hand in about a dozen

fish houses on the north shore. In addition, the fish

houses purchase softshells from Maine and Maryland

for shucking; shucked softshells are imported from Nova

Scotia. Each fish house employs as many as 12 shuckers

and pays them about $8.00/gallon of meats opened;

workers in the plants hot-dip the softshells so they can

be opened more easily (Chadwick and Kennedy16).

The number ofsoftshells in a gallon varies. At times,

the meats of about 1,100 softshells from Massachusetts

(Chadwick and Kennedy16), 900 softshells from Maine,

and 556 softshells from Maryland have constituted a

gallon (New Hampshire Sunday News, 1992). A person

can shuck about 1 gallon of meats/hour of average-size

softshells, working 4-6 hours/day. Seabrook, N.H., is

another center for shucking Massachusetts and Maine

softshells for sale in Massachusetts. The town has about

100 shuckers (50:50 male:female), who open softshells

in nine shucking houses. Softshell shucking in Seabrook

dates back an estimated 200 years (Health Department,

Town of Seabrook, NH18). The meats are sold to dealers

and restaurants. In 1992, a gallon ofsoftshell meats had a

wholesale price of $75-80 (Chadwick and Kennedy16).

The softshell beds in Boston Harbor have been polluted with sewage bacteria since the early 1900's and

undoubtedly long before then. In 1928, the state constructed a plant at Plum Island in Newbury for depurating the softshells dug in Boston Harbor. From then

until 1961, the method used for depuration was holding the softshells in water sterilized with added chlorine

for 48 hours. Since then, the plant has held the softshells

in water sterilized by ultraviolet light for 48 hours.

18Health Department. 1992. Town of Seabrook, N.H. Personal

commun.
104 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 13

Opening (shucking) softshells at Essex, Mass., ca. 1878. From Ingersoll, 1887.

Softshells are taken by refrigerated truck to the Plum

Island Plant, which has a maximum capacity of 850

bushels of softshells every two days. Since the plant

cannot handle as much as fishermen could potentially

dig, the harbor is divided into three areas. Diggers work

on a rotation schedule and are permitted to dig in one

or two areas a day. The plant depurates 60,000 bushes

of softshells a year, charging the fishery $3.50 a bushel

(Chadwick and Kennedy16).

The softshell fishery in northern Massachusetts including Boston Harbor now is in good condition. The

softshell beds, aside from those in Boston Harbor, are

little threatened by pollution or coastal development,

the softshells usually are sufficiently abundant for good

digging in most areas, and fisherman access to the beds

is not limited as in Rhode Island. The local towns conserve softshell stocks by limiting daily catches by fishermen. This includes allowing fishermen to dig on only

one low tide each day. In the early 1990's, due to

unemploymen t ashore caused by the national economic

recession, more men have been digging, forcing the

towns to reduce the limits. One town reduced its limit

from 5 to 3 bushels/man/day, and another from 3

to 2 bushels/man/day. Limits are often relaxed in summer, when demand for the softshells is high, and the

diggers can land all they can harvest (Chadwick and

Kennedy16) .

The diggers on the north shore travel to the softshell

flats in groups of 2-4 in aluminum outboard motor

boats, whereas in Boston Harbor they walk out to the

softshell flats from shore. The diggers put the softshells

in plastic buckets and then into mesh onion bags. They

rinse the sand off the softshells so the meats will be

sand-free when shucked (Chadwick and Kennedy16).

Softshell production in Massachusetts rose from 7,000

bushels in 1880 to 185,000 bushels in 1940. Between

then and the late 1980's, it ranged between 62,000 and

91,000 bushels and was consistent from 1989-91 (Fig.

14). Annual landings ranged from 96,000 to 105,000

bushels, the landed price/bushel was from $56 to $61,

and the total landed value was from $5.6 million to $6.1

million (Chadwick and Kennedy16).
MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 105

Figure 14

Landings of softshells in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and NewJe-rsey, 1880 to 1990 (Lyles, 1969; Statistics

Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Wash., D.C.).

1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 1990

O

250 -r;:=-'/It-=M=a=sa=a=Ch=us=e=tts=l::::;-------S-O-f-t-S-h-e-lIs---l

r

I

-e- Rhode Island ' I

200 -lIE- Connecticut

-A- New York

o -B- New Jersey S2 150

X

-(/)

Qj 100 .r::

(/)

::J

CD

50 \lr--~r--B

In 1993 and 1994, softshells set in extremely high

abundances in several areas from southern Massachusetts through Raritan Bay. A large area at Monomoy, in

southeastern Massachusetts, has a dense stock ofsoftshells,

and, during the summer of 1996, at least 200 commercial

fishermen dug softshells there daily, using "diggers" on

intertidal flats. With larger supplies entering the New

England market from Maryland as well as Massachusetts,

the market became glutted and landed prices fell in 1996

(NewJersey diggers selling to a depuration plant received

$10 less than they did in 1995: $35 vs. $45/bushel).

Rhode Island

In the late 1870's, softshell production in Narragansett

Bay was about 35,000 bushels. Most were shipped to

New York City where they sold for $0.75-$1.00/bushel

(Ingersoll, 1887). Mter 1895, production was much

lower except for a briefincrease around 1940 (Fig. 13).

Connecticut

In the late 1870's, Connecticut production of softshells

was around 22,000 bushels/year (Ingersoll, 1887). By the

1930's, small numbers of men and boys in some communities were digging them with drags on tidal flats (Usingerl

),

and annual production was only about 2,000 bushels (Lyles,

1969). Mostsoftshells were sold to local restaurants. By the

1940's, most softshell beds had become polluted byeffluents from coastal cities, such as Bridgeport and New Haven, and harvesting ended (Usingerl

).

New York

The principal softshelling areas on Long Island were bays along its north shore; a less

important area was Peconic Bay. In the 1880's,

annual production of softshells (locally

termed soft clams) from the state was about

215,000 bushels, but it fell sharply afterward

(Fig. 13), as effluents from the growing towns

bordering the north shore bays polluted the

softshell beds.

In the 1920's and 1930's, about 25 men

using drags and garden forks dug softshells

part-time in Peconic Bay, each harvesting 2-

3 bushels/day. They shucked some and

peddled the meats locally, and shipped the

remainder whole to New York City. About 12

fishermen currently dig softshells in the bay

(LesterI9). Softshells occur in bays on the

north side of Long Island, but nearly all

softshell flats are polluted and the softshells

cannot be dug for human consumption.

Raritan Bay

Softshelling was a substantial fishery on the south shore

of Raritan Bay and in the Navesink and Shrewsbury

Rivers from at least the mid-19th century until the

1940's. Locally, they are simply called clams. In winters

during the 1870's (and probably long before), "hundreds" of men and boys dug softshells at low tide on

broad flats on the south shore ofRaritan Bay (Ingersoll,

1887). Subtidal digging ofsoftshells with churning hoes

was also prominent in this area; as many as 100 fishermen from Highlands, NJ., churned them while wading

and 50 more churned them from small boats. Each

churner gathered from 2-12 bushels/day (MacKenzie,

1990, 1992a).

Most softshells were shucked locally in fishermen's

homes or commercial shanties. From sometime in the

early 1800's through the 1940's, many softshell fishermen, with the assistance of their wives and children,

opened softshells and packed their meats in quart jars

in their homes for peddling in local neighborhoods.

And in Highlands, from at least as early as the 1850's

(Ingersoll, 1887) and also continuing into the 1940's,

most softshells were shucked in about 12 shanties along

the shore; from 5-10 women shucked the softshells in

each one. Those meats were shipped by train to New

York City for sale (MacKenzie, 1990, 1992a). The remaining Highlands' softshells were sold whole to seaside resorts and clambakes. From 1897 to 1938, softshell

19Lester, F. 1991. Shellfisherman, Amagansett, NY Personal commun.
106 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

landings from the bay and the two rivers ranged from

48,000-120,000 bushels/year (Townsend, 1901; Fiedler,

1940), while, from 1885 to 1940, landed prices ranged

from $0.35-$2.20/bushel (MacKenzie, 1990, 1992a).

Mter 1900, an increasing number of softshell beds

along with the northern quahog beds were closed to

digging because pollution spread. In addition, softshells

were scarce in the bay between the late 1930's, following the disappearance of eelgrass, Zostera marina, that

protected the softshell beds from disturbances by wave

action during storms (MacKenzie and Stehlik, 1988),

and the 1990's. Digging began again in 1995 when

softshells set and survived at Sandy Hook at the eastern

end of the bay. The eelgrass and softshells have never

returned in any abundance to the main beds of the bay.

In the late 1970's, three private plants began depurating softshells in Highlands. About 30 fishermen dug

softshells in the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers and

sold them to the plants. But by 1988, softshelling ceased

because softshells became scarce and New Jersey authorities closed the plants when their operators failed

to follow the state's depuration guidelines. In 1995, the

depuration plant in Sea Bright became certified to

depurate softshells. In the warm months in 1995 and

1996, from 12 to 18 fishermen each dug 5-7 bushels of

softshells and sold them to the depuration plant on a

daily basis.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island, especially, but also

eastern Long Island, have large recreational fisheries

for softshells. In 1990, sport diggers in Massachusetts

harvested nearly 16,000 bushels (Anonymous, 1992a),

or about 15% as many as its commercial fishermen

landed.

Surfclam Fishery

Atlantic surfclams in this region (excluding oceanic

areas) have been harvested along the shores of northern Massachusetts and in Long Island Sound (Fig. 2, 3).

In Massachusetts, recreational fishermen harvest the

surfclams along shores barely covered by water during

low tides. Local towns have a conservation limit restricting each digger to a few quarts ofsurfclams/day.

In 1985, commercial fishermen found a bed of

surfclams between Mt. Sinai and Mattatuck in Long

Island Sound, where the water depth was 3-7.5 m (10-

25 feet). The surfclams were comprised ofonly two year

classes, apparently lived only about 10 years, and reached

an average a'i}'illptotic height of only 71 mm (2.8 inches)

(Cerrato and Keith, 1992). Clam predators have not been

studied there, but crabs prey heavily on juvenile surfclams

on the northwest Atlantic shelf (MacKenzie et al., 1985).

The fishery lasted about 10 years. From 1985 until

the early 1990's, about 12 boats, 21-27 m (70-90 feet)

long, each with a crew of three, harvested surfclams

from the bed using hydraulic dredges (Fig. 15). To

conserve the resource, New York authorities limited

each boat to 56 cages/week (at 32 bushels/cage). For

the first few years, they did not impose limits on total

annual landings, but after 1991 they limited them to

450,000 bushels/year. The boat owners had to report

their landings each week to the New York Division of

Marine Fisheries. Fishermen landed the clams at three

ports in northern Long Island, and then they were

trucked for processing to Rhode Island, Delaware, and

Virginia. As the clams were relatively small, they could

not be processed as strips to be fried, and so all were

diced or minced (FoxI3).

The fishery shut down for 3 months each summer

when the meat yield/bushel was relatively small. Most

surfclam fishermen spent the summer lobster fishing.

SurfcIam production for 1985 to 1991 ranged from

41,000-550,000 bushels/year (Table 4). But by the mid1990's, the surfclams became scarce and commercial

harvesting ended.

Figure 15

Emptying surfc1ams from a hydraulic dredge in Long

Island Sound, ca. ] 986. Photograph by L. Sholz, courtesy of National Fisherman magazine.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.]. 107

Bay Scallop Fishery _

The largest production of bay scallops in the region

came from bays and saltwater ponds in southern Massachusetts, Narragansett Bay and various ponds in Rhode

Island, and Peconic Bay on Long Island; smaller quantities were from the Niantic River in eastern Connecticut

and Great South Bay on Long Island (Fig. 2, 3). Scallops once occurred sparsely in other areas of Connecticut and Long Island, and in Raritan Bay (Ingersoll,

1887), but are almost nonexistent in those areas now.

Bay scallops are most abundant in clear, high-salinity

water, in depths of 1-3.5 m (3-12 feet), and in eelgrass

meadows. Their life span is 18-24 months, and only two

age classes, adult and seed, are present at any time.

Fish, such as scup, and crabs prey on the seed. In

scallop beds, annual scallop numbers vary widely from

near scarcity to highly abundant, and scallop production (Fig. 16) and employment in the fishery has fluctuated accordingly.

Commercial scalloping in the region began in the

late 1800's (Belding, 1910). By the early 1900's, most

states and towns had decreed that daily scallop catches

should be limited. Such limits ranged from 1 to 15

bushels for each boat or fisherman. Only the scallop

adductor muscle, termed the "eye," has been sold in

retail markets. In recent years, the remaining soft parts,

termed "guts," have usually been discarded, but in the

late 1800's they were used as fertilizer (Ingersoll, 1887),

and. in the early 1900's and probably earlier, some were

salted and sold as bait to Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua,

fishermen in Massachusetts (MacKenzie, 1992b).

Table 4

Landings and value ofsurfclams from Long Island Sound,

N.Y., 1985 to 1991. Source: Fox, text footnote 13.

Year Bushels Value

1985 292,000 $1,753,000

1986 550,000 3,300,000

1987 41,000 230,000

1988 58,000 394,218

1990 516,000 3,070,000

1991 460,000 2,720,000

Fishermen and hired help (elderly men, women, and

children) opened the scallops in fish markets, shanties,

kitchens, cellars, yards, and on benches at the shores;

bowls and cans held the muscles. In the 1950's, the help

was paid $1.00 for each gallon opened; by the 1990's,

the pay had risen to $9.00/gallon. The shells were

spread on driveways, discarded in dumps. or used as

cultch for oysters in Connecticut (Lester19).

In the fall of each year, when adult scallops have

nearly completed their seasonal growth, state or town

authorities have opened the seasons for commercial

harvesting. As the adults will die before the next fall

season, fishermen have been allowed to harvest all they

can, but they must leave the seed in beds. The scallop

crops usually last 1-2 months, but they sometimes continue for an entire season of about 6 months for regular

and part-time fishermen.

Massachusetts

160T--;::===========;-----------i

o k~==r=~~=t=;=;:'t-:;==:::::::::::~....,==;:~ 1880 1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 1990

Figure 16

Landings of bay scallops from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, 1880 to 1990 (Lyles, 1969; Statistics Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Wash., D.C.).

The bay scallop fishery had little commercial

importance in Massachusetts until the 1870's,

when the dredge was introduced to Cape Cod

for towing from sailing catboats 5.5-7 m (18-

23 feet) long. Its net bag held about a bushel.

Each boat towed 4-8 dredges. Previously, scallops were harvested only with scoop nets in

wading depths, and the demand for them was

minimal. In the early 1900's, fishermen installed

engines in the catboats and the dredging became more efficient (Belding, 1910).

Another harvesting method, begun in the

mid-1920's, is dip-netting. A glass-bottomed

viewing box is held in one hand and a scoop

net in the other. Nearly always working from

a rowboat, but occasionally while wading, the

fisherman holds the scoop under water, just

above the bottom, as he looks through the

viewing box, searching for scallops. Visible at

Bay

Scallops

---*:- Massachusetts

-e-- Rhode Island

--*- Connecllcut

.-..8- New York

140

20

III

Qi

..c: 60 III

:l

m 40

120

-0

o

~100

X

80
108 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

depths of 1-2.5 m (3-8 feet), they can be gathered one

at a time with the net, as the boat drifts (Fig. 17). With

this method, a fisherman can gather about a bushel of

scallops/hour (500 scallops/bushel) from a well-stocked

bed. The scallops are held in burlap bags, baskets, or

crates (MacKenzie, 1992b).

The number of people fishing for scallops in earlier

periods was rarely recorded, but data are available from

the three largest areas in the 1950's and 1960's. The

numbers harvesting at the beginning of good seasons

were: Chatham (Pleasant Bay), 225 (Moore20); Martha's

Vineyard (several ponds), 400 (MacKenzie, 1992b); and

Nantucket, (2-3 bays) 140 (Fronzut021 ), for a total of

about 765. Most were men, but some women culled

scallops on 2-person boats. The total number in the

state probably did not exceed 1.5 times the number

working in these three locations.

Rhode Island

In the late 1870's, the bay scallop fleet in Rhode Island

consisted of about 90 boats, mostly sailing catboats but

also sharpies and small sloops (Fig. 18). Each boat

towed 3-8 bushel-sized dredges that fishermen retrieved

by hand (Ingersoll, 1887). By the 1920's and 1930's, a

typical scallop boat was about 7 m (23 feet) long, usually

driven by a Lathrop engine and propeller. It was capable

20Moore, S., 1992. Shellfish warden, Town of Chatham, Mass. Personal commun.

21Fronzuto, D. 1992. Shellfish warden, Town of Nantucket, Mass.

Personal commun.

Figure 17

Fisherman harvesting bay scallops in 1.5 m (5 feet) of

water using a glass-bottomed box and scoop net,

Sengecontacket Pond, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, ca. 1950. Photograph by the author.

of towing from 6-8 dredges, that were limited by state law

to a width of 30 inches (75 cm). The state imposed a 15-

bushel limit for each boat plus one additional bushel for

each person aboard besides the operator. By the 1940's,

the boats had engines of about 40 hp (Dykstra8).

In the 1950's, at the beginning ofseasons when scallops were abundant, nearly every fisherman and tradesman with a boat went scalloping. Many took leave from

other jobs to harvest scallops for 2-4 weeks (Dykstra8).

About 600 boats comprised the fleet. Most were singleman skiffs, 4.25-4.9 m (14-16 feet) long, propelled by

outboard motors (Smith7).

In some Rhode Island ponds, the authorities allowed

only dip netting for scallops. Several men dip-netted

them commercially, and a few dozen others did it only for

home consumption, harvesting lj4-1 bushel/trip (Smith7).

Rhode Island scallops have been relatively scarce since

the late 1950's. Loss of eelgrass and other types of

environmental degradation, such as low oxygen and

elevated nutrients in waters, are believed to be the

cause, but no systematic studies have been made to

establish this. In 1985 and 1986, brown tide blooms of

A. anophagefferens, a microscopic brown alga, were so dense

they killed nearly all the remaining scallops (Burns, 1991).

Attempts have since been made by state personnel to reestablish scallop populations in their former beds by purchasing seed from hatcheries and holding it in cages for

growth and spawning (Ganz2). Light sets ofjuveniles have

resulted, but few have survived (Smith7).

Connecticut

Annual bay scallop production in the Niantic River has

fluctuated with changes in eelgrass abundance. The

river is about 900 m (3,000 feet) wide and is mostly 2-

2.5 m (6-8 feet) deep. When eelgrass was abundant in

this confined area, it grew too thickly for scallops and

usually inhibited them from attaining commercial densities. After the eelgrass died in the 1930's, scallops were

frequently abundant, but after it reappeared in the late

1940's they were less often abundant. In recent years, the

two towns managing the river have tried to improve the

scallop habitat by cutting paths through dense eelgrass

meadows. By local decree, scallops could be gathered only

by dip netting with a limit of 1 bushel/man/day. From

1976 to 1987, whenever scallops were generally abundant,

the number of boats scalloping each day, with one fisherman in each using a dip net, varied from 10-15 during the

week to as many as 50 on weekends (Dabo1l22).

Niantic River scallops currently are scarce. Local authorities are considering purchasing scallop seed from

22Daboll, R. 1992. River Commission, Town of Niantic, Conn. Personal commun.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.]. 109

Figure 18

General view of Scalloptown, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, and the fishing beds; interior of

scallop shanty, ca. 1877. Illustration from Leslie's Weekly, courtesy of the Rhode Island Historical

Society, Providence R.I. Negative number Rhi X3 5799.

a hatchery and holding it in cages in the river for

growth and spawning (Dabo1l22 ).

New York

In Peconic Bay, 193 men were engaged in the bay

scallop fishery in 1880, and 471 women and children

were employed to open them. Scallop production was

54,000 bushels with a landed value of$19,492 (Ingersoll,

1887). Fishermen dredged the scallops using sailing

catboats. Around 1900, fishermen still sail-dredged in

catboats, but within a few years motors and propellers

had been installed in most of them. By the 1950's, as in

Massachusetts and Rhode Island, fishermen were dredging scallops mostly from skiffs 4.25-4.9 m (14-16 feet)

long, propelled by outboard motors. When scallops

were abundant around 1900, about 50 boats sail-dredged

for them, while during the motorboat era the number

of dredge boats was about 125. Authorities allowed

each boat to harvest 10 bushels of scallops/day, but if

two people were in a boat, the limit was 15 bushels. In

summer, many regular scallopers worked as finfishermen; in winter, if scallops were scarce, they dug

softshells. The remaining scallop fishermen were parttimers with regularjobs ashore (LesterI9).

In Great South Bay, the scallop fishery was much smaller

than in Peconic Bay. Fishermen usually dug northern

quahogs in winter, but if scallops were abundant some

harvested them instead. Before the 1960's, state authorities allowed only sail dredging for scallops in this bay and

the fishermen's catch was not limited. Mterward, they

allowed dredging by motor power and imposed the same

limit as for Peconic Bay (KlaassenlO). The 1960's had a few

good scallop years, but the 1970's had fewer. Since then,

scallops have been too scarce for commercial fishing.
110 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

In Peconic Bay, dense blooms of brown tide have

killed nearly all the scallops since the mid-1980's, as

they did in Narragansett Bay. Local towns have attempted to restock the beds by planting seed reared in

hatcheries. The seed has grown, spawned, and produced other generations of seed, but the results have

been marginal because the A. anophagefJerens blooms

have recurred in varying concentrations each summer

often killing nearly all the scallops (New York Times,

1991). The scallops survived better than usual in 1991 and

1992, and the 1992 scallop season was considered a fair

one. About 200 one-man boats began the season, and for

a few weeks many harvested the state limit of 5 bushels/

boat. While the future of the scallop fishery in Rhode

Island and Peconic Bay seems to depend on whether the

brown tide blooms persist, the Rhode Island waters would

benefit from additional habitat improvement.

Scallop Fragility

The bay scallop is the commercial bivalve most sensitive

to environmental adversity in the region, as it nearly

disappeared from several areas and has become scarce

in others where environments have degraded. It has declined sharply in parts ofMassachusetts including Martha's

Vineyard Island, where the number of scallopers has declined from about 400 in the 1950's and 1960's to about

100 in the 1990's. One ofthe areas where scallops remain

abundant is Cape Poge Pond, Martha's Vineyard. The

pond's opening has remained unchanged, few people live

around the pond, and it has little boating. In some areas,

habitat degradation was caused by bay or pond inlets

becoming much smaller or much enlarged often combined with intense pleasure boating in the summer. But

specific causes of declines remain undetermined.

Blue Mussel Fishery _

Blue mussels occur in various parts of the region, especially in Massachusetts (Fig. 2). Vast mussel beds were

once present in Vineyard and Nantucket Sounds between Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket

Island, in oceanic waters south of the islands, and in

Cape Cod Bay. Most were torn up and destroyed when

fishermen towed otter trawls across bottoms while catching finfish from the 1920's to 1940's (Jackson23; Larsen24;

MacFarlane25 ). Mussels had little commercial impor23Jackson, R. 1944. Fisherman, Town of Edgartown, Mass. Personal

commun.

24Larsen, L. 1993. Fisherman, Town of Chilmark, Mass. Personal

commun.

25MacFariane, S. 1993. Environmental consultant, Town of Orleans,

Mass. Personal commun.

tance until the 1980's because the market for them was

negligible. Market demand has since increased sharply

and a fishery has developed in Massachusetts.

In the 1980's and 1990's, fishermen have dredged

the mussels in at least four locations in Massachusetts,

two of which were in the ocean but near land. The

major bed with a diameter of about 8 km (5 miles) was

on Nantucket Shoals about 10 km (6 miles) east of

Nantucket Island and the other was 1.6 km (1 mile)

south ofCuttyhunk Island (Rask12). The mussels, which

ranged up to 10 em (4 inches) long, were larger than

those from bays. A few boats, 18-24 m (60-80 feet)

long, harvested mussels from each of the ocean beds

year-round. Each towed a single sea scallop, Placopecten

megellanicus, dredge, 2.4 m (8 feet) wide, which was

slightly modified for this use. Two boats each landed

about 1,600 bushels/week, while a third boat landed

about 3,400 bushels/week from the Nantucket bed

(Wheeler26). On 11-13 December 1992, a severe easterly storm destroyed nearly all the Nantucket mussel

bed, with serious consequences for the state's mussel

production.

The other beds are in bays. One is in Pleasant Bay,

Chatham, where about 12 boats each dredge about 100

bushels of mussels/day. Another bed is in Barnstable

Harbor, where 2-3 boats (2 men/boat) dredge them

daily. Town authorities limit the daily catch to 50 bushels/boat. In both areas, the boats are open skiffs about

6.7 m (22 feet) long. They tow bay scallop dredges

about 1 m (3 feet) wide with long bags that hold about

5 bushels (Moore20). Another area is Plymouth Bay,

where fishermen pitchfork intertidal mussels into boats

at low tide.

In 1991, Massachusetts mussel landings were 294,467

bushels (8,030 metric tons of whole mussels) with a

landed value of $1,442,000 (NMFS Fishery Statistics

Division); 90% were from the Nantucket bed. Most

mussels were trucked to markets in New York and New

Jersey. In 1992, whole mussels usually sold for $0.99-

1.29/pound in retail markets.

Conch Fishery

The origins of the region's conch fishery are unknown,

except for Massachusetts (Fig. 2, 3); it may have begun

as late as the 1930's. Fishermen have caught conchs in

wooden slat pots about 50 em (18 inches) square and

25 em (9 inches) high with an open top (Fig. 19). The

pots are weighed down with two bricks or some cement,

baited with parts of horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus,

usually buoyed separately, set about 90 m (300 feet)

26Wheeler, R. 1993. Blue Gold Sea Farms, New Bedford, Mass. Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 111

Figure 19

A conch pot made of wood slats and weighted with

cement; each pot has a separate buoy, ca. 1991. Photograph by the author.

apart, and lifted every 1-2 days. The season lasts from

spring into October, when the conchs are active. About

99% of the catch is the smooth conch. The knobbed

conch, Busycon carica, present in some grounds, usually

avoids pots (Smith7). State authorities do not limit

catches, because they consider the conch a predator of

commercial bivalves.

Massachusetts

The conch fishery began in Massachusetts on Martha's

Vineyard island in the 1970's. The main conch grounds

are in Nantucket Sound. By the 1980's, the island had

about 25 conch boats, most of which had the design of

lobster boats and were about 7.6 m (25 feet) long. Each

boat crew sets 100-150 pots (MacKenzie, 1992b); daily

catches run about 8-35 bushels/boat (Bagnall27). The

state has few other conch boats. In 1990, Massachusetts

landings of whole conchs were about 95,000 bushels

(Table 3).

Rhode Island

In the 1930's and 1940's, Narragansett Bay had only 3-

4 boats potting conchs because demand was small. But

demand began to increase in the mid-1950's when a

local company began cooking conch meats. By the

1960's, three plants were processing them and about 18

boats, 7.6-10.7 m (25-35 feet) long, were potting in the

27Bagnall, P. 1992. Shellfish warden, Town of Edgartown, Mass.

Personal commun.

bay; none potted outside the bay. Each boat crew set

about 100 pots and landed 15-20 bushels of conchs/

day (Braiton4, Amerighi28). Plant workers boiled the

conchs for about 30 minutes, removed their meats with

ice picks, discarded the viscera and opercula, and packed

the meats in 5-pound boxes (Braiton4). By the 1980's,

two companies, Blount Seafoods and Galilean Seafoods

in Warren, processed nearly all the conchs. They pressure-steamed them for an hour, picked out their meats

by hand, and then washed and trimmed them. In 1986

they processed about 1.2 million pounds (Haring, 1987).

For many years, Rhode Island fishermen gathered

horseshoe crabs for conch bait, but the crabs have since

become scarce, perhaps because too many were gathered. Fishermen currently purchase and freeze horseshoe crabs from southern New Jersey, where they are

abundant in late April and May (Smith7).

In the late 1980's, most boats potting conchs were

breaking the meat out of the shells on their boats and

selling it for $2-3/pound. A bushel of conchs yields

about 15 pounds of meat. Conchs in the shell sold for

about $9/bushel (Smith6). From the 1960's to 1989, annual Rhode Island landings of conchs have ranged from

4,000-23,000 bushels (NMFS Fishery Statistics Division).

Connecticut

The mid-coast of Connecticut is also a conch fishing

area. Data on the number of conch boats was not available, but from 1982 to 1991 the number of state licenses issued to land conchs ranged from 9-43. Some

fishermen potted conchs and lobsters during the same

season. For the IO-year period, total annual Connecticut

landings averaged about 8,000 bushels of conchs with an

average annual landed value of$168,000 (Volk29).

New York

Gardiners Bay in eastern Long Island is another conch

fishing area. In the 1930's and 1940's, about five boat

crews potted conchs, but the current number is only 3-

4 crews. Each sets about 150 pots in depths of 3-9 m

(10-30 feet). The fishermen collect horseshoe crabs

used for bait along local beaches every spring and keep

them in floating cars, that hold up to 400 crabs each.

Through time, the conchs have become smaller. In the

early 1990's, each boat crew landed 12-15 bushels of

conchs/day (FoxI3 ).

28Amerighi, A. 1992. Amerighi Seafoods, Johnston, R.I. Personal

commun.

29yolk, j., 1992. State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture,

Aquaculture Division, Milford. Personal commun.
112 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Great South Bay also has had a small conch fishery;

2-3 fishermen each set about 100 pots for 6 weeks in

the spring. Daily catches have been 10-15 bushels/boat

(Klaassen10).

The Long Island fishermen shipped most of their

conchs to Fulton Fish Market for sale and sold the

remainder to local restaurants (Klaassen10). Annual New

York landings rose steadily to 15,000 bushels in 1986

(NMFS Fishery Statistics Division), but fell afterward to

5,700 bushels in 1990 (Table 3).

The conch fishery in Rhode Island will likely continue, but may be smaller than in the past. The conch

fisheries will also likely persist in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and eastern Long Island.

Comparison of Early and Recent Landings _

A comparison of mollusk landings in the past with

those in 1990 shows that production ofoysters, softshells,

and bay scallops has declined sharply in the region.

The peak of oyster landings was from about 1887 to

1911, when an average of about 4,250,000 bushels/year

were produced. In 1990, oyster production was about

one-ninth as much, 490,000 bushels (but was higher in

succeeding years). Massachusetts' highest landings of

softshells were during 1937-42, when they averaged

about 520,000 bushels/year, but by 1990 they were

about one-fifth as much, 98,000 bushels. Nevertheless.

its softshell production nearly equalled that ofMaine in

1990. Landings of softshells in Rhode Island and Connecticut have fallen from highs of about 15,000 bushels/year in each state, during 1880 to 1905, to almost

nothing, while those in New York have declined from

slightly over 200,000 bushels in 1880 to one-seventeenth

as much, about 12,000 bushels, in 1990. From 1948 to

1962, combined bay scallop landings in Massachusetts,

Rhode Island, and Connecticut averaged about 200,000

bushels/year, but they have since fallen to about onefifth as much, 42,000 bushels in 1990. New York's landings of bay scallops from 1957 to 1966 averaged about

107,000 bushels/year, but only about 2,000 bushels

were landed in 1990 (Table 3).

In contrast, northern quahog landings have increased

when compared with the early 1900's, but they have

declined recently in Rhode Island and New York. In

1990, total quahog landings in the region were 637,000

bushels. Conchs and especially surfclams and blue mussels, both of which comprised sizable landings, 516,000

and 277,000 bushels, respectively, are relatively new to

landings. (Landings ofsurfclams and blue mussels have

declined sharply by the mid-1990's.)

Annual landings of all the region's shellfish at the

turn of the century, in 1901 or 1902, when statistics

were available, were 3,712,000 bushels. In 1990, such

landings were about three-fifths as large, 2,184,500 bushels (Table 3).

Current Number of Mollusk Fishermen __

In 1990, the total number of mollusk fishermen active

on the region's beds on good days during peak seasons

was about 3,350 in summer and 2,336 in fall and winter.

Perhaps 50% more people held mollusk fishing licenses,

but were not active every day. Rhode Island with about

1,500 active fishermen, nearly all ofwhom were quahog

diggers (Smith7, Dykstra8), had the largest number of

any state. Massachusetts was second with nearly 1,200

active fishermen, most of whom were softshell diggers:

400 dug on the north shore of Massachusetts, 150 in

Boston harbor (Chadwick and KennedyI6), 150 in the

vicinity of Chatham (Moore2o), and the remainder in

several other towns. New York was the next largest with

about 350 in summer and 540 in fall-winter. Most of

New York's fishermen were quahog diggers (Klaassen10,

Strongll), followed by bay scallopers (Smith30) and

softshell diggers (Lester19). Connecticut had about 150

fishermen, most of whom were oystermen. In the region, about 2,115 fishermen were engaged in quahoging,

followed by about 1,000 in softshelling, 420 in bay scalloping, 220 in oystering, 80 in conching, 55 in musseling,

and 36 in surfclamming (Table 5).

Landings from Natural and Hatchery Seed _

In 1990, 94% of mollusk landings in the region was

from natural seed; 6% was from hatchery-produced

seed (Table 3). All softshells, surfclams, blue mussels,

and conchs, nearly all bay scallops, and most northern

quahogs were produced from natural sets. The oyster is

the only species in which substantial landings were

from hatchery seed, a total of 20%, and they may decline in the near future because mortalities have occurred in hatchery-reared seed throughout the region.

The seed died, apparently from disease, in July and

August when 15-25 mm (0.6-1 inch) long. Losses were

>80% and 95% at two sites in Massachusetts in 1989,

and they also occurred at Fishers Island and Oyster Bay,

both in New York, where they ranged from 54-75%,

1989 to 1992 (Bricelj et aI., 1992). The hatcheries may

have to switch to raising northern quahog seed unless

the disease can be controlled.

All northern quahogs produced in Narragansett Bay,

Connecticut, and Raritan Bay and >90% of those produced on Long Island were from natural seed. But at

30Smith, C. 1993. Cornell University Cooperative Extension,

Riverhead, N.Y. Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.]. 113

Table 5

Estimated numbers of commercial fishermen actively

shellfishing during peak seasons, Massachusetts Bay to

Raritan Bay, 1990. Many of the same people are included in summer and fall-winter columns.

Activity Summer Fall-Winter Sources!

Oystering

Massachusetts 25 50 12

Connecticut 50 120 29

New York 25 50 - 2

Quahoging

Massachusetts 195 165 15,17,20,21,27

Rhode Island 1,500 400 6,7

Connecticut 20 20 29

Long Island, N.V. 320 275 10,11

Raritan Bay 80 60 - 3

Softshelling

Massachusetts 900 600 15,16,20,27

New York 100 5 19

Surfclamming

New York 0 36 13

Bay scalloping

Massachusetts 0 220 20,21,27

New York 0 200 30

Blue musseling

Massachusetts 55 55 12,20,26

Conching

Massachusetts 50 504 27

Rhode Island 10 10 6,7

Connecticut 10 10 29

New York 10 10 19 -- -- Total 3,350 2,336

I Numbers indicate text footnotes.

2 D. Relyea, F. M. Flower and Sons, Bayville, N.V. Personal

commun.

3 D. Barnes, State of New York Department of Environmental

Conservation, SUNY, Stony Brook. Personal commun.

4 This fishery ends in late October.

least 20% of quahog landings in Massachusetts came

from hatchery seed (Anonymous, 1992a). Overall, about

6% of quahogs were from hatchery seed in the region.

The largest hatchery in Massachusetts, Aquacultural

Research Corporation (ARC) in Dennis, sells quahog

seed to towns and leaseholders. About 80 leaseholders

in Massachusetts, each with from 0.2 to 4 hectares (0.5-

10 acres) of leased bottom mostly at wading depths at

low tide, plant quahog seed to grow. They purchase two

common sizes of seed, 5.3-8.0 mm long which cost

$0.022 each, and 12-17 mm long which cost $0.035

each in 1996. Some leaseholders plant 300,000-800,000

seed/year and then cover it with a protective plastic

screen with mesh openings of 6-9 mm. The quahogs

attain littleneck size in about 28 months, selling for

$0.15-$0.20 each. They are dug with bull rakes with

handles about 2 m long. Massachusetts leaseholders

purchase some quahog seed from a hatchery in New

Jersey as ARC cannot meet the demand for seed. Several Massachusetts towns also obtain quahog seed from

hatcheries to spread on their public beds (Kruczek31 ).

Enhancing Mollusk Fisheries _

Mollusk abundances in the region need to be increased

in areas where waters are certified for direct marketing.

This would reduce the temptation to poach and market

abundant mollusks from polluted waters, a practice

that has caused some illnesses. If the public can be

assured that all mollusks in markets are safe to eat,

demand for them will become stronger. Abundances

can undoubtedly be increased in some areas by improving their habitats, through use of hatchery seed, and

transplanting natural sets from areas where they cannot

survive and from polluted areas to good growing and

marketing beds.

Habitat improvement includes predator control, eelgrass planting and thinning, and, in oyster areas, spreading ofshells and removal ofsilt and mud from shells to

permit oyster larvae to set. But additional research is

needed to determine some specifics ofthe physical, chemical, and biological features of habitats that control mollusk abundances. Such information would allow managers and politicians to manage bays and estuaries more

efficiently to sustain and increase mollusk production.

In recent years, environmental groups have assisted

mollusk fisheries by working to prevent or reduce the

degradation of bays from pollution, dredging, and filling. But they have also objected to some routine industry practices carried out to increase oyster abundances

and landings, even though productive mollusk beds

support an abundance of many types of biota. For example, Galtsoff (1964), Arve (1960), and I have observed that beds well stocked with oysters have greater

biodiversity than nearby bottoms where oysters are absent. As environments are improved for mollusks, they

would also improve for many associated invertebrates

and fish. Besides, an active mollusk fishery offers one

more justification for preserving aquatic habitats.

Mollusk Marketing and Preparation

Simple Marketing

In the past 50 or more years, mollusk marketing in the

region has rarely involved much advertising in newspapers or other types of promotion. Instead it usually has

31Kruczek, B. R. 1993. Shellfisherman, Orleans, Mass. Personal

commun.
114 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

consisted of transporting whole mollusks, mostly in

bushel baskets or bags, but more recently in cardboard

boxes, from boat docks to dealers who distribute them

to retail markets and restaurants. If the shellfish, such

as oysters, softshells, bay scallops, and surfclams, have

been sold as meats, the shellfish company or dealer has

had workers shuck and pack them in cans holding 8

ounces (usually only surfclams) or 1 or 5 gallons for

sale to the outlets. Retail markets present the mollusks

in chilled showcases with a price tag on them.

Oysters

From the 1600's to the early 1900's, oysters were an

important protein food for people in coastal communities. They were eaten in a variety of ways, the most

common being in stews, casseroles, fried, and raw on

the half-shell. Many types of dishes were prepared as

described in recipe books.

During the 1800's, dealers in New York City imported

large quantities of oysters from Chesapeake Bay, with

smaller amounts from northern areas for local sales.

This began in the early 1800's, and, by 1853, perhaps as

many as 1,000 vessels supplied Chesapeake Bay oysters

and 520 vessels supplied northern oysters to New York

City. In that year, the oyster quantities handled by the

estimated 5,000 retailers in the city were about 1,000,000

bushels in the shell and 600,000 gallons of meats from

southern bays, mainly Chesapeake Bay, and 1,600,000

bushels from northern bays, with a total value of

$2,760,000 (Ingersoll, 1881).

Mter development of refrigerated railroad cars in

the 1880's and 1890's, dealers in New York City shipped

large quantities of oysters to markets in the midwest

and far west. Although the railroads opened new markets for oysters, they eventually weakened the oyster

industry because the refrigerated cars also enabled the

growing meat industry to ship beef and pork from such

centers as Chicago and Kansas City to the east coast

(Walsh, 1982). With meat available in large quantities,

people began to consume more meat and fewer oysters,

especially after 1906, when newspapers began reporting that oysters were sometimes unsafe to eat owing to

sanitation problems. In the early 1900's, New York City

was importing about 1,500,000 bushels of oysters each

season. About two-thirds were shipped out of the city and

the remainder were eaten by its residents (Fig. 20), an

equivalent of two meals of oysters/week for every man,

woman, and child in the city (New Yark Times, 1907).

Beginning in about 1870, from 150,000 to 310,000

bushels of oysters/year were shipped to Europe from

Connecticut, Great South Bay, and Raritan Bay, with

about 95% going to England. The oysters that found

favor in England were relatively small and received

the trade name "London stock" (Ingersoll, 1881). Some

oysters were planted on English beds as the quantity

arriving from the U.S. often exceeded the demand.

Atlantic oyster drills and Atlantic slippersnails were carried with the oysters and introduced to the English

beds, where they became pests. Oyster shipments to

England continued into the 1930's (Kochiss, 1974).

From the mid to late 1800's through the 1920's,

companies shipped their salable oysters from ports in

Narragansett Bay, Connecticut, and Long Island to U.S.

markets. The American Railroad Express was the principal company transporting oysters by rail and it was

almost as efficient as trucking is currently. The oyster

companies carried oysters from their packing houses to

the railroad frcightyards, initially by horse and wagon

and later by truck. Since the 1920's and 1930's, trucks

have been delivering oysters to markets (Usinger]). In

the 1800's and early 1900's, oysters from Raritan Bay

were taken to New York City by boat.

A relatively small number of restaurants in New York

City currently serve oysters and northern quahogs. At

least one, the Oyster Bar and Restaurant3 in Grand

Central Station, serves oysters on the half-shell from

about 12 sources on the east and west coasts of North

America, besides northern quahogs on the half-shell,

stews of oysters, quahogs, and mussels, and steamed

mussels. The restaurant serves about 6,500 bushels of

oysters on the half-shell each year (Anonymous, 1992b).

The oyster market is strongest during the Thanksgiving

and Christmas holidays, when many families use them as

an ingredient in stuffing for their turkeys. Otherwise oysters are usually eaten fried, in stews, or on the half-shell.

Oysters are currently being sold year-round, whereas

in past decades the main marketing seasons were fall

and winter. Companies have also been selling some

unshucked oysters by the piece, a major shift from

selling them by the bushel. One Connecticut company

sells them for $29/100 oysters.

Northern Quahogs

Quahogs were important in the diets of coastal peoples,

somewhat like oysters once were, but supplies were less

than one-tenth as large as oysters in the 1800's and

early 1900's. Most quahogs have been dug in summer.

Those dug in winter, especially the largest, have been

eaten in chowders. In the New England States, the

ingredients of chowders are milk, potatoes, onions, and

minced quahogs (New England clam chowder), while

in New York State they are water, tomato paste, celery,

onions, potatoes, carrots, and minced quahogs (Manhattan clam chowder).

In the late 1870's, about 100 sailing freight boats

transported northern quahogs to New York City in sum-
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 115

Figure 20

Oyster stands in the Fulton Fish Market, Manhattan, New York City, where oysters were prepared

several ways for eating, including on the half-shell (left) and fried (right), ca. 1870. Illustration from

Harper's Weekly, October 29, 1870, courtesy of the South Street Seaport Museum, New York, N.Y.

mer; they brought oysters to the city in the fall and

winter. Nearly all the quahogs came from Long Island,

Raritan Bay, and Barnegat Bay. Including the diggers and

the retailers and hawkers in the city, 8,000 people worked

in this quahog trade during a large part of the year

(Ingersoll, 1887). The transport ofsome quahogs by boat

to the city continued into the 1930's; since then, trucks

have delivered the quahogs (MacKenzie, 1990, 1992a).

Littlenecks currently are, by far, the most common

size of quahogs available. They are purchased in fish

and grocery markets and eaten on the half-shell in

seafood snack bars, restaurants, and private homes.

Like oysters, northern quahogs are now selling by the

piece, rather than by the bushel. Wholesalers pay fishermen $0.12-0.20 for each littleneck; in markets they

sell for about $0.36 each.

Softshells

In the late 1870's, New York City markets also received

whole and shucked softshells, chiefly from Long Island

and Raritan Bay. In the spring, particularly, the region

around Fulton Fish Market was crowded with street

vendors who sold northern quahogs and softshells from

baskets and wheelbarrows (Ingersoll, 1887). No record

exists of when the street-peddling of the two species of

clams began or ended (Brouwer32), but it was practiced

as late as the 1930's (MacKenzie, 1992a).

Since the late 1800's, Massachusetts has been a large

market for softshells, and currently the state is, by far,

the largest market in the region for them. Nearly all

softshells landed in Massachusetts and Maine and substantial quantities imported from eastern Canada and

Maryland are eaten by residents and visitors in Massachusetts (Chadwick and Kennedy] 6). The softshells

shucked in fish houses along the north shore of the

state and in Seabrook, N.H., have been sold to Massachusetts clam stands at resort beaches that feature fried

clams in summer, and to the state's many restaurants

that serve fried clams by themselves or with steaks year32Brouwer, . 1993. Historian, South Street Seaport Museum, N.V.

Personal commun.
116 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

round. Restaurants and especially clam stands often

display large signs advertising fried clams for sale.

In other areas of the region, people have eaten

softshells in a variety of forms: fried, in pies, and as

fritters in their homes, and steamed and served with

their broth especially in restaurants and saloons.

Scallops, Surfclams, Mussels, and Conchs

Bay scallop meats have been sold in fish and grocery

markets. Restaurants usually serve them fried, while at

home they are usually served fried but sometimes in

casseroles and stews. The diced and minced meat of

surfclams is marketed mostly in 8-ounce cans throughout the northeastern states. Most is served with tomato

sauce on spaghetti. Whole blue mussels are frequently

boiled in water and their meats are eaten as is, but also

in tomato sauces with pasta. Mussels are available in

restaurants, and fresh, frozen in prepared pasta dishes,

as frozen meats, and smoked in jars in markets. Most

conch meat in Rhode Island has been made into snail

salad (a mixture of thin slices of conch meat marinated

in onions, garlic, vinegar, and lemon juice) for sale in

local delicatessens and grocery stores. The remainder is

cut into chunks and served as scungilli in pasta dishes

or made into fritters. In recent years, Americans of

Chinese descent use conchs by cracking live ones, tenderizing them, slicing them thinly, and covering them

with brown sauce (Drumm, 1993).

Acknowledgments _

I am grateful to many people who provided details of

the mollusk fisheries of the region. Their names are

listed among the personal communications. Michele

Cox drafted the figures.

Literature Cited

Anonymous.

1897. The oyster in summer. Fishing Gaz. (Sept. 3) 14(36):576.

1910. Oystermen of the nation convene. Fishing Gaz. (May

21) 27(20).

1917. The proper prices for oysters with relation to cost of

production. Fishing Gaz. (Aug. 11) 34(32).

1987. Strategies and recommendations for revitalizing the

hard clam fisheries in Suffolk County New York. Suffolk Co.

Plan. Dep. Hauppauge, N.Y., 58 p.

1992a. Perspective on shellfisheries in southern New England.

Sounds Conserv., 1n('., Essex. Conn., 56 p.

1992b. Cape oysters in mid-Manhattan. Cape Cod Life Including Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket 14(2) :26-31.

Arve,].

1960. Preliminary report on attracting fish bv oyster-shell

plantings in Chincoteague Bay, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci.

1:58-65.

Bake1ess,].

1Y61. America as seen by its first explorers. Dover Pub!., Inc.,

N.Y., 439 p.

Bayles. R. M.

1R87. History of Richmond County (Staten Island) New York

from its discovery to the present time. L.E. Preston Co.,

N.Y., 714 p.

Belding, D. L.

191:!. The quahaug fishery of Massachusetts, including the

natural history of the quahog and a discussion of quahog

farming. Commonw. Mass., Mar. Fish. Ser. 2, 41 p.

1930. The soft-shelled clam fishery of Massachusetts.

Commonw. Mass., Mar. Fish. Ser. 1,65 p.

Boyd,.J. R.

1991. The Narragansett Bay shellfish industry: A historical

perspective and an overview of problems ofthe 1990's. In M.

A. Rice, M. Grady, and M. L. Schwartz (eds.), Proc. First RI.

Shellfish. Con£., p. 2-10. Univ. R.I. Sea Grant Program,

Narragansett.

Bricelj, M. V., S. E. Ford, F.]. Borrero, F. O. Perkins, G. Rivara,

R. E. Hillman, R. A. Elston, and]. Chang.

1992. Unexplained mortalities of hatchery-reared, juvenile

oysters, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). ]. Shellfish. Res.

11(2):331-347.

Burns, W. G.

1991. The Rhode Island scallop restoration program. In M.

A. Rice, M. Grady, and M. L. Schwartz (eds.), Proc. First

Rhode Island Shellfish. Conf., p. 89-91. Univ. R.I. Sea Grant

Program, Narragansett.

Campbell, R.

1961. A summary report of the fleet plotting program in

Narragansett Bay. R.I. Div. Fish Game, Leafl. 7, 3 p.

Carriker, M. R

1951. Observations on the penetration of tightly closing

bivalves by Busycon and other predators. Ecology 32:73-83.

1955. Critical review of biology and control of oyster drills

Urosalpinx and Eupleura. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wild!. Serv.,

Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 148, 150 p.

Cerrato, R M., and D. L. Keith.

1992. Age structure, growth, and morphometric variations in

the Atlantic surf clam, Spisula solidissima, from estuarine and

inshore waters. Mar. Bio!. 114:581-593.

Churchill, E. P.,jr.

1921. The oyster and the oyster industry of the Atlantic and

Gulf coasts. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. FY 1919. U.S. Bur. Fish.

Doc. 890, 51 p.

Collins,]. W.

1891. Notes on the oyster fishery of Connecticut. Bul!. U.S.

Fish Comm. IX:461-497.

Desbonnet, A., and V. Lee.

1991. Historical trends: Water quality and fisheries,

Narragansett Bay. Univ. R.T. Coast. Resour. Cent., Contrib.

100, and Kat!' Sea Grant Pub!. RIU-T-91-001, 101 p.

Drumm, R

1993. Baymen fill the gap with winkles. Nat!' Fisherman,

jan.:20-21.

Fiedler, R. H.

1940. Fishery industries of the United States for 1938. U.S.

Dep. Commer., Bur. Fish., Admin. Rep. 37:169-554.

Fleet, S.

1992. RT. quahog diggers demand ban on commercial diving. Commer. Fishing News, Mar.:27A.

Fullilove,].

1992. Farming oysters in Long Island Sound. Nat!' Fisherman 73(6):20-22.
___ MacKenzie: The U.S. Molluscan Fisheries From Massachusetts Bay Through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J. 117

Galtsoff, P. S.

1958. The past and future of oyster research. Proc. Natl.

Shellfish. Assoc. 48:8-22.

1964. The American oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Fish.

Bull. 64:1-480.

Hall, A.

1894. Notes on the oyster industry of New jersey. Rep. U.S.

Comm. Fish. for 1892:463-528.

Haring, P.

1987. Demand is up, catches down for New England conch

fishery. Natl. Fisherman 68(8):10-11.

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. Gov. Print.

Off., Wash., 251 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone industries. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States. Sect. n, p. 507-626. Gov. Print.

Off., Wash.

jerome, W. C.,jr., A. P. Chesmore, and C. O. Anderson,jr.

1986. A study of the marine resources of the Parker River -

Plum Island Sound Estuary. Mass. Div. Mar. Fish. Monogr.

Ser. 6, 79 p.

Kalm,P.

1937. Peter Kalm's travels in North America: The English

version of 1770. Vol. 1. Dover Publ., Inc., N.Y., 401 p.

Kelso, W. E.

1979. Predation on soft-shell clams, Mya arenaria, by the common mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Estuaries 2(4):249-

254.

Kochiss,]. M.

1974. Oystering from New York to Boston. Wesleyan Univ.

Press, Middletown, Conn., 251 p.

Landers, W. S.

1954. Notes on the predation of the hard clam, Venus

mercenaria, by the mud crab, Neopanope texana. Ecology 35:422.

Leonard, T. H.

1923. From Indian trail to electric rail. Atl. Highlands [NJ.]

].,665 p.

Lockwood, S.

1883. The American oyster: Its natural history and the oyster

industry in New jersey. In Vth Annu. Rep., Bur. Stat. Labor

Ind., NJ., p. 219-350.

Lyles, C. H.

1969. Historical catch statistics (shellfish). U.S. Dep. Inter.,

Fish and Wildl. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 5007, 116 p.

MacKenzie, C. L.,jr.

1977. Predation on hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106(6) :530-537.

1981. Biotic potential and environmental resistance in the

American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in Long Island Sound.

Aquaculture 22:229-268.

1990. History of the fisheries of Raritan Bay, ~ew York and

Newjersey. Mar. Fish. Rev. 52(4):1-45.

1992a. The fisheries of Raritan Bay. Rutgers Univ. Press, New

Brunswick, NJ., 304 p.

1992b. Shellfisheries on Martha's Vineyard. The Dukes County

Intelligencer [Dukes County Hist. Soc., Mass.] 34(1):1-34.

MacKenzie, C. L.,jr., and L. L. Stehlik.

1988. Past and present distributions of soft clams and eelgrass in Raritan Bay. Bull. NJ. Acad. Sci. 33(2):61-62.

MacKenzie, C. L.,jr., D.]. Radosh, and R. N. Reid.

1985. Densities, growth, and mortalities of juveniles of the

surf clam (Spisula solidissima) (Dillwyn) in the New York

Bight.]. Shellfish. Res. 5(2):81-84.

McCarthy, E. D.

1925. Review of the oyster industry in 1924. Fishing Gaz.,

Annu. Rev. No., p. 66-68.

McMaster, R. L.

1960. Sediments of Narragansett Bay system and Rhode Island Sound.]. Sediment. Petrol. 30:249-274.

New Hampshire Sunday News.

1992. (13 Sept.).

New York Times.

1907. (5 May).

1991. (12 Nov.).

Pearson,]. C.

1972. The fish and shellfish of colonial America. A documentary history of fishery resources of the United States and

Canada. Part III. The Middle Atlantic states. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C.

Pilson, M. E. Q.

1985. On the residence time of water in Narragansett Bay.

Estuaries 8:2-14.

Pratt, S. D.

1988. Status of the hard clam fishery in Narragansett Bay.

Final Rep. NBP-88-07 for Narragansett Bay Project. Grad.

School Oceanogr., Univ. R.I., Narragansett, 89 p.

Reid, R. N., A. B. Frame, and A. F. Draxler.

1979. Environmental baselines in Long Island Sound, 1972-

73. U.S. Dep. Commer., Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Tech. Rep.

NMFS SSRF-738, 31 p.

Riley, G. A.

1955. Review of oceanography of Long Island Sound. DeepSea Res., Suppl. 3:224-238.

Sanders, H. L.

1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952-1954. X.

The biology of marine bottom communities. Yale Univ.,

Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Collect. 15:345-414.

Taylor, L.].

1983. Dutchmen on the bay. Univ. Pa. Press, Phila., 206 p.

The Fishing Gazette.

1898. (19 Nov.).

Townsend, C. H.

1901. Statistics of the fisheries of the middle Atlantic states.

U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. Rep. Comm., XXVI:195-310.

Vitaliano,J.J., and C. L. MacKenzie,jr.

1989. Shrimp-voracious predators, important prey. Underwater Nat. 18(3):17-18.

Walsh, M.

1982. The rise of the midwestern meat packing industry.

Univ. Press Kentucky, Lexington, 192 p.

History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellf"tsheries

From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay*

SUSAN E. FORD

Rutgers University

Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory

RD#l,Box B-8

Port Norris, NJ 08349

ABSTRACT

The mollusks produced in this region have included the eastern oyster, Crassostrea

virginica; northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria; and bay scallop, Argopecten irradians. The

practice of planting seed oysters in Barnegat Bay began as early as the 1830's. By 1881, about

1,000 men on 675 vessels were harvesting 330,000 bushels of oysters from the bay. In the

early 1900's, the region from Barnegat Bay to Cape May produced 20% of all market oysters

in NewJersey, but by 1930 the harvest had declined to 5% of the total. The oyster industry

has been concentrated in Delaware Bay with the New Jersey shore producing about four

times as many oysters as the Delaware shore. The growth of Philadelphia, the region's

largest city, probably fostered the beginning of commercial oyster harvests. Oysters initially

were transported directly to Philadelphia by the same boats that harvested them, but later,

most of the harvest was transported by train to Philadelphia and other markets. The oyster

grounds eventually were divided into up-bay seed grounds maintained by the states of New

Jersey and Delaware, and lower bay leased grounds planted with seed from the up-bay

grounds. From 1880 to 1930, production of market oysters ranged between 1 and 2 miIlion

bushels annually, and between 1930 and 1957 it was fairly steady at 1 miIlion bushels a year.

In 1957, the oysters were hit with MSX disease, and by 1959, 90-95% of those on leases had

died. The industry recovered somewhat afterward, but in 1990 Perkinsus marinus (Dermo)

kiIled many oysters, and the industry faces an uncertain future. Northern quahogs occur in

the coastal bays of New Jersey and in lower Delaware Bay. In 1880,241,000 bushels were

harvested. Since 1970, many quahogs have been relayed from polluted grounds to leases in

the state. Beginning in the 1970's, hatcheries have been producing seed clams. Their

estimated contribution to total harvests is between 15% and 45%. Small quantities of bay

scallops once occurred in Barnegat Bay. From 1956 to 1968, scallop harvests ranged from

4,000 to 376,000 pounds of meats, but since then, scallops have been scarce.

Introduction

The shellfish-growing waters from Barnegat Bay along

the Atlantic coast ofsouthern NewJersey into Delaware

Bay (Fig. 1) support two commercially important molluscan species. Eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, extend into the less saline creeks and up estuary about 80

km (50 miles) in Delaware Bay, and northern quahogs,

Mercenana mercenana (known locally as hard clams),

grow in the higher salinity waters of the region. A third

species, the bay scallop, Argopecten iTTadians, inhabits

eelgrass beds of the coastal bays, but commercially important sets occur only sporadically.

Ancient kitchen middens attest to the use of these

resources by early Native Americans when they settled

in the area several thousand years ago (Weslager, 1944,

1972). Tribes migrated from inland villages to the shore

during the summer to gather shellfish, which they consumed on site or smoked and stored for winter use.

When Europeans first explored, and later settled in,

the Delaware Valley, they were amazed by the abundance and size of oysters and quahogs that they found

(Ingersoll, 1881).

* Contribution 9332, Institute ofMarine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers

University.

119
Haven

Barn.gll Inlet

A

L'TTLEEfG HARBOR

BAY

ATLANTIC OCEAN

PENNSYLVANIA

120 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure I

The southern NewJersey shellfish-growing areas with enlargements

of the Atlantic coastal estuaries (A) and Delaware Bay (B). Shaded

areas in Delaware Bay represent natural seed beds.

DELAWARE

'---'

5 km

B

NEW JERSEY

River

Point
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 121

The first permanent European settlements in the

region, established in the middle 1600's, were near the

present cities of Wilmington, Del., and Camden, NJ.

Later colonists moved eastward along both shores of

Delaware Bay and to the Atlantic coast during the remainder of 17th century and into the 18th century

(Weslager, 1967).

Settlers living near the shore initially collected shellfish for their own consumption. Commercial harvesting arose as the growing towns and cities created markets for large quantities ofshellfish. Oyster and quahog

harvesting accelerated with the expansion of population centers around Wilmington, Philadelphia, and New

York, and eventually grew into one of the most potent

and influential market forces in the region. Overharvesting and disease have since greatly reduced oyster

harvests, whereas the value of the quahog industry remains at a near historic high.

Physical Description of Shellfish Growing Areas

Beginning 50 km (about 30 miles) below New York

Harbor, a series of small shallow bays extends for 140

km (85 miles) along the coast of New Jersey, from

Barnegat Bay to Cape May Harbor (Fig. 1). Barrier

islands broached by occasional inlets separate the bays

from the Atlantic Ocean. Inland, they are bordered by

extensive saltwater marshes through which small rivers

and creeks introduce fresh water.

Barnegat Bay, with its southern extension, Little Egg

Harbor, is a narrow lagoon-type estuary about 60 km

(37 miles) long, 2-6.5 km (1.2-3.5 miles) wide, and 1-6

m (3-18 ft) deep, lying on a north-south axis (Chizmadia

et al., 1984). Salt water enters at the head of the bay

through the Point Pleasant Canal from the Manasquan

Inlet, at Barnegat Inlet on the east, and through Beach

Haven Inlet at the south (Fig. lA). Freshwater from

surface runoff in the Pine Barrens flows in through

multiple creeks and rivers, as well as through ground

water seepage. Salinity ranges from 12-32%0, with a

mean of about 25%0 in the center of the bay. Eelgrass,

Zosu'7'a marina, is the primary benthic macroflora and

providesimportant nursery areas (Chizmadia et al., 1984).

To the south lie two smaller estuaries, Great Bay and

Great Egg Harbor Bay (Fig. lA). In contrast to Barnegat

Bay, these lie on east-west axes, are fed by one or two

relatively large rivers, and have a single, major opening

to the ocean. Along each bay axis is a salt gradient from

brackish to near ocean salinity. Each is about 10-11 km

by 5-6 km (6 x 3.5 miles) with depths of 1-5 m (3-15

ft). Interspersed among these larger estuaries are shallow, high-salinity lagoons surrounded by salt marsh.

Ocean inlets provide saltwater, but the lagoons have

little freshwater input and no clear salinity gradient.

West ofCape May lies Delaware Bay, a funnel-shaped

estuary covering nearly 2,000 km2 (750 miles2), bounded

on the north by New Jersey and on the south by Delaware (Fig. IB). Nearly 60% of the gauged fresh water

inflow is from the Delaware River (measured at Trenton, NJ.). and the total drainage area for the estuary

covers 35,000 km2 (13,500 miles2) in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. The estuary joins

the Atlantic Ocean over a distance of 19 km (12 miles)

between Cape May and Cape Henlopen. From the capes,

where salinity is 30-31 %0, salt content decreases regularly to 0-4%0 at the port of Wilmington.

Delaware Bay is relatively shallow, with an average

depth of 5-8 m (15-25 ft), a tidal range of 1.3-1.7 m

(4-5 ft), and prevailing winds (northwest in winter and

southwest in summer) approximately along its major axis.

These factors contribute to high turbidity and prevent the

growth of aquatic vegetation such as eelgrass and

macroalgae that are common in the coastal lagoons.

Mean water temperatures in the region range from

-1.8 to 28°C, with the higher temperatures occurring in

the shallower estuaries, such as Barnegat Bay, which

also warm faster in the spring and cool more rapidly in

autumn than do the deeper bays. Intertidal areas frequently have water temperatures well above 30°C.

Shellfisheries Before 1880

Although few reliable harvest records exist before 1880,

the importance of molluscan shellfish to the region's

economy can be traced in legislation designed to protect and enhance the resource. The newly established

colony of New Jersey passed legislation in 1719 that

prohibited residents from taking oysters during the

summer spawning season and barred nonresidents entirely (Ingersoll, 1881). Later, in 1775, a second law

prohibited

"a Practice [that] hath prevailed of raking and

gathering great Quantities of Oysters with Intent

to burn the same for Lime only, whereby great

Waste is made, and the Oyster Beds thereby in

danger of being entirely destroyed."

In 1846 the state passed much broader legislation

entitled "An Act for the preservation of clams and oysters." The law not only protected the natural resource

by reiterating the earlier legislation, but it encouraged

cultivation of the shellfish by legalizing and protecting

the planting of seed oysters in creeks, ditches, and

ponds (Bacon, 1903).

The State of Delaware began enacting oyster laws in

1812, when it restricted harvesting to residents of the

state (Miller, 1962). Additional legislation in the 1830's

sought to conserve the resource by limiting harvests

and outlawing oystering during the summer.
122 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

By the late 1870's, when Federal and state governments began keeping records, commercial harvesting

of both quahogs and oysters was already well developed

along the Atlantic coast of southern NewJersey and in

Delaware Bay. Within 14 years, from 1879 to 1893, at

least four different surveys were made of the resource.

The first was by Ernest Ingersoll, a young journalist/

scientist who visited all oyster-growing regions of the

United States and Canada and reported on their condition for the 10th Census ofthe United States (Ingersoll,

1881). He also obtained information on mussels, quahogs, and scallops, which was published later (Ingersoll,

1887). Samuel Lockwood (1882) surveyed the NewJersey

oyster interests for the State's Bureau ofLabor and Industry in 1882. Six years later,Julius Nelson (1889), a newly

hired biologist at the New Jersey College of Agriculture

reported on the status ofboth quahogs and oysters in New

Jersey. The final work (Hall, 1894) was a comprehensive

report on the state's oyster industry, produced for the U.S.

Commission on Fish and Fisheries by Ansley Hall.

Although the reports varied in scope from the largely

"best guess" estimates of Nelson to the meticulously

detailed descriptions and statistics of Hall, similar conclusions were reached: 1) oysters were an extremely

valuable product in the economies of New Jersey and

Delaware, as well as the city of Philadelphia; 2) quahogs

were considerably less important, being somewhat of

an "appendage ofthe oyster trade" (Ingersoll, 1887); 3)

the ever-growing oyster industry had already severely

depleted natural beds; and 4) the supply of both quahogs and oysters could be much increased by better

husbandry of the resource and a greater reliance on

cultivation rather than wild harvest.

Data Sources

Federal landings records for eastern oysters and northern quahogs, collected under the U.S. Departments of

Interior and Commerce, are intermittent from 1880 to

1929, after which they become regular (Lyles, 1969;

NMFS, 1990). For the most part, the figures are derived

from reports offishermen, dealers, and processors, and

can be considered minimal. Exceptions are records of

seedbed harvests in New Jersey after 1955, which were

obtained by the Oyster (now Haskin Shellfish) Research

Laboratory at Rutgers University and the New Jersey

Bureau of Shellfisheries, through direct observation of

deck loads. Also, Delaware records both seed and market catches by censusing vessel deck loads.

Both Delaware and New Jersey have kept careful

records of license and lease revenues, including numbers and sizes ofvessels and acreages leased. For consistency in this review, landings figures reported in pounds

have been converted to bushels using the following

factors obtained from landings records: Northern quahogs-8 pounds/bushel until 1908, 9 from 1921 through

1932, and 10 after 1933; eastern oysters-7.5 pounds/

bushel from 1880 to 1929,8.5-9 in the early 1930's, 6-7

in the 1940's and 1950's, 8 in the early 1960's, and 6

after 1964; bay scallops-6 pounds/bushel.

NewJersey Oyster Biologists

Julius Nelson was a recent graduate ofJohns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, Md., when he was hired in 1880

as the biologist at the newly established New Jersey

Agricultural Experiment Station (Fig. 2). As a former

student ofthe renowned oyster biologistWilliam K Brooks,

Nelson maintained a keen interest in oyster biology, even

though hisresponsibilities included research on all farmed

animals. He argued that the planting ofseed oysters was a

form of agriculture and established the Department of

Oyster Culture at Rutgers University in 1888.

Nelson was succeeded by his son, Thurlow Nelson,

and eventually by Harold Haskin, a student of the

younger Nelson. Together they spanned a nearly 100-

year tradition of oyster research in the state. In 1991,

the Department of Oyster Culture was merged with the

Department ofMarine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers,

which still maintains a shellfish research program.

Barnegat Bay to

Cape May Oyster Fishery

The Peak Years 1880 to 1925

In 1880 the Barnegat Bay oyster beds extended from

the southern end of the bay approximately 16 km (10

miles) northward to the mouth of Forked River. They

were a source of seed oysters for planting in the small

embayments to the south along the Jersey coast, to the

north in Raritan Bay, around Staten Island, and on the

south shore of Long Island (Ingersoll, 1881). By then,

the beds were already suffering from overharvesting.

New Jersey had included a "rough cull" measure in its

1846 legislation, which mandated the separation ofshells

from oysters aboard ship and their immediate return to

the beds as cultch for the attachment of oyster larvae.

But, as Ingersoll (1881) lamented, the law was neither

obeyed nor enforced, the beds had greatly deteriorated, and seed shipments were declining.

Beds at the mouth of the Mullica River, called the

"gravellings" (now Graveling Bed), and those in the

Great Egg Harbor and Tuckahoe Rivers also provided

seed, mostly to small planters alo~g the coast. When

Ingersoll visited them in 1879-80, there appeared to be

no lessening in the available quantity "despite great
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 123

Figure 2

Dr. Julius Nelson, first director of the New Jersey Oyster Research Laboratory of

Rutgers University, at his laboratory at Barnegat, N.J. (ca. 1906). Source: Nelson,J.

1907. Report of the Biological Department, New Jersey Agricultural College Experiment Station for the year 1906. New Brunswick.

amounts removed each year." Within a dozen years,

however, Hall (1894) noted that many of those beds

were exhausted.

Oyster planting began in Barnegat Bay as early as the

1830's, not long after it started around New York City

(Ingersoll, 1881), and it was still employing about 300

persons during 1889-93 (Hall, 1894). It was not entirely successful, however, as planters were resented by

men who continued to catch wild seed and considered

the planters to have usurped good natural beds for

their own use. Poaching was common and diminished

enthusiasm for purchasing and planting seed oysters.

Also, there was growing competition from quahogers

for bay bottom on which both quahogs and oysters

would grow (Nelson, 1889).

At the time of the Ingersoll (1881) survey, the Atlantic shore of New Jersey had already become a popular

summer retreat, with centers in Atlantic City and Cape

May. An oyster growout industry, which developed in

the small lagoons near these resort cities, supported

hundreds ofsmall planters (Ingersoll, 1881; Hall, 1894).

Seed oysters came from Barnegat and Great Bays, as

well as from Chesapeake Bay, and were frequently large

enough to be planted in the spring and harvested a few

months later for sale in the resort hotels. Not all the

oysters were sold locally, however. The same rail lines

that brought tourists from Philadelphia to Atlantic City

carried oysters in the opposite direction. In 1879-80,

about 125,000 bushels were shipped through Pleasantville, just inland from Atlantic City.

Ingersoll (1881), who provided the first solid figures

on the industry, estimated that in 1879-80 1,000 tongers

were employed in oystering along the Atlantic coast of

southern New Jersey. A total of 675 vessels, mostly under 5 tons, harvested 330,000 bushels(about one-fourth

of it grown from Chesapeake seed), which represented

11% of the total state production and was worth about

$310,000.

Between 1902 and 1905, the state of New Jersey assumed control of most of the oyster industry along the

Atlantic coast, and subsequent reports of the New Jersey Bureau ofShellfisheries make frequent note of conflicts between quahogers and oystermen, and between

oystermen who wanted all areas open to public harvest

and planters who wanted to lease acreage for private

cultivation.

Most oystermen operated from small boats because

tonging was the only legal harvest method. Seed oysters

were in chronic short supply and the cost of importing

seed from the Chesapeake and Long Island Sound was
124 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

prohibitively high for most of the small planters (New

Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, 1912).

Small-scale oystermen had another problem during

the first decade of the century, in that several large

grants to underwater lands containing natural oyster

beds were sold by the State Riparian Commission

(McCay, In press). Private ownership of rich seed areas

by a few wealthy individuals threatened to displace hundreds of oystermen who had made their living tonging

on what the state legislature itself had deemed public

oystering grounds. Scandal and conflict of interest

cloaked the riparian purchases and incensed the local

baymen. The situation came to a head in 1907 in a

violent clash between hundreds of tongers and guards

hired by the Sooy Oyster Company, which claimed a

riparian grant on the Mullica River seed beds (New

Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, 1908).

The ensuing legal battles exposed more questionable

official conduct: critical testimony as to whether the

riparian grants were on natural oyster grounds was not

allowed, nor was testimony permitted that the state, to

enhance the public resource, had allocated funds for

the planting of shell cultch on the disputed lands. In

the end, the riparian claims were upheld, although in

1906 the state legislature ordered that no new grants be

made in shellfish grounds (McCay, In press). A physical

legacy of the Sooy riparian grant in the Mullica is a

series of ditches dug across narrow "necks" of marshland at bends in the river!. The company planted shells

and oysters in the ditches, in an apparent attempt to

create oyster bottom from the "high ground" portion of

their grant.

The Demise of Oystering

in Baxnegat Bay Mter 1925

At the peak of the New Jersey oyster industry, from

about 1870 to 1930, the Barnegat Bay-Cape May area

produced about 20% of all market oysters harvested in

the state. By 1930 this figure was less than 10%. Overfishing of relatively small natural beds, already taking a

toll 50 years earlier, was an important reason for the

decline. Change in the salinity regime was another factor.

In 1919, a major Atlantic storm drastically altered Beach

Haven Inlet (see Fig. lA), increasing salinity in Little Egg

Harbor and giving an advantage to oyster predators. The

oysters died, but were replaced by quahogs that flourished

in the saltier waters (Nelson, 1960).

For a decade after 1925, a series ofset failures dealt a

major blow to the oyster industry in Barnegat Bay. In

annual reports of the New Jersey Agricultural ExperimentStation, Thurlow Nelson (1929, 1930, 1933, 1934)

1 Maxwell, D. 1993. Leeds Point, NJ. Personal commun.

chronicled the problem: good broods of larvae were

produced but did not survive beyond the early setting

stage. By 1929, he had formulated an explanation:

oystermen harvested the fastest growing oysters and

threw back the stunted ones. It was the latter, he believed, that were now producing the "defective" progeny, a process he called the "selection of the unfit"

(Nelson, 1930).

Nelson (1933) apparently abandoned this hypothesis

several years later, when he concluded that a major

cause of the problem was the Point Pleasant Canal,

completed in 1925, which introduced salt water

into the head of the Bay, altered circulation patterns,

and fostered the spread of predators. By the 1950's,

Barnegat Bay was producing only a few thousand bushels of oysters a year, and since then landings have been

insignificant.

Current Status of Oystering on the

Atlantic Coast of Southern NewJersey

For the last half century, oystering on the New Jersey

coast has centered in Great Bay. Fueled by the small

(150 acres (McCloy and Joseph, 1985», but productive

Mullica River seed beds, the region supported 60-70

planters and tongers as late as 19902• Most of the river's

seed catching area is leased by planters with grounds in

Great Bay.

At one time, the state transplanted seed oysters from

the public beds in the Mullica to tonger's beds in Great

Bay, but this practice was discontinued in 1982 for lack

of funds. Oyster diseases, both MSX and Dermo, have

limited oyster production on the coast, as they have in

Delaware Bay. Because of recent heavy losses to Dermo

desease, most growers have left the fishery and there

are currently only two active planters left.

Barnegat Bay to Cape May

Northern Quahog Fishery _

History From 1880 to 1930

Quahogs are scattered over most of the bottom in the

coastal bays of New Jersey where salinities of 25-32%0

are high enough to support them (Kennish et al., 1984;

McCloy and Joseph, 1985; Joseph, 1989). Although a

fishery for quahogs has probably existed along the coast

as long as there has been an oyster fishery, it did not

command the same attention, nor did it produce comparable revenue, until about 1930.

2 Joseph,]. 1997. New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, Leeds Point,

NJ. Personal commun.
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 125

600-r----,.-----------------------r40

25 en

:J

20 a::

< 15 ::::l

o

o

35

5

30

quahoging, despite a drop in prices, because it required

little or no capital investment.

Meat shortages during and after World War II increased the demand for quahog products (Ritchie, 1977)

and stimulated a boom in harvests that lasted into the

mid 1950's. The proportion of state landings taken

from southern New Jersey coastal areas gradually increased as northern beds were exhausted or closed by

pollution: 30% in 1888,40% in 1901, 70% in the early

1930's, and nearly 100% between 1960 and 1990. Relaying of quahogs from condemned northern areas to

southern waters, however, contributed a substantial fraction of this harvest after 1983 (see below). It is difficult

to break down recent landings data, but the fraction of

clams coming from Barnegat Bay south has decreased

since 1990 as larger numbers of clams from northern

estuaries are depurated rather than relayed south.

Many of the quahogs harvested during the 1930's and

1940's were large "chowder" quahogs sold to canning

companies. By the late 1950's, however, surfclams,

Spisula solidissima, were being harvested in increasing

numbers from offshore beds (Lyles, 1969). They were

cheaper than chowder quahogs, more consistently available, and eventually replaced them in the processed

clam market (i.e., clam strips and chowder).

The second important event leading to decreased

quahog harvests was pollution. New Jersey is the most

densely populated state among the

United States and borders New York

City, largest in the country. Resorts and

year-round developments crowd the

Atlantic shore. It is not surprising, therefore, that pollution has affected the

state's shellfisheries in those areas.

In the late 19th century, public health

officials were already expressing concern that eating shellfish from contaminated waters could be a health risk

(Kochiss, 1974), and by 1917 some waters near Atlantic City were closed to

shellfishing (Cumming, 1917). More

closures occurred in 1924-25, and additional areas were added in the 1930's.

However, it was not until the early

1960's, after several cases of infectious

hepatitis were traced to the consumption of raw quahogs from Raritan Bay,

that large-scale closures of productive

quahog grounds began to adversely affect landings (Swanson, 1989; MacKenzie, 1997).

Surfclams and Pollution Reduce Landings

..".-'I.n .... 10

BUSHELS LANDED

,I

o~m;;:;;:;:;;;;;~rrrmnrrrmn~~mmrmmrmmrmmrmmrrmmrmmmJ_o

100

500

Figure 3

Reported landings of Atlantic quahogs in New Jersey. The proportion

coming from Barnegat Bay south was 30% in 1888,40% in 1901,70% in

the early 1930's, and was nearly 100% between 1960 and 1990.

1, 400

x

300 w

I

en

:J

aJ 200

Northern quahog landings for New Jersey declined after reaching a peak of nearly 600,000 bushels around

1900 (Fig. 3). A resurgence of quahoging occurred in

the 1930's during the Depression, and the total value of

quahog landings approached that of oysters, which declined at the same time. Men were attracted to

Rise of Quahoging Mter 1930

As he did for the oyster, Ernest Ingersoll (1887)

provided the first published estimates of quahog production in NewJersey. He calculated that 241,000 bushels were harvested from Barnegat to Cape May in 1880.

Most of the quahogs came from just inside Barnegat

Inlet, where diggers sold their harvests to boats that

came down the coast from New York. Some of the

quahogs were salted and pickled for shipment to Europe or to the western United States.

Eight years later, Julius Nelson (1889) estimated the

total state production at 333,000 bushels, about one-third

of which came from the southern coast. He also noted

that there was intense competition between quahogers

and oystermen for bay bottom, and that the quahogers

were winning. Annual reports of the New Jersey State

Oyster Commission and the Bureau ofShellfisheriesfrom

1899 to 1921 describe the oyster industry in glowing terms,

but make few references to quahogs. The latter often

reflect the frustration of state officials at the refusal of

quahogers to support or obey conservation measures or to

attempt planting and cultivating seed quahogs.
126 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Industry Changes Mter 1970

The large quantity of quahogs in closed areas was no

longer available to the fishery, but it still represented a

potentially valuable resource. To utilize it, the state

instituted a relay program in 1970. Under supervision

ofshellfisheries officials, quahogers are allowed to harvest quahogs from contaminated areas and replant them

on private grounds in approved areas. The quahogs are

marketed after they have been in the clean water at

least 30 days while the temperature is above lOoC. Until

1983, transplants were made from southern bays, particularly those behind Atlantic City, into Great Bay3.

Thereafter, most of the relayed quahogs were moved

from northern estuaries, especially Raritan Bay, into

Barnegat Bay. As of 1989, 2-30% (mean, 13%) of reported landings were attributed to relay (McCloy and

Joseph, 1985; Joseph, 1989). Two depuration plants,

newly operating in the state, are processing an increasing share of the quahogs marketed since 1990. Combined relayed and depurated clams now represent about

half of the reported quahog landings.

Since the mid-1970's, New Jersey has made a concerted effort to clean up its coastal waters. Recent restrictions on sewage discharge and coastal development,

and a decision to shift sewage treatment plant outfalls

from the small back bays into the ocean have had

promising results. Since 1980, 22,500 acres offormerly

condemned waters in the state's southern coastal bays,

where the most dense hard quahog populations exist

(Joseph, 1989), have been approved for direct harvest

ofshellfish, and more are added each year4.

Another substantial change in the industry has been

the use of hatchery-produced seed quahogs. A few individuals began experimenting with hatchery techniques

in the early 1970's, but their efforts formed only a small

proportion of the total harvest until the 1980's. Although accurate figures are difficult to obtain, it is

estimated that half ofthe harvest is now based on hatchery seed5.

In contrast to oysters, which set and survive predictably in certain areas, quahog setting and survival is

highly variable both spatially and temporally6.

Quahogers follow successful wild sets from one bay to

another or from one site within a bay to another, and

may harvest from it for as long as 5 years. In recent

3 Joseph, J. 1997. New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, Leeds Point,

NJ. Personal commun.

4 Connell, R. 1997. New Jersey Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis, Leeds Point, NJ. Personal commun.

5 Canzonier, W.J. 1997. Aquarius Associates, Manasquan, NJ. Personal commun.

6 Fegley, S. R. 1992. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port

Norris, NJ. Personal commun.

Figure 4

Bull rake, used for Atlantic quahog gathering, showing

basket and tooth bar. Photograph by S. E. Ford.

years, improved water quality has drawn quahogers into

bays that were formerly closed to the taking ofshellfish

and where large populations had developed in the absence of harvesting.

In 1996, 1,354 fishermen were licensed to harvest

quahogs commercially in New Jersey, about 20% of

them full time; another 7,558 were licensed in the

recreational fishery. Although full-time commercial

quahogers have comprised only about 3% of license

holders during the past decade, they have caught 80%

of all quahogs harvested. 7

Most quahogers use "bull rakes," which have a tooth

bar about 50 cm (20 in) wide behind which is a small

wire basket (Fig. 4). The rake is jerked through the

sediment and the quahogs collect in its basket (Fig. 5).

Treading, a process whereby the quahoger, walking in

shallow water, feels and extracts quahogs from the sediments with hisfeet, is popular with olderfishermen. Tonging is also practiced, but less so than the other methods8.

7 Joseph, J. New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, Leeds Point, NJ.

Personal commun.
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 127

Figure 5

Bull raking from small boat. The handle shaft of a bull rake is typically 3-8 m

(10-18 ft) long, depending on water depth. Use of the bull rake is restricted to

water less than 2.5-3 m (8-10 ft) deep. Photograph by S. R. Fegley, Maine

Maritime Academy.

Minimum legal size is 36 mm (1.5

inches) (greatest dimension), although there is pressure to reduce

this to 24 mm (1 inch) for hatchery-produced quahogs.

Commercial quahogers have

no restriction on the number of

quahogs they can catch or the

season in which they can harvest

(except when quahogs are in waters seasonally restricted because

of pollution). The average daily

catch for full-time quahogers in

1990 was about 900 quahogs9.

Recreational quahogers are permitted to catch up to 150 quahogs per day for personal use.

The average number of commercial quahogers typically working

in the coastal bays of New Jersey

on a given day in autumn and

spring is about 45. This figure

rises to about 130 in summer

when part-time quahogers are

more numerous8.

The long-term outlook for the

quahog industry in New Jersey is

good. Prices rose dramatically from 1970 to 1990, and

although they were depressed during a brief recession

in the early 1990·s. they had rebounded by 1994 (Fig.

3). The opening of formerly restricted waters and the

increased use of cultured seed provide needed stability

for maintaining the markets.

A major impediment to sustained growth is the lack

of a clear state policy to support aquaculture10. Harvesters of wild quahogs do not wish public areas to be

leased for private culture, which limits the expansion of

quahog culture because these areas contain some of

the best growing grounds. This conflict may be n:solved

as increasing numbers of quahogers use cultured seed,

rather than wild harvests, to satisfY the market for small

quahogs ("necks") that have the highest unit value and

are generally served raw or steamed; larger quahogs are

used for stews and chowders. The newly passed (1997)

Aquaculture Development Act offers the potential for

change, however. It assigns to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture responsibility for developing policies and regulations to foster all aquaculture in the

8 McCay, B., and S.R. Fegley. 1990. Results of overflight survey,

Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port Norris. NJ. Personal

commun.

9 Results of unpublished 1990 survey courtesy of j. Joseph. New

Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, Leeds Point, N.J.

JOKraeuter,j. 1997. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port Norris,

NJ. Personal commun.

state. One outcome might be the setting aside ofspecial

areas for aquaculture operations only.

Barnegat Bay to Cape May

Bay Scallop Fishery _

Bay scallops, Argopecten irradians, were probably harvested intermittently and in small quantities from the

coastal bays during the 19th century. Ingersoll (1887)

named New Jersey in his survey of states with scallop

landings, but lumped figures with states to the south.

The annual report of the New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries (1919) discussed the potential for starting a

scallop fishery in the eelgrass beds along the coast, and

scallops had already been purchased and planted. If

successful, the test would be continued by importing

more scallops as broodstock. Apparently, the experiment did not work as scallops were not mentioned in

subsequent rcports. No available records show bay scallop landings in southern New Jersey until 1956, when

52,300 bushels, valued at $287.000 were harvested. Good

scallop setting continued for the next dozen years, with

watermen who ordinarily caught quahogs and crabs

participating in harvests that ranged from 700 to 63,000

bushels annually, mostly from Barnegat Bay. The total

catch during this period, 317,000 bushels, was valued at

just over $1,UOO,OOO. Mter 1967, bay scallop harvests were
128 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

reported in only 1973 and 1974. Only the adductor muscle

ofscallops, usually fried or broiled, is consumed.

Delaware Bay Oyster Fishery _

Development of an Industry:

Colonial Era to mid 1880's

Oysters grow in Delaware Bay from its mouth to Bombay

Hook, on the western (Delaware) side of the estuary,

and to just below Artificial Island on the eastern (New

Jersey) side, a distance of about 80 km (50 miles) along

a salinity gradient that decreases from about 30%0 to

5%0 (Fig. IB). Oyster beds are more numerous on the

New Jersey side, not only because it has greater area,

but because a net inflow of water on the eastern shore,

as well as prevailing westerly winds, tend to concentrate

larvae on the NewJersey side. The industry on the New

Jersey shore has always been much larger, producing an

average offour times as many oysters and often attracting more attention, than the Delaware industry.

Thomas Campanius Holm, an early Swedish settler,

wrote in 1642 that Delaware Bay oysters were "so very

large that the meat alone is the size of our oysters

[Ostrea edulis] shell and all" (Ingersoll, 1881). A chart

drawn by another Swede, Peter Lindestrom, between

1654 and 1656 showed the entire Delaware shore lined

with oyster beds, as well as a large bed extending west

from Cape May Point in New Jersey (Miller, 1962).

Oysters from the bay were an important food source for

early Dutch and Swedish colonists, and the establishment of British settlements along the bayshore later in

the 1600's, especially the growth of Philadelphia as the

region's largest city, fostered the beginning of commercial harvests. By the 1750's, fresh oysters from Delaware

Bay were being shipped to Philadelphia and New York

(Smith, 1765), and pickled oysters, to the West Indies

(Miller, 1962). The earliest oystermen were also farmers who probably gathered oysters from inshore areas

using small boats and tongs; however, sloops and schooners capable of harvesting oysters from deep-water beds

were built on the Cohansey River at Greenwich in the

1730's (Rolfs, 1971), and a 1777 map of New Jersey

shows a large area of oyster beds offshore from Ben

Davis Pointll.

During the late 18th century, seed oysters from Delaware Bay were being sent to Connecticut and Massachusetts for growout and subsequent marketing in New

York City and Boston, respectively (Ingersoll, 1881;

Kochiss, 1974). Early in the 19th century, the oyster

llA map entitled "The Province of NewJersey, Divided into East and

West, commonly called the Jerseys; from a 1769 survey." Engraved

and published by Wm. Faden, Charing, 1 Dec. 1777.

dredge was introduced into Delaware Bay by the

northerners because they wanted a more rapid and

efficient way than tonging of gathering large quantities

ofseed (Miller, 1962).

In response to the influx of out-of-state boats, Delaware enacted "An Act for the Preservation of Oysters,

Terrapins and Clams" in 1812, which restricted the

taking of these species to residents of the state. There

was little public support for, or enforcement of, the

legislation, however, or for subsequent laws passed in

the 1830's, which prevented the taking of oysters during their reproductive period, from 15 May to 15 August (Miller, 1962).

Oystering was becoming more profitable: records of

a duPont household from 1828-1842 show that a bushel

of oysters cost $0.50 and a quart ofshucked oysters was

$0.25 (Miller, 1962). Interest in the growing industry by

outside investors led to the founding of the "New Jersey-Delaware Oyster Company" in 1825 (Hall, 1894). Its

purpose was to improve the industry and protect the

natural beds, but shareholders soon grew dissatisfied

with incompetent management of the company and

litigation resulted in its eventual dissolution. The existence of an important oyster fishery in the bay was

acknowledged by the State of NewJersey in the "Act for

the preservation of clams and oysters," passed in 1846,

which specifically exempted Delaware Bay from a statewide prohibition against the use of dredges (Bacon,

1903). Although dredges were then operated entirely

by hand, they had already made a major impact on

natural beds, destroying their critical reef-like (i.e., vertical) nature. As described in Watson's Annals of Philadelphia written in 1843 (Ingersoll, 1881), this outcome

was considered beneficial at the time:

"... that our fields of oysters [i.e., Delaware Bay

seed beds]. notwithstanding their constant delivery, are actually on the increase, and have been

augmenting in extent and quality for the last thirty

and forty years. This fact ... is said to be imputable

to the great use of the dredging-machines, which,

by dragging over a greater surface, clears the beds

ofimpediments, and trails the oysters beyond their

natural position, and thus increases the boundaries of the field."

The Industry Develops: 1850 to 1900

When oysters were first harvested commercially in Delaware Bay, they were transported directly to Philadelphia by the same boats that caught them, and most of

the commerce was controlled by Philadelphians. Mter

the opening of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in

,1829, Delaware Bay oysters were shipped to Baltimore

where they were shucked and canned fresh for ship-
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 129

ment west (Miller, 1962). Several canning houses

opened in Delaware, starting around 1840; however,

Philadelphia was still the major oyster marketing center

in 1880, when Ingersoll (1881) estimated that 2,700,000

bushels were either consumed in the city or shipped

west.

In a continuing attempt to preserve the resource,

both New Jersey and Delaware passed legislation that

promoted oyster planting in the Bay (reviewed by

Ingersoll, 1881). In 1856, NewJersey granted the Board

ofFreeholders ofCumberland County, which bordered

the rich oyster growing area south of Egg Island Point

known as the Maurice River Cove, the right to "occupy"

that section of the bay from Egg Island Point to East

Point and out to the ship channel (Fig. IB), to survey

and map the area, and to lease 10-acre plots to the

highest bidder for periods up to five years to "promote

planting and growth ofoysters." Numerous natural beds

existed in the lower bay at that time and planting was

forbidden on them. In addition, oyster boats were assessed a license fee, with the collections paid into an

"Oyster Fund," administered by several oyster commissioners, who were expected to enforce the oyster laws

and prevent theft. Neither this act, nor the earlier law

of 1846, however, provided any effective means for

their enforcement. The oyster industry grew rapidly

after the Civil War and as pressure on the resource

increased, both states were forced to remedy defects in

enforcement ofshellfish laws.

New Jersey enacted legislation in 1871 that created

the "Maurice River Cove and Delaware Bay Oyster Association" and vested it with regulatory and law-enforcement powers. This group, made up of captains and

owners of all licensed oyster boats, collected lease and

boat license fees that were deposited into the "Oyster

Fund" and used to hire a watch boat and crew to patrol

the planting grounds. As all members of the Association had a vested interest in the oyster industry, it was

expected that they would faithfully enforce laws protecting it. If the fund exceeded $2,000 at the end ofthe

fiscal year, the surplus was to be used in support ofstate

schools. Not surprisingly, in 1894 Hall (1894) found

that no funds from this source had ever been deposited

in the state treasury.

Across the bay, the State of Delaware was also trying

to protect and encourage its oyster industry. In 1871,

the oyster grounds were officially divided at Port Mahon

(Fig. IB) into upbay public beds and downbay planting

grounds (Miller, 1962). This was followed in 1873 by an

act permitting any person to layout and stake up a 1-

acre plot of bay bottom for planting (Ingersoll, 1881).

It also provided for larger plots, up to 15 acres, termed

"Oyster Plantations," which were leased from the state.

Plantings could not, however, be made on an existing

natural bed. In contrast with New Jersey, funds collected from vessel licenses and ground lease fees were

paid directly to the State of Delaware, which administered and regulated the fishery.

On both sides of the bay tensions arose because of

the division between privately leased grounds and natural seed beds, which remained in the public domain.

During the 1880's and 1890's, perceived encroachment

on the public beds by several planters who obtained

riparian grants extending 0.8 km (0.5 miles) into the

bay along a 10-km (6-mile) section of the New Jersey

seed area just above Egg Island Point, precipitated a

bloodless "oyster war" (Hall, 1894). A series offorays by

oystermen on the riparian grants were designed to force

a legal settlement of claims that the riparian grants

infringed on the natural oyster beds. The conflict culminated in the arrest of more than 30 persons after a

raid in April 1894 (McCay, In press). Subsequent court

cases found that merely planting shells or oysters did

not qualify as an "improvement" to the grant, which was

a necessary condition for maintaining exclusive use of a

riparian claim. Thus, the raiders were exonerated and

any oysters on the riparian grants were considered common property. The grants themselves were eventually

repurchased by the state (New Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, 1905a), which re-emphasized the principle

that the oyster seed beds were part ofthe "public trust":

"These oyster beds are the natural heritage of all

the people of the State, and should be forever

preserved and kept sacred to the free public use of

the inhabitants of the State ..."

The growth of the oyster industry in the Maurice

River Cove and the apparent effectiveness of the 1871

legislation was described the following year by a resident of nearby Port Norris (Mints, 1964):

"Our oyster business now seems to be in a safe and

sound condition. The special officer, Mr. Gilbert

Compton, with the assistance of the oystermen,

has purchased a steamer, which cruises the bay and

cove very greatly to the terror and annoyance of

the Phila. oystermen, and.... we can see the boats

hanging off our reach and we presume longing

with wishful eye after our oysters, but the presence

of the steamer in the bay bodes to them an ill

omen, bearing the inscription, 'Thus Far ShaltThou

Come and No Farther.' We calculate the Philadelphians will get tired of risking their boats to the

tender mercies of the New Jersey Oyster law, and

will either become residents of our state, or put

their boats in command of those who can employ

them legitimately, for the faithful watch kept by

our steamer during the season will break up a

business that must prove unprofitable, and thus

reassure our oystermen of permanent and sure

protection. Our oystermen are engaged in planting in greater quantities than ever before but the
130 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 6

The towns of Bivalve and Maurice River, N.J., on the left and right sides, respectively, of the

Maurice River in 1928. Note railroad cars adjacent to large building at center left that

housed shipping companies, and sailing vessels up to six deep tied along the docks.

Photograph courtesy of the Urban Archives, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.

great and increasing demand for cove oysters, we

expect to have ready for sale all we have the capacity for producing. We anticipate the establishment

ofa large and profitable oyster market at our town."

This letter was written in the same year (1872) the

railroad was extended to Port Norris and the neighboring

port of Bivalve (then called Long Reach) on the Maurice

River (Fig. 1B). Mter the railroad was established, the

writer's forecast came true: both Bivalve and Port Norris

became "boom towns." Railroad tracks, four abreast, paralleled the river at Bivalve, where the railway companies

built shipping offices on the water front (Fig. 6).

A second rail line ran to the smaller port of Maurice

River, directly across the river from Bivalve. Oysters

could be moved easily from dockside to boxcars waiting

a few meters ashore. When Ingersoll (1881) visited the

area in 1879-80, the railway was still new and he estimated that of the 1,600,000 bushels sent to market

from the NewJersey grounds, only 100,000 went by rail;

the rest were carried by ship directly to Philadelphia,

some 115 km (70 miles) up river. Soon, however, captains were attracted to the new port adjacent to their

oyster beds. In 1882, Lockwood (1882) predicted that

"The whole market will soon be at Port Norris,

where there are no wharfage, no commissions, and

no expenses of any kind, the captain selling his own

cargo. A large proportion of the boats now running

to Philadelphia would not go if not owned there."

Gradually, the NewJersey industry moved from control by Philadelphians into the hands of in-state residents. By 1888, most of the harvest was shipped by rail

(Nelson, 1889). Oysters harvested from Delaware waters continued to go by boat to Philadelphia or across

the bay to Port Norris or Greenwich (Fig. 1B), where

they were shipped by train to Philadelphia (Ingersoll,

1881; Hall, 1894). Unlike New Jersey, the coastal railroad in Delaware served primarily to transport salt hay

and agricultural produce12.

When Ingersoll (1881) visited Delaware Bay in 1879-

80, there were already nearly 1,400 vessels (about 300

of them sloops and schooners greater than 5 tons) and

2,300 men employed in taking oysters from the estuary.

As is the case today, the majority of these vessels were

doubtless used just for gathering seed oysters in the

spring, when the goal was to obtain as many oysters as

possible during an 8-10 week period. Fewer boats were

12Tinsman.]. 1992. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover.

Personal commun.
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 131

required to harvest oysters for market because it was

done over a longer period. The sailing vessels were

operated by captain-owners and crews of 5-6 men, who

were paid by shares or cash wages and earned from

$240 to $500 per year plus board while they were on the

boats. In 1879-80, Ingersoll estimated that 1,600,000

bushels were harvested from the NewJersey side (about

half of the total NewJersey harvest) and 300,000 bushels from the Delaware side.

Rarely Enough Seed For Planting

In contrast to areas around New York Harbor and New

England, where oyster planting with out-of-state seed

developed because natural beds were depleted, seed

planted on leased grounds in Delaware Bay came from

creeks and upbay beds within the bay itself. The practice of planting arose because oystermen discovered

that oysters in the lower estuary grew faster and attained a better meat quality than did those taken from

the upbay beds and lower salinity creeks. A natural

division arose between the planting grounds and the

upper bay seed beds, where low salinity protected the

young oysters from major predators. Restricted seeddredging seasons in Delaware and New Jersey legislation of 1835 and 1846, respectively, were intended to

preserve the beds. The NewJersey law also contained a

rough cull provision. Delaware enacted a similar measure in 1873, but it applied only to creeks and rivers.

As a matter of fact, to foster road improvement in

Kent County, which borders most of Delaware's oyster

grounds, it became mandatory in 1875 for oystermen to

"land and deposit their oyster-shell on shore [for road

repair] and [it was] unlawful to empty or throw such

shells into the water... ". Two years later, in 1877, the

NewJersey rough cull law applying to Delaware Bay was

repealed. Hall (1894) reported that, "According to the

oystermen, the number of bushels of shells annually

taken from the beds during the planting season considerably exceeds that of the oysters." The shells were

frequently covered with spat, however, which "if they

live, will in time grow to marketable size." Also, shells

were valuable on the leased grounds because they stabilized otherwise soft sediments. Nevertheless, continual

removal of cultch over the next quarter century surely

hastened the deterioration of public beds, a condition

stressed in all reports of the period.

Delaware Bay, with its expanse of seed producing

and planting areas, favored the growth of sizable companies, which could afford capital investment in large

dredge boats, much more so than did the Atlantic

coast, where tonging was the only legal means of catching seed and where small boats could operate safely in

all areas. Not all Delaware Bay oystermen owned vessels

big enough to transport seed oysters in quantities needed

for planting, however. To accomodate smaller oystermen

who wished to continue marketing wild seed, certain

areas in creeks and rivers, or at their mouths, were set

aside. Dredging was prohibited, but enforcement was

lax. During the 1880's conflicts between tongers and

dredgers in Delaware became violent as pirate dredge

boats stole oysters from both the tongers and private

planters (Miller, 1962). Until MSX disease put them

out of business, many small dredge boat operators and

tongers sold seed oysters to the larger planters, who

stationed "buy boats" in the creeks adjacent to the

natural beds during the seed dredging season. Tonger's

beds still exist, although in the last 35 years many have

become silted over.

Although the natural beds of Delaware Bay produced

large quantities of oysters during the 19th century, the

demand was frequently greater than the supply, and

oystermen began importing seed from the Chesapeake.

From the first year of its operation in 1829, records of

the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal indicate large quantities of oysters being moved in the direction of the

Delaware 13. During the 1830's, an average of 150,000

bushels per year passed through the canal. Each decade thereafter, the volume increased until during the

1880's, it averaged nearly half a million bushels a year.

In fact, Ingersoll (1881) estimated that in 1879-80, the

total was nearly 940,000 bushels, 700,000 of which were

destined for planting in the bay and the remainder for

market in or through Philadelphia. Nelson (1889) commented that although the NewJersey seed beds yielded

an estimated 1,250,000 bushels in 1888, "the cry is more

seed."

Over the next 70 years, imported seed continued to

supplement the native supply in Delaware Bay. Originally, most came from the vastJames River seed beds in

Virginia or from the Maryland beds in the upper Chesapeake. Alarmed at the drain on its resource, Virginia

banned the practice, and by 1900, the newly appointed

Oyster Commissioners in NewJersey reported that Virginia seed was becoming scarce and expensive because

Virginia was "stepping up enforcement" of the ban.

Some seed was then brought from Long Island (Nelson,

1934), and in the early 1950's, hundreds of thousands

of bushels were imported from the seaside bays of Virginia, especially Chincoteague Bay14,15. The practice

ended shortly after the outbreak of MSX disease in

1957, when all imports and exports were banned.

130'Connor, D. 1987. A brief overview of the history and present

status of the Delaware Bay oyster fishery. Haskin Shellfish Research

Laboratory, Port Norris, NJ. Unpub!. manuscr., 20 p.

14Bickings, H., Sr. 1989. Peterson Packing Co., Port Norris, NJ.

Personal commun.

15Jeffries, N., Sr. 1989. McKee City, NJ. Personal commun.
132 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

The Boom Years: 1900 to 1930

For nearly 30 years beginning in 1871, the administration and policing of industry on the NewJersey side of

the bay remained entirely in the hands of oystermen

themselves. Hall (1894) was convinced that "the means

for enforcing the law [are] so efficient, that ... offenses

are seldom committed." Nevertheless, many ofthe larger

growers were less enchanted and petitioned the state to

assume the responsibilities of the Oyster Association.

Their efforts were eventually successful, and in 1899

the state took control of the industry and all of the

oyster growing areas in Delaware Bay. Many of the

measures enacted in previous legislation were reiterated in the act of 1899, but supervision of the industry

and enforcement ofthe law were placed in the hands of

a 3-member Oyster Commission, all of whom were industry members appointed by the Governor and who

now had the full force of the State behind them. The

Commission was replaced by a Board of Shellfisheries

and then by Shellfish Councils, which still exist-one

for the Atlantic coast and one for Delaware Bay. Its

members, appointed by the governor, control ground

leases and advise the Commissioner of Environmental

Protection and Energy on regulatory matters.

The long-recognized division between upbay seed

beds (now managed by the state) and lower bay planting grounds (now leased and patrolled by the state) was

officially acknowledged in the 1899 act. By this time,

natural seed beds existed only in the upper bay, and

most of the lower bay was available for planting (Fig.

IB). Seed dredging was to occur between 1 April and

15June (in 1905 this was changed to 1 May to 30June)

and became known as "Bay Season." Of major importance was reinstatement of the rough cull law, which

mandated that no more than 15%, by volume, of material removed from the beds could be shell.

On the Delaware side of the bay, division between

leased grounds and natural beds had occurred 30 years

earlier, in 1871, but "clarifying" legislation continued,

much to the confusion and dismay of the oystermen,

over the next decades culminating, in 1909, in the

establishment of a Shellfish Commission to foster oyster interests (Miller, 1962).

The industry prospered during the early years ofthis

century, helped according to New Jersey officials, by

the new legislation, especially the rough cull law (New

Jersey State Oyster Commission, 1901; Commission for

the Investigation of the Oyster Industry of New Jersey,

1902; NewJersey Bureau ofShellfisheries, 1905a, 1905b).

For several years, the state bought shells and returned

them to the seed beds where they caught a series of

good sets and provided large quantities of native seed.

The total leased acreage increased from 12,000 acres in

1900 to nearly 30,000 acres by 1914.

More and larger dredge boats were added to the

fleet, which in 1929 peaked at nearly 7,700 gross tons,

in New Jersey. At that time, 247 vessels larger than 5

gross tons and averaging 31 gross tons held oyster licenses in the bay. Most were between 10 and 25 m (30-

80 ft) in length, and ofvessels within that size range, 77

operated exclusively under sail and 177 were motorized, although the latter also carried sails (Fiedler, 1932).

Power dredging had been legalized on the New Jersey

leased grounds around 1905 (New Jersey Bureau of

Shellfisheries, 1905a), but sail was still the only permitted method of gathering oysters on the seed beds. The

number ofmen working on each boat varied with vessel

size; however, about 2,700 men were employed on New

jersey's Delaware Bay dredge boats in 1930 (Fiedler,

1932), giving an average crew size of about 11. In Delaware, 16 vessels, averaging about 20 gross tons were

licensed. Ten were sail boats and 6 operated under

power. Ninety men were employed on the dredge boats,

for an average crew size ofjust 6 (Fiedler, 1932).

Floating and Shucking-The growth of the Delaware

Bay industry was built largely on marketing oysters in

the shell, although the practice ofshucking oysters was

already well established in other areas (Ingersoll, 1881;

Kochiss, 1974). A crucial marketing element involved

placing oysters in floats in brackish water for one or two

tides, during which time they "cleansed" themselves of

mud and debris and repaired minor dredge-caused

shell damage, before rail shipment (Fig. 7). They also

added about 20% to their meat volume by absorption

of water (Nelson, 1911). Floating made the oysters better able to survive their long rail voyages, and was widely

practiced along the mid-Atlantic, including the Maurice

River at Bivalve (Ingersoll, 1881; Nelson, 1911; Kochiss,

1974). By 1905, public health officials were becoming

alarmed at the consequences of allowing oysters to be

immersed in waters near population centers. The newly

created U.S. Food and Drug Administration was also

concerned that the uptake offresh water resulted in an

adulterated product. The practice was banned in 1909,

but pressure from oyster interests, including those in

New Jersey led by Julius Nelson (1911), resulted in an

amendment that allowed floating "in waters of sufficient salinity to permit oysters to grow therein" with the

proviso that they could be placed in lower salinity as

long as the product was labeled "floated oysters."

At the same time, legislation was enacted to stop the

pollution ofwater affecting oyster beds. Bivalve, with its

burgeoning population and primitive sanitary facilities,

was an obvious target for the new law, and members of

the Oyster Association took it upon themselves to clean

up the town, including diverting a drainage ditch and

moving 50 families away from the wharf area (New

Jersey Bureau of Shellfisheries, 1911).
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 133

16Nelson, T. C., personal commun., in P.S. Galtsoff (1943), Problems

of the productivity of oyster bottoms of the Atlantic States. Mimeographed summary of an address at the annual meeting of the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Philadelphia, Pa., 10

p., Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port Norris, NJ.

F"JgUre 7

Unloading eastern oysters from floats in the Maurice River at Bivalve, Nj.,

ca. 1905. Note woven baskets and burlap sacks. Each basket held about a

half-bushel, or 100 large oysters ("primes"). The sacks, each holding 600-

700 "primes," were sold to shippers for $3.50-4.00 in 1888-92. New Jersey

Bureau of Shellfisheries photograph.

Figure 8

Oyster shell pile next to a shucking house on the Maurice River during the 1920's.

Photograph from Rolfs, 1971.

Floating resumed at Bivalve, but

was permanently banned in 1927 after a typhoid outbreak in 1924 was

traced to NewJersey oysters (Nelson,

1929). In 1922, the first shucking

house was established in Bivalve and

several others quickly followed

(Mints, 1976). Over the next few

years, the ban on floating pushed

the remainder of the industry to

shucking. Ironically, the shucking

process, in which meats are washed

in fresh water, increases the packed

volume and adds more to the value

(i.e., weight) ofshucked meats than

it does to oysters shipped in the shell.

Another benefit of this system was

that shells remained near the shucking houses (Fig. 8) where they could

conveniently be returned as cultch

to the public beds or private

grounds. After floating was abandoned, most oysters marketed from

Delaware Bay were shucked, although recently the marketing of

carefully culled, high value shell

stock has resumed to supply restaurants on the U.S. east and west coasts.

Initial Decline: 1930 to 1957

From 1880 until 1930, Delaware Bay

oyster production ranged between

1 and 2 million bushels annually

(Fig. 9). On the New Jersey side,

this represented 54% of the state's

production in 1880 and 90% by

1930, as the once productive industry on the coast, especially Raritan

Bay, fell into decline. After 1930,

production remained fairly steady

at about 1,000,000 bushels a year

until 1957. It is not entirely clear

why harvests declined around 1930.

Failure to return shells to the seed

beds was reducing harvests in Delaware (Miller, 1962), and drought

early in the decade allowed predatory oyster drills, Urosalpinx cinerea,

to move upbay onto the seed bedsl6.

An equally important factor may have been loss of

markets and frozen credit during the Depression, which

made it difficult for planters to maintain their large

vessels (Nelson, 1934). In fact, between 1929 and 1936,
134 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

25

20 iiJ

I

(/)

::::l

15

a:

::s

10 <5

o

5

UNIT VALUE

Unexplained mortalities of seed oysters in the early

1940's18 and again in 1950 (Miller, 1962), and a series

ofset failures in the late 1940's and early 1950's, left the

natural beds in a condition that had never before "been

so uniformly bad for so long a period as at present, and

it is highly probable that the present oyster population

of the Natural Beds represents an all time lowI9." Only

continued importation ofseed from Maryland and Virginia allowed the industry to market the average one

million bushels per year that it did until 1956. In response, both the University of Delaware and Rutgers

University began studies of factors influencing seedbed recruitment. Rutgers' Department of Oyster Culture, under Harold Haskin, collected data on larval

abundance, setting, survival, and harvests annually between 1954 and 1991. These showed that a major influence on recruitment was the amount of fresh water

entering the upper estuary20. During periods of low

river flow, which existed from the start ofthe study un til

the late 1960's, predators, primarily the oyster drill,

moved onto the lower seed beds (below Ben Davis

Point) and destroyed newly set spat shortly after they

0.5

2.5

3.0

3.5.---------------------~___r30

>< 2.0 (/)

...J

UJ

1.5

::::l

(IJ

1.0

Figure 9

Reported landings of eastern oysters in New Jersey and Delaware. Most

Delaware landings are from Delaware Bay. Of the New Jersey landings,

about half came from Delaware Bay through 1901, but by 1930, the

proportion was 90%, and it has been nearly 100% in many years since

1974.

'"00

the number of licensed vessels fell

nearly 60%, from 247 to 103. Lack of

credit may also have reduced purchases

ofseed from other states so that planters were relying more heavily on Delaware Bay seed beds, which, despite drill

predation, still produced between

800,000 and 1,000,000 bushels per year

during the 1930's (Fiedler, 1931, 1932,

1934,1936, 1938).

Another important change came to

the industry during the 1930's. As roads

improved, trucking began to replace

rail as the preferred method for shipping oysters. By 1946, the changeover

was complete and the railroad ceased

transporting oysters from the Maurice

River portsl7.

Despite repeated legislation to protect the resource, overharvesting ofseed

beds was a chronic problem in Delaware

Bay. Some of the NewJersey beds nearest to the leased grounds, where both

seed dredging and oyster drill predation

were heaviest, had ceased production

by 1900 (Commission for the Investigation of the Oyster Industry of NewJersey, 1902). The

rough cull law was poorly enforced in Delaware18 and

deterioration of the seed beds was accelerated during

World War II when the requirement for sail dredging

was eliminated in both states. Sailing gear was removed

from the sloops and schooners, and replaced by engines. Motorized boats were much more efficient at

harvesting seed: they could be operated in most weather,

and could dredge in smaller and shoaler areas.

By 1946, the seed beds were in such poor condition

that the NewJersey oyster planters themselves co-sponsored, with the Department of Conservation, an act

requiring that they return to the seed beds, at their own

expense, 60% of all shells from oysters originating on

the beds. During that year, they replanted nearly 500,000

bushels of shells. Subsequent legislation reduced the

requirement to 40%, and in 1979, eliminated it completely, the rationale being that the natural death rate

of oysters on the beds contributed far more shell than

could the oystermen. Only small amounts of native

shell, which the state must now purchase from shucking houses, have been planted since then.

17Anderson, F., and H. Bickings, Sr. 1993. Port Norris, Nj. Personal

commun.

18Caltsoff, P. S. 1943. Problems of the productivity of uyster bottoms

of the Atlantic States. Mimeographed summary of an address presented at the annual meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Philadelphia, Pa., 10 p. Haskin Shellfish Research

Laboratory, Port Norris, Nj.

19NewJersey Oyster Research Laboratory. 1953. First annual report

on the natural seed beds investigation. Haskin Shellfish Research

Laboratory, Port Norris, Nj., 75 p.

2oHaskin, H. H., and S. E. Ford. 1986. Report to the ew Jersey

Bureau of Shellfisheries on the Delaware Bay Oyster Project, 1984-

1986. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port Norris, Nj., 133 p.
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 135

set. Beginning in 1968 and continuing for a dozen

years, however, Delaware River flows returned to, or

exceeded, the average. Oyster drill numbers diminished on the lower seed beds allowing spat to survive.

and those areas began a return to productivity.

In 1972, the entire Delaware Bay received a tremendous oyster set. Oysters were plentiful even on beds that

had been out of production for at least 50 years, and

oystermen remarked that it was the best set anyone

could remember. This and subsequent good sets over

the next dozen years sustained the industry from 1973

through 1985, when seed harvests from the l'iewJersey

beds averaged 370,000 bushels per year. From 50-60

vessels, nearly all of them former schooners 12-25 m

(40-80 ft) in length, averaged 400-500 bushels per day

each during a 4-week season. The average vessel's catch

from the Delaware seed beds was 300-600 bushels per

day, totaling about 40,000 bushels annually. Daily pervessel catches were similar to Ingersoll's (1881) estimate of about 400 bushels in 1880. Major differences,

of course, were that all vessels operated under sail in

1880, the season lasted 10 weeks, 300 boats participated

in the harvest, and an estimated total of about 2,500,000

bushels was caught.

MSX-Devastation and Recovery

In 1957, the oyster industry suffered its most serious

blow yet. That spring, heavy mortality was discovered in

oysters planted the previous year on the New Jersey

leased grounds (Ford and Haskin, 1982). The cause.

soon discovered to be a protozoan parasite, had never

been seen before. It was initially given the acronym

"MSX", standing for "multinucleated sphere unknown"

and was later classified Hasplosporidium (formerly

Minchinia) nelsoni (Haskin et aI., 1966). The parasite

spread rapidly over most of the bay, limited only by the

fresher waters of the creeks, rivers, and upper bay

(Haskin and Ford, 1982). By the end of 1959,90-95%

of the oysters on the planted grounds and about half of

those on the seed beds had died. The coastal bays were

also hit and the industries in NewJersey and Delaware

were devastated. Their combined harvest fell from

711,000 bushels in 1956 to only 49,000 in 1960.

Gradually, the industry rebounded as the seed beds

recovered in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and native

oysters developed some resistance to MSX disease as a

result of natural selection (Haskin and Ford, 1979).

Changes in planting and harvesting practices added to

the recovery. Before MSX, the seed oysters planted

were very small, with as many as several thousand to the

bushel. They remained on the leased grounds for 2-4

years before harvest. Predation by oyster drills was high,

and the growth of surviving oysters just balanced the

volume lost to predation and other causes of natural

mortality so that the long-term average was one bushel

of oysters marketed to one bushel of seed planted

(Ingersoll, 1881)21. When planting resumed after the

MSX epizootic, and for a dozen years thereafter, the

ratio remained 1:1, even though the disease persisted

on the lower bay planting grounds (Haskin and Ford,

1983). This was achieved because planters learned to

avoid areas of high disease activity in the lower bay, and

they sought seed oysters large enough to plant and

market after only a single growing season, which minimized the time oysters were exposed to infection.

The extent of the post-MSX recovery is not reflected

in the landings figures of the period, which show that,

starting in 1974, less than half of the seed planted on

the NewJersey grounds was brought to market. Mortality rates of planted oysters, which were being monitored by the Rutgers Laboratory, showed no evidence

of an increase that could explain this change, and the

ratio remained 1:1 on the Delaware side, where both

seed planted and oysters marketed are closely monitored by the state shellfish agency (Haskin and Ford,

1983). Haskin and Ford (1983) hypothesized that the

discrepancy, which coincided with a return to profitability of a business that had been in severe depression

for 15 years, was due to substantial under-reporting of

oysters marketed by New Jersey planters. In fact, the

quantity of oysters marketed from the New Jersey side

of Delaware Bay between 1973 and 1985 was probably

close to the volume ofseed planted, or from 300,000 to

450,000 bushels per year. Although that was less than

halfofthe pre-MSX average of about 1,000,000 bushels,

it was based entirely on native seed, whereas nearly half

the seed planted in the 1940's and early 1950's is estimated to have been imported.

During the 1970's and early 1980's, at the peak ofthe

post-MSX recovery, 50-100 boats with an average weigh t

of 31-34 gross tons were licensed for seed dredging in

NewJersey each year. At the same time, 6-12 boats were

operating in Delaware. Most of these vessels were used

solely to catch seed oysters during the short spring Bay

Season. On any given day during market season, only

10-15 boats might be operating. When a planted ground

was first dredged in the fall, 600-700 bushels were

typically caught by the large vessels. The ground would

be "worked" until the yield decreased to 50-100 bushels

a day. Oysters were marketed from leased grounds from

1 September through the end ofJune until 1975, when

year-around harvesting was legalized in NewJersey. The

change permitted oystermen to harvest oysters within 2

21Records of oyster planters Harold Washburn and Fenton Anderson, 1937-1956. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port Norris,

NJ.
136 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

months of planting and thus to reduce exposure to

potential MSX infections.

An important change to the oyster boats occurred in

1975. Two NewJersey planters, LutherJeffries,Jr. and

Robert Morgan, Jr., built an automated culling machine and within 2 years, culling machines were installed on nearly every dredge boat (Fig. 10). The machines operate by moving shells through a drum with

sides of evenly spaced bars, or along a slotted conveyor

belt. Shells fall through the spaces or slots and are

directed overboard whereas the oysters are retained

aboard. Before the advent of culling machines, crews of

up to 10-14 men were required on each vessel during

Bay Season to cull. Culling machines have made it

possible to operate even the largest vessels with only a

captain and one or two deck hands. Deck hands typi-

--

FJgurel0

Delaware Bay oyster boat with a drum-type culling machine. Oysters are dumped from dredges on each side

ofthe vessel into hoppers that feed them into drums at

the bow of the boat. The sides of the drums are steel

rods, approximately 24 mm (1 inch) apart, which allow

single valves to fall through and overboard. Oysters are

retained in the drums, directed onto a central conveyor belt, and then moved aft to a pile in front of the

pilot house. Photograph by S. E. Ford.

cally earn $100-$125 per day and captains may make as

much as $300 daily.

NewJersey vessels plantseed oysters on leased grounds

of from 10 to 60 acres, generally at the rate of 1,500-

2,000 bushels per acre. Because losses to MSX disease

are highest downbay, only about 2,000 acres at the

upbay edge of the leased area have been regularly

planted for the past 30 years. In 1981 a new planting

area was established adjacent to some of the lower seed

beds. "Area E," as it is called, was set up to allow leasing

in a section of the bay even farther removed from high

MSX disease activity. Plantings in the new area were not

as successful as expected, partly because the opening of

Area E coincided with drought and a movement of

MSX upbay, and partly because the substrate on many

of the new grounds was too soft to support oysters.

Companies continue to lease grounds downbay, some

of which are several hundred acres in size, as these areas

occasionally receive naturalsets and can be used for dredging blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Ten packing houses

operated in and around Bivalve in 1977, each employing

15 to 150 people as shuckers or on dredge boats harvesting market oysters22.The total for all houses was about 400

employees. Some individuals worked for more than one

company, however, so that the true number of persons

employed wasless than 400, although available records do

not permit determination of exact numbers.

Although harvests did not equal those of pre-MSX

years, it must be emphasized that they were based entirely on native seed. Further, it is probably unrealistic

to think that annual seed harvests exceeding 1,000,000

bushels, as was reported in some years, could be sustained indefinitely. Before about 1955, each time the seed

beds received a heavy set it was dredged out within 2 or 3

years during an 8-10-week season. The strategy in recent

years has been to make sets last as long as possible by

restricting the season to 3 or 4 weeks and by closing beds

when the volume fraction ofoysters on them nears 40%23.

With this plan, the vast 1972 set, plus good sets in several

succeeding years and the closing ofthe seed fishery to new

vessels in 1980, sustained the New Jersey industry until

1985.

Weather and Parasites Cause More Problems

In 1985, after 15 years of modest prosperity, the oyster

industry in Delaware Bay suffered another setback. Severe drought accompanied a resurgence of MSX disease. High mortalities affected planted and seed oysters

220'Connor, D. 1977. Letter to C. Zimolzak, Cumberland Co. Planning Board. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port Norris,

NJ.

2sHaskin, H. H. 1992. Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Port

Norris, NJ. Personal commun.
______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Sbellnsbes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 137

Figure II

Oyster shuckers in Bivalve, NJ., in 1993. Buckets containing oysters

are brought to the shuckers by a conveyor belt from the loading

dock. Shuckers grade the meats as they work, placing each shucked

oyster into one of four pails: Standards (300 or more per gallon,

selects (210-300 per gallon), extra selects (160-210 per gallon),

and counts (160 or fewer per gallon). Shuckers produce 1-2 gallons per hour, depending on oyster size and meat quality. Photograph by S. E. Ford.

over the next 2 years. Recruitment to the

seed fishery decreased and the low numbers

of oysters on the beds caused the Shellfish

Councils of both states to close them to

dredging beginning in 1987. The condition

ofthe beds improved over the next few years

and when the NewJersey beds were reopened

for two weeks in 1990, 160,000 bushels of

seed were planted. The following year, the

beds produced 290,000 bushels in three

weeks, the best weekly yield in a decade.

In 1990, however, a new problem surfaced

when the southern oyster parasite, Perkinsus

marinus, cause of Dermo disease (Andrews,

1988), was found in several locations on the

NewJersey side of Delaware Bay. By 1991, it

had spread over much of the eastern bay,

causing heavy losses of planted and seed

oysters. This was not the first time that P.

marinus, usually restricted to waters south of

NewJersey, had been in the bay. During the

1950's, large numbers of oysters from the

Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay were

imported (Ford, 1996). They were infected

with P. marinus, which spread to adjacent

native oysters. Despite this massive introduction of a highly contagious disease organism, no mortalities were reported and the

disease effectively disappeared after imports

were banned in 1959. It was concluded that temperatures in Delaware Bay were not warm enough to support the parasite without continued introductions (Ford

and Haskin, 1982); however, it is likely that the parasite

persisted at very low levels and proliferated beginning

in 1990 during a period of record high temperatures.

Interestingly, as of spring 1995, only a few cases of the

disease had been detected on the Delaware side of the

bay24, although it has been found since 1991-92 in New

York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (see Ford and Tripp,

1996). The relative scarcity ofoysters to serve as hosts and

the more rapid flushing on the Delaware side may be

responsible. Also, shucking house wastes from Chesapeake

Bay and Gulf of Mexico oysters processed in Bivalve may

have contributed to the NewJersey problem.

There is currently one shucking and one packing

house, with combined employment of about 50, operating in Bivalve. Because of the decline in oyster production from Delaware Bay, they process mostly out-ofstate oysters, especially those from Connecticut. Many

oysters are packed in the shell for shipments to seafood

markets and restaurants as distant as California. Oysters

marketed in this way are generally served raw on the

24Tinsman, J. 1997. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dover.

Personal commun.

u. --u.

"half-shell." Shucked oysters are sold by volume (half

pints to gallons) for stews, frying, or to make scalloped

oysters. Shuckers are currently paid $1.00 for each

pound (-1 pint) of oyster meat they shuck (Fig. 11).

A number ofsmaller oyster planters have gone out of

business since 1985, selling their boats to the larger

remaining companies. The largest NewJersey company

owns 13 vessels. Half a dozen smaller companies and

individuals own 3-6 boats each. About half of the license holders own just one boat. Several large companies lease planting grounds varying from 2,500-3,500

acres, but most individuals and smaller companies each

lease a few grounds totalling up to several hundred

acres. The annual lease fee is $0.50 per acre in New

Jersey and $0.90 in Delaware. New Jersey imposes a

$0.70 tax on each bushel of oysters taken to market

from leases; the figure in Delaware is $0.15.

The Future

The Delaware Bay oyster industry faces an uncertain

future. The seed beds in both states have been closed

for 6 of the 11 years between 1987 and 1997 because of

disease-caused losses and relatively poor setting. The

consequent lack of harvestable oysters has resulted in
138 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

loss ofskilled shuckers; a deterioration ofboats, wharves,

and buildings; and a diminished market for local oysters.

In addition, the oysterman must contend with normal

uncertainties: fluctuations in the national economy, competition for markets from other regions of the country,

and variation in meat yields. One bright spot is the sharp

increase in prices over the last few years (Fig. 9).

The presence of two oyster diseases makes planting

of oysters in the lower bay very risky. In 1995, a new

strategy was tried for the first time in New Jerseydirect marketing from the seed beds in the spring and

the fall. It has been the predominant method of oystering since 1996. Each licensed vessel has received a

quota of 1,000-2,000 bushels per season and harvesters

are charged a $1.25 per bushel fee. From the spring of

1996 through the spring of 1997, about 88,000 bushels,

worth approximately $1,800,000, were direct marketed.

Although marketing from public beds goes against

the policy of encouraging private planting, it has clearly

been a better utilization of the resource under the

currently prevailing disease conditions. For instance, in

1991 and 1995 (the beds were closed from 1992 through

1994),397,000 bushels were taken from the NewJersey

seed beds and transplanted to the leased grounds. Because of high Dermo disease-caused mortality, only a

small fraction, worth $1,189,000, was landed. Thus, for

each bushel removed from the seed beds, the direct

market strategy has returned nearly seven times more

in dockside value compared to typical planting returns

during periods of high Dermo disease.

A revision of the statutes governing the New Jersey

oyster beds was initiated in early 1996 with the objective

of giving industry and management more flexibility to

respond to changing conditions, especially disease. Some

combination ofdirect marketing and transplanting may

result, at least as long as disease pressure so severely

limits returns on planted seed.

The seed beds have returned to production twice

(1970's and 1990-91) after serious depletion, and there

is no reason to believe that they will not do so again.

Nevertheless, their inconsistent production has led to

interest in alternative sources of seed oysters. Between

1987 and 1991, the Maurice River Oyster Culture Foundation, a consortium of NewJersey planters, attempted

to develop growout techniques that would make it economical to use Rutgers MSX-resistant, hatchery-reared

seed in Delaware Bay. Results showed that hatcheryproducedjuveniles, which would take 2-3 years to reach

market, cost $12-$17 per bushel to plant, whereas natural seed, most of it large enough to be marketed after

one season, could be planted at a cost of only $2.50-$8

per bushel25. The difference in survival was not enough

25Canzonier, W. J. 1992. Maurice River Oyster Culture Foundation,

Port Norris, NJ. Personal commun.

to compensate for the higher cost of hatchery seed.

The advent of Dermo disease has placed on hold any

further attempts at refining growout methods.

Although the history ofthe oyster fishery in Delaware

Bay has been one of ups and downs since at least the

1880's, the appearance ofMSX disease in the late 1950's

and Dermo disease in the early 1990's placed additional burdens on an already stressed industry. Nevertheless, oysters marketed from Delaware Bay remain of

very high quality. To take advantage of the bay's capacity to produce excellent oysters, the industry must be

restructured to encourage new methods of culturing

oysters. At present, the only cost to planters for natural

seed, exclusive ofvessel operating costs, is a small ($2-5

per ton in New Jersey) annual fee. Boats capable of

dredging 8,000-12,000 bushels per season pay less than

$350 for the license. In Delaware, a flat-fee dredge boat

license costs $57.50 per year. Until the cost of natural

seed comes more into line with its true value, serious

private investment in alternative methods for obtaining

and culturing seed will not occur.

Delaware Bay

Northern Quahog Fishery _

Northern quahogs are present in small numbers

throughout the lower Delaware Bay, including the leased

oyster grounds, where they are harvested from time to

time using oyster dredges modified with extra long

teeth so they can dig into the sediment. Nelson (1889)

reported that most quahogs caught on the New Jersey

side of the bay came from the shores of the Cape May

Peninsula and were sold to hotels in Cape May. No

quahogs were taken in the Maurice River Cove. It is

difficult to sort out more recent landings figures in New

Jersey, which are listed by county rather than by body of

water. It is probable, however, that most quahogs landed

in Cape May County have been taken from the Atlantic

coastal bays, not from Delaware Bay. Harvests reported

from Cumberland County, which could come only from

Delaware Bay, are intermittent and rarely exceeded

4,000 bushels in any year. In contrast, during the 24-

year period 1941-65, beginning with the legalization of

power dredging and ending when surfclams captured

the large-quahog market, 470,000 bushels were harvested from the Delaware side of the bayl2.

Acknowledgments _

I am grateful to many colleagues and oyster growers

who patiently and graciously provided data, information, and explanations: H. Haskin, W. Canzonier, S.

Fegley, andJ. Kraeuter at the Haskin Shellfish Research
_______ Ford: History and Present Status of Molluscan Shellfishes From Barnegat Bay to Delaware Bay 139

Laboratory;J. Dobarro and J. Joseph of the NewJersey

Bureau of Shellfisheries; R. Connell of the New Jersey

Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis;J.

Tinsman of the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife;

and oystermen Fenton Anderson, Harold Bickings, Sr.,

Robert Morgan, Jr., Donald Maxwell, and William

Riggins, Sr. Thanks also to the National Marine Fisheries Service Statistics Branch, Woods Hole, Mass., for

recent landings data, and to H. Haskin, W. Canzonier,

J. Kraeuter, and L. Jeffries, Jr. for comments on the

manuscript. This is NewJersey Agricultural Experiment

Station Publication D 32405-1-93.

Literature Cited _

Andrews,]. D.

1988. Epizootiology ofthe disease caused by the oyster pathogen Perkinsus marinus and its effects on the oyster industry.

In W. S. Fisher (ed.), Disease processes in marine bivalve

molluscs, p. 47-63. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, Md.

Bacon, W. H.

1903. Statute law of NewJersey relative to clams and oysters. Bur.

Shell Fish. Nj., Sinnickson Chew & Sons Co., Camden, 67 p.

Chizmadia, P. A, M.]. Kennish, and V. L. Ohori.

1984. Physical description of Barnegat Bay. In M.]. Kennish

and R. A Lutz (eds.), Ecology of Barnegat Bay, NewJersey,

p. 1-28. Springer-VerI., NY

Commission for the Investigation of the Oyster Industry of NewJersey.

1902. Annual report for 1902. Comm. Invest. Oyster Ind.

Nj., Trenton, 51 p.

Cumming, H. S.

1917. Investigation of the pollution of certain tidal waters of

NewJersey, New York, and Delaware, with special reference

to bathing beaches and shellfish bearing areas. U.S. Public

Health Servo Bull. 86, 150 p.

Fiedler, R. H.

1931. Fishery industries of the United States 1931. U.S. Dep.

Commer., Bur. Fish. App. 11 to Rep. Comm. Fish. for FY

1932,440 p.

1932. Fishery industries of the United States 1932. U.S. Dep.

Commer., Bur. Fish. App. 1lI to Rep. Comm. Fish. for FY

1933,449 p.

1934. Fishery industries of the United States 1934. U.S. Dep.

Commer., Bur. Fish. App. III to Rep. Comm. Fish. for FY

1935,330 p.

1936. Fishery industries of the United States 1936. U.S. Dep.

Commer., Bur. Fish. App. 11 to Rep. Comm. Fish. for FY

1937. Admin. Rep. 27, 276 p.

1938. Fishery industries of the United States 1938. U.S. Dep.

Commer., Bur. Fish. App. III to Rep. Comm. Fish. for FY

1939. Admin. Rep. 37, 554 p.

Ford. S. E.

1996. Range extension by the oyster parasite Perkinsus marinus

into the northeastern US: Response to climate change? ].

Shellfish Res. 15:45-56.

Ford. S. E., and H. H. Haskin.

1982. History and epizootiology of Haplosporidium nelsoni

(MSX), an oyster pathogen, in Delaware Bay, 1957-1980.].

Invertebr. Pathol. 40:118-141.

Ford. S. E., and M. R. Tripp.

1996. Diseases and defense mechanisms. In A. F. Eble, V. S.

Kennedy, and R. I. E. Newell (eds.), The eastern oyster

Crassostrea virginica. Md. Sea Grant Program, ColI. Park, Md.

p.581-658.

Hall,A

1894. Oyster industry of New Jersey. In Report of the U.S.

Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1892, p. 463-528.

U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., Wash., D.C.

Haskin, H. H., and S. E. Ford.

1979. Development ofresistance to Minchinia nelsoni (MSX)

mortality in laboratory-reared and native oyster stocks in

Delaware Bay. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41 (1-2) :54-63.

1982. Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) on Delaware Bay seed

oyster beds: a host-parasite relationship along a salinity gradient.]. Invertebrate Pathol. 40:388-405.

1983. Quantitative effects of MSX disease Haplosporidium

nelsoni) on production of the New Jersey oyster beds in

Delaware Bay, USA. Int. Counc. Explor. Sea. CM 1983/

Gen:7/Mini-Symp., Goteborg, Swed.

Haskin, H. H., L. A. Stauber, and]. A Mackin.

1966. Minchinia nelsoni n. sp. (Haplosporida, Haplosporidiidae): causative agent of the Delaware Bay oyster

epizootic. Science 153:1414-1416.

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Wash., 251 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone industries. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States, Sect. 11, p. 507-626. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Wash.

Joseph,]. W

1989. Inventory of Newjersey's estuarine shellfish resources.

Nj. Dep. Environ. Protect., Div. Fish, Game, Wildl. Completion Rep. to NOAA, NMFS, Trenton, Nj., 75 p.

Kennish, M.].,].]. Vouglitois, D.]. Danila, and R. A. Lutz.

1984. Shellfish. In M.]' Kennish and R. A. Lutz (eds.), Ecology

ofBarnegat Bay, NewJersey, p. 171-200. Springer-VerI., NY

Kochiss,]. M.

1974. Oystering from New York to Boston. Wesleyan Univ.

Press, Middletown, Conn., 251 p.

Lockwood, S.

1882. The oyster interests of NewJersey. In The fifth annual

report of the Bureau of Statistics ofLabor and Industries of

NewJersey, p. 217-350. Bur. Stat. Labor Ind. Nj., Trenton.

Lyles, C. H.

1969, Historical catch statistics: Shellfish. U.S. Dep. Inter.,

Fish Wildl. Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 5007, 116 p.

MacKenzie, C. L.,jr.

1997. The United States molluscan fisheries from Massachusetts Bay through Raritan Bay, N.Y. and Nj.InC. 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, Vol. 1.

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. 127, p. 87-117.

McCay, B.].

In press. Oyster wars and the public trust, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ariz.

McCloy, T. W, and]. W.Joseph.

1985. Inventory of NewJersey's estuarine shellfish resources.

Nj. Dep. Environ. Prot., Div. Fish, Game, Wildl. Completion Rep. to NOAA, NMFS. Trenton, Nj., 28 p.

Miller, M. E.

1962. The Delaware oyster industry, past and present. Boston

Univ., Ph.D. Dissert., 329 p.

Mints, M. L.

1964. Dallas Ferry on the Wahatquenack. Margaret Louise

Mints, Port Norris, Nj., 64 p.
140 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

1976. Lighthouse to leeward. Margaret Louise Mints, Port

Norris, N.J., 206 p.

NMFS.

1990. Historical catch statistics, Atlantic and Gulf coast states,

1879-1989. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish.

Serv., Curr. Fish. Stat. 9010, Hist. Ser. 5-9 (rev.) 107 p.

Nelson,].

1889. Oyster interests of NewJersey. In Special Bulletin E, p.

2-40. NJ. Agric. ColI. Exper. Sta. New Brunswick.

1911. Report of the biologist. In Annual report for 1910 of

the NewJersey Agricultural College Experiment Station, p.

269-309. N.J. Agric. ColI. Exper. Sta., New Brunswick.

Nelson, T. C.

1929. Report of the biologist. In Annual report for 1928 of

the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 105-

112. N.J. Agric. ColI. Exper. Sta., New Brunswick.

1930. Report of the biologist. In Annual report for 1929 of

the NewJersey Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 95-104.

N.J. Agric. Coli. Exper. Sta., New Brunswick.

1933. Report of the biologist. In Annual report for 1932-33

of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 16-

22. N.J. Agric. Coli. Exper. Sta., New Brunswick.

1934. Report of the biologist. In Annual report for 1934 of

the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 18-21.

N.J. Agric. ColI. Exper. Sta., New Brunswick.

1960. Some aspects of pollution, parasitism, and inlet restriction in three New Jersey Estuaries. In Trans. Second Sem.

BioI. Problems in Water Pollut., p. 203-211. Robert A. Taft

SanitalY Engr. Cent., Cincinnati, Ohio.

NewJersey Bureau of Shellfisheries.

1905a. Annual report for 1904. N.J. Bur. Shellfish., Trenton,

95 p.

1905b. Annual report for 1905. N.J. Bur. Shellfish., Trenton,

148 p.

1908. Annual report for 1907. NJ. Bur. Shellfish., Trenton.

116 p.

1911. Annual report for 1910. N.J. Bur. Shellfish., Trenton,

107 p.

1912. Annual report for 1911. N.J. Bur. Shellfish., Trenton.

91 p.

191Y. Annual report for 1919. NJ. Bur. Shellfish., Trenton,

55 p.

NewJersey State Oyster Commission.

1901. Annual report for 1900. N.J. State Oyster Comm., Trenton, 13 p.

Ritchie, T. P.

1977. A comprehensive review of the commercial clam industries in the United States. Univ. Del. Sea Grant Program,

Rep. DEL-SG-26-76, 106 p.

RoUs, D. H.

1971. Under sail: The dredge boats ofDelaware Bay. Wheaton

Hist. Soc., Millville, N.J., 157 p.

Smith. S.

1765. The History of the Colony of Nova-Caesaria or New

Jersey: Containing an account of its first settlement, progressive improvements.James Parker, Burlington, N.J., 602 p.

Swanson, R. L.

1989. Use impairments and ecosystem impacts of the New

York Bight. Mar. Sci. Res. Cent., State Univ. N.Y., Stony

Brook. 279 p.

Weslager, C. A.

1944. Delaware's buried past. Univ. Pa. Press, Phila., 170 p.

1967. The English on the Delaware: 1610-1682. Rutgers Univ.

Press, New Brunswick, NJ., 303 p.

1972. The Delaware 1udians; a history. Rutgers Univ. Press,

New Brunswick, NJ., 546 p.
The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay

CLYDE L. MAcKENZIE,jR.

James]. Howard Laboratory

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

Highlands, NJ 07732

ABSTRACT

Chesapeake Bay has produced eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica; softshell clams, Mya

arenaria; northern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria; and the whelks Busycon carica and

Busycotypus canaliculatus. Native Americans long used oysters as food. During most of the

1800's, many oysters from the bay were transported to northern cities and states for direct

sale and planting. In the 1830's, shucking houses were constructed in Baltimore to ship

oyster meats throughout the country. The city later became the center of oyster marketing,

handling as much as 6 million bushels of oysters annually. By the late 1800's, the bay

produced an estimated 20 million bushels of oysters. In Maryland, in the late 1800's,

between 1,658 and 4,741 boats were licensed for tonging, about 719 were dredging, and

between 351 and 456 buyboats transported oysters from the oyster grounds to oyster docks

for sale. Following huge landings between 1870 and 1895, production fell sharply, mostly

owing to a declining supply. From 1930 to 1955, production consistently ran 2.3-3.2 million

bushels. Production fell briefly after 1955 but rose again when the state spread 5-6 million

bushels of oyster shells/year on setting beds. In the 1980's and 1990's, MSX and Dermo

diseases have reduced Maryland's harvests.

By the 1870's, Virginia oystermen were establishing a culture system that would last into

the 1990's; only the volume of oysters handled changed. Planters purchased seed from

tongers who had harvested them on public beds and spread them on their leases, left them

for 2-3 years, harvested them, and finally hired people to shuck them. From 1930 to 1955,

oyster production ranged from 2.5-3.7 million bushels/year and was the highest of any

state. After 1959, the MSX disease killed many oysters and also led to a decline in oyster

setting in the James River, the main seed-producing area. Dermo also contributed to the

oyster mortalities. In recent years, oystering became concentrated in the James River and

state harvests are small.

Softshell clams have been produced in Maryland since the hydraulic conveyor "dredge"

was developed in 1951. Production peaked at 640,000 bushels in 1965, but since has fallen

sharply. Northern quahogs occur in the high salinity portions of Chesapeake Bay and in

Chincoteague Bay. In Chesapeake Bay, they were once harvested with shortrakes, but in this

century, patent tongs are used. In Chincoteague Bay, they are also harvested by treading

and with "gaff-hooks." Hatchery culture of quahogs has produced about 30 million littlenecks/year. In Virginia, most whelks are caught by dredging at night.

Introduction

Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 1) is one of the largest estuaries

on the east coast of North America, and its molluscan

resources are divided between Maryland in the north

and Virginia in the south. In some years of the late

1880's, the bay reportedly produced nearly 20 million

bushels! of eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, a total

estimated to be nearly 60% of North America's production of this species and half of the world's oyster production (Stevenson, 1894). During that era, Maryland's

oyster industry was valued at 17% of all U.S. fisheries

I Values for bushels used throughout this chapter are for Maryland

bushels for Maryland landings and Virginia bushels for Virginia

landings. The volume ofa Maryland bushel is 2,800.7 cubic inches,

or 1.3 times the size ofa U.S. standard bushel (2,150.4 cu. inches).

The volume of a Virginia bushel is 3.003.9 cubic inches, or 1.43

times the size of a U.S. standard bushel.

141
142 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

products and employed 20% ofthe people in America's

fishing industry (Kennedy and Breisch, 1983). Before

1960, the James River, a Virginia tributary of the southern bay, produced the world's largest quantity of seed

oysters, commonly yielding at least 2 million bushels/

year. In recent years, diseases have killed most of the

oysters in Chesapeake Bay.

Since the early 1950's, a Maryland fishery has produced large quantities of softshell clams, Mya arenaria.

Susquehanna River

Figure 1

Chesapeake Bay and tributaries showing distribution ofsalinity at surface in spring (Lippson, 1973).

During the 1960's, the most productive period,

Maryland's landings of softshells exceeded that of the

State of Maine, formerly the largest producer of this

species along the Atlantic coast of North America. The

remaining fisheries are in Virginia which produces modest quantities ofnorthern quahogs, Mercenaria mercenaria,

and whelks, Bus,vcon carica and Busycotypus canaliculatus.

Habitat

Chesapeake Bay, 315 km long from the Susquehanna

River to its mouth and covering 8,416 km2 with its many

tributaries, has extensive, flat, shallow (1-8 m deep)

grounds with suitable salinities for growing shellfish on

many thousands of acres. In Maryland, a large portion

of the oyster grounds (also referred to as bars, beds,

reefs, and rocks) are on the eastern shore in four large

indentations-Chester River, Eastern Bay, Choptank

River, and Tangier Sound. On the western shore, the

Potomac and Patuxent Rivers are prominent locations.

Nearly all the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay has

salinities <15%0, and the tidal range is about 60 em.

On Virginia's western shore, oysters have grown mostly

in the Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers and in

Mobjack Bay and Hampton Roads; on the Eastern Shore

they have grown in Pocomoke Sound and along the

east side ofthe Eastern Shore. In the main parts of most

rivers, salinities are also <15%0, but in the lower part of

the York River, Mobjack Bay, and Hampton Roads,

salinities exceed 15%0. Oysters have also grown in

Chincoteague Bay where the salinity is 29-35%0. The

tidal range in Virginia's James River is 75-90 em. Oysters have lived in the bay for several thousand years and

now grow on solid beds of shell several meters thick in

some areas.

Oysters have been a substantial component of the

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. They remove organic matter from the water, recycling it to other benthic organisms and thereby improving water quality. Rough calculations show that phytoplankton and carbon removal by

the huge oyster population in 1870 was 100 times greater

than in the 1980's when oyster populations were relatively small (Anonymous, 1990). During the 1800's, the

oyster populations probably filtered from 50% to 80%

of the water in the shallows of Chesapeake Bay during

summer. The decline in oyster quantities since then

may be a factor in an apparent shift in microbial food

webs and resultant anoxia in deep bay waters during

summers (Newell, 1988).

As oysters were harvested during 1900's, Maryland

and Virginia planted shell, but the quantities were insufficient to maintain oyster stocks as high as they were

in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Deforestation of the

bay watersheds resulted in increased sedimentation and
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 143

History of the Oyster Fishery _

Most activity in the Chesapeake's oyster fishery has

been during the fall and winter when market oysters

SSO, Haplosporidium costale, causes

oyster mortalities in Chincoteague

Bay and otherseaside bays ofMaryland and Virginia (Andrews et al.,

1962). Diseases apparently do not

cause mortalities in softshells,

northern quahogs, and whelks.

Administrative Structure _

The molluscan fisheries ofChesapeake Bay currently are overseen

by three public administrative

units: 1) The Tidewater Administration of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources

(DNR) , 2) the Virginia Marine

Resources Commission (VMRC) ,

and 3) the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. Earlier shellfish

laws and agencies are discussed

by species and state.

Maryland has kept its shellfish

grounds mostly public to maximize employment; daily limits on

catches in recent years have provided nearly equal earnings among fishermen. Management decisions commonly consider employment needs

of fishermen, along with biological and environmental

factors. Virginia has a mix of public and leased grounds,

and the public grounds have provided much employment. Private companies once purchased huge quantities of oyster seed from fishermen (who harvested it

from public grounds mostly in the James River), to

plant on their leased grounds.

Landings figures for shellfish have been supplied to

state agencies by the dealers and packers who handle

the shellfish. The dealers and packers have operated on

the honor system and have economic incentives to under-report the figures. Therefore, some of those reported here, especially relating to harvests of seed and

market oysters, thus may be much lower, even as much

as one-third, than they actually were (Morgan2, Simns3).

2 Morgan. C. 1994. Former owner of oyster packing firm, Weems,

Va. Personal commun.

3 Simns, L. 1994. President, Maryland Watermen 's Association, Rock

Hall, Md. Personal commun.

Figure 2

Silt accumulation on surface of seed grounds in James River, Va., July 1971

(MacKenzie, 1983).

loss of existing cultch. In 1972, tropical storm "Agnes"

washed huge quantities of silt into the bay and onto

oyster grounds. Much of the shell bottom today is covered by silt (Fig. 2), and many formerly productive

oyster grounds are covered by mud (Kennedy, 1989).

Predators of larvae of Chesapeake Bay oysters and

probably clams are scyphozoans, ctenophores (Nelson,

1925; Purcell et aI., 1991), and anemones (MacKenzie,

1977; Steinberg and Kennedy, 1979). The Atlantic oyster drill, Urosalpinx cinerea, and the less common thick-lip

drill, Eupleura caudata, are the principal predators ofsedentary oysters in salinities above 15%0, mostly in Virginia.

Other predators are the oyster leech, Stylochus ellipticus;

blue crab, Callinectes sapidus; and xanthid mud crabs (Haven et aI., 1978). Softshells are preyed upon by blue crabs,

while northern quahogs are preyed upon by the cow-nose

ray, Rhinoptera bonasuS; thick-lip drill, and shark eye snail,

Neverita duplicata (Castagna and Haven, 1972).

In 1959-60, the protozoan disease, MSX, Haplosporidium nelsoni, entered Chesapeake Bay and thereafter has killed vast quantities of oysters where salinities

were >15%0. It affected oysters much more in Virginia

than in Maryland, but Maryland oysters have been affected during drought years.

The persistent presence of the fungus, called "Dermo,"

Perkinsus marinus, that becomes more intense during

droughts and especially long, warm summers, kills additional oysters (Kennedy, 1989). Another disease called
144 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

were harvested for sale. In recent years, with better

refrigeration available, some oysters have been marketed in summer. In the large seed fishery in Virginia,

the seed grounds were left undisturbed to collect spat

and allow them to grow in summer; harvesting was from

fall through spring.

Early History

Kitchen middens found along Chesapeake Bay prove that

Native Americans had long used oysters for food. The

largest midden covered nearly 30 acres on the shore ofthe

Potomac River (Wennersten, 1981). Native Americans

furnished early European colonists, settlers, and travelers

with oysters in exchange for trinkets, tools, and other

commodities (Stevenson, 1894). Later, soldiers and sailors in the Revolutionary War (1774-1776) and Civil War

(1861-1865) and civilians in periods of peace left oyster

shells around shores ofthe bay (Hargis and Haven, 1988).

In the early 1800's, a large portion of oysters harvested in Chesapeake Bay was shipped northward on

schooners and sloops mainly to New York City; New

Haven, Conn.; and Boston. In about 1808, vessels began transporting oysters each season to New Haven,

which became the country's first oyster-packing center

as those oystermen supplemented their local supply

with Chesapeake Bay oysters. During 1820-25, the oyster business was much more developed in New York

and New England than in Maryland. Oysters were delivered to New York City at least as early as 1816; 200 vessels

transported them from Chesapeake Bay and made about

600 trips a month from September through February

(Ingersoll, 1881). No wholesale markets existed along the

shores ofthe bay for handling oysters, and local consumption probably was small (Stevenson, 1894).

In the 1830's, local opposition to the transport of

unshucked oysters out of state induced some oyster

marketers from Connecticut to establish shucking

houses in Baltimore to prepare Chesapeake oysters for

shipment throughout the country. The first shucking

house began operating in 1836, and others soon followed. Oysters were shipped from Baltimore westward

on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad that began operations in 1830. Oyster packers earlier had shipped whole

oysters westward to Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and

the middle west on horse-drawn wagons. In 1839, about

710,000 bushels of oysters were shucked in Baltimore,

and an additional large quantity was consumed along

the shores. Over time, the railroad carried oysters farther, and the volume increased from 375,000 pounds to

3,200,000 pounds4 from 1849 to 1860 (Nichol, 1937).

4 These presumably are pounds of oyster meats rather than whole

oysters.

An increased demand during 1830-64 brought an era

of great expansion to the industry. The use of dredges

to harvest oysters began, and the wholesale shucking

trade developed (Stevenson, 1894).

As in Maryland, Virginia's portion ofChesapeake Bay

(Fig. 1) had vast stretches of prolific oyster grounds in

the 1800's. In areas of higher salinity, large quantities

of oysters could be tonged and dredged and sold for

immediate consumption. In areas of lower salinity (7-

15%0), especially in the James River but also the upper

reaches of the Rappahannock, Piankatank, and Great

Wicomico Rivers, there were oyster grounds on which

oyster larvae set regularly each year but then grew slowly

and were mostly too small for consumption. In the

rivers, oyster survival was good because salinity levels

kept oyster drills from preying on the oysters. The best

use of the small oysters was as "seed" to be planted on

growing grounds in waters of higher salinity.

During most of the 1800's, oystering in Virginia involved harvesting large oysters for direct marketing and

harvesting large seed for sale to northern schooners

and sloops. Those vessels took the large oysters mainly

to New York City and New Haven, Conn., for direct

consumption. The seed was collected in the spring and

taken to Delaware Bay, Raritan Bay, Long Island Sound,

and Cape Cod for planting; most oysters were then

harvested and marketed the subsequent fall (Ingersoll,

1881).

Oystering in Maryland

Regularity of oyster setting

Annual oyster setting on Maryland grounds has varied

from light to good. From 1939 to 1993, only 9 of 55

years had counts (made in the fall on bottom shells and

oysters) ranging from 100 to 300 spat/bushel. In 20 of

the years, counts were from 50 to 99 spat/bushel, and

in 26 of the years they were from 0 to 49 spat/bushel

(Maryland DNR records). Spat densities were about

five times higher on shell spread the year the spat set

than on shell spread in previous years. Survival to market size usually was good and growth was rapid. Mter

setting, oysters reach market size (7.5 cm) in 3-4 years

(Kennedy, 1989).

Oyster Canning in Baltimore

The first oysters shipped from Baltimore probably were

spiced or pickled meats. Around 1850, canning developed and took over as the primary oyster meat preservation method (Fig. 3). Canned oyster sales were spurred

by the discovery of gold in California, because
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 145

Table I

Distribution of oysters received in Baltimore in the

season of 1856-1857 (Nichol, 1937).

In the 1860's, Baltimore (Fig. 4) was the center of

almost all Chesapeake Bay oyster trade, and it may have

been the largest oyster marketing center in the world

(Table 2). When more railroads were built in Maryland,

some smaller ports around the bay, such as Crisfield,

Cambridge, Oxford, St. Michaels, Annapolis, and many

smaller places nearer the reefs also developed as market

centers with shucking houses.(Market centers similarly

developed in Virginia.) Large quantities of oysters were

landed at other cities and towns located on the tributaries

of the bay and sold to retailers and consumers without

passing through the shucking houses (Stevenson, 1894).

Oyster marketing was divided into three branches: 1)

the raw shucking trade, 2) the steaming trade for oyster

canning, and 3) the trade in unshucked oysters. Of

these, the raw shucking trade was most important. Oyster processing involved more capital than did the fishery, but only about half as many people. The marketing

of unshucked oysters was comparatively small

(Stevenson, 1894).

During the 1849-50 season, 1,350,000 bushels of oysters were landed at Baltimore. Landings increased to

4,765,270 and 6,090,963 bushels/season during the seasons of 1869-70 and 1892-93, respectively. Of the oysters received at Baltimore in 1890-91, about one-fifth

were received from Virginia and from Virginia boats

oystering in the Potomac River. Nearly all ofthe Potomac

River was under the jurisdiction of Maryland, but Virginia oystermen had equal access to its oysters; only

tonging was allowed to harvest them (Stevenson, 1894).

Virginia controlled only small areas of the river.

Oyster canning boomed shortly after the Civil War

ended in 1865. In the 1867-68 season, oyster production reached 9-10 million bushels, two-thirds of which

were canned. But in the 1870's, the raw-oyster trade

reestablished itselfas the more important branch ofthe

industry (Nichol, 1937).

Figure 3

Upper: Processing room of an oyster canning house in

Baltimore (Stevenson, 1894). Middle: Shucking room

of a Baltimore marketing house in the raw oyster trade

(Stevenson, 1894). Bottom: Packing oyster meats for

shipment in a Baltimore marketing house, about 1900.

Courtesy of the Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.

Baltimore's principal market for canned oysters and

other foodstuffs soon became the Pacific coast. A more

lasting trade in canned oysters later arose in the midwest

(Table 1)(Nichol, 1937).

Designation

For local consumption

For raw shipment to

Cincinnati and Chicago

Other cities

For canned oysters shipped to

California

St. Louis

Other cities

Foreign ports

Totals

Quantity

(bushels)

150,000

400,000

400,000

200,000

150,000

310,000

50,000

1,660,000
146 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

,

I

I

,

I

,

I

\

I

,

I

I

,

I

I

I

,

\

I

I

I

I

I Delaware

I

I

1- _

Figure 4

The Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay showing

softshell clamming areas (cross-hatched areas) .

recent oystering areas (solid areas) and

Table 2

Statistics of the Baltimore oyster industry before 1870 (Nichol, 1937).

For local For raw For

consumption shipment canning Total

Year (bushels) (bushels) (bushels) (bushels) Establishments Employees

1856-57 150,000 800,000 710,000 1,660,0001 18 1,500

1859 30 1,000-2,000

1860 200,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,200,0001 30 3,000

1862 200,000 1,700,000 33 1,700

1865 500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 4,000,0002 40 3,000

1866 500,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 5,500,0002 >40 >4,000

1867 500,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,500,000 73 5,000

1868 500,000 3,000,000 6,500,000 10,000,000 80 8,000

1 Packers paid $0.35/bushel.

2 Packers paid $0.50/bushel.
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 147

The 1880's were regarded as the most prosperous in

the history of the Maryland oyster industry with Baltimore as the main port. During that decade, Baltimore

residents consumed at least 800,000 bushels of oysters/

season, oyster canning factories were operating at full

capacity, the city had at least 3,000 oyster shuckers and

dozens of raw oyster bars, and oyster peddlers were

common in its streets. In the fall season, when raw

oysters were packed, oyster trains with 30-40 cars left

the city for the west every day (Nichol, 1937).

Baltimore was the most northerly point of oyster

canning on the Atlantic coast (Churchill, 1920). Between the 1879-80 and the 1892-93 seasons, from

1,826,428 and 3,074,770 bushels of oysters/season were

steamed for canning in Baltimore's 20 canning houses.

Workers carried oysters from vessels, put them in iron

cars, and ran them into a steam chest for 10-15 minutes. When oysters gaped, other workers shucked them.

The oysters were washed immediately in ice water,

packed into cans, steamed again, and the cans were

then hermetically sealed, labelled, and boxed. The entire process, from the time the oysters left the vessel

until they were boxed and ready for shipment, took

about an hour. Shuckers usually worked in groups of 6-

8, sometimes comprising entire families ofmen, women,

and children. They totalled about 4,000, mostly women

and children, and ranged in age from 12 to 60 years.

About 600 other persons were employed in the canning

houses (Stevenson, 1894).

Because oyster canning and fruit canning complimented each other seasonally, they were combined by

the canning industry. Packing of oysters, fruits, and

vegetables grew side-by-side, and was carried on in the

same plants under the same management by the same

workers. For a time, oyster packing was more important, but after 1900 it was surpassed by fruit and vegetable packing as oyster canning declined (Nichol,

1937).

In the early 1890's, 58 houses in Baltimore were

engaged in shucking oysters for the raw trade, ten of

which further handled steamed oysters for canning.

The largest one or two houses could each handle about

7,000 bushels of oysters/day. About 3,650 persons, of

whom 3,200 were engaged in shucking, were employed

in the raw trade. Shuckers were paid 20 cents/gallon of

meats they opened (Stevenson, 1894).

Houses in smaller ports along the bay, where tonged

and dredged oysters were shucked, were established

after 1860; they increased sharply in number and size in

the 1880's and early 1890's. The shucking trade was

established in Crisfield in 1870 after a railroad line was

built to the town in 1867; within 10 years, it had 28

shucking houses that employed 1,500 persons handling

700,000 bushels of oysters/year. In the late 1880's, the

extent of the oyster shucking trade in Maryland was as

follows: Number of people-8,523 in Baltimore, 3,585

in smaller ports; bushels of oysters shucked-2,736,342

in Baltimore, 3,362,480 in smaller ports; bushels of

oysters canned-2,396,763 in Baltimore; none in smaller

ports (Stevenson, 1894).

Soon after 1900, Baltimore found it increasingly difficult to meet the competition in canned oysters from

other states and lost its oyster canning leadership. Besides, improved and extended service in the delivery of

raw oysters had reduced the demand for canned oysters. Mter 1900, the city handled mostly raw oysters. In

1901-02, it handled slightly below 3 million bushels of

oysters; by 1916-17, about 1 million bushels; and by the

mid-1930's, between 0.5 and 0.6 million bushels. By the

mid-1930's, only one oyster canning firm remained

(Nichol, 1937).

First Regulations

In 1820, when its oyster production scarcely exceeded

500,000 bushels/year, Maryland issued its first oyster

industry regulations. They prohibited the use of any

implements other than ordinary tongs for harvesting

oysters and also the transport of oysters out of state in

vessels not owned wholly in the preceding 12 months by

a citizen of the state, or the placement of oysters on

board any such vessel to be transported. Because of the

large expanse of water, however, the law did not prevent the continuation of the trade by northern vessels.

From 1865 to 1895, a state licensing system was used

in the oyster fishery, authorizing the use of tongs,

dredges, and scrapes under certain regulations (Stevenson,1894).

During several seasons after 1870, oyster landings

ranged between 9 million and 14 million bushels/year.

The largest single season harvest probably was in 1884-

85 when an estimated 15 million bushels were landed;

this was due to an excellen t set (called a "strike" locally)

on most grounds in the state (Stevenson, 1894). The

harvest included seed oysters, many of which probably

were discarded in shell piles. During 1873-88, the oyster industry produced an average of$5 million worth of

oysters/year (Wennersten, 1981).

The distinction between "county waters" and "state

waters" was important. People were not permitted to

harvest oysters in the waters of any county unless they

were residents of that county, while citizens of any

portion of the state could harvest in all state waters.

About 748 square miles (1,945 km2) of county waters

were reserved for tongers and 277 square miles (720

km2) for tongers and scrapers; 35 of 1,334 square miles

(91 of 3,468 km2) of state waters, containing some of

the best oyster grounds, were reserved for tongers, leaving the grounds in the bay including such areas as
148 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Figure 5

Maryland oysterman on nearside of boat emptying oysters from his shaft (hand)

tongs, while partner (far side) is filling his tongs. A third man, the culler, rests near

cabin of boat, current. Photograph by R. J. Dodds, courtesy of the Chesapeake Bay

Maritime Museum, St. Michaels, Md.

Tangier and Pokomoke Soundsfor dredgers (Stevenson,

1894).

Harvest Methods

Tonging-The first records ofshaft or hand tongs (Fig.

5) being used to harvest oysters date to the early 1700's

(Witty andJohnson, 1988). In the early 1800's, canoes,

used extensively by Indians, were almost the only type

of tonging boat in use. During seasons from 1868-69 to

1891-92, between 1,907 and 5,858 boats (Table 3) were

used for tonging. Most were canoes, but skiffs, bateaux,

brogans (large log canoes), and sloops were also included. They ranged up to 13.7 m long, and all were

under sail. Hand tongs with shafts 3.6-8.5 m long were

used at depths of 3.0-6.7 m (Stevenson, 1894).

From one to three men made up the crew of each

tonging boat; one crew member often was a boy whose

job was to cull (i.e. separate market oysters from shells

and seed that were discarded overboard) the oysters. In

the 1880's, about 11,000 males, including 1,500 boys,

worked in the tonging fishery. The men usually worked

on shares, while the boys' wages varied from $0.50 to

$1.25/day. Tongers usually worked about 125-140 days

during the season; rough weather kept them ashore the

Table 3

Summary of various branches of the oyster industry in

Maryland, in 1891-92 (Stevenson, 1894).

No. of People Bushels Value of

Item vessels engaged harvested oysters ($)

Tonging 5,858 10,813 4,606,385 2,296,860

Dredging 770 5,059 3,657.965 1,740,310

Scraping 1,094 3,757 3,368,380 1,428,950

Transporting 456 1,651

Marketing 12,108 4,650.500 --- Totals 8,178 33,388 11,632,730

rest of the time. They worked on farms and in other

industries when not oystering (Stevenson, 1894). The

tongers sold their oysters to local market houses or to

buyboats. In the early 1890's, tongers harvested about

4.5 million bushels of oysters/season.

In 1887, patent tongs were developed to harvest oysters in waters too deep for shaft tongs. Without shafts

and much larger and heavier than shaft tongs, the

patent tongs were lifted with ropes and a winder attached to the vessel's mast and were opened manually

when set on culling boards. They could harvest more
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 149

oysters and were easier to use than shaft tongs (Stevenson, 1894; Witty andJohnson, 1988).

Dredging-Dredging began in the early 1800's. Before

that, the small quantity of oysters needed to supply

local markets did not warrant their use. Dredges soon

were used on all Maryland grounds, except those in

rivers that were reserved for tonging. Water depths over

dredging reefs were mostly 4.6-9 m, but ranged up to

18 m (Stevenson, 1894).

The dredging boats ranged in size from craft barely

able to carry two men with the small quantity of oysters

they might harvest in one day to schooners 23 m long

that carried about 3,000 bushels. In the 1892-93 season, the types and numbers of vessels engaged in dredging were schooners, pungies, and bugeyes (all two masters), 596; sloops, 32; canoes, etc., 91; for a total of719;

they were crewed by 5,600 men (Stevenson, 1894).

Pungies were first used in the oyster industry in the

1840's. They had a large keel and two raked masts. By

the 1880's, bugeyes became the most important dredging vessels. Flat-bottomed schooners with cabin aft,

bugeyes were cheaper to build and maintain and easier

to handle than pungies (Wennersten, 1981). The average length of a vessel's life was 35 years. During summers, many vessels were used to transport farm produce and other commodities along shores of the bay

(Stevenson, 1894).

Each vessel had a captain who remained aft, attending the steering and sails. The crew consisted of a mate,

cook, and from two to nine hands, depending on vessel

size. Most vessels carried two dredges and two "winders"

or windlasses for hauling the dredges, but the smallest

boats carried one dredge and one winder. The dredges

weighed about 100 pounds and most were 1 m wide

with 12-14 teeth. The winders were fastened to the

deck of the vessel about midship, one on each side.

Opposite them on the gunwales were rollers over which

the dredge rope ran. Each winder was worked by two to

four men at a time (Stevenson, 1894).

From 50 to 200 vessels dredged in grounds in a single

locality, each harvesting 20-80 bushels of oysters/day.

Most crews transported their own oysters to market, but

some remained long distances from ports for months,

lived temporarily on the vessels, and sold their catches

to buyboats (Stevenson, 1894). The early dredging of

oyster grounds may have spread and enlarged their

areas (Winslow, 1881).

Scraping-The expression "scraping" is here applied to

the harvesting of oysters by means of a dredge or scrape

within the waters of a county. "Dredging" is applied to

the form of the fishery when prosecuted in state waters.

The vessels used in county waters usually were smaller

than those used in state waters and consequently used

lighter dredges, which were known as "scrapes." From

220 to 1,300 sailing boats, usually with four men, were

licensed to use scrapes from 1869-70 to 1892-93. The

boats comprised the various types used in tonging and

dredging, but were mostly of medium size. In the three

seasons included in 1868-71, dredge and scrape boats

harvested an average of 6.73 million bushels of oysters/

season (Stevenson, 1894).

Scrape-boat catches were also delivered to nearby

marketing houses or sold to buyboats. Crews on the

scrape boats usually returned to home ports every night

(Stevenson, 1894).

The "Oyster Wars"

Relations between the oyster tongers and dredgers initially were friendly, but in the early 1870's oysters on

grounds outside the rivers became scarcer, and many

dredge boats, which numbered nearly 1.000, began to

dredge on the tongers' grounds in the rivers. They

usually did so under cover of night, to be inconspicuous. The tongers complained to state officials about the

violations, but the state initially was not prepared to

stop the dredgers. The tongers then attempted to stop

the dredgers by shooting at them (Wennersten, 1981).

Before 1865, Maryland oyster regulations were enforced by local sheriffs and constables. In 1868, the

state established an oyster police force, popularly called

the "oyster navy." Its dutics were to: 1) prevent dredgers

and scrapers from oystering on grounds in rivers reserved for the tongers, 2) prevent dredgers from oystering on grounds used by the scrapers, 3) see that no one

without a license was engaged in oystering, and 4)

enforce the cull law and closed season, as well as the

fish and waterfowl laws of the statc (Stevenson, 1894).

During the remainder of the century, the main violations were dredgers harvesting oysters on grounds reserved for the tongers. The "navy" (termed the State

Fishery Force in 1872 (Plummer, 1993» had to chase

the dredgers many times, and the two groups frequently

exchanged gunfire. The skirmishes were referred to as

the "oyster wars" (Wennersten, 1981).

Animosity between Maryland and Virginia

Pokomoke Sound (Fig. 4) was the center ofa boundary

dispute between Maryland and Virginia. Boats from

each state were dredging oysters in parts of the sound

that the other state believed was its waters. Bad feelings

between the states increased with each passing year and

continued to linger even after the boundary location

was finally settled. Feelings were also strained by skirmishes between Virginia dredge boats and Maryland's
150 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

oyster navy on the Potomac River. Marylanders would

not sell much shell to Virginia for spreading as cultch

over its depleted grounds, and Virginians would not

sell much James River seed to Maryland leaseholders

(Wennersten, 1981). Packers in Crisfield, Md., used the

shell from their shucking houses to widen the town's

shoreline rather than sell it to Virginians (Sieling5).

Buyboats and Oyster Transportation

A large number of buyboats or "runners" carried oysters from the grounds to marketing houses, because the

centers of the oyster trade, at Baltimore and other

populous or railroad points, were many kilometers distant from the grounds. From 1889 to 1892, Maryland's

oyster fleet included between 351 and 456 buyboats.

The buyboats differed little from the dredge boats,

except all were large, from 15 to 21 m long. Each laid at

anchor near a fishing fleet, with a basket hoisted to its

masthead signaling that oysters were being purchased

(Stevenson, 1894).

Besides the buyboats in Maryland, at least 200 vessels

from northern ports, with crews totalling about 1,000

men, carried oysters for 8 months of the year from

Chesapeake Bay to the northern states for bedding or

immediate consumption in the principal cities along

the coast, especially New York City. During winter, oysters

were taken for immediate consumption, whereas during

spring they were bedded (Ingersoll. 1881). Each vessel

carried about 2,500 bushels, and in the spring each made

four to eight trips. This trade, at its height during 1840-

70, purchased oysters in Maryland andVrrginia (Stevenson,

1894). In the spring of 1879, 2.18 million bushels were

shipped north for bedding (Ingersoll, 1881).

The planting ofChesapeake Bay oysters in the northern states later slowed considerably, owing to extensive

development of private oyster grounds in the north and

the consistently increasing prices of the Chesapeake

oysters (Stevenson, 1894). On a small scale, bedding

oysters were still carried north into the 1930's.

In the 1880's, about 33,000 people engaged in various aspects of oystering in Maryland. In addition. some

other vocations were at least partly dependent upon

the oyster industry. They were vessel construction, sail

making, blacksmithing, house building, grocering,

merchanting, medicine, and law. The oyster industry

thus had enormous value to the state (Stevenson, 1894).

Buyboats continued to transport oysters within Maryland into the 1950's. The practice ended as oyster houses

sent trucks to various ports to collect oysters from boats

(Vojtech,1993).

-' Sieling. F. 1994. Administrator (retired), Maryland Department of

Natural Resources, Annapolis. Personal commun.

Bedding Oysters on Leases

Only a small portion of Maryland bottom was ever

leased, a total of 11,000 acres in 1892 and 12,000 acres

ill 1952. As early as 1830, Maryland had granted I-acre

leases to citizens who wished to grow oysters. After the

Civil War, the law allowed for 5-acre leases (Wennersten,

1981). In the 1880's and 1890's, production from the

leases ranged from about 85,000 to 200,000 bushels a

year (Stevenson, 1894). In later years, the Patuxent and

Nanticoke Rivers were mostly used for bedding oysters

on leases. By about the 1920's, Maryland allowed individuals to have 30-acre leases; by obtaining leases in the

names of several of their family members, some individuals had rights to at least 200 acres on which to grow

their oysters. Most "plants" were obtained from the

James River, remained on the private leases for 1-3

years, and were dredged for market. Many were sold

from 15 April to 1 September, i.e., the off-season for

marketing from public grounds. From the 1920's

through the 1950's, annual harvests from the leases

were about 100,000 bushels (Sieling5).

Oyster Shucking Houses

By 1915, Maryland had about 160 houses for shucking,

canning, and packing oysters. The number of oyster

houses in Baltimore had declined to 28 (15 were oyster

canneries), but it increased in the counties. Crisfield

had by far the most with 40; Cambridge, 25; Oxford, 15;

Annapolis, 13; Tilghman, 8; and St. Michaels, 6

(Churchill, 1920). Crisfield had become the most important because it was in the middle ofthe Chesapeake

Bay coast and had a railroad terminal (Todd6). In the

1870's, at least 600 sailing vessels had landed oysters in

Crisfield and 20 to 30 railroad cars carried oysters from

its houses daily (Wennersten, 1981). The holding of

harvested oysters in trays or on intertidal shores for a

tide or two so they would purge mud and absorb brackish water before shucking, as was done in Delaware and

Raritan Bays and farther north, was practiced on only a

small scale in Maryland and Virginia (Sieling5).

Disposition of Oyster Shells

The fatc of oyster shells has always been an important

issue. Since about 400 million bushels of oysters were

landed on Maryland shores from 1800 to 1890, large

quantities of shells accumulated around processing

houses. Shell uses were numerous (Stevenson, 1894):

b Todd, C. 1994. Metomphin Bay Oyster Company, Crisfield, Md.

Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 151

1) Road making and filling in hollows (live oysters were

also harvested for this purpose (Sieling5»,

2) Railroad bed construction,

3) Conversion into lime for making coal-gas and for

farm use (small oysters were sometimes harvested

with shells for lime),

4) Cultivation of oysters, some in Virginia, but also in

Connecticut and elsewhere (in 1891-92 and 1892-

93 about 750,000 bushels were used for this purpose

each year),

5) Chicken grit, and

6) Manufacture of certain special grades of iron.

Throughout the 1900's until the 1960's, close to 1

million bushels/year of shells from shucking houses

were spread on Maryland oyster grounds (Sieling5).

Oysters Decline

Following huge oyster landings between 1870 and 1895,

production fell sharply, remaining low until the early

1930's (Fig. 6). However, some observers (Sieling5)

believe the landings were not as large as reported and

probably included seed taken to northern bays. The

main cause was probably a declining supply. Harvests

had been from oyster reefs that had developed over

centuries. The surface shells left on them after harvesting may have become covered with silt and live organisms, especially in years of poor oyster setting. Such

shells thereafter would collect far less spat than reefs

covered with live oysters. Where shell beds were thin,

the shells may have been dredged off leaving just the

sand substrate. The planted shells helped to sustain

supplies but were insufficient and the result was far

smaller abundances of market oysters. The remaining

14 -,---------------------,

Oysters 12

causes seem to have been poor oyster demand and low

prices.

In 1878, Francis Winslow, who was commissioned to

survey the oyster grounds in Maryland, had warned that

lax enforcement of the culling laws, enacted to prevent

harvests of small oysters <3 inches long, and failure to

plant oyster shells on the grounds would lead to a sharp

decline in production. But in the 1880's, record landings were being made and too much money was being

earned to think of conservation (Wennersten, 1981).

In 1893, the state passed another culling law that

prohibited fishermen from taking oysters <2 )/2 inches

long. The state also hired 12 inspectors to make sure

the packing houses observed the new law (Wennersten,

1981) .

The decline in oyster supplies intensified conflicts

between the tongers and dredgers and the dredgers

and police. By 1900, more packing houses were closing

than were opening. In the years after 1900, the decline

in the oyster industry prompted the state to prohibit

powerboats from dredging oysters (Wennersten, 1981).

The drop in oyster production was sharpest in the

1920's from about 6.5 million bushels in 1920 to 3.5

million bushels in 1930. It probably was caused by a

poor demand for oysters, because in the 1920's there

was nationwide fear of possible illness from eating oysters harvested from polluted waters.

Around 1900, Maryland's dredging fleet consisted of

nearly 1,000 skipjacks including some pungies, but by

the 1930's, only about 150 skipjacks and pungies remained (Fig. 7). The skipjacks were first built for dredging oysters in the 1880's. They were one-masted boats

with a V-bottom, cheap to construct, and easy to man.

They soon replaced the pungies and bugeyes because

they could be more economically operated and maintained. They began adding power hoists driven by gasoline engines to replace windlasses for dredges in 1906

(Vojtech, 1993). Each skipjack usually harvested 50-75

bushels of oysters/day. In the summer, they transported

various types of freight, including melons and lumber,

around the bay (Sieling5).

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Figure 6

Historical oyster production in Maryland and Virginia.

From 1930 to Present

Consistent Production-From 1930 to 1955, oyster production remained between 2.3 and 3.2 million bushels/year. (Virginia's production was also consistent in

this period.) Production was sustained in part by

Maryland's practice of regularly planting shells from

shucking houses on reefs. As the years passed, however,

it became more expensive to use the shucked shells for

this program. Mter the mid-1950's, oyster production

fell again, and in the early 1960's production was about

1.5 million bushels/year (Anonymous, 1990).

- Virginia

-B-- Maryland

J,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~:,,,,,

rtJ 6 Qj

.c.

rtJ

:J

(Xl
152 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Figure 7

A skipjack dredging for oysters in Maryland, 1947. Photograph by A. A. Bodine, courtesy of The Mariners' Museum,

Newport News, Va. Inset: Fleet ofskipjacks (one mast) and pungies (two masts) harvesting oysters from a bed in Maryland,

1950. Photograph by H. R. Hollyday, courtesy of the Historical Society of Talbot County, Easton, Md.

Salting Oysters-A feature of the oysters harvested in

northern Maryland, where salinities are low (7-10%0),

is a bland flavor with a resultant weak market demand.

In about the 1940's, dealers instituted a practice of

transporting about 50,000 bushels of oysters/year to

Chincoteague Bay where their tissues absorbed salt water and became more flavorful. Dealers held most in

wooden floats (100 bushels/float), but put some on the

bottom, for 3-7 days, and then sold them. They paid as

little as $2.00/bushel for the oysters, $0.50 to $0.60/

bushel to have them trucked to a dock on Chincoteague

Bay, and they sold them for as much as $15.00/bushel

for the raw-bar trade. The practice also was followed in

Virginia on a smaller scale. It continued until the 1960's,

when diseases began to kill many oysters (Sieling5).

In 1958, patent tongs with a hydraulic piston attached

were developed (Fig. 8). The piston closes the tongs to

gather oysters and then opens them to release the

oysters over the boat's culling board. These "hydraulic

patent tongs" are operated by a person using a system

of levers and pedals. Because they are much easier to

use, faster, and bring up twice as many oysters, they

have replaced the original patent tongs.

Oyster Enhancement-In 1960, Maryland began a large

program to enhance oyster abundance. Each year thereafter, the program involved dredging 5-6 million bushels of oyster shell from fossil deposits and spreading it,

along with shell from shucking houses, on grounds with

a good history of regular setting. From 1980 to 1989,
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 153

Fagure 8

Hydraulic patent tongs being used to harvest oysters in Maryland, current. Photograph by F. Wells, courtesy of Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum, St. Michaels, Md.

fossil shell represented 95% of the total. Compared

with fresh shell, the dredged shell was more plentiful,

less expensive ($0.36/bushel vs. SO.50/bushel), more

easily obtained, and more effective in collecting oyster

spat. After collecting a set, the state hired skipjacks and

other private boats to transplant some seed to growing

grounds, paying them $0.75/bushel to move seed 0-8

km; $0.97/bushel, 8.1-48 km; $1.08/bushel, 48.1-80

km; and $1.60/bushel to move seed more than 80 km.

From 10,305 to 918,792 bushels of seed were transplanted each year between 1980 and 1990. From 1960

to the mid-1980's, the dredged shell program cost about

$1 million/year, but in the late 1980's, when nearly 7

million bushels/year were spread, the cost was almost

$2 million/year (Anonymous, 1990).

If the shell did not collect a set, it often collected a

layer of silt and fouling organisms which kept it from

collecting as many spat as did clean shell the following

years. In some years, the state hired vessels to tow oyster

dredges without bags over the shells to clean off the silt

and turn them just before larval settlement.

The state shelling program produced a huge increase

in oyster landings. Landings rose to 2-2.7 million bushels/year from the mid 1960's through the early 1980's.

From the 1960's onward, the public fishery has been

dependent upon this state repletion program.

In the 1960's, from 4,000 to 4,200 men crewing about

1,200 hand-tonging boats, 700 patent-tonging boats, 45

skipjacks, and other boats were harvesting oysters on

good days in Maryland. Most hand-tonging boats carried two men, though one or three were also common.

Men in two- and three-man crews often took turns

tonging and culling. Two men commonly harvested

15-25 bushels of oysters/day (Sieling5).

Each skipjack was manned by a captain and six crewmen, who emptied the two dredges, culled oysters, and

shovelled seed and shells overboard. While earlier crews

could use only sail to power their vessels while dredging

each day, a law was passed in 1966 to allow them to use

a push boat for power on Mondays; a few years later,

Tuesdays were also added (Vojtech, 1993). The number ofskipjacks declined to about 30 in the 1970's, 25 in

the 1980's, 15 in 1992-93, and 8 in 1993-94 (Sieling5).

In the 1960's, Crisfield had about 12 oyster houses.

The smallest houses had 10 to 12 shuckers, while the

largest had 50 to 75 shuckers (Toddti).

In 1971, the county system was abolished; aftenvard,

oystermen could harvest oysters in all state waters without boundary restrictions (Vojtech, 1993). When oystering at some distance from home, they commonly

lived on their tonging boats and skipjacks during the

week (Sieling5).

Scuba Diving-Since the 1970's, scuba divers have harvested oysters commercially. The state restricts them to

the lower parts of tributaries, while the tongers work in
154 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 9

Scuba diver about to enter water and harvest oysters in Maryland, current. Photograph by R.J. Dodds, courtesy ofChesapeake Bay Maritime Museum, St. Michaels, Md.

the upper parts. The state requires at least two to a scuba

team, one diver and one tender in the boat (Fig. 9).

Oyster Diseases Depress Industry-After 1981, dominant factors in the Maryland oyster industry were the

reappearance of the disease MSX and the invasion of

Dermo. The grounds in Maryland's portion of Tangier

Sound previously had been invaded by MSX in the late

1950's and many oysters died, but in 1981-83 many

major oyster grounds were affected. There was a brief

reprieve in 1984 and 1985, but this was followed by a

return of MSX in previously infected areas and an expansion into more areas in 1986-88 (Anonymous, 1990).

Early in the 1980's, Maryland oyster landings fell, but

less than in Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey, because the lower salinity waters in Maryland provided

some refuge for oysters from MSX and Dermo. The

sporadic nature of the MSX infections made it difficult

for the state to develop an effective strategy for planting

shell and seed.

The heavy mortalities caused oyster production to

decline from about 2.5 million bushels in the 1980-81

season to about 1 million bushels in the 1983 season.

Landings increased to about 1.6 million bushels in

1984 and 1985, but fell to about 0.4 million bushels in

1987 and 1988. Each year, there were fewer oystermen.

By 1989, the state had 3,196 licensed oyster harvesters,

but 2,111 (66%) were part-timers who harvested less

than 50 bushels of oysters each during the season. In

addition, 138,700 bushels (35%) of the total annual

catch of 390,676 bushels reportedly were harvested by

only 139 (4.4%) of the licensed oystermen (Anonymous, 1990).

Current Oystering-The diseases MSX and Dermo have

drastically reduced the supply of oysters in Maryland,

and the number of boats and their daily catches have

fallen (Table 4). In the early 1990's, the state spread

about 1.67 million bushels of shells/year on its seed

grounds (Judy7).

In 1994, Maryland's oyster fleet consisted of about

400 tonging boats, about 100 of which were patent

tongers, 30 scuba-diving boats, and 7 skipjacks. From

one to three men still crewed each tonging boat, but

the skipjacks were crewed by a captain and four men in

contrast with a captain and six men in an earlier period.

The legal state catch limit for tong boats was 15 bushels/man/day-not to exceed 30 bushels/boat/day. The

state limit for skipjacks was 150 bushels/day (Judy7).

The oystermen pay a tax to the state of $l.OO/bushel;

the money is used to support management efforts

(Simns3).

In 1992-93, oyster landings totalled 123,618 bushels

with a dockside value of $2.6 million. In 1985-86,

oystermen on tong boats and skipjacks had averaged

7 Judy, C. 1994. Natural Resources Manager, Maryland Department

of Natural Resources, Annapolis. Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 155

Table 4

Estimated numbers of molluscan boats and fishermen in Chesapeake Bay during the peak of seasons, 1993-94.

Oystering

Hand tonging

Patent tonging

Diving

Dredging

Softshe!ling

Totals

Boats

300

100

30

7

60

497

Maryland

Fishermen

500

150

35

35

75

795

Oystering

Hand tonging

Northern quahoging

Patent tonging

Treading, raking

Quahog farms

Whelking

Boats

112

9

181

Virginia

Fishermen

90'

125

112

150

18

495

1 About 40 boats and 60 men were in James River in May 1994.

9.8 bushels of oysters/man/day and earned $104.86/

day (at an average of$10.70/bushel), whereas in 1992-

93 the oystermen averaged 4.6 bushels/man/day and

earned $99.80/day (average of $21.73/bushel). The

tongers now average 5-6 bushels/man/day for the season, i.e., 10-15 bushels at the beginnings ofseasons and

3-4 bushels at their ends. Each skipjack harvests about

30 bushels/day when using sail power, and about 40

bushels/day when using a push boat on Mondays and

Tuesdays. In the early 1990's, from 30 to 40 divers were

harvesting in anyone day. Each team of two harvested

up to 15 bushels of oysters on good days Uudy7).

In the 1990's, oyster harvests were consistently highest by the hand tongers, divers were second, and skipjacks third. Most oysters were shucked and sold fresh or

frozen Uudy7). In the 1993-94 season, four shucking

houses remained in Crisfield.

In 1994, Maryland had stocks of small oysters growing in a few areas, such as Tangier Sound. The oysters

survived relatively well and production rose to 200,000

bushels in 1995-96 Uuly7).

Oystering in Virginia _

By the 1870's, the Virginia oystermen were establishing

a system of practices that would last into the 1990's

without much change in equipment or methods; only

the volume of oysters handled changed. Oystermen

harvested seed with hand tongs from public grounds,

mainly in the James River (Fig. 10). Planters then 1)

purchased the seed from them, 2) spread it on their

leases, 3) left it 2-3 years without further handling to

grow to market size, at least 76 mm (3 inches), 4) hired

tongers or used their own dredge boats to harvest the

oysters, and finally 5) hired people to shuck them in

their oyster houses on a piece-work basis. In addition,

market oysters from public grounds were harvested and

sold to shucking houses built along the shores of the

Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers and

Mobjack Bay. The oysters were sold locally and in other

states (Ingersoll, 1881). Two major changes in equipment used involved the conversion from sails to engines in boats and from hand windlasses to power hoists

on dredge boats soon after 1900.

In 1865, dredging vessels harvested 1,083,209 bushels, and tonging crews took 981,791 bushels of market

oysters from public grounds in Virginia. Ten years later,

total harvests for Maryland and Virginia had doubled

and presumably reached nearly 20 million bushels/

year between 1875 and 1885 (Hargis and Haven, 1988).

By 1879, Virginia's oyster fleet was comprised of4,481

canoes and skiffs manned by 8,860 tongers besides 1,317

larger sailing vessels with 5,376 men. The sailing vessels

carried seed purchased from tongers to private grounds

mainly in the Rappahannock and York Rivers, Mobjack

Bay, and Hampton Roads, and they also dredged oysters mostly from public grounds; hand winders were

used to retrieve the dredges (Ingersoll, 1881).

A prominent feature ofVirginia's oyster industry since

1892 has been an Act passed by the General Assembly

that year, which decreed that natural oyster grounds

and the best oyster grounds of the state were not to be

leased, rented, or sold, but rather held in trust for the

benefit of all people ofthe state. The grounds, comprising 234,271 acres, have since been termed the Baylor

Grounds, afterJ. B. Baylor who surveyed them. Virginia

decreed that the grounds available for leasing were

outside the Baylor Grounds. Most were between the

Baylor Grounds and the shores, and most initially had
156 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Atlantic Ocean

Figure 10

The Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay showing major oystering areas.

soft, poor grounds for supporting oysters (Haven et al.,

1978).

In the late 1800's, planters began formally leasing

state grounds outside the Baylor Grounds to grow seed

they purchased mostly from the James River. In 1926,

the state began charging rent for leases, usually about

$1.00/acre. New leases granted after 1960 were rented

for $1.50 in rivers, $0.75 in Chesapeake Bay, and $1.50

on the Eastern Shore (Haven et aI., 1978).

Over the years, planters consistently spread shell that

had been shucked in their oyster houses over their leases

to harden them for supporting seed. Some grounds required at least 10,000 bushels/acre (Haven et aI., 1978).

The shell crusts that formed over the soft grounds were

generally at least 15 cm thick. By doing this, the planters eventually created thousands of acres of suitable

growing grounds.

In 1900, Virginia issued 5,846 licenses to individuals

for hand tonging, 246 licenses for patent tonging, and

737 licenses for dredging boats (2,500 men worked on

the boats). About 3,500 people were also employed

shucking and barrelling oysters (Anonymous, 1900).

Harvesting Seed

In the James River, setting densities of oyster spat were

higher and more regular than in Maryland. During

1947-53 and 1958-61, average numbers ofspat on bottom shells and oysters were 1,060/bushel. During one
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 157

9-year period, annual numbers of spat/clean test shell

ranged from 3.8 to 21.0,3.0 to 28.7, and 1.7 to 9.2 on

three grounds (Haven et aI., 1978).

Virginia established a season from 1 October to 30

May for harvesting seed and market oysters from its

public grounds. From the 1920's (and probably much

earlier) into the 1950's, crews on 700 to 800 boats (avg.

length, 12 m) were tonging seed oysters in the James

River. Each boat had a crew of 1-3, for a total of about

1,500 men. Men from distant parts of the state lived on

their boats during the week and returned home on

weekends. Throughout this century, some have hunted

game for fresh meat during state hunting seasons when

weather prevented tonging (Crockett8 , Rowe 9 ,

Setterholm10).

The surfaces of James River grounds consisted of

small shells on which oyster larvae set. In harvesting

seed, the tongers tried to skim off the thin layer ofseed

and avoid digging in to the shells underneath (Clark11).

Typical daily catches ofseed on good weather days were

50-75 bushels for boats with one tonger and 100-150

bushels for boats with two tongers and a culler

(Crockett8). The tongers included small amounts of

shell with the seed (Virginia allowed no more than 6

quarts ofshell/bushel of seed) and, by the 1990's, had

lowered the initial height (in about 1900) ofsome reefs

by about 1.5 m (Morgan2). James River tonging crews

sold the seed to buyboats. The largest tonging boats.

holding up to 150 bushels, unloaded onto the buyboats

once a day, while small tonging boats holding 40-50

bushels had to unload two-three times a day. Buyboat captains paid crews in cash after they unloaded

(Burton12).

Annual harvests ofseed oysters from the James River

were commonly estimated at about 2 million bushels a

year, but actual harvests may have been at least three

times larger (Morgan2). In the 100-year period before

1959, oystermen probably harvested well over 200 million bushels ofseed from the river.

Buyboats

An estimated 75-100 Chesapeake Bay buyboats (Fig.

11), about half of which were owned by the three largest oyster planters, i.e., J. H. Miles and Co., Inc., and

Ballard Fish and Oyster Company, both of Norfolk, Va.,

8 Crockett, O. 1994. Shellfisherman, Hampton, Va. Personal commun.

9 Rowe,j. 1994. Shellfisherman, Menchville, Va. Personal commun.

IOSetterholm, 0.1994. Shellfisherman, Perrin, VA. Personal commun.

llClark. H. 1994. Shellfisherman, Remlik, Va. Personal commun.

12Burton, j. 1994. Captain of oyster buyboat, Kinsale, Va. Personal

commun.

Figure 11

Upper: Schooner loading seed oysters from tonging

boats in James River, Va., about 1900. Lower: Closeup

of schooner loading seed oysters from tonging boats,

same area and time. Note use of halyard to handle

bushel bucket of oysters. Photographs courtesy of The

Mariners' Museum, Newport News, Va.

and J. S. Darling Company of Hampton, Va. 13, purchased seed in the James River. Additional buyboats

from northern states were present into the 1930's. Most

buyboats were 15-21 m long and carried from 2,000 to

3,500 bushels of oysters. Some of the smallest ones that

carried oysters to nearby areas such as Hampton Roads

and the York River held 700-800 bushels. Buyboats

could load on oysters from as many as eight tonging

boats simultaneously, and it usually took them 1-2 days

to get a full load (BurtonI2 ).

13Mention of trade names or commercial firms does not imply endorsement by the National Marine fisheries Service, NOAA.
158 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

The large buyboats were operated by three men, the

small ones by two men; all lived aboard part-time. In

most years, crews shovelled the seed overboard onto

leased planting grounds, but after about 1970 they hosed

it overboard. The planting rate was 500-1,000 bushels/

acre. When a buyboat arrived at a ground, it often took

on an extra man or two to shovel the oysters overboard.

In the Rappahannock River, the extras were local farmers (Dowells14), while in Hampton Roads some were

James River seed tongers (Rowe9). Some leases were in

water too shallow for the buyboats, and the oysters had

to be put on dories and taken into shallow water for

spreading. Some companies had their grounds filled in

2-3 weeks, but others planted all season (Morgan2).

Mter the seed planting season ended in the spring,

many buyboats were used to plant shucked shells on

company grounds (Burton12).

Any buyboats that loaded in less than a day could

make as many as five trips a week from the James River

seed grounds to Hampton Roads, the shortest distance

30 km away, and the largest planting area. The run to

the middle of the York river from the seed grounds

took 3 hours, while the run to the Rappahannock River,

165 km away, was 9 hours (Burton12). About 9f>% of

production from the York River was from James River

seed (Morgan2).

In a season, individual buyboats often ran large quantities of seed from the James River. A typical quantity

for a buyboat carrying seed to Hampton Roads was

about 90,000 bushels, but a buyboat once ran 156,000

bushels ofseed to Hampton Roads. A buyboat carrying

seed to the Rappahannock River grounds ran about

40,000 bushels (Burton12).

Public Market Grounds

The public oyster grounds which Virginia maintained

for its fishermen were in the Potomac, Little and Great

Wicomico, Rappahannock, York and James Rivers,

Mobjack Bay, and the Eastern Shore (Haven et al.,

1978). The grounds were mostly 3-5 m deep. Since

1928, the state has planted some with shell and seed to

help maintain oyster abundances. The quantity ofshells

planted/year increased from about 160,000 bushels in

early years to 950,000 bushels in 1960; between 1 and

3.5 million bushels were planted in the 1960's and

1970's (Haven et al., 1978). Seed on the grounds could

be sold to planters by fishermen, transplanted by the

state to depleted grounds, or left in place to grow to

market size for harvesting by fishermen (WessonI5 ). In

14Dowells, C. 1994. Former owner of oyster packing firm, Centercross,

Va. Personal commun.

recent years, the state enhancement activities were paid

for by collecting a $0.50/bushel tax on each bushel of

market oysters harvested, a $0.03 tax on every gallon of

oysters shucked, and appropriations from the state legislature (Clark11).

Tonging was the only harvest method allowed on the

public market grounds. Since hundreds ofmen worked

on the grounds, their tonging kept some shell surfaces

clean enough to collect sets, and those kept producing.

The catch rate of market oysters was 20-25 bushels/

tonger/day, or about 65 bushels/day for a boat with

two tongers and one culler. The oysters were delivered

to shucking or packing houses at the end of every day.

Early in the season, the boats often were limited to 3

days/week because the shucking houses could not

handle all the oysters that could be produced. Most

men who tonged market oysters on public and leased

grounds in the fall and winter worked on farms in the

spring and summer (Allen16).

The state allowed oyster harvesting with patent tongs

in certain public grounds that were too deep for hand

tonging. On grounds where oysters were abundant, a

man patent tonging alone could harvest about 25 bushels of market oysters/day, while two men operating two

patent tongs could take about 40 bushels/day. When

the catch dropped to 4-5 bushels/day, the men had to

quit (Clark11 ).

Harvesting Oysters On Leases

Companies harvested oysters from their planted grounds

by hiring tongers and by dredging with their own boats.

The companies preferred tonging on many grounds,

because dredges used improperly could break through

the crust of shells they had spread to make suitable

grounds for growing oysters. In the Rappahannock River,

nearly all oysters were tonged; on some grounds, the

remainder after tongers finished were harvested with

light dredges towed by 12-m boats. In the York and

lowerJames Rivers, Mobjack Bay, and Hampton Roads,

oysters were tonged and dredged. Two tongers and one

culler on a boat could harvest about 50 bushels of

market oysters/day. In the 1930's, companies paid

tongers about $0.25/bushel for harvesting, and by the

1950's about $l.OO/bushel. Tongers transferred the

oysters to company buyboats (West17; SetterholmlO).

The J. H. Miles Company, Inc., which had its grounds

at depths of 7.5-9 m in Mobjack Bay and Hampton

J5Wesson, j. 1994. Conservation/repletion officer, Virginia Marine

Resources Commission, Newport News, Va. Personal commun.

16AJlen, S. 1994. Shellfisherman, Coles Point, Va. Personal commun.

17West,j. C. 1994. Shellfisherman, Gloucester, Va. Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 159

Roads, probably was the largest oyster company in the

world earlier in this cen tury. From 1935 to 1960, it

planted from 106,000 to 1,000,000 bushels ofseed/year

and, from 1948 to 1957, harvested an average of440,000

bushels of market oysters/year (Haven et aI., 1978).

During marketing seasons, the company produced an

average of2,000 gallons of oyster meats/day. It dredged

most ofits oysters with its own boats, 18-27 m long, with

crews of 6-8. Two of its boats were about 30 m long;

they towed four dredges, had crews of 12 men, and

carried 2,800 and 3,200 bushels of oysters. They could

load on those quantities in 4 hours ofdredging (Snow18).

The Ballard Fish and Oyster Company, another large

firm, produced an average of 320,000 bushels/season

from 1948 to 1960. In company oyster houses, shuckers

often put aside any seed to be returned to the grounds

for further growth (Haven et aI., 1978).

Planted grounds consistently yielded about one bushel

ofmarket oysters for each bushel ofseed planted. From

1947 to 1960,James River seed averaged 2,177 oysters19.

Companies harvested from this about 300 market oysters 2-3 years later. The mortality of the original seed

then was about 90% (Haven et aI., 1978).

Shucking Houses

Virginia had many shucking houses near where oysters

were planted, such as the south shore of the Potomac

River, the Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers,

Mobjack Bay, and Hampton Roads (Fig. 12). In 1915,

there were 19 such houses at Norfolk and Portsmouth,

2 at Hampton, 3 at West Point, 2 at Urbanna, and many

others (Churchill, 1920). About 116 were operating in

1927 (Rep. Va. Comm. Fish., 1927),227 in the 1970's

(Haven et aI., 1978), 117 in 1985, and 65 in 1992

(VMRC records20) .

The houses processed oysters from their own leases

and those from public grounds. The people who

shucked oysters in fall and winter worked nearby as

farmers in spring and summer. In summer, many oyster

houses switched to canning peaches, peas, and tomatoes, and most of the labor they hired for canning

consisted of the wives of tongers and shuckers

(Dowells14). Beginning about 1960, when oysters began

to get scarcer, the canning companies lost some oftheir

labor because people could not remain in the locality

without the money incentive provided by the oyster

IBSnow, M. 1994. Retired fisherman, P.O. Box 10230, Bavon, Va.

Personal commun.

19This includes 1,066 oysters less than 3 inches long, 1,084 spat, and

27 market oysters.

20Virginia Marine Resources Commission records of license sales.

On file at commission office, Newport News, Va.

Figure 12

Processing oysters in plant, 1961. Upper: Worker is

shucking oysters and placing them by size in cans.

Lower: Oyster meats have been washed in blower (large

tank with water) and worker will put them into cans.

Photographs by R. K. Brigham, BCF.

work. This loss was also tied to technological developments in the menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, and alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, fisheries that led to fewer

jobs (Burre1l21 ).

Three large companies had much larger shucking

houses than the others. They were the J. H. Miles and

Co., Inc., with 425 shuckers and the Ballard Fish and

Oyster Company with 275 shuckers, both in Norfolk;

and the J. S. Darling Company with 75 shuckers in

Hampton. The Ballard Co. also had 75 shuckers in a

house on the Eastern Shore (Ballard22 ). Most remain21Burrell. V. Goo Jr. 1994. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, S.c. Pers0nal commun.

22Ballard, C. 1994. Owner, Cherrystone Farms, Cheriton, Va. Personal commun.
160 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

ing houses had 20-50 shuckers. Most oyster shuckers

were women. Some ofthe smaller houses had their own

grounds, while others did not (Morgan~).

The price that houses paid for oysters was based

partially on the yield of meats/bushel. The average

meat yield from a Virginia bushel is 6.0-6.5 pints. In the

1930's, the houses paid leaseholders and public fishermen $0.35/bushel for good quality market oysters, and

if the quality was poor and the supply abundant, the

price could fall to $0.15/bushel (Morgan2). While most

oysters were shucked, some were shipped in the shell

for the raw-bar trade (Haven et aI., 1978).

Shuckers usually began work at 4 a.m. and some

continued into the afternoon, with breaks for breakfast

and lunch. An average shucker opened 15-20 gallons/

day, while an above-average shucker opened abollt 25

gallons/day. The oyster meats differed in size: The

smallest, called standards, yielded at least 300 meats/

gallon; the mediums, called selects, yielded 200-300

meats/gallon; extra selects ran 160-200 meats/gallon;

and the largest, counts, had less than 160 meats/gallon.

In the 1920's, shuckers were paid about $0.25 to open

each gallon of meats (Johnson, 1988); in the 1930's,

$0.35/gallon (Ballard22); in the 1950's, $1.00/gallon;

and in the 1970's, $2.50/gallon (Johnson, 1988). In the

1990's, shuckers have been paid from $1.00 to $1.20/

pound of meats (a gallon weighs 8 pounds) and most

shuckers work about 6 hours to earn $50 to $60/day

(Simns3).

Oystering on the Eastern Shore

On the Eastern Shore of Virginia, most leaseholders

have collected their own seed. A common procedure

was to spread shells in parallel rows, about 12 m long, 2

m wide, 75 em high, and 2.7 m apart in intertidal areas.

Spat commonly set in densities of 10-30/shell. They

were grown in place for 1-2 years and then transplanted

to subtidal growing grounds for 1-2 years of additional

growth before harvesting. The heavy sets produced oysters in clumps. Peak oyster production was in 1954

when about one million bushels were landed (Haven,

1972).

Effects of Oyster Diseases

Mter 1959, the MSX disease began to kill most oysters

larger than 50 mm in high salinity (>15%0) areas ofthe

bay. Areas heavily affected included nearly all ofChesapeake Bay proper from the mouth ofthe Rappahannock

River south, the lower portions of the Rappahannock,

York, andJames Rivers, Mobjack Bay, Hampton Roads,

and the Eastern Shore. Oysters have since shown little

acquired resistance, and in the 1980's annual mortalities of oysters in the high-salinity areas were 50-70%

(Hargis and Haven, 1988).

Another effect of MSX has been a huge drop in

setting densities of oyster spat in the James River since

the early 1960's (Haven and Fritz, 1985). Most likely, a

large reduction in the spawning stock, a result of high

mortalities in the massive private plantings of market

oysters in high-salinity downriver grounds in Hampton

Roads, was responsible for the drop. Another factor

may have been pollution. Chlorine and its derivatives

are highly toxic to oyster larvae and occur in the river

from discharges of sewage-treatment and power plants

and refineries (Hargis and Haven, 1988).

With the drop in supply of seed in the James River,

the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)

has developed the Great Wicomico and Piankatank

Rivers as seed areas by planting several million bushels

of shells in them since the early 1960's (Haven et aI.,

1978). From 1963 to 1970, the James River produced

74% ofVirginia's oyster seed; the Great Wicomico River,

12%; the Eastern Shore, 9%; and the Piankatank River

and Milford Haven area, 5% (Haven, 1972).

Another pathogen that has caused smaller oyster

mortalities is Dermo. It has been in Virginia perhaps

since the 1800's and earlier. Dermo is active where

salinities exceed 12-15%0, and its occurrence and severity are temperature dependent. Most deaths from

Dermo occur during the middle to late summer and

are higher when temperatures are above normal. The

death rate in 2- and 3-year-old oysters may be as high as

25% annually (Hargis and Haven, 1988). Since oysters

on planted grounds began dying in large numbers,

planters stopped purchasing much seed from theJames

River and most have left the oyster business.

Marketing Soup Oysters

In 1957, a large soup company began buying oysters,

1.5-2 inches (40-50 mm) long, from theJames River as

an ingredient in oyster stew. With the loss of nearly all

the market for seed oysters after 1960, oyster tongers

harvested the larger oysters, which became known as

"soups," rather than the smaller seed. From 42 to 175

tong boats, most having two tongers and one culler,

harvested them daily from the 1966-67 to the 1975-76

seasons (the number of boats declined through

time) (VMRC records2o). Each crew harvested 75-100

bushels/day during good weather (Setterholm10). They

brought the oysters into Deep Creek, the main port for

tonging boats off the James River, and put them on

trucks owned by processing companies. About 3,000

bushels/day usually were landed. Buyers paid the

tongers $4/bushel for them. The oysters were processed
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 161

in houses in Norfolk, Urbanna, and

Irvington, Va., packed in 5-gallon cans,

and taken to the soup company. Most

oyster buyboats by then had been

scrapped or put to other uses (Perok23).

The harvesting of soup oysters ended

abruptly in 1976 when Kepone was discovered in theJames River (Haven et aI.,

1978).

During and following the 1986-87

season, the James River seed area became the maJor source of 76 mm oysters in the state, producing 42.5% of

the Virginia total. The total non:James

River market oyster production was

539,506 bushels that season (Hargis

and Haven, 1988).

Shucking Maryland

Oysters in Virginia

Figure 13

Small oyster shucking house near Potomac River, 1994. Photograph by C.

MacKenzie.

In the 1960's and 1970's, large quantities of Maryland oysters were shucked

in Virginia oyster houses along the south shore of the

Potomac River (Fig. 13) and the shores of the

Rappahannock River (oyster production in Virginia had

declined sharply while it increased in Maryland). From

1968 to 1975, at least 50-77% of oysters processed in

Virginia were from Maryland and the Potomac River, and

Virginia shucking houses processed from 50-67% of

Maryland's oyster production (Haven et aI., 1978). The

oyster meats were packed in 15-gallon cans and brought

to oyster houses along the York River and Hampton Roads,

which then had few local oysters to handle, for repacking

in 8-ounce and gallon cans (BurrelI21 ).

In a shucking house, workers shuck oyster meats by

size, measure their quantities, and then put them in

blowers (tanks holding 100-200 gallons of freshwater

with air blowing in their bottoms) to wash and swell the

meats by 10-20% (Fig. 12). Blowers were designed to

meet the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration for a hygienic product (Nichol, 1937).

The meats afterward are cooled to 4.5°-7°C, packed in

containers that hold from 1 pint to 5 gallons, and then

placed on ice. They then are shipped to markets

throughout the United States. Some oysters are also

shipped in the shell for opening and processing elsewhere

or for the raw-bar trade (Hargis and Haven, 1988).

The "soups" from the James River were processed

differently. They were retorted, placed in a brine bath

in which the meats floated, and then washed and chilled.

23perok, S. 1994. Shellfish dealer, Menchville, Va. Personal commun.

They then were used as an ingredient in canned soups,

stews, or chowders (Haven et aI., 1978).

In recent years, four types of businesses have handled

oysters (Hargis and Haven, 1988):

1) Shucker-packers-shippers who shuck and pack shellfish. A shucker-packer may act as a shell-stock dealer.

2) Repackers-shippers, other than the original

shucker, who pack shucked shellfish into containers

for delivery to the consumer. A repacker may also

shuck or act as a shellstock shipper if he has the

necessary facilities and permits.

3) Shellstock shippers-shippers who grow, harvest, buy,

or sell shellstock. They are not authorized to shuck

shellfish or repack shucked shellfish.

4) Reshipper-shippers who transship shucked stock

in original containers, or shellstock from certified

shellfish shippers to other dealers or to final consumers. Reshippers are not authorized to shuck or

repack shellfish.

In 1985, Virginia had 53 shucker-packers, 51

repackers, 47 shellstock shippers, and 1 reshipper. Their

total number had declined by 17% since 1975 (Hargis

and Haven, 1978).

Historical Virginia Oyster Landings _

Virginia oyster landings fell almost steadily from 7-8

million bushels/year in the 1880's to the period from
162 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

1935 to 1955, when production ranged between 2.5-3.7

million bushels/year and usually was the highest in the

United States. The main cause ofthe huge decline after

1880 seems to have been a great reduction in the supply

of market oysters on the public Baylor Grounds. The

populations of oysters apparently could not be sustained under steady harvesting with concurrent siltation and fouling of shells on the grounds and inadequate shelling. After the 1930's, most production was

from leased grounds planted with seed. Since MSX

invaded the Virginia oyster grounds, landings have fallen

sharply and were only about 45,000 bushels in 1993

(Fig. 6).

Current Status

In the 1980's and 1990's, oystering in Virginia has been

concentrated in the James River, where many oysters

still occur. In the late 1980's, oysters were relatively

scarce in the river, but with subsequent light sets each

year, a good set in 1993, and light harvests, oysters were

abundant on upriver grounds in 1994. The once-productive lower grounds have not been harvested in recent years and, without disturbance by tonging, they

have accumulated a layer ofsilt that prevents any settlement of oyster larvae (CrockettS, Rowe9). Little market

exists for the James River seed. In the 1990's, the few

companies remaining in business purchase only test

quantities of seed to plant on their grounds each year

to determine whether they will live.

In the 1993-94 oyster season, the state, acting to

conserve the oyster supply, allowed oyster harvesting in

the James River only until noon each day and allowed

only 20,000 bushels of seed to be taken from the river.

Crews in about 40 boats tonged daily. Most harvested

>76 mm market oysters, getting 2-3 bushels/man/day.

The harvest rate was slow because the oysters were

scarce and fishermen had to pick through quantities of

seed and shell to find them. The remaining boats (2

tongers and 1 culler) got 100-150 bushels ofseed/day.

The oysters were landed at Deep Creek and subsequently transported on trucks. The market oysters

brought the fishermen $20.00/bushel and the seed,

about $2.00/bushel. The remaining oystermen have

since switched to crabbing or clamming or found jobs

ashore (Crockett8).

The former production areas of the Potomac,

Rappahannock, York, and lower James Rivers, Hampton Roads, Mobjack Bay, and Chincoteague Bay produce few oysters. Fishermen check the grounds for the

presence of oysters every year and, in 1993-94, some

oysters just under market size were present. But when

the next dry cycle of rainfall occurs and salinities rise,

abundances likely will fall again.

To offset the low supply of oysters, dealers imported

substantial quantities of oysters from the GulfofMexico

states, mainly Louisiana in 1994. At a cost of $12.00/

bushel delivered, they were being shucked in houses

along the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and the

Eastern Shore.

Northern Quahog Fishery _

The northern quahog (called "clam" locally) occurs in

Chesapeake Bay proper, in the lower, high-salinity sections of tributary rivers, and in Chincoteague Bay and

other bays on Virginia's Eastern Shore. Virginia's quahog fishery has been much smaller than its oyster fishery. The Eastern Shore produced about half of the

quahogs in the 1930's, and two-thirds in the 1950's and

1960's (Castagna and Haven, 1972). The number of

fishermen engaged recently has increased as some have

switched to quahoging from oystering.

In Chesapeake Bay, quahogs were once harvested

with short rakes at wading depths and with patent tongs

in deeper water. Short raking was abandoned because

the quahogs became too scarce in shallow areas. Patent

tonging for quahogs probably began in the early 1900's.

Before the mid-1920's, the tongs, 1.2 m wide, opening

1.2 m, and weighing 125 pounds, were raised with a

windlass. Two men worked the rig: One man turned

the windlass crank and the other handled the tongs. It

took 3-5 minutes to drop and raise the tongs each time

("make a lick"). The boat drifted slowly in the current

and wind, its speed being controlled with a drag anchor

(Setterholm10) .

Fishermen, using automobile parts, made the first

engine-powered hoists for patent tongs in the 1920's

(Setterholm10). As equipment improved, the tong dimensions remained the same, but the tongs grew to

weigh 160-220 pounds, they could be operated by one

man, and they "made licks" faster. The tongs have since

been used mostly in 7.3-12 m of water, but can operate

in as much as 17 m. The boats continue to drift over the

grounds using a drag to control their speed. In about 9

m ofwater, a tonger can make about three licks/minute,

but if the bottom is muddy and the clams have to be

rinsed in the water, the rate may drop to two licks/

minute (WestI7). In the 1990's, some boats have Loran

plotters to help their captains relocate the densest concentrations of quahogs. Tongers cannot work bay waters in strong winds, and they miss many days during

foul weather periods (Waymack24).

For the past 25 years or so, patent tongers have been

harvesting quahogs in clean and polluted waters. The

24Waymack, B. 1994. Shellfisherman, Susan, Va. Personal commun.
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 163

Cultured Quahogs

In the past, some chowder quahogs were shucked

locally. The meats were sold to make chowders and the

shells were used as containers for deviled clams (Castagna

and Haven, 1972).

A bright aspect in an otherwise depressed Virginia

shellfishing scene is the recent development ofquahogrearing farms on the Eastern Shore. Quahog larvae are

reared in four hatcheries. The juveniles are grown in

trays filled with sand and covered with screens, and

then, after growth to about 15 mm, the seed quahogs

are removed and planted in sections of leased grounds

covered with screens to protect them from predation by

blue crabs and cownose rays. The grounds are intertidal or covered with water no more than 1 m deep at

low tide, and the screens can be set in place by workers

on dry flats or by wading.

In 1993, about 30 million littlenecks (about 30,000

bushels) were harvested from the seed the four hatcheries produced; the largest hatchery produced 20 million littlenecks from its seed. The hatcheries grow some

seed on their leased areas, and they have cooperative

agreements for growing seed with independent leaseholders. The hatcheries sell small seed to the leaseholdFigure 14

Hand harvesting of northern quahogs at Chincoteague Bay, Va., 1948.

Photograph by A. A. Bodine, courtesy ofthe Mariners' Museum, Newport

News, Va.

25Marshall, D. 1994. Resource officer, Virginia Marine Resources

Commission, Chincoteague, Va. Personal commun.

quahogs are becoming scarcer in both.

In summer 1994, 35-40 boats harvested

in clean waters. Tonging 10-12 hours

and obtaining fewer than two quahogs/

lick, boats got 1,500 to 1,700 quahogs/

day. The landed price/quahog was

$0.12 for littlenecks, $0.07 for cherrystones, and $0.05 for chowders. The

current price for littlenecks has fallen

from $0.18 each a few years ago because quahog farms from Massachusetts to Florida have been glutting the

market with them according to Waymack24• Prices for littlenecks had earlier increased sharply: In 1969 and

1970, the landed price for each littleneck was only $0.036 (Castagna and

Haven, 1972).

Most of the patent tong fleet has

been harvesting clams in polluted waters, in an open season from 1 May to

15 August. In the 1990's, the fleet has

been concentrated in Hampton Roads,

and over the past 25 years, about 75

boats have worked there daily; about

65 have had one patent tong and 10

had two. The daily catch rate has declined: In 1980, each boat harvested

about 10,000 quahogs; in 1988, about 6,500; and in

1994, about 4,000, when an average of about 4 quahogs

(range = 0-10) was harvested per lick. Most are littlenecks that in 1994 brought the fishermen $0.09 each;

cherrystones sold for $0.04 each. Fishermen have to

harvest at least 3,000 quahogs/day to make their operation profitable (West!7).

Mter a day of harvesting in polluted waters, fishermen first bag the quahogs, then bring them to a statedesignated landing site, and finally put them on trucks

sealed by a VMRC officer. They are taken to various clean

waters, placed in large trays or planted on leased grounds

for at least 15 days ofdepuration, and then are reharvested

and sold. Mter the season in polluted waters ends, the

tongers harvest quahogs from clean areas, tong for oysters, or dredge for blue crabs in the winter (West!7).

On the Eastern Shore, wild quahogs are harvested

mostly by treading (with hands (Fig. 14) or feet) at

wading depths or digging with two-tine "gaff-hooks" on

bare flats at low tide. About 100-125 treaders and diggers with gaff hooks harvest quahogs year-round; each

gets about 250-1,500 quahogs/day. In addition, two

boats are rigged with patent tongs for harvesting quahogs in channels, 3-6 m deep (Marsha1l25).
Northern Quahogs

164 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

ers, who grow them until they attain littleneck size and

are sold; the hatcheries and leaseholders share the

selling price 50-50. About 150 people work in the hatcheries and on the farms. The quahog hatchery rearing

and growing operations are expanding (Bois26).

Quahog production has varied widely since 1880.

Mter 1965, when production was 225,000 bushels, landings fell sharply and only 65,000 bushels were taken in

1985. The total since has risen, presumably because of

the Eastern Shore farming (Fig. 15).

Softshell Fishery _

The softshell (called "clam" and "mannose" locally:

Mannose is a Native American name for softshells) is

common in subtidal grounds in Maryland and supports

a substantial fishery. Juvenile softshells set in May and

again in September or October (Pfitzenmeyer, 1962).

Most Mayjuveniles are eaten by blue crabs, whereas the

fall juveniles have better survival. Some softshells attain

the minimum legal length of 2 inches (50.8 mm) near

the end of their second summer, but most reach it in

their third summer. Maryland is near the southern

limit of the range of the species, and in extraordinarily

hotsummers many softshells die, presumably from heat

stress (McLaughlin27). Virginia has no softshell fishery.

A commercial fishery for softshells in Maryland began in 1951, when a fisherman developed a hydraulic

conveyor "dredge" for harvesting them (Fig. 16). The

dredge is attached to the side of a boat and consists of a

head of high-pressure waterjets that washes the softshells

from sediments and a conveyor belt that carries them to

the surface. A crew of 1-2 men picks them off by hand

and puts them in baskets. Undersized softshells, shells,

and stones fall off the end of the belt into the water

(Hanks, 1963).

When the fishery began, fishermen used mostly crab

boats, 9- 12 m long, but gradually switched to boats 12-

13.7 m long and 3-4 m wide. Running the earliest

dredges required three gasoline engines: One to operate the boat, one for the pump, and one for the conveyor belt. The rig then was suspended from a mast and

boom rather than davits as now, and was raised and

lowered using a block and tackle. The newer boats have

diesel engines and use hydraulics run off the main

engine to operate the conveyor belt and to raise and

lower it. Their pumps generate water pressure up to

100 p.s.i., in contrast with 25-30 p.s.i produced by the

earlier pumps (Pollack, 1985).

26Bois, R. 1994. Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Onley, Va.

Personal commun.

27McLaughlin, S. 1994. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Nat!' Mar. Fish.

SeIV. Oxford Lab., Oxford, Md. Personal comrnun.

250 -,-----------------------,

20J

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Figure 15

Historical landings of northern quahogs in Virginia.

Operation of the gear initially was limited to water

depths not exceeding 10 feet (2.79 m) by a legal restriction on the length ofthe conveyor belt (5.8 m from axle

to axle)(Manning and Pfitzenmeyer, 1957). The state

since has allowed longer belts, and some boats have

extensions on the escalators that allow them to harvest

in greater depths. The most common depths now are

4.6-6 m. The fishery is limited by state law to four

counties, and the fishermen pay a $0.35/bushel state

tax on softshells landed (Simns3).

About seven boats were harvesting softshells in 1952,

the number increased to 132 in 1957, and since the

early 1970's, the softshell fleet has had about 150 boats

Uudy7). Fishermen begin work early in the morning

when winds usually are light and work about 8 hours in

good-weather days. They cannot work in rough weather

(Siding5) .

In the 1960's a typical catch for a boat was about 30

bushels/day (Hanks, 1963), but the state has since impo<;ed catch limits. The legal daily limit currently is 15

bushels/boat from 15 May to 31 October, and 8 bushels/boat from 1 November to 14 May. In the 1970's and

1980's boats commonly harvested 10-15 bushels/day at

the beginning and 8-10 bushels/day at the end of the

summer demand season. In April, they got 3-4 bushels/day Uudy7).

Until about 1980 or 1985, fishermen harvested

softshells or blue crabs in summer to earn money between the oyster season. With oysters and crabs currently scarce, the boats now harvest softshells year-round.

Peak harvests are from June through September, when

the demand is highest Uudy7).

Softshell production rose quickly from 21,000 bushels with a landed value of $173,000 in 1952 to 107,000

bushels with a landed value of $431,000 in 1955. Production continued to rise and in 1969 peaked at 659,000
bushels with a landed value of $2.8 million.

Annual production afterward fell as virgin

stocks were fished down and from 1975 to

1991 was mostly between 100,000 and

200,000 bushels, but 354,000 and 365,000

bushels were landed in 1988 and 1989, respectively. The landed value ranged from

$1.2 million in 1975 to $10 million in 1989.

In 1992 landings fell again to 19,361 bushels

worth $1.5 million. In 1993 and 1994 production has also been low (Fig. 17); about

60 boats were fishing every day. Each landed

about 5 bushels/day (Judy7).

Nearly all softshells have been trucked

out of state to markets in New Jersey, New

York, and mainly New England. In the 1990's,

some were trucked to Buctouche, New

Brunswick, Can., for shucking. The meats afterward were sold in New England (Simns3).

The landed price ofthe softshells has risen.

In 1960, they brought fishermen about

$3.15/bushel; in 1970, $4.70/bushel; in

1980, $26.55/bushel; and in 1990, $44.40/

bushel (Judy7).

In the late 1980's New England markets

began rejecting Maryland softshells because

coliform counts induced by warm temperatures were too high. Health officials in New

England insisted that Maryland clams had

to conform to standards set by the Interstate

Shellfish Sanitation Conference and their own

public health departments. To meet the starIdards, the Maryland fishermen installed insulated or refrigerated boxes on their boats.

Fishermen with insulated boxes put the

softshells in the boxes and cover them with

crushed ice, maintaining their temperature

below 15°C on the boats (Valliant, 1990).

MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 165

Figure 16

Harvesting softshells near Annapolis, Md., 1950's. Upper: Crewmen

are picking clams from belt. Lower: Captain is adjusting height of

belt while crewman picks clams off conveyor belt. Photographs by F.

Wells, courtesy of Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum, St. Michaels,

Md.

Whelk Fishery _

Virginia has a whelk (called "conch" locally) fishery

with landing ports on the western and eastern shores of

the bay. Landed are the knobbed whelk, Busycon carica

(called "knobbie" locally), caught in the lower end of

the bay; the channeled whelk, Busycotypus canaliculatus,

caught in the lower bay and ocean; and the lightning

whelk, Busycon sinistrum, caught in the ocean as a bycatch

of the surfclam, Spisula solidissima, fishery. In the bay,

90-95% ofthe catch is the knobbed whelk, which ranges

from 125 to 200 mm long (Rolley28).

The fishery began about 1960, when a market developed for the whelks (SnowI8 ). In the bay, fishermen

catch whelks with dredges in 9-14 m of water at night.

The dredges, 1.5 m wide, are the same ones used for

dredging blue crabs in winter. The boats initially towed

two dredges, one off each side; crews took them in one

at a time. Since about the mid-1970's, a different type of

boat has been used; boats now are 12 to 14.6 m long

and also tow two dredges but from their sterns; crews

take them up together (Rolley28).

In the mid-1970's, Virginia approved a legal night

dredging season for whelks from 1 May to 31 September (Rolley28). The state also limits entry into the fishery to 20 boats, but only 6-12 boats are actually dredg28Rolley, B. 1994. Shellfish dealer, Cheriton, Va. Personal commun.
166 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

700,---------------------,

Softshells 600

_500

o

o

o

; 400

OJ

300 ..

m" 200

100

Maryland Department of Agriculture and the Virginia

Marine Products Board. They are funded by fishing

gear licenses. Their actions consist of issuing news releases, placing recipes in state newspapers, participating in trade show exhibits in North America and Europe, exhibiting products at national restaurant shows,

conducting test panels to which the press and chefs are

invited, contacting exporters and importers around the

world, and making personal marketing calls, besides

mailing out promotional brochures.

o +-,-.LL-'-t--'-'-'--'-+-'-'--'-.L+-'--'--L.L.f--'--'--'--'--t-'-'--'--'--t-'--'-'-''-t--'..J...L-'--t-'LJ

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1985 1990

Figure 17

Historical landings ofsoftshells in Maryland. Data courtesy of Maryland Department of Natural Resources,

Annapolis.

ing when catches are good, Boats begin dredging at

dusk and, if catches are good, they continue until dawn.

The catch varies with the phase of the moon (if bright,

catches are down), thunder storms (if one occurs during the day, catches are negligible the following night),

and currents. And if an area has been dredged hard,

the whelks remain buried and catches are low. A typical

boat catches 30-50 bushels of whelks on good-weather

nights. Harvests from mid:June through July are lower

than they are earlier and later in the season, and boats

miss many nights during the hottest part ofthe summer

because of dangerous electrical storms. In winter, boats

that dredge for blue crabs catch 1-2 bushels ofwhelks a

day as a bycatch and sell them. About 50,000 bushels of

whelks are landed each year (Rolley28).

The largest buyer, Le., Bernies Conchs13, located in

Cheriton, Va., steams whole whelks, picks and ships the

meats frozen or fresh to a canning plant in Cape May,

NJ. The canned meats are distributed to outlets in the

United States (Rolley28).

Recreational ShellHshing

Recreational shellfishing is relatively minor in the Chesapeake region. On the Eastern Shore, small numbers of

local residents (but few tourists) dig northern quahogs.

The Virginia recreational limit is 250 quahogs/person/

day (MarshaIl25).

Seafood Promotion _

Local seafoods are promoted by public agencies in

each state: The Seafood Marketing Program of the

The Future

In Maryland, resource managers and fishermen anticipate a relatively low abundance of oysters and a continued smaller oyster fishery. They are trying to devise a

system to increase production by avoiding some disease

losses. It will feature planting shell on grounds in high

salinity waters where setting is likely to occur and then

transplanting the seed to low salinity grounds where most

will survive to legal market size, and also planting seed

produced in hatcheries on low salinity grounds (Simns3).

The future of oystering in Virginia appears bleak

because of the prevailing disease effects and other reasons. Management programs have been difficult to

implement effectively in both Virginia and Maryland

because of the weather cycle of drought and wet periods. Bands of salinity suitable for oysters move up and

down rivers as the cycle changes, leaving dead oysters

up-river from low salinity when a dry period shifts to a

wet period and dead oysters down-river from diseases in

high salinity when a wet period shifts to a dry period.

As the oyster industry has declined, fishermen and

shuckers have found other employment and people

have gotten used to eating fewer oysters. If oysters were

to become as abundant again in the bay, the labor

needed to harvest and shuck the entire supply might be

hard to find, and selling it would be difficult. Considerable promotion would be required.

Nichol (1937) attributed much of the drop in oyster

landings in Maryland to a decline in demand. The percapita consumption of oysters in Baltimore in the mid1930's was about one-twelfth as high as that in 1880. He

wrote that while "decreasing supply, poor quality, faulty

methods of processing and transportation, and delays

in distribution" affect the demand for oysters, "to some

extent, ... the shrinkage in the demand for oysters is the

result of general social and economic changes. Oysters

are not as fashionable as they used to be. Upon returning from the theater in days gone by, the general and

accepted thing was an oyster stew served piping hot in

an old-fashioned oyster parlor. An oyster supper once

was an elite form of hospitality, particularly at Thanksgiving time or Christmas. So it is no longer. The art of
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 167

oyster cookery is being forgotten. An increasing variety

of new delicacies attract the consumer's attention. The

oyster has lost its distinction."

Today, about 60 years after Nichol wrote those words,

they still ring true. A factor that probably was responsible for the decline in oyster harvests was the switch in

diets of people living along the Atlantic coast from

oysters to beef and pork. During and following the

1880's, the railroads were largely responsible for the

development of the U.S. meat industry and the abundant supply of mid-west meats to Atlantic coast population centers. As consumers began to eat more meat,

shrimp, crab, and surfclams, the demand for oysters

fell, as did supplies on the grounds (Haven et al., 1978).

Landed prices for oysters were low. Why make extraordinary efforts to maintain supplies of a cheap product?

In the lowerJames River, oyster abundance could be

increased by flushing silt off groundsjust before oyster

larvae ordinarily set. Some environmentalists might oppose doing this, fearing the silt temporarily raised might

interfere with other organisms. But various storms each

lift at least as much silt into the water many times a year

as would one desilting. The habitat would become much

improved for many species if the silted grounds could

be reestablished as grounds with oysters. Such desilting

and other methods to increase the quantity of clean

shell on the bottom for oyster larvae would increase

oyster abundance in many other grounds in the bay.

Aware of the successes in producing the introduced

Pacific oyster, C. gigas, on the Pacific coast of North

America and in Europe, especially France, some fishermen want this species introduced to Chesapeake Bay to

replace the native eastern oyster in hopes it might not

be as susceptible to MSX and Dermo as C. virginica. Two

principal groups oppose this. One is the Maryland DNR

which believes it might become so abundant it would

crowd out the eastern oyster. If so, it might not sell as

well because its flavor is different. The other group

consists of biologists who believe it might not survive in

the bay because its natural habitat is in cooler, higher

salinity waters, but if it did they fear that this new

species might adversely alter the natural environment

of the bay (Sieling29).

The future of the fishery for wild northern quahogs

appears threatened because supplies are falling steadily

under heavy fishing effort. The recent large increases

in the supplies of farmed littlenecks have acted to depress prices. If production ofsuch littlenecks continues

to rise, additional promotion may be needed to maintain prices and expand markets.

The future ofthe softshell fishery appears to be strong.

Softshell stocks currently are down because of a die-off

29Sieling, B. 1994. State of Maryland, Department of Agriculture,

Annapolis, Md. Personal commun.

in 1991, but in the past they have come back quickly

following a good set (McLaughlin27). The market demand is good.

Stocks of whelks appear to be holding up well. In

1993 and 1994, fishermen from Eastern Shore ports

were beginning to pot channeled whelks in the ocean.

From ten to twelve boats, each setting 200 to 300 pots

baited with horseshoe crabs, Limulis polyphemus, were

active in 1994 (Hudgins30).

Local Preparation of Mollusks as Food _

People in the Chesapeake Bay region prepare oysters

and northern quahogs several ways for the table. Oysters still are popular, though softshells are rarely eaten

by the locals in Maryland and Virginia.

Oysters are eaten mostly raw on the half-shell, fried,

or stewed. For frying, oysters are dipped in cracker

crumbs or flour and then dropped into hot fat. An

oyster (or quahog) stew consists of oysters (quahogs),

milk, butter, salt, and pepper (no potatoes). Scalloped

oysters are prepared by mixing whole meats with bread

or cracker crumbs and milk and baking the mixture in

a dish. Oysters Rockefeller is also prepared: Oysters are

shucked, left in their shells, covered with spinach and

cheese, and then baked.

Northern quahogs are eaten 1) raw on the half-shell

(littlenecks and cherrystones), 2) as clam fritters (meats

(chowders) are diced and mixed with flour, onions, a

small amount of celery or celery salt, quahog liquor,

and some water to make a batter and then the mixture

is fried like pancakes), 3) as clam casino (cherrystones

are minced and mixed with butter and crackers, topped

with butter and garlic, put back in the shells, and baked),

and 4) as stew (Setterholm10).

When softshells are eaten, they are steamed, fried in

a batter, or made into soup dumplings (whole meats,

onions, celery chunks or celery salt, and fried bacon

with the fat drippings are mixed with enough flour to

thicken and then cooked). Quahog dumplings are made

the same way, but the meats are diced (Setterholm10 ).

Acknowledgments _

I wish to thank the many people who took the time

from their busy schedules to provide information. Their

names are listed in the personal communications. Special thanks to C. Judy, Natural Resources Manager,

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, and J. A. Wesson, Conservation/Repletion Officer,

Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News,

30Hudgins, G. 1994. Whelk dealer, Beaverlett, Va. Personal commun.
168 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

for supplying reports and data; and F. W. Sieling, retired administrator ofthe Maryland Department ofNatural resources, Annapolis, for providing much historical

information about Maryland's oyster fishery by telephone. S. K. Davis of the Virginia Marine Resources

Commission, Newport News, provided some statistical

data. V. G. Burrell, Jr., and A. L. Pacheco reviewed

earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Literature Cited and

Selected References

Andrews,]. D.,]. L. Wood, and H. D. Hoese.

1962. Oyster mortality studies in Virginia: III. Epizootiology

of a disease caused by Haplospuradium costale Wood and

Andrews.]. Insect. Patho!. 4(3):327-343.

Anonymous.

1858. Oyster trade of the Chesapeake. De Bow's Commer.

Rev. 24:259-260.

1869. Oysters of the Chesapeake-their propagation and culture. In Rep. Comm. Agric. for 1868, p. 341-347. Wash.,

D.C.

1872. Report on the oyster fisheries, Potomac River shad and

herring fisheries, and the water fowl of Maryland, to his

excellency the governor and other commissioners of the

state oyster police force, January, 1872. Annapolis, 48 p.

1878. Oyster beds of the Chesapeake. Nature, NY xviii:653,

17 Oct.

1893. The oyster industry. First annual report of the Bureau

of Industrial Statistics of Maryland. Bur. Ind. Stat., Baltimore, p. 113-142.

1893. The oyster and the oyster industry. In Maryland-its

resources, industries, and institutions, p. 264-312. Prep. for

Board ofWorld's Fair managers of Maryland by members of

Johns Hopkins University and others. Baltimore.

1900. Report for the Virginia Board of Fisheries. On file at

Va. Mar. Resour. Comm., Newport News.

1990. The role of the State of Maryland in oyster fisheries

management. Recommendations of the governor's committee to review state policy for funding Maryland's Chesapeake fisheries. Rep. iss. by Maryland Dep. Nat. Resour.,

Annapolis, 91 p.

Brooks, W. K.

1891. The oyster. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore,

230 p.

de Broca, M. P.

1865. Etude sur l'industrie huitriere des Etats-Unis. Pris,

Challamel, 266 p. Trans!. in Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish.

1873-74 and 1874-75[1876]:271-319.

Castagna, M., and D. S. Haven.

1972. The hard clam industry. In V. G. Burrell,Jr., M. Castagna,

and R. K. Dias (eds.), A study of the commercial and recreational fisheries of the Eastern Shore of Virginia, Accomac

and Northampton Counties, p. 64-82. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci.

Spec. Rep. App!. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engr. 20.

ChowPing, L. S.

1988. Dragging for conch in the dead of night. Nat!' Fisherman 68(10):24-26.

Churchill, E. P.,Jr.

1920. The oyster and the oyster industry of the Atlantic and

Gulf coast. Rep. U.S. Bur. Fish. 1919. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

Wash., D.C., 51 p.

Davidson, H.

1870. Report upon the oyster resources of Maryland to the

General Assembly. Commander State Oyster Police Force,

Annapolis, 20 p.

Hanks, R. W.

1963. The soft-shell clam. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wild!. Serv.,

Circ. 162, 16 p.

Hargis, W.]"Jr., and D. S. Haven.

]988. The imperilled oyster industry of Virginia. Va. Inst.

Mar. Sci. Spec. Rep. App!. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engr. 290, 130 p.

Haven, D.

1972. The oyster industry. In V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. Castagna,

and R. K. Dias (eds.), A study of the commercial and recreational fisheries of the Eastern Shore of Virginia, Accomac

and Northampton counties, p. 27-63. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci.

Spec. Rep. App!. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engr. 20.

Haven, D., and L. W. Fritz.

1985. Setting of the American oyster Crassostrea virginica in

the James River, Virginia, USA: temporal and spacial distribution. Mar. Bio!. 86:271-282.

Haven, D., W.]. Hargis,Jr., and P. C. Kendal!.

1978. The oyster industry ofVirginia: Its status, problems and

promise. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Spec. Pap. Mar. Sci. 4, 1,024 p.

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Wash., D.C., 252 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone industries. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery industry of the United States. Sect. 1I:507-626. U.S. Gov. Print.

Off., Wash., D.C.

Johnson, P.].

]988. "Sloppy work for women": Shucking oysters on the

Patuxent. In P.]. Johnson (ed.), Working the water, the

commercial fisheries of Maryland's Patuxent River, p. 35-

51. Univ. Press Va., Charlottesville.

Kennedy, V. S.

1989. The Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery: Traditional management practices. In]. F. Caddy (ed.). Marine invertebrate

fisheries: Their assessment and management, p. 455-477.

John Wiley and Sons, NY

Kennedy, V. S., and L. L. Breisch.

1983. Sixteen decades of political management of the oyster

industry in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay.]. Envir. Manage.

16:153-171.

Lippson, A.].

1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, an atlas of natural

resources. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 55 p.

MacKenzie, C. L.,Jr.

1977. Sea anemone predation on larval oysters in Chesapeake

Bay (Maryland). Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 67:113-117.

1983. To increase oyster production in the northeastern

United States. Mar. Fish. Rev. 45(3):1-22.

Manning,]. H., and H. T. Pfitzenmeyer.

1957. The Maryland soft-shell clam industry: its potentials

and problems. Proc. Nat!' Shellfish. Assoc. 48:110-114.

Nelson, T. C.

1925. On the occurrence and food habits of ctenophores in

NewJersey inland coastal waters. Bio!. Bul!. 48(2):92-111.

ewell, R. I. E.

1988. Ecological changes in Chesapeake Bay: Are they the

result of overharvesting the American oyster, Crassostrea

virginica? In Understanding the estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay research. Proc. Conf. 29-31 March 1988, Baltimore, Md.,p. 536-546. Ches. Res. Consort. Pub!. 129, CBPI

TRS 24188.
MacKenzie: The Molluscan Fisheries of Chesapeake Bay 169

Nichol, A.].

1937. The oyster-packing industry of Baltimore its history

and current problems. Bul!., Ches. Bio!. Lab., Univ. Md.

Contrib. 11, 32 p.

Pfitzenmeyer, H. T.

1962. Periods of spawning and setting of the soft-shelled clam,

Mya arenaria, at Solomons, Maryland. Ches. Sci. 3(2):114-120.

Plummer, N. H.

1993. Maryland's oyster navy, the first fifty years. Literary

House Press, Wash. Col!., Chestertown, Md., 105 p.

Pollack, S.

1985. Hydraulic rigs kick up clams in the Chesapeake. Nat!'

Fisherman, Aug., p. 20, 22, 42.

Purcell,]. E., F. P. Cresswell, D. G. Cargo, and V. S. Kennedy.

1991. Differen tial ingestion and digestion of bivalve larvae by

the scyphozoan Chrysaora quinquecirrha and the ctenophore

Mnemiopsis leidyi. Bio!. Bul!. 180:103-111.

Steinberg, P. D., and V. S. Kennedy.

1979. Predation upon Crassostreavirginica (Gmelin) larvae by

two invertebrate species common to Chesapeake Bay oyster

bars. Veliger 22:78-84.

Stevenson, C. H.

1894. The oyster industry of Maryland. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm.

1892:12:203-297.

Valliant,].

1990. Maryland's new clam-cooling program is a success. Nat!'

Fisherman 20(9):26-27.

Vojtech, P.

1993. Chesapeake Bay skipjacks. Tidewater Pub!., Centreville,

Md., 145 p.

Wennersten,]. R.

1981. The oyster wars of Chesapeake Bay. Tidewater Pub!.,

Centreville, Md., 147 p.

Winslow, F.

1881. Deterioration of American oyster beds. Pop. Sci. Mo.

xx:29-43. 145-156.

1882. Report on the oyster beds of the James River, Virginia,

and of Tangier and Pokomoke sounds, Maryland and Vir·

ginia. Rep. 1881, U.S. Coast Geodet. Surv., Wash., D.C..

App. 11. 87 p.

1884. Present condition and future prospects of the oyster

industry. Trans. Am. Fish Cult. Assoc., p. 148-163.

Witty, A., and P.].Johnson.

1988. An introduction to the catalog of artifacts. Tn P. ].

Johnson (ed.), Working the water, the commercial fisherie;

ofMaryland's Patuxent River. Univ. Press Va., Charlortesville.

p.55-180.

Molluscan Shellfisheries of the

South Atlantic Region of the United States*

VICTOR G. BURRELL,jR.

South Carolina Department ojNatural Resources

Marine Resources Research Institute

P.O. Box 12559

Charleston, SC 29422-2559

ABSTRACT

The South Atlantic region once harvested 11 species of mollusks, but the current

number is seven: The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica; hard clam or northern quahog,

Mercenaria mercenaria; calico scallop, Argopecten giblrus; bay scallop, Argopecten iTTadians

concentricus; sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus; whelk, Busycon spp.; and cross-barred venus,

Chione cancellata. Native Americans, as long as 4,000 years ago, used mollusks as food, tools,

and trade items. In 1880, 1,555 persons produced 290,000 bushels of oysters in the region;

the oysters were gathered by hand picking. In 1902, nearly 50% of the oyster catch in North

Carolina was canned, while in Georgia and South Carolina, it approached 95%. Most

canneries closed during and following World War II. Today, a person can pick about 20

bushels/day, but production is at an all-time low. The hard clam has had a long history of

use including as wampum by Native Americans. Hard clams have been harvested by rakes in

shallow water and tongs in deeper areas. In the early 1900's, about 90% of the landings

came from North Carolina, but afterward landings in South Carolina increased, and by the

1980's, Florida led in landings. The hard clam has several mariculture advantages over other

species. Florida leads in the region in mariculture operations, but the largest facility is in

South Carolina. A small fishery for the calico scallop began in 1959 but did not expand until

mechanical shucking was developed in the mid-1960's. The scallops initially were harvested

with sea scallop dredges, but recently they have been landed with modified otter trawls. The

bay scallop occurs mainly in North Carolina and supports a small fishery. Landings of sea

scallops dredged on offshore beds averaged 830,000 pounds of meats in the past 15 years. A

whelk fishery recently was developed by shrimp fishermen during the off-season. The crossbarred venus is harvested on a small scale using hydraulic escalator clam dredges in South

Carolina. At least 11,500 shellfish licenses were sold in the region in 1992.

Introduction

Eleven molluscan shellfish fisheries have been plied at

one time or another in the U.S. South Atlantic region

which includes the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida (Fig. 1). At

present, seven species are still being pursued. They are

the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica; hard clam,

Mercenaria mercenaria; calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus;

bay scallop, Argopecten irradians concentricus; sea scallop,

Placopecten magellanicus; whelk, Busycon spp.; and crossbarred venus, Chione cancellata.

At one time fisheries for the following were recorded,

but at the present time are no longer underway: Queen

conch, Strombus gigas; ribbed mussel, Geukensis demissa;

rangia clam, Rangia cuneta; and coquina clam, Donax

variabilis. The fisheries are described in the following

pages in depth according to their historical importance

and available information.

Eastern. Oyster

Habitat

The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, grows primarily

intertidally south of the Newport River, N.C. This bivalve is present in dense beds along the banks, on large

flats, or on hummocks in coastal waters of the South

Atlantic region in salinities ranging from around 15%0

* Contribution 318, South Carolina Marine Resources Center.

171
172 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

~"o

I

I

,

History

bllt may exceed 4 inches in 8 months, or it may be almost

imperceptible when constrained by other oysters in a

cluster (Ingle, 1950). Oysters grow throughout the year as

far north as South Carolina (Burrell et. ai., 1981).

Native Americans used marine products certainly as

long as 4,000 years ago. Evidence found in shell middens

and other archeological sites indicate aboriginal use of

shellfish not only as food, but as tools

and trade items. So the shellfish industry dates to this time at least

(Marrinan and Wing, 1980). Large

circular rings ofshell surrounding a

central depression are found in

South Carolina and Georgia. These

shell rings appeared to have some

ceremonial function (Keith and

Gracy, 1972).

Oyster culture, to some degree,

was taking place as early as 1830 in

the vicinity of Charleston, S.c., and

in North Carolina in 1840, but several studies indicate that the regional

industry in 1880 was poorly organized and a good portion ofthe harvest was disposed of through bartering for other food stuffs (Colson,

1888; Ingersoll, 1881; Winslow,

1889). Dealers in North Carolina and

Georgia carted shucked oysters inland by wagon for sale. Ingersoll

(1881) estimated that in 1880, 1,555

persons produced 290,000 bushels

of oysters valued at $115,000 in the

states ofNorth Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (Fig. 3). A small

fishery on the east coast of Florida

was reported in statistics for the entire state of Florida and therefore

could not be included in the totals

above. North Carolina landings from

subtidal beds accounted for most of

the South Atlantic harvest up until

the late 1890's when steam canneries in Georgia and South Carolina

utilizing intertidal oysters came into

their own (Alexander, 1905; Burrell,

1982; Maggioni and Burrell, 1982;

Ruge, 1898). In 1902, nearly 50% of

the oyster catch was canned in North

Carolina, while in Georgia and South

Carolina it approached 95% (Fig 4).

Cape Canaveral

I

E

o

Figure 1

The U.S. south Atlantic region.

FLORIDA

\..

GEORGIA

,J------------ ~~---

JV

L~ :ORTH CAROLINA

-r-- ;~~~~~~'-

T

to above 30%0 (Battle, 1892; Brice, 1898; Burrell, 1986;

Chestnut, 1951; Drake, 1891; Grave, 1904; Linton, 1969;

Ruge, 1898) (Fig. 2). The spawning extends more or

less continuously from May through October (Burrell,

1986; Chestnut, 1951; McNulty, 1953). Spat attach to

other oysters throughout the spawning season resulting in

dense clusters. These oysters are small, misshapen, thinshelled, and have relatively low meat yield to shell volume.

North of the Newport River, and in a few scattered locations southward, oysters grow subtidally as on the Northeast coast. Growth of southern oysters is highly variable,
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 173

Figure 3

South Atlantic oyster landings 1880-1990 (GDNR, 1992; NCDEHNR,

1992; SCWMRD, 1992; USDOC, 1992; USDOC, 1905-40),

Figure 2

Pickers harvesting intertidal oysters using a handgrab to break the bivalves

loose from the supporting shell matrix in the mid 1930's. Photo courtesy

of G.J. Maggioni.

3,500

4,000

1,000

500

3,000

0"

2,500 &

2,000

::::l

1,500

>

r

I'

"

1\

1\

, \

, \

\

/I'

,'" I

,

,

, .\ ' " , \ .....- ..,

- Pounds

- - - Dollars

...o,~ ...0,<,"" ...0,<,<' ...0,'0"" ...0,'0<' ...0)"" ...0)<' ...0,'0"" ...0,'0<' ...0,0,'"

YEARS

Raw shuck houses processed over 50% ofNorth Carolina oysters but less than 5% of the South Carolina and

Georgia oysters while the cannery was in its heyday. In

the early 1960's, raw shuck houses prospered because a

Chesapeake Bay oyster disease caused shortages

(Maggioni and Burrell, 1982). Shucking houses pro5,000

20.000

15,000

o

o

q

10,000

Z

C

z

j

1 Cumbee, J. 1992. Retired supervisor, Shellmore Oyster Co.,

Awendaw, SC 29429, Personal commun.

2 Maggioni, G.J. 1992. Retired owner, Ocean, Lake and River Fish

Co., P.O, Box 629, Beaufort, SC 29902, Personal commun,

Landings statistics did not differentiate between number of people employed in various fisheries in North

Carolina and Florida, but in South

Carolina, 2,415 and in Georgia, 1,365

persons were listed in one capacity or

the other in the oyster fishery. There

were 25 canneries operating in the region in 1902 (Alexander, 1905). Oyster canning reached its peak in South

Carolina during the 1920's when at least

3,000 persons were employed in the

fishery and 16 canneries were operating (Keith and Gracy, 1972; Maggioni

and Burrell, 1982). Churchill (1920)

reported 38 canneries in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia plus

a few at Fernandina, Fla., in 1920.

Oysters were gathered by pickers who

were carried to oyster grounds by sailing vessels in early years and later by

motorized vessels. In the 1920's and

1930's they remained at the oyster

banks, harvesting at low tide by hand

into bateaus for 4 or 5 days before

returning to the canneries (Fig. 5).

Each picker caught about 25 South

Carolina bushels per day (one S.C. bushel =

1.8 U.S. standard bushels). The floating stock

was owned by the canneries, and oyster banks

were leased by them. Oysters were opened

by steam at the canneries and the meats

picked out by hand until 1945 when Sterling

Harris of Beaufort, S.C., developed a system

consisting of a slotted cylinder to shake

steamed oysters into a supersaturated brine

bath which floated the meat to the surface

and allowed the shells to fall to the bottom

(Fig 6, 7). After the meats were removed

from the shell they were sealed in a tin can

and heat sterilized under pressure. During

and following World War II, labor shortages

and unwillingness to put in the effort to

gather good quality oysters caused the closing of most of the canneries (Cumbee),

Maggioni2). Continued labor shortages, poor

yields, and finally cheap foreign imports led

to the demise of the last oyster cannery in

the late 1980's (Lunz, 1950; Maggioni and

Burrell, 1982; Maggioni2).
174 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 4

An oyster cannery near Beaufort, S.C., about 1935. Note the shell pile that dominates the landscape. Photo courtesy of G.J. Maggioni.

Figure 5

An oyster schooner, ca. 1935, used to transport pickers to and from

oyster beds and to bring catch to canneries. Photo courtesy of G.J.

Maggioni.

cessing intertidal oysters sometimes used a

hot water dip to facilitate opening of clustered oysters (Jensen, 1965). As labor became more expensive and yield of oysters

remained low, many raw shuck-house operators, beginning in the late 1960's, began

importing shell stock from Maryland and

the GulfCoast (Dewiu3, French4). Few shucking houses using intertidal oysters remain

and most of this resource is sold as shell

stock for oyster roasts (Burrell, 1986).

Today an oyster picker can gather about

20 bushels per day on an intertidal oyster

bar. This varies by condition ofthe beds and

the extent of tidal range (Dewiu3, Reeves5).

Shuckers can open 5 gallons of intertidal

oysters per day varying by season, quality of

oysters, and skill (Reeves5 ). Some shucking

houses pay the picker by number of gallons

his landings shuck out and the shuckers by

the gallons shucked. A premium is paid after a certain goal is reached to encourage

good quality by the picker and a longer work

week by the shuckers (Reeves5 ).

Disease has not been a problem for the

oyster planter up until recent years when Perkinsus

marinus, apparently in conjunction with the added stress

of drought conditions, was thought to be responsible

for heavy mortalities on some beds (Lewis, et aI., 1992;

3 Dewitt, W. 1992. Dewitt Seafood, Crescent, GA 31304. Personal

commun.

4 French,]. 1992. N.C. Dep. Environ., Health Nat. Resour., Div. Mar.

Fish., P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557-0769. Personal

commun.

5 Reeves, M. 1992. Bluffton Oyster Co., Bluffton, SC 29910. Personal

commun.

French4). MSX, Haplosporidium nelsoni, is present, but

no mass mortalities, as have occurred in the Mid Atlantic region, have been documented in the South Atlantic

states (Daugherty et aI., 1993; Marsha1l6). Predators

such as drills, Urosalpinx, Eupleura; starfish, Asterias;

whelks, Busycon spp.; and boring sponge, Cliona, though

present, do not appear to make heavy inroads into inter6 Marshall, M. 1992. N.C. Dep. Environ., Health Nat. Resour., Div.

Mar. Fish., P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557-0769. Personal

commun.
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 175

tidal oyster populations, but may be to

some degree responsible for lack of

subtidal oysters in the South Atlantic

region (Burrell, 1986).

Management

Leasing of oyster grounds was first

recorded in 1859 in North Carolina;

Georgia followed in 1889, with

Florida and South Carolina somewhat after that (Drake, 1891;

Oemler, 1894; Ruge, 1898; SCBF,

1925; French4). A closed season has

been adopted by all states during

the warmer months except in Georgia where the Department of Natural Resources has the authority to

open and close seasons throughout

the year (Williams7). Most regulatory agencies have discretionary authority to modify closures as conditions warrant. Lease or permit holders are required to plant 125 bushels ofshell or seed per acre in South

Carolina, return one-third of shells

harvested in Georgia, produce at

least 25 bushels oysters per acre in

North Carolina or do initial improvement to bottoms in Florida in order

to retain leases (Marsha1l6, Williams7,

Bearden8, Berrigan9). Three-inch

cull laws are enforced in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

There were over 11,000 shellfish

harvest licenses in North Carolina,

300 in South Carolina, 200 in Georgia, and a few on the east coast of

Florida in 1992. These licenses are

not separated by which shellfish is to

be harvested and usually include

harvest of more than one species

(French 4 , Williams 7 , Joyce 10,

7 Williams, B. C. 1992. Ga. Dep. Nat. Resour.,

One Conserv. Way, Brunswick, GA 31523-

8600. Personal commun.

8 Bearden, C. M. 1992. S.c. WJ.1dl. Mar. Resour.

Dep., Mar. Resour. Div., Box 12559,Charleston,

SC 29422-2559. Personal commun.

9 Berrigan, M. 1992. Fla. Dep. ofNat. Resour.,

3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Tallahassee, FL

32399-3000. Personal commun.

IOjoyce, E. 1992. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., 3900

Commonwealth Blvd., Tallahassee, FL

32399-3000. Personal commun.

Figure 6

Cars containing oysters were rolled on rails into retorts where they were

heated until the shells opened. The cars were rolled out of the retorts and

shuckers removed the oysters from the opened shells prior to canning.

Photo ca. 1930's courtesy of G.J. Maggioni.

Figure 7

A horizonal retort used prior to the middle 1940's to steam open oysters.

After World War II, vertical retorts were used in conjunction with a shaker

tumbler which did away with the need for shuckers as the meats could be

separated from the shell in a saturated brine bath. Photo courtesy of G. J.

Maggioni.
176 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 8

A mechanical oyster harvester operating at high tide on a South

Carolina intertidal oyster bed. Photo by V. G. Burrell,jr.

Figure 9

An oyster bed harvested by a mechanical harvester. Note that the supporting

shell matrix has not been disrupted. Photo by V. G. Burrell, jr.

Mariculture

Methodology to produce hatchery seed and to produce market

oysters under controlled grow-out

conditions have been worked out

(Burrell, 1985). However several

unique problems must yet be overcome before this becomes a viable enterprise in the southeastern United States. First, a means

of avoiding fouling by an overpublic aware of potential health problems associated

with eating raw or partially cooked shellfish (SCFB,

1925). Currently, each state participates in the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference and enforces regulations and procedures that assure harvests come from

clean waters and that shellfish are processed under

sanitary conditions (Shellfish Sanitation Branch, 1989).

In the South Atlantic region, 2.9 million acres were

classified for shellfish harvesting in 1990; 71 % wenapproved for harvesting at anytime, 4% could be harvested at times, conditional on meeting certain criteria.

3% were restricted to harvest only

if purification procedures were

carried out before marketing, and

21 % were closed to any type of

harvesting. These percentages did

not vary greatly from 1985 when

22% were classified as fully closed

(Leonard et aI., 1991).

llMoran,]. 1992. S.C. Mar. Wild!. Mar. Resour. Dep., Mar. Re our.

Div., Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422-2559. Personal commun.

Moran11). As ofJuly 1992, a license or saltwater fishing stamp to harvest shellfish

recreationally was required in South Carolina. At present (1992), there are 147 dealers handling shell stock, 26 shuckers and

packers, one wet storage facility, four

repackers, 19 reshippers and one depuration operation certified as interstate shippers of molluscan shellfish in the region

(USDHS, 1992). At present, oyster production is at an all-time low because of many

factors, such as the closure of productive

grounds because of pollution, lack of markets

for poor yielding intertidal oysters, inroa4s by

disease in subtidal oysters, and labor shortages

in both the harvesting and processing sectors

(Burrell, 1982; Cowman, 1982) (Fig. 3). Recently, most states have sought to rehabilitate

these resources by shell planting, relaying oysters from closed beds, seeding, and pollution

abatement efforts (Anonymous, 1975; Cowman, 1982; Linton, 1969; Munden, 1982;

Palmer, 1976; Reisinger, 1978; and SCWMRC, 1986). North

Carolina and South Carolina have developed mechanical

harvesters to relay large quantities ofoysters (Burrell et al.,

1991; Munden, 1982) (Fig. 8, 9).

Shellfish grounds have been certified by various state

health agencies since the mid 1920's when a typhoid

epidemic in the U.S. northeast and midwest made the
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 177

,,0,"'0 "0,,,,,,,, ,,0,':;' "0,,,,,,, "0,,,,,,, ,,0,'0'" ,,0,'0'" "t}'" ,,0,'\'" ,,0,'0'" ,,0,'0'" ,,0,0,'"

YEARS

History

South Atlantic region intertidally to depths of 50 feet

(16 m) (Chestnut, 1951). While they may be found in

much lower salinity, they grow best above 20%0

(Castagna and Chanley, 1973; Eversole, 1987). They

are found in substrates ranging from mud to sand but

are most dense in sandy bottoms with shell (Anderson

et al., 1978; Walker et al., 1980). Clams have the ability

to withstand very low salinity for up to 3 weeks by

remaining closed (Burrell, 1977). At least two spawning

cycles occur in southern waters, and some clams were

found to be gametogenically active all year (Eversole et

al., 1980; Manzi et al., 1985; Heffernan et al., 1989;

Porter, 1964). The southern quahog, Mercenaria

campechiensis, is known to hybridize with M. mercenaria,

but this does not occur to the extent that it would make

up a significant percentage ofthe landings (Dalton and

Menzel,1983).

Early use of the colored part of the shell of hard clams

as wampum by Native Americans and its presence in

kitchen middens indicates that this bivalve has a long

history both as food and for commerce (Keith and

Gracy, 1972). An early description of the historic fishery by Ingersoll (1887) reported that south of Norfolk,

Va., probably no more than 50,000 bushels per year

were landed in 1880 (Fig 10). He indicated that even

though this bivalve was abundant, fisherman could not

be relied on to catch them on a dependable basis for

market. Most of the fishery took place in North Carolina and South Carolina in 1902 as reported by

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000 S

o 9,000 0_

8,000 e

7,000

6,000 ...J

5,000 :;

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

+rr'l'1"l-I'T'1"l.,.,..,.T't'T"M'Tl'T'ii''ri''rn-1'i''iTTi'rTr'l''riTTTTTnrTTTTTTTTTlrTTTrr+O

3.000

2,700

....,. 2,400

:9

o 2,100 o

o

i: 1,800

1,500

Z

is 1,200

Z

900

600

300

Figure 10

Hard clam landings 1880-1990, in the South Atlantic states (GDNR,

1992; NCDEHNR, 1992; SCWMRD, 1992; USDOC, 1992, 1904-40).

Outlook

abundant natural set must be achieved. Secondly, a long spawning season also results in

poor yield for much of the year, and this

must be addressed (Burrell, 1986; Heffernan

and Walker, 1988). Thirdly, polyculture in

ponds may lead to public health concerns

which may preclude direct harvesting (Burrell

et al., 1991). Some penaeid shrimp growers

are also investigating using shellfish to reduce

algae blooms and to improve pond effluent

water quality (Hopkins12).

12Hopkins, S. 1992. S.C. Wild!. Mar. Resour. Dep., Waddell Maricult.

Cent., Bluffton, SC 29910. Personal commun.

Hard Clam _

Coastal development is expected to continue

unabated in the near future and it is expected to impact oyster habitat not only leading to closure of growing areas because of

pollution, but by changing water quality so

that recruitment and growth are affected.

Recreational activities such as golfing and

boating will probably rival agriculture, silviculture, and

other industries in their influence on shellfish growing

areas. Mariculture of other species may also affect oyster culture by competing for water use and, to a degree,

degradation of water quality (Burrell, 1982, 1986;

Maggioni and Burrell, 1982). Most oysters in the southeast grow intertidally, and markets for this product are

limited to stocks for oyster roasts and a few raw shucking operations. This oyster is best processed by heat

opening and sold as a cooked product. Since the canneries have all closed, this outlet no longer exists. If a

product that is appealing to the modern convenienceminded shopper can be developed using a cooked oyster this industry can once again flourish. At present,

however, efforts along these lines are not progressing.

Another approach to rehabilitate the oyster industry

lies in developing semi-intensive culture methods that

will produce a well shaped, high-yield single oyster suitable for shucking or the half-shell trade. Use ofrack and

bag culture in areas of low natural spat-fall and of hatchery-produced polyploid sterile seed offer hope in this

direction (Burrell, 1986; Heffernan and Walker, 1988).

Habitat

The hard clam or quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, is found

in estuarine and nearshore coastal waters of the U.S.
178 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Alexander (1905). A large quantity of clams was processed as clam juice, clam chowder, and whole clams at

a factory at Ocracoke, N.C., and this was responsible for

high landings around the turn of the century (Chestnut, 1951). Mter this, and until the late 1930's, around

90% of the region's landings came from North Carolina (USDOC, 1905-1940). Thereafter, landings from

South Carolina increased on a fairly regular basis and

made up as much as 36% of the regional catch in some

years (Lunz, 1949). In the early 1970's, a Florida fishery

began to contribute significantly to the landings, and in

the middle 1980's it led the southern states. This was

due mostly to the discovery of a large bed of clams in

the Indian River. This resource has been fished down

to a large extent and now North Carolina again is

responsible for more than half the regional landings

(NCDEHNR,1992;]oyce10).

Clams are harvested by hand using rakes in shallow

waters and tongs in deeper areas. Treading, where a

clammer wades in the water and feels for clams with his

feet, is also done (Chestnut, 1951). With the advent of

the motor boat, clams have been harvested in North

Carolina by "kicking." This is accomplished by dislodging clams from the bottom by action of the propeller

and catching them in a net towed behind the boat

(Guthrie and Lewis, 1982). North Carolina and South

Carolina also allow harvesting by hydraulic escalators,

by permit, for specific areas and time of the year

(NCMFC, 1991; Rhodes et al., 1977).

Individual production is difficult to estimate because

of different types of gear used, harvest incidental to

oyster harvest, and legal catch limits imposed (NCMFC,

1991; SCWMRD, 1991).

Small clams are subjected to predation by some fish

such as cownose rays, Rhinoptera bonasus; drums,

Scianidae; various crabs, several snails, and starfish.

Adult clams are preyed on by sea gulls, which may open

them by dropping them on a beach or paved roads, and

by starfish, whelks, and rays (Chestnut, 1951; Eversole,

1987; Stanley, 1985). Few diseases are known to affect

Mercenana mercenana in the adult stage, and no large

mortalities such as have occurred in oysters have yet

been recorded (Eversole, 1987; Sindermann, 1970).

Management

Leasing of clam bottoms is the same as for oysters.

There is no closed season on clams in approved North

Carolina or Georgia waters. A minimum size limit of linch thickness exists in all states, except for aquaculture operations from which seed orjuvenile clams may

be sold (NCMFC, 1991; SCWMRD, 1991). Clams, by

special permit, may be harvested for relaying and depuration from restricted waters (NCMFC, 1991; SCWMRD,

1991). At present, only one Florida depuration plant is

certified in the region (USDHS, 1992). As mentioned,

;-';orth Carolina permits mechanical harvesting by hydraulic escalators and kicking by special permit. Kicking is not allowed in other states, but South Carolina

and Georgia allow other mechanical harvesting by permit only (SCWMRD, 1991; Williams7).

Mariculture

The hard clam has several advantages over other species as a mariculture option. It has a ready market, is

most valuable as a younger animal, has few diseases,

and can be cultured at high densities. Hard clams are

marketed by size (littlenecks, cherrystones, and chowders). The littleneck is the most expensive, followed by

the cherrystones, and lastly, the chowders. Littlenecks

and cherrystones are most often eaten raw or in various

baked dishes, whereas the chowders are utilized in chowders as the name implies (Chestnut, 1951; Eversole,

1987). Culture techniques have been developed to a

point that it appears to be commercially viable, and

investment capital is becoming available (Castagna and

Kraeuter, 1981; Manzi, 1985; Manzi and Castagna, 1989)

(Fig. 11, 12). Florida leads the region in number of

mariculture operations, but the most extensive facility

is in South Carolina. This operation is fully integrated

from hatchery to marketing and has a production capacity of 140 million market size clams per year

(Manzi13) .

Outlook

Clam production will increase if mariculture operations continue to be profitable. Depuration will probably be the rule even if clams are harvested from approved waters. This could serve as a marketing tool to

increase public confidence in clams as a wholesome

product.

Calico Scallop

The calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus, occurs off U.S.

South Atlantic states in beds parallel to the coast in

depths of 30-300 feet (9-94 m). This small bivalve is

being harvested at 40-45 mm and attains a maximum

size ofonly 80 mm. The life span is about 18-24 months,

and beds having commercially exploitable numbers oc13Manzi,].]. 1992. Atlantic Littleneck Clam Farms, P.O. Box 12139,

James Island, SC 29422. Personal commun.
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 179

Figure 11

A clam nursery using upwellers to grow clams from 1

mm to 7-10 mm size for open-water planting. Photo by

V. G. Burrell,Jr.

cur sporadically. Large fluctuations in abundance are

attributed to reproductive success and mass mortalities.

The causes ofboth are poorly understood (SA&GMFMC,

1981; Allen and Costello, 1972). Commercial quantities

of this scallop were first reported off North Carolina in

1949 by the research vessel Penny (Chestnut, 1951).

A small fishery began in 1959 off Core Bank, N.C.

The fishery did not expand greatly, however, until a

mechanical shucking and eviscerating methodology was

developed in the mid-1960's. Since that time, beds have

been found and harvested off other South Atlantic

states. The most consistent and largest landings have

been in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Fla. (Fig. 13)

(Cummins, 1971; SA&GMFMC, 1981; USDOC, 1904-

1990).

In the early stages of the fishery, calico scallops were

landed using sea scallop dredges, but most recently

nearly all have been landed with modified otter trawls.

Some Florida fishermen have experimented with tumbler dredges (SA&GMFMC, 1981; Broom, 1976;

Cummins and Rivers, 1970; Cummins, 1971). Most of

the Florida vessels involved in this fishery are shrimp

boats that enter the fishery when a promising bed of

scallops is discovered. They may go as far north as

South Carolina when a bed warrants the effort. North

Carolina scallops are harvested chiefly by bottom fish

draggers because the beds are some distance offshore

(20 miles Or 30 km). In 1984, when record landings

occurred off Florida, 122 boats were involved. In 1990,

31 shrimpersfished for some part ofthe year for Calico's

in the Cape Canaveral area (Anderson14, MarshalJ7,

Dennis15). At first scallops were shucked by hand, but

by about the mid-1960's steam shucking methodology

and mechanical eviscerating was developed. For a while

this operation took place at sea on specially equipped

vessels; however, processing has recently been carried

out on shore (SA&GMFMC, 1981). Sometimes the scallops are trucked to processing plants, but if a large bed

is found where shucking equipment is not nearby, often the equipment is trucked in and set up until the

bed is depleted (Munden16).

North Carolina regulates the calico scallop harvest by

allowing landings in North Carolina only during open

seasons. They do not allow soaking in fresh water to

swell the meats. South Carolina requires licenses on

floating equipment for taking shellfish to market and

requires record keeping as directed by the Marine Resources Division. The fishery is expected to continue

unchanged in the next decade with periods of scarcity

and plenty.

Bay Scallop _

The Atlantic bay scallop, Argopecten irradians concentricus,

is found in commercial quantities in North Carolina

and in smaller amounts on the east coast of Florida. An

apparent habitat need for submerged aquatic plants

during early development largely precludes its occurrence in South Carolina and Georgia. It is found in

high salinity (>20%0) shallow water (30 feet (10 m) or

less) near the mouths of estuaries. In North Carolina, it

is closely associated with eelgrass meadows, and when

those die off, scallop abundance declines drastically.

Predators include seabirds and starfish, but neither

appears to affect abundance of the species to a great

degree (Chestnut, 1951; Gutsell, 1929; Rhodes, 1991).

14Anderson, W. D. 1992. S.C. Wild\. Mar. Resour. Dep., Mar. Resour.

Div., Box 12559, Charleston, S.C. 29422-2559. Personal commun.

15Dennis, C. 1992. Fishery Reporting Specialist, NMFS, P.O. Box

2025, New Smyna, FL 32170. Personal commun.

16Munden, F. H. 1992. N.C. Dep. Environ., Health Nat. Resour., Div.

Mar. Fish., P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557-0769. Personal

commun.
180 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 12

Planting small clams in trays in the intertidal zone. Note covering nets which

protect young clams from predators and also keep the clams in the trays. Photo

by V. G. Burrell,jr.

of these were sold in 1991. The harvest season is opened

for 4 days prior to Christmas and then reopened the

second week in January for 2 days a week until as late as

early May ifthe abundance ofscallops warrants it. Scalloping is not permitted on Saturday or Sunday or at night.

Bay scallops are harvested by dredges, and potato

rakes are sometimes modified with a mesh basket to

Figure 13

Calico scallop landings, 1958-90 (GDNR, 1992; NCDEHNR, 1992;

SCWMRD, 1992; USDOC, 1992, 1904-40).

42,000 24,000

39,000 22,000

36,000 - Pounds 20,000

33,000 Dollars 18,000

:e 30,000 o 16,0000- g 27,000 0

i:. 24,000 ~\ i 14,000 C!.

00Cl 21 •000 I • I 12,000 ew~

Z 18,000 I 10,000 :3

15,000 : 8,000

:3 12,000 I 6,000

9,000 J

6,000 4,000

3,000 2,000

o-h-T'T"T'T"T'T"i""'r-"';:=;~fr-=;:::;~~##T'T"rr-rr-rT""1rrlO

....0,<,<,

The south Atlantic coast scallop fishery is

concentrated almost entirely in Carteret

County, N.C. The meat of this bivalve was

first used by Native Americans for food and

the shell for tools, and it is a very conspicuous component of ancient middens. An organized fishery occurred as early as the mid1870's. Most of the scallops were shipped to

New York and Boston. Because of the restricted market, prices varied considerably

as did resultant harvests (Gutsell, 1929; Chestnut, 1951) (Fig. 14).

The fishery became better organized

around 1912 or 1913 and was listed as a

leading shellfishery in North Carolina. Scallop licenses averaged 707 per year during

1917-28 (Gutsell, 1929), and in 1928, North

Carolina was the leading U.S. producer of

bay scallop meats. Landings decreased markedly during the 1930's and 1940's coincident with the

disappearance of eelgrass. In the late 1980's, North

Carolina harvests again plunged. This time mortalities

were associated with the occurrence of a toxic algal

bloom, Ptychodiscus lJrevis (Tester et al., 1989).

In North Carolina, a license which allows harvest of

oysters, clams, and scallops is required, and over 11,000

History and Present

Condition of Fishery
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 181

Wanchese, N.C. This bivalve is caught using

1,400 scallop dredges in deep water. Landings here

1,100 1,300 , have fluctuated between <1,000 pounds and

1,200 -Pounds 'I 1,000

over 2,000,000 pounds, averaging about

1,100 - - - Dollars ,I II 900 ,I I I 830,000 pounds in the last 15 years. Many of :e 1,000 ,I I I 800 0 900

"

f I 0' the scallopers have begun landing at Vir- 0 ,I I 700 0

o. I o. ginia ports because of shallow inlets in the :::. 800 I I ,

700 I I I I E I 600 Wanchese area (Marsha1l6, MundenI6). en w

" 600 • I If I 500 :l Z /II II I -I '15 500 I' II I 400 0« Z > 0« 400 I I I -I 300

300 I I Whelk

II 200 200 I'\ 100 f 100 Habitat 0 0

A fishery for whelks, principally the knobbed whelk, has

recently become an off-season fishery for some shrimpers in the South Atlantic region (Anderson et al., 1985;

Berrigan9; Mundenl6). Shrimpers seeking longer yearly

use of their equipment began trawling for these gastropods between shrimp seasons in 1978. Large shrimp

boats pull trawls similar to those used in the shrimp

fishery, while small boats use crab scrapes. Catch/boat

may exceed 100 bushels per day, but a 1992 report gave

an average of57 bushels/day in South Carolina (Eversole

and Anderson, 1984; Lowl7).

Whelks are processed by partially steam cooking to

loosen the meat from the shell. The soft parts are then

pried from the shell and iced for shipment to markets

in the U.S. northeast or frozen for Asian markets

(Eversole and Anderson, 1984).

Afew whelks reached the market prior to 1978 (<1,000

pounds per year). These were caught incidental to crabbing and other fisheries (Anderson14) (Fig 15). From a

History

The knobbed whelk, Busycon carica, and channeled whelk, B. caniculatum, occur from intertidal zones to depths exceeding 40 feet (13

m). The knobbed whelk is about ten times as

common as the channeled whelk in catches

off the South Atlantic region. These gastropods are predators of other valuable mollusks

such as oysters and clams and are therefore considered a

nuisance by shellfish growers. Small whelks in turn are

preyed on by crabs and birds (Anderson et al., 1985;

Eversole and Anderson, 1984; Magalhaes, 1948; Anderson14). Weinheimer (1982) reported a protracted spawning season of up to 10 months for the knobbed whelk in

South Carolina. Both species are slow growing and therefore are vulnerable to overiishing (Anderson et al., 1985).

YEARS

Figure 14

Bay scallop landings, 1880-90 (NCDEHNR, 1992; USDOC, 1904-40).

Mariculture

help retain the bivalve. Shucking is by hand, often by

the catcher and family or at shucking houses. Plans are

in the offing to restock the areas most severely impacted by the red tide (P. brevis) of 1987 (Marsha1l6).

Forecast

Spawning and culture techniques have been developed

for bay scallops (Castagna and Duggan, 1971; Castagna,

1975; Loosanoffand Davis, 1963). Grow-out in lantern

nets, pearl nets, large pens, and cages have been biologically successful (Burrell and Manzi, 1987; Castagna

and Duggan, 1971; Heffernan et al., 1988; Rhodes and

Widman, 1980, 1984; Rhodes, 1991). However, economic feasibility has yet to be worked out for bay scallops in the United States (Rhodes, 1991).

The wild fishery for bay scallops will probably continue

in North Carolina with landings affected chiefly by

environmental conditions such as health of eelgrass

beds, toxic algal blooms, and degradation of habitat by

coastal development. Mariculture offers potential growth

of the fishery if economical growout methods can be

developed.

Sea Scallops

Sea scallops, Placoperten magellanicus, are caught on beds

north of Cape Hatteras, shucked at sea, and landed at

17Low, R. 1992. S.C. Wild!. Mar. Resour. Dep., Mar. Res. Div., Box

12559, Charleston, SC 29422. Personal commun.
182 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

modest beginning in 1978, this fishery has increased to

more than 1,000,000 pounds per year in the mid-to-Iate

1980's. It still ranks fourth in molluscan shellfish landings, but possible overfishing in Georgia and South Carolina led to a marked decline in 1989 and 1990 (Fig. 15).

clam has a very pleasant flavor and is preferred over the

hard clam by some shellfish enthusiasts. It may have

some potential as a mariculture species, however, no

one at present is trying to culture it on a large scale

(Anderson15, Keith18 ).

Management Queen Conch ---'- _

YEARS

Ribbed Mussels

The Atlantic ribbed mussel, Geukensis demissa,

a common intertidal bivalve, has been harvested in the past and processed to provide a

provitamin D which was irradiated to provide Vitamin D. This fishery was pursued

prior to and during World War II in the

The queen conch, Strombus gigas, fishery of southern

Florida was pursued until 1985. This colorful species

and fishery lent its name to the equally colorful human

population ofthe lower keys who are known as "conchs"

and the area the "Conch Republic." This gastropod most

often occupies shallow water grassbeds and sand flats. It

is found in depths from <1 foot to 200 feet «0.3-60 m),

but is most abundant at <100 feet «30 m). It was once

captured by hooking it with a long pole (up to 30 feet

long (9 m), but in recent years diving has been the most

prevalent method of harvesting. The shell, up until recently, was the most desired part ofthe conch; however, in

1965 the Florida legislature passed a law that the meat

must be used in order to legally take this animal. The next

year resulted in record landings (total Florida). The catch

fell after this, and in 1975 a limit of 10 conchs per person

per day and 20 in possession was placed on the fishery.

The fishery was closed in Florida waters in 1985 (Brownell

and Stevely, 1981; Stevely and Warner, 1978; Glaser19).

Mariculture of S. gigas has been considered as a means

of repletion of fished out stocks and as a means of

producing juveniles for conch escargot (Berg, 1976;

Berg and Glazer, 1991; Davis and Dalton, 1991). Biological techniques for culture of this species have been

developed and tested; however, at present

day prices and using present day methods

the economic feasibility is still not proven

(Berg and Glazer, 1991). The possibility of a

resumption of a natural fishery on the east

coast of Florida is remote because of a small

population size and the unlikely event that it

will be replenished.

450

400 S

o

350

.... 300 W

250 :3 200

150

500

600

550

100

50

o+--.-=¥--.-.--.-.--.-.--.-.--.-.---+o

#

1200

1100

1000 --Pounds

:!:! 900 - - - Dollars

0 800 0

C!- 700

en 600

Cl

Z 500

0

Z 400

<I:

..J 300

200

100

Outlook

Cross-barred Venus _

18Keith, W.J. 1992. S.C. Wild!. Mar. Resour. Dep., Mar. Resour. Div.,

Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422. Personal commun.

The cross-barred Venus or pepper clam, Chione cancellata,

is the subject of a very small fishery in South Carolina. It

is harvested by hydraulic escalator clam dredges. This

The whelk fishery is at or near the point of overfishing

at present and, unless more restrictive management

practices are instituted, landings will continue to decline. There are no plans to augment stocks or catches

by mariculture means currently (Anderson et aI., 1985).

Season openings correspond to the crab trawling season in South Carolina and Georgia, beginning after the

close of the white shrimp season and roughly going

until the roe shrimp season begins. This is usually from

January or February to mid April or early May (Keith18).

Figure 15

Whelk landings 1978-90 (GDNR, 1992; NCDEHNR, 1992;

SCWMRD, 1992; USDOC, 1992, 1904-40). 19G1azer, Robert. 1992. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div.

Mar. Resour., 13365 Overseas Hwy., Marathon. FL

33050. Personal commun.
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 183

Beaufort, N.C., and Beaufort, S.C., areas. A cheaper

source of Vitamin D led to the demise of this industry

(Chestnut, 1951; Maggioni2).

Rangia _

The common rangia clam, Rangia cuneta, was harvested

in the late 1960's and early 1970's in the Beaufort, N.C.,

area. These were steamed, shucked, and processed with

hard clam liquor as a possible substitute for hard clams.

This product did not catch on and most were sold as

fish bait. No landings have been reported since 1972.

Coquina Clams _

The coquina clam, Donax variabilis, was landed in small

quantities up into the 1920's in Florida. This bivalve was

used to make soup and was probably the periwinkle

reported by Alexander (1905), as he said they were

caught in shovels fitted with wire scoops and used in

"Donack" soup.

Acknowledgments _

I am very grateful to the many people who took time

from their busy schedules to share their personal observations and intimate knowledge of the shellfish industry ofthe region. They are all listed among the personal

communications. Jeffrey French was particularly helpful in providing an excellent summary of the North

Carolina oyster fishery, and I thank him especially.

Appreciation is due Karen Swanson for drafting the

figures. George Steele reproduced the photographs

loaned by G.J. Maggioni and I thank them both.

Literature Cited

Allen, D. M. and T.]. Costello.

1972. The calico scallop Argopectengib&us. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF-656, 19 p.

Alexander, A. B.

1905. Statistics of the fisheries of the South Atlantic states,

1902. Rep. Comm. Fish Fish. XXIX:343-410.

Anderson, W. D., A. G. Eversole, B. A. Anderson, and

K. B. Van Sant.

1985. A biological evaluation of the knobbed whelk fishery in

South Carolina. NMFS CompI. Rep. Proj. 2-392-R, S.C. Wildl.

Mar. Resour. Dep., Charleston, 72 p.

Anderson, W. D., W.]. Keith, F. H. Mills, M. E. Bailey and

]. L. Steinmeyer.

1978. A survey of South Carolina's hard clam resources. S.C.

Wildl. Mar. Resour. Dep., Mar. Resour. Cent., Rep. 32, 17 p.

Anonymous.

1975. Coastal fisheries: Oyster research. Pt. 1. Southern section Cumberland Sound and St. Andrews Sound estuaries.

First Annu. Rep. Ga. Dep. Nat. Resour., Game Fish Div.,

Coastal. Fish. Off., 12 p.

Battle,]. D.

1892. An investigation of coastal waters of South Carolina

with reference to oyster culture. Bull. U.S. Comm. Fish

Fish., 10:303-330.

Berg, C.]"Jr.

1976. Growth ofthe queen conch Strom&us gigas with a discussion of the practicaliry of its mariculture. Mar. Bio!. (Berl.)

34:191-199.

Berg, C.].,Jr., and R. A. Glazer.

1991. Current research on queen conch Strom&us gigas in

Florida waters. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 40:303-306.

Brice,].].

1898. Report on the fish and fisheries of the coastal waters of

Florida. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. XXII:263-342.

Broom, M.J.

1976. Synopsis of biological data on scallops Chlamys

(Aquipecten) opercularis (Linnaeus), Argopecten irradians

(Lamarck), and Argopecten gib&us (Linnaeus). Food Agric.

Organ. U.N., FAO Fish. Synop. 1I4, 44 p.

Brownell, W. ., and]. M. Stevely.

1981. The biology, fisheries, and management of the queen

conch, Strom&us gigas. Mar. Fish. Rev. 43:1-12.

Burrell, V. G.,Jr.

1977. Mortalities of oysters and hard clams associated with

heavy runoff in the Santee River system, South Carolina, in

spring of 1975. Proc. Nat!' Shellfish. Assoc. 67:35-43.

1982. Overview of the South Atlantic's oyster industry. In K.

K. Chew (ed.), Proc. N. Am. oyster workshop, p. 125-127.

World Maricult. Soc. Spec. Pub!. 1.

1985. Oyster culture. In]. V. Huner and E. E. Brown (eds.),

Crustacean and mollusk aquaculture in the United States,

p. 235-273. AVI Pub!. Co. Westport Conn.

1986. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fisheries and invertebrates (South Atlantic)

American oyster. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wild!. Serv., Bio!. Rep.

82(11.57), U.S. Army Corps Engr. TR E1..-82-4, 17 p.

Burrell, V. G..Jr., and].]. Manzi.

1987. Molluscan mariculture in South Carolina. Proc. 38th

Annu. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst., Trois Inlets, Martinique,

Nov. 1985, p. 245-251.

Burrell, V. G.,Jr.,].]. Manzi, and W. Z. Carson.

1981. Growth and mortality of two rypes ofseed oysters from

the Wando River, South Carolina.]. Shellfish. Res. 1(1) :1-7.

Burrell, V. G.,Jr.,J.]' Manzi, and C. B. O'Rourke.

1991. Assessment of mechanical transplanting as a means of

rehabilitating intertidal oyster beds. Proc. Gulf. Caribb. Fish.

Inst. 40th Annu. Sess., p. 228-240.

Castagna. M.

1975. Culture of the bay scallop Argopecten irradians, in Virginia. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(1):19-24.

Castagna, M., and P. Chanley.

1973. Saliniry tolerance of some marine bivalves from inshore and estuarine environments in Virginia waters on the

western mid-Atlantic coast. Malacologia 12(1):47-96.

Castagna, M., and W. P. Duggan.

1971. Rearing of the bay scallop, Aquipecten irradians. Proc.

Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 61:80-85.

Castagna, M., and]. N. Kraeuter.

1981. Manual for growing the hard clam Mercenaria. Va.

Inst. Mar. Sci., Spec. Rep. App!. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engl'. 249,

lID p.

Chestnut, A. F.

1951. The oyster and other mollusks in North Carolina. In H.
184 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

F. Taylor (ed.), Survey of marine fisheries of North Carolina, p. 141-190. Univ. N.C. Press Chapel Hil!.

Churchill, E. P.

1920. The oyster and oyster industry of the Atlantic and Gulf

Coasts. U.S. Dep. Commer., Bur. Fish., Doc. 890,51 p.

Colson, C. B.

1888. History of the mill pond oyster and cause of its disappearance. Proc. Elliott Soc. Sci. Art, Charleston, S.C., March

1988, p. 191-201.

Cowman, C. F.

1982. A brief analysis of Georgia's oyster industry. In K K.

Chew (ed.), Proc. N. Am. oyster workshop, p. 128-131.

World Maricult. Soc. Spec. Pub!. 1.

Cummins, R.,Jr.

1971. Calico scallops of the southeastern United States 1959-

1969. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS SSRF627,22 p.

Cummins, R.,Jr., and]. B. Rivers.

1970. Calico scallop fishery ofthe southeastern U.S.: Aphoto review

oflatest developments. Commer. Fish. Rev. 32(3):38-43.

Dalton, R., and W. Menzel.

1983. Seasonal gonadal development of young laboratoryspawned southern (Mercenaria campechiensis) and northern

(Mercenaria mercenaria) quahogs and their reciprocal hybrids in northern Fla.]. Shellfish. Res. 3:11-17.

Daugherty, W.]., T. C. Cheng, and V. G. Burrell,Jr.

1993. Occurrence of the pathogen Haplosporidium nelsoni in

oysters, Crassostrea virginica, in South Carolina, U.S.A. Trans.

Am. Microscop. Soc. 112(r) :75-77.

Davis, M., and A. Dalton.

1991. New large-scale culturing techniques for Stromlrns gigas

post larvae in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Proc. Gulf

Caribb. Fish. Res. Inst. 40:257-266.

Drake,]. C.

1891. On the sounds and estuaries of Georgia with reference

to oyster culture. U.S. Coast Geodet. Surv. Bull. 19: 179-209.

Eversole, A. G.

1987. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) hard clam. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wild!. Servo BioI. Rep.

82(11.75), U.S. Army Corps Eng., TR EL 82-4,33 p.

Eversole, A. G., and W. D. Anderson.

1984. Whelk fishery in the South Atlantic bight: Preliminary

observations. Am. Malacol. Bul!. 3(1):102.

Eversole, A., W. Michner, and P. Eldridge.

1980. Reproductive cycle of Mercenaria mercenaria in a South

Carolina estuary. Proc. Nat!' Shellfish. Assoc. 70:20-30.

GD R.

1992. Summary of shellfish landings 1977-1990. Ga. Dep.

Nat. Resour., Brunswick.

Grave, D.

1904. Investigations for the promotion of the oyster industry

of North Carolina. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., p. 247-315.

Guthrie,]. F., and C. W. Lewis.

1982. The clam-kicking fishery of North Carolina. Mar. Fish.

Rev. 44(1):16-21.

Gutsell,]. S.

1929. Scallop industry ofNorth Carolina. Rep. U.S. Bur. Fish.

FY1928, pt. 1, app. 5. Doc. 1043:173-197.

Heffernan, P. B. and R. L. Walker.

1988. Preliminary observations of oyster pearl net cultivation

in coastal Georgia. Northeast Gulf Sci. 10(1):33-43.

Heffernan, P. B., R. L. Walker, and]. L. Carr.

1989. Gametogenic cycles of three bivalves in Wassaw Sound,

Georgia: 1. Mercenaria mercenaria (Linnaeus 1758) ]. Shellfish. Res. 8(1):51-60.

Heffernan, P. B., R. L. Walker, and D. M. Gillespie.

1988. Biological feasibility of growing the northern bay seal··

lop, Argopecten irradians irradians, in coastal waters of Georgia.]. Shellfish. Res. 7(1):83-88.

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G.B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. Gov. Print.

Off., Wash., 251 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel and abalone industries.

In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery industries of

the United States, p. 507-626. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., pt.

XX, Vol. II, Sect. V.

Ingle, R. M.

1950. Summer growth of the American oyster in Florida waters. Science 112(2908) :338-339.

Jensen, E. T.

1965. Sanitation of the harvesting and processing of shellfish, 1965. Rev. U.S. Dep. Health. Educ. Welfare, Publ.

Health Serv., pt. II, 52 p.

Keith, W.]., and R. C. Gracy.

] 972. History of the South Carolina oyster. S.C. Wildl. Mar.

Resour. Dep., Mar. Resour. Div., Educ. Rep. 1, 19 p.

Leonard, D. L., E. A. Slaughter, P. V. Genovese, S. L. Adamay,

C. G. Clement.

1991. The 1990 national shellfish register of classified estuarine waters. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA, Nat!' Ocean Se~'.,

100 p.

Lewis, E.]., F. G. Kern, A. Rosenfield. S. A. Stevens, R. L. Walker

and P. B. Hefferman.

1992. Lethal parasites in oysters from coastal Georgia with

discussion of disease and management implications. Mar.

Fish. Rev. 54(2):1-6.

Linton, T. L.

1969. Inventory of the intertidal oyster resources of Georgia.

In T. L. Linton (ed.), Feasibility study of methods for im·

proving oyster production in Georgia, p. 5-] O. Bur. Commer.

Fish., Compl. Rep. Proj. 2-10-R.

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

]963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks. In F. S. Russell (ed.), Advances in marine biology, p. 1-136. Acad. Press, N.Y.

Lunz, G. R.

1949. The clam situation in South Carolina. Bears Bluff Lab,

Wadmalaw lsI., S.C. Contrib. 6, 4 p.

1950. Production and yield of the oyster cannery industry of

South Carolina. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw lsI., S.C.,

Contrib. 9,14 p.

Magalhaes, H.

1948. An ecological study of snails of the genus Busycon at

Beaufort, orth Carolina. Eco!. Monogr. 18(3) :378-409.

Maggioni, G.]., and V. G. Burrell,Jr.

]982. South Carolina oyster industry. In K. K. Chew (ed.),

Proc. . Am. Oyster workshop, p. ] 32-137. World Maricult.

Soc. Spec. Pub!. 1.

Manzi,].j.

1985. Clam aquaculture. In].]. Huner and E. Brown (eds.),

Crustacean and mollusk aquaculture in the United States,

p. 275-310. AVI Publ. Co., Westport, Conn.

Manzi,j.]', and M. Castagna (eds.).

]989. Clam mariculture in North America. Elsevier Publ.,

N.Y., 461 p.

Manzi,j.j., M. Y. Bobo, and V. G. Burrell,Jr.

1985. Gametogensis in a population of the hard clam.

Mercenaria mercenaria (Linnaeus) in North Santee Bay, South

Carolina. Veliger 28:186-194.

Marrinan, R. A., and E. S. Wing.

1980. Prehistoric fishing. In B. A. Purdy (ed.). Conferences
Burrell: Molluscan Shellfisheries of the South Atlantic Region of the United States 185

on Florida's maritime heritage, p. 22-21. Fla. State Mus.,

Gainesville.

McNulty,]. K.

1953. Seasonal and vertical patterns of oyster setting off

Wadmalaw Island. Bears Bluff Lab., Wadmalaw lsI., S.C.,

Contrib. 15, 17 p.

Munden, F. H.

1982. A review of the North Carolina oyster rehabilitation

program. In K. K. Chew (ed.), Proc. N. Am. oyster workshop, p. 138-151. World Maricult. Soc. Spec. Publ. 1.

NCDEHNR.

1992. North Carolina shellfish landings 1977-1990. .c. Dep.

Environ. Health Nat. Resour., Div. Mar. Fish., Morehead City.

NCMFC.

1991. North Carolina fisheries rules for coastal waters 1991.

N.C. Mar. Fish. Comm.. Div. Mar. Fish., Morehead City,

201 p.

NMFS.

1992. Florida fishery landings 1974-1990. NMFS Southeast

Fish. Cent., Res. Manage. Div., Miami, Fla.

Oemler,A.

1894. The past, present and future of the oyster industry of

Georgia. Bull. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. 13:263-272.

Palmer, B. A.

1976. Coastal fisheries: Oyster research. Pt 11. Central Section, Brunswick and St. Simons Sound estuaries. 2nd Annu.

Rep. Ga. Dep. Nat. Resour., Game Fish Div., Coastal Fish.

Off., 12 p.

Porter, H.]'

1964. Seasonal gonadal changes of adult clams. MercenaTia

mercenaria (L). in North Carolina. Proc. atl. Shellfish. Assoc.

55:35-52.

Reisinger, E. A.,jr.

1978. Demonstrate revitalization of oyster beds by resurfacing and reseeding. Contrib. Coastal Plains Reg. Comm., 4th

Qtr. Rep., CPRC 10740077, 25 p.

Rhodes, E. W.

1991. Fisheries and aquaculture of the bay scallop, A1gopecten

irradians in the eastern United States. In S. E. Shumway

(ed.), Scallops: Biology, ecology and aquaculture, p. 913-

924. Elsevier Publ., N.Y.

Rhodes, E. W., and]. C. Widman.

1980. Some aspects of the controlled production of the bay

scallop (Argopecten irradians). Proc. World Maricult. Soc.

11 :235-246.

1984. Density-dependent growth of the bay scallop, Argopecten

irradians irradians, in suspension culture. Int. Counc. Explor.

Sea., Rep. C.M. 1984/K:18, 8 p.

Rhodes, R.]., W.]. Keith, P.]. Eldridge, and V. G. Burrell,jr.

1977. An empirical evaluation of the Leslie-Delury method

applied to estimating hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria, abundance in the Santee River estuary, South Carolina. Proc.

Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 67:4-1-52.

Ruge,]. G.

1898. The oysters and oyster beds of Florida. Bull. U.S. Comm.

Fish. Fish XVll:289-296.

Shellfish Sanitation Branch.

1989. National shellfish sanitation program manual of operations. Part I, Sanitation ofshellfish growing areas. U.S. Dep.

Health Human Serv., Food Drug Admin., Publ. Health Serv.,

Wash., D.C.

Sindermann. C.].

1970. Principal diseases of marine fish and shellfish. Acad.

Press, N.Y., 369 p.

SA&GMFMC.

1981. Profile of the calico scallop fishery in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. S. Atl. Gulf Mex. Fish. Manage.

Counc., Charleston, S.c.. and Tampa, Fla., Sect. 5-13.

SCBF.

1925. Annual report to the Governor and General Assembly.

S.C. Board Fish., Columbia. 15 p.

SCWMRC.

1986. Annual report. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Resour. Comm. Columbia, 88 p.

SCWMRD.

1991. Marine fisheries and related laws. S.C. Wildl. Mar.

Resour. Dep., Mar. Fish. Div., Charleston, 94 p.

1992. SummalY of shellfish landings 1977-1990. S.C. Wildl.

Mar. Resour. Dep., Mar. Resour. Div., Charleston, 4 p.

Stanley,]. G.

1985. Species profiles. life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic) hard darn. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., BioI. Rep.

82. (11.41), L".S. Army Corps Engr. TR EL-82-4, 24 p.

Steve\y,j M.. and R. E. Warner.

1978. The biology and utilization ofthe queen conch, Stromlms

gigas L., in the Florida keys and throughout its geographic

range. Rep. to Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv., Palmetto, Fla., app. A,

46 p.

Tester. P. A.. P. K. Fowler. and]. T. Turner.

1989. Gulf Stream transport of the toxic red tide dinoflagellate Ptychodi;cus brevi; from Florida to North Carolina. In E.

M. Casper, V. M. Bricelj, and E.]. Carpenter (eds.), Novel

phytoplankton blooms. Causes and impacts of recurrent

brown tides and other unusual blooms, p. 349-358, Springer

VerI., N.V.

USDOC.

1905-1940. Fishery statistics of the United States. U.S. Dep.

Commer.. Bur. Fish., var. no.. dates, pagin.

USDHS.

1992. Interstate certified shellfish shippers list. U.S. Dep.

Health Human Serv., Publ. Health Serv., Food, Drug Admin.

92:4-66.

Walker, R. L., M. A. Fleetwood, and K. Tenore.

1980. The distribution of the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria

(Linne) and clam predators in Wassaw Sound, Georgia. Ga.

Mar. Cent., Tech. Rep. Servo 80-8, 57 p.

Weinheimer, D. A.

1982. Aspects of the biology of Busycon carica (Gmelin, 1791)

in waters off South Carolina with emphasis on reproductive

periodicity. ColI. Charleston, Charleston S.C., M.S. thesis,

92 p.

Winslow, F.

1889. Report on the sounds and estuaries of North Carolina,

with reference to oyster culture. Bull. U.S. Coast Geodet.

Surv. 10.136 p.

History and Status of the Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and

Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico

RONALD]. DUGAS

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

1600 Canal Street

New Orleans, LA 70112

EDWIN A. JOYCE

MARK E. BERRIGAN

Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection

Division ofMarine Resources

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399

ABSTRACT

The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, is by far the most important commercial

mollusk landed on the U.S. Gulf coast from Florida, through Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, to Texas. Florida produces about 20% ofthe region's oysters; Alabama, 4%; Mississippi,

8%; Louisiana, 50%; and Texas, 18%. In 1986-90, combined production from the Gulf

states averaged about 17.4 million pounds of meats/year. Louisiana's production ofAmerican oysters leads all states. The oyster industry has had a long history, beginning with the

Native Americans. The early American colonists developed the industry during the 1800's,

and it later grew into its modern form. Oyster production has tended to be highly variable

largely as a result of fluctuating environmental conditions. Cultch planting has been

important in maintaining productive oyster reefs. Louisiana has maintained public reefs as

seed grounds and maintains seed supplies by shelling them. Oystermen have dredged seed

off the public grounds and planted it on their leases for growth and marketing. In the other

states, the market grounds are nearly all public. Fishermen harvest oysters in Florida and

Alabama with tongs, in Mississippi with tongs and dredges, and in Louisiana and Texas with

dredges. Biloxi, Mississippi, historically was the major producer ofsteamed (canned) oysters

along the Gulf coast, handling oysters from Louisiana as well as Mississippi. The steaming

ended in 1965. In the past 15 years, oysters in Florida and Louisiana have been marketed

year-round instead of in the cooler months as in prior years. Other mollusks harvested for

food in much smaller quantities are the sunray venus clam, Macrocallista nimbosa; calico

scallop, Argopecten gibbus; bay scallop, Argopecten irradians concentricus; northern quahog,

Mercenaria mercenaria; and southern quahog, Mercenaria campechiensis.

Introduction Mercenaria campechiensis. Several other mollusks are sold

to the aquarium trade.

The most important commercial molluscan fishery along

the Gulf coasts of the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas (Fig. 1) is, by far, that ofthe

eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Other molluscan

shellfish harvested for food are the sunray venus clam,

Macrocallista nimbosa; calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus;

bay scallop, Argopecten irradians concentricus; northern

quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria; and southern quahog,

The Habitat

The U.S. Gulf coast, stretching 8,010 km (4,966 miles)

from Florida Bay to the Rio Grande in Texas, encompasses 6,391,396 ha (15,781,224 acres) of estuarine areas (Table 1). The physiography and geological devel187
188 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

~,:s

l>-'" ,,\l>-'" ,,\>' n #'" -~ I '\~ -'~----------- \

\

\

GULF OF MEXICO "-

Figure 1 '-, I ~-----'

The Gulf coast of the United States.

opment of the Gulf of Mexico and the continental and

marine geology along the Northern Gulf coast are fairly

uniform (Folger, 1972). Because sediments have been

deposited by rivers, estuaries average less than 2 m (6

feet) deep. The coastal zone is a low energy hydrologic

regime (Grosline, 1967), and currents are usually <50

cm (20 inches) / second, except in restricted channels.

Normal tidal ranges usually are <0.5m-<2 m (<1.5-<6.0

feet). Average freshwater discharge is high in the eastern Gulf, but low in the western Gulf. Salinities can

range from fresh water to over 100%0. Monthly average

temperatures range from 10° to 32°C (50° to 90°F).

Freezing water temperatures are rare.

Oyster Resources _

Most oyster reefs along the Gulf coast are covered by

0.6--3.6 m (2-12 feet) of water at low tide. The exact

locations or dimensions of all oyster reefs cannot be

mapped accurately, because oysters occur in almost all

Gulf estuarine areas and many reefs are subtidal, making

observation and mapping difficult. Due to environmental

factors and oyster culture activities, the dimensions of

some reefs have changed considerably over the years.

Oysters are most abundant in areas where salinities

range from 10 to 30%0; in lower salinities (<15%0), the

effects of diseases and predators are much lower than in

higher salinities. Oysters set in good numbers every year,

and their growth is rapid, attaining the legal marketsize of

at least 3 inches (76 mm) within 2 years. Growth proceeds

throughout the year in all but the coldest periods.

History and Development of the Fishery __

The commercial oyster fishery in the Gulf has a long

history, and nearly every aspect, including production,

can be compared with a roller coaster with many "ups"

and "downs" (Table 2). The fluctuations show how

sensitive oysters are to environmental changes.

Commercial fishing was developed by aboriginal Native Americans who established trade for smoked oysters in many areas of North America. As the early European colonists relied on native foods and developed

local economies, they expanded the industry into its

modern form. Management efforts by regulatory agencies are recorded from the late 19th century, and they

have been described by several authors, including Emery and Uchupi (1972). Many writers (especially Kilgen

and Dugas 1989) describe how ancient oyster reefs

played a substantial role in determining the developmental history of certain oyster fishing areas.

BoridaGmfCo~t _

The use of oysters along Florida's west coast (Fig. 2)

Table 1

Dimensions of estuarine areas of the north('rn Gulf of Mexico, U.S. mainland1.

--------

Coastline Estuarine area

State Krn Miles % Ha Acres (MHW) %

Florida 2,484 1,540 511 1,686.035 4,163,050 26

Alabama 171 106 3 321.856 794,706 5

Mississippi 226 140 5 405,308 1,000,760 6

Louisiana 903 560 18 2,736,928 6,757,848 43

Texas 1,194 740 24 1,241.268 3,064,860 19 -- --- Totals 4,978 3,086 6,391,395 15,781,224

I Source: Kilgen and Dugas, 1989.
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 189

• Greatest contribution to landings

Figure 2

Florida's major west coast oyster-producing areas in

order of contribution to total landings (from Berrigan

et aI., 1991).

were harvested in any manner desired without regard

for resource conservation, and many reefs were reportedly damaged by indiscriminate harvesting and dredging (Swift, 1898; Whitfield and Beaumariage, 1977).

In 1913, the Florida Shellfish Commission was organized and shellfish laws were revised. Newly adopted

provisions required permits for oyster dredges, the establishment of a statewide leasing program, and payment of an oyster severance tax to fund the management program (Whitfield and Beaumariage, 1977).

Later revisions abolished the severance tax and prohibited the use of dredges on public reefs.

The Florida State Board ofConservation (FSBC) was

created in 1933, and it assumed control of statewide

shellfish management and leasing programs. In 1949,

this board established the Division of Oyster Culture

(DOC) to implement management practices to restore

and enhance productive oyster habitat by replacing

shell on public reefs. The board was reorganized in

1969, and the newly established Florida Department of

Natural Resources (FDNR) assumed responsibilities for

managing oyster resources. More recently, specific management responsibilities for regulating size limits, harvest seasons, bag limits, and gear have been delegated

to the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (FMFC)

(Berrigan et aI., 1991). InJuly 1993, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) was merged with

the Department of Environmental Regulation, forming

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP) which now is responsible for managing Florida's

shellfish resources.

INDlAJI

RJVEIl

• I = Apalachicola Bay

2 = Suwannee Sound

3 = Bay County 4 = Apalachee Bay

5 = fallon, Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties

Sf.JOSEPH --1J. -""';'1

BAY

4

CIIARlD'lTE~••"J HARmR '..-..

CAPE

GULF OF MEXICO

predates the European colonization by thousands of

years as demonstrated by numerous Native American

mound and midden complexes. The first descriptions

ofthe area's commercial oyster industry in Apalachicola

Bay were by Ingersoll (1881, 1887). Since that time,

surveys and research relevant to Florida's oyster resources have been somewhat continuous, beginning

with Swift's surveys of 1895-98 (Swift, 1897, 1898), followed by Danglade's survey ofApalachicola Bay in 1915

(Danglade, 1917), and continuing with more recent

research (Prytherch, 1933; Smith, 1937; Pearce and

Wharton, 1938; Ingle and Dawson, 1953; Butler, 1954;

Menzel et aI., 1966; Quick and Mackin, 1971; Joyce,

1972; Berrigan, 1990; and Berrigan1) .

By the beginning of the 20th century, researchers

and fishery representatives had recognized the potential value of Florida's abundant oyster resources and

identified the need forjurisdiction and control ofshellfish resources (Swift, 1898; Whitfield and Beaumariage,

1977; Herbert and Associates, 1988). Previously, oysters

I Berrigan, M. E. 1992. Oyster resources in Apalachicola Bay. Unpub!.

manusc. on file at Fla. Dep. Environ. Prot., Tallahassee.

Production

Oyster production in Florida tends to be highly variable, largely as a result of fluctuating environmental

conditions, but it usually ranges from 2 to 6 million

pounds of meat (305,000-915,000 U.S. standard bushels of whole oysters). A Florida bushel or bag is defined

as a container holding 10 gallons (volume) of culled

oysters, equal to 60 pounds ofshellstock (whole weight)

and yielding approximately 6.56 pounds of meat. A bag

contains 225-325 legal-size oysters. Reported landings

averaged about 3.7 million pounds (564,000 bushels)

annually during 1961-95 (Table 2), accounting for about

20% of the Gulfs production and placing Florida second to Louisiana in the Gulfs production. Florida landings generally reflect Gulf-wide trends: A gradual increase during the 1960's and 1970's, peaking at 7.2

million pounds (1,098,000 bushels) in 1981, a decline

from 1985 to 1989, and relative stability during the

early 1990's (Berrigan et aI., 1991).

Harvests from Apalachicola Bay (Franklin County)

account for about 90% of Florida's oyster landings.
190 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Table 2

Historical oyster production l among Gulf States, 1961-88.

Production (I,OOOlb of meat weight)

Years Fla. Ala. Miss. La. Tex. Total

1961-65 avg. 3,614 689 3,504 10,321 2,623 20,751

1966-70 avg. 4,508 1,072 2,356 8,689 4,004 20,629

1971-75 avg. 2,791 656 881 10.389 2,806 17,523

1976-80 avg. 5,087 812 775 9,344 2,203 18,221

1981 7,170 1,330 -!67 9,093 1,309 19,369

1982 4,782 1,497 2,576 12,621 3,633 25,109

1983 4,307 336 3,333 13,229 7,941 29,146

1984 6,621 477 1.378 13,952 5,168 27,596

1985 4,392 1,442 1,193 14,347 5,134 26,508

1981-85 avg. 5,454 1,016 1,789 12,648 4,637 25,544

1986 2,084 946 1,202 12.654 5,607 22,493

1987 3,518 88 132 12,027 2,897 18,662

1988 2,065 103 145 13,254 2,270 17,837

1989 1,698 5 100 11,606 2,407 15,816

1990 2,055 84 96 8,153 1;905 12,293

1986-90 avg. 2,284 245 335 11,539 3,017 17,420

1991 1,793 225 101 7,265 2,916 12,300

1992 2,499 1,202 707 9,183 2,748 16,339

1993 2,701 920 1,258 10,315 2,964 18,158

1994 2,011 712 674 11,328 4,614 19,339

1995 1,458 710 2,280 13,800 5,496 23,744

1991-95 avg. 2,092 754 1,004 10,378 5,473 19,701

1961-95 avg. 3,690 749 1,521 10,473 3,538 19,971

1 Sources: Fisheries Statistics of the United States (var. issues) and unpubl. National Marine Fisheries Service data.

Oyster habitat occupies about 9% ofApalachicola Bay's

aquatic area (45,603 ha (112,600 acres», while commercially productive reefs cover only 2,430-3240 ha

(6,000-8,000 acres). Annual production for Apalachicola Bay has been highly variable since 1980, exceeding 6.6 million pounds (1,000,000 bushels) in 1981,

then declining to <0.5 million pounds (122,000 bushels) in 1986, following catastrophic losses associated

with Hurricane Elena in September 1985. The downward trend in oyster production during the latter half

of the decade, excluding marginal recovery in 1987,

corresponded to extended periods of high salinity associated with droughts from 1986 to 1989 (Berriganl

). Other

oystering areas, including the Suwannee Sound region,

Apalachee Bay, and extensive estuarine systems in the

western panhandle, are usually only marginal producers,

with widely fluctuating landings and harvesting effort.

Oyster harvesting in Apalachicola Bay is highly regulated, as is the oyster industry statewide. Following Hurricane Elena in 1985, the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission implemented regulatory restrictions to foster

resource recovery, including bag limits, limits on the

number of harvesting days and daily hours, tolerance

limits, and the implementation of a monitoring station

program (Berrigan, 1988). All oysters harvested from

public reefs in Apalachicola Bay were required to be

passed through and tagged at monitoring stations. Inspecting and tagging harvests provided pertinent fisheries information, including landings, number of vessels engaged in harvesting, catch/vessel, and harvesting

locations. Combined with extensive oyster resource assessment, this information provided oyster resource

managers with a unique opportunity to monitor and

provide reliable fishery forecasts. In July 1992, provisions requiring monitoring stations were revised and

the practice was discontinued, largely as a result of

budgetary constraints.

In Florida, the principal methods for harvesting oysters arc by hand tongs and, to a lesser extent, by hand

while diving or wading. Harvests are primarily from

public reefs. A limited amount of dredging takes place

on private leases in Apalachicola Bay.

Resource Development

As public reefs account for 90-95% ofthe oysters landed,

Florida's resource development activities are directed

toward enhancing production from these reefs. Cultch

planting is important for maintaining and increasing
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 191

productive oyster habitat in Florida and other Gulf

states. Replanting processed or dredged shell has long

been accepted as an advantageous management practice and gives resource managers the almost singular

opportunity to mitigate resource losses, enhance productivity, and contribute direct economic benefit to the

oyster fishery and its dependent economy. Shell planting on public reefs in Apalachicola Bay was reported as

early as 1914 (Danglade, 1917), and an effective shellplanting program has been maintained since 1949 to

help ensure high productivity from Florida's public

reefs (Ingle and Dawson, 1953; Whitfield, 1973; Futch,

1983; Berrigan, 1990). From the inception of its predecessor agency (DOC) in 1949, the FDEP and its predecessor agencies have collected and planted at least

268,000 m3 (7.6 million bushels) of oyster shell. Collecting and stockpiling oyster shell has benefitted from

a Florida law which provides that shucked oyster shell is

the property of the state. But collections of processed

shell have been highly variable during recent years,

resulting from decreased voluntary compliance, fluctuating landings, questions of ownership of out-of-state

shell, and a shift from selling shucked meats to selling

"half-shell" oysters.

When processed shell is not available, the state has

turned to out-of-state sources to supply shell. From

1960 to 1992, the state purchased dredged Rangia

cuneata clam shell and oyster shell from Louisiana to

restore and construct oyster reefs. In the future, however, this source of shells may not be available, and

oyster resource development in Florida and other Gulf

states may be seriously threatened. Resource managers

currently are investigating the use of alternative cultch

materials, such as calico scallop shells and limestone

aggregate.

Besides spreading shell, other methods have been

implemented to enhance oyster production in historically productive areas, including relaying of oysters from

restricted to approved waters, transplanting seed oysters, and the use ofinnovative technologies such as intensive cultivation. The use of abundant oyster stocks in

waters where direct-to-market sales are currently prohibited because they are contaminated with pollutants will

probably increase markedly as relaying activity expands

and controlled purification techniques are demonstrated.

Cooperative management programs are conducted

to transplant juvenile oysters from areas where seed

stocks are abundant on intertidal reefs to subtidal areas

where environmental conditions are more favorable

for growth to market size and quality. Since 1982, at least

1.8 million bushels ofjuvenile and adult oysters have been

relayed and transplanted in six coastal counties.

Florida provides good environmental conditions for

shellfish culture, and some efforts are underway to

develop its potential. Several multiagency and multidisciplinary projects have been established to train potential aquaculturists, primarily those involved in traditional fishery occupations who may augment their incomes while relying on their fishery skills. Six aquaculture demonstration and training programs have been

implemented along Florida's Gulf coast with the support oflocal fishermen, communities, and government.

These successful programs produce hard clams. Unfortunately, a training and demonstration program was

completed in Apalachicola Bay to produced oysters,

but local resistance prevented leases from being issued

to project participants.

Leasing Programs

Granting sovereignty lands for oyster production has a

long history in Florida. In 1881, laws were passed by the

Florida Legislature that permitted individuals to obtain

grants from county commissions to cultivate oysters on

bottom lands where natural oyster reefs did not occur.

Contractual stipulations required that the grantee cultivate his grant using shell or live oysters, and enabled

the grantee to harvest exclusively and hold title to the

cultivated bottoms indefinitely (Whitfield and

Beaumariage, 1977). Most grants were abandoned before the laws were revised to prohibit granting of submerged lands. In 1913, a comprehensive leasing program was initiated when Chapter 370, Florida Statutes,

was adopted and authority to approve shellfish leases

was transferred from county commissioners to the Commissioner ofAgriculture and the Florida Shellfish Commission. Since the first shellfish lease was approved on

1 May 1914, about 1,200 leases have been issued, but

only about 150 remain active.

In 1933, the shellfish leasing program was transferred

from the Commissioner of Agriculture to the State

Board of Conservation, which was composed of the

members of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. In 1969, the FDNRassumed the

duty of authorizing shellfish leases. In 1984, the legislature provided for a new mechanism to lease submerged

bottoms for aquacultural activity (Chapt. 253, Florida

Statutes), and in 1989 it prohibited the issuance of

additional shellfish leases under the previous law (Chapt.

370, Florida Statutes). In 1992, 150 shellfish leases (810

ha (2,000 acres» and 25 aquaculture leases (41 ha (100

acres» were in effect.

Leasing activity is concentrated on Florida's east coast,

and only 20 shellfish leases totalling 303 ha (747 acres)

are on the Gulf coast; 10 of the active Gulf coast leases

(266 ha (656 acres» are in the Apalachicola Bay system. Oyster production from leases accounts for perhaps only 5-10% of annual landings; 23 producers

reported sales of 54,200 bushels of oysters in 1991.
192 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Alabama

7.4 <::

•••• >c

...'~ .... -Ntf b \ ....

"I = Cedar Poinl Reef

k 2 = King's Bayou/Bouy Reefs

.••• S/ 3 = Portersville Bay

4 = Whilehouse Reef

1i )

LS un""" ...... i

" .:

•.. 'J1I - 'tf MOBILE BAY

'C.......

.!/ S ~,B~ '2 §

::i( J1

M~S~ F

..s9> ;.;.:

.. ..... .. DAUPHIN ISLAND g;;:;;--

• Greatest contribution to landings

Figure 3

Alabama's major oyster-producing areas in order of contribution to total landings (from Berrigan et aI., 1991).

Alabama (Fig. 3) oyster landings

averaged just under 750,000

pounds of meats (168,000 bushels ofwhole oysters) annually during 1961-95 and represented

about 4% ofthe Gulftotal (Table

2). Annual landings tend to fluctuate widely, but they usually

range from about 400,000 to

1,500,000 pounds of meats

(90,000-338,000 bushels). During

1986-90, annual landings were

low, accounting for an average of

245,000 pounds of meats, while

for 1991-95 the annual average

landings were 754,000 pounds of

meats.

Alabama currently has no oyster leases on state-regulated bottom, but there are 25 oyster leases

on riparian bottoms along the

northern shore of Mississippi

Sound. Most were obtained recently and as yet few have produced oysters.

Mississippi

Figure 4

Mississippi's major oyster-producing areas in order of contribution to total

landings (from Berrigan et aI., 1991).

During 1961-95, oyster production in Mississippi (Table 2, Fig.

4) averaged about 1.5 million

pounds of meats (337,000 bushels ofwhoIe oysters) annually, representing about 8% of the Gulf

total. State oyster landings declined during 1986-90, with an

average annual production of

only 335,000 pounds of meats, or

only about 10% of state landings

in the early 1960's. However, landings have greatly increased since

1991, with 1995 production the

highest in 12 years at nearly 2.3

million pounds of meats.

Oystermen had little interest in

leasing grounds until 1977 when

the Mississippi State Legislature

enacted laws to allow lessees under

bond to relay oysters from public

reefs that had been permanently

closed due to sewage contamination. This action sparked interest

..

~S~SIPPI SOUND

"1 = Square Handkerchief Reef Area

2 = SL Joe Dredging Reef

3 = SL Slanislaus/Waveland Tonging Reef

4 = Graveline Bayou Tonging Reef

5 = Bayou Cumbesl Tonging Reef

c -el RISTlAN

1

'2

(

* Greatest contribution to landings
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 193

SEED GROUNDS

"I = Primary oyster seed grounds

2 = Sisler Lake and Bay Junop oyster seed grounds

3 = Vennilion Bay oyster seed grounds

4 = Calcasleu Lake public longing grounds

5 = Lake Borgne and Easlern marsh

LEASE AREAS

A = Plaquemines Parish

B = Terrebonne Parish

C = SL Bernard Parish

D = Jefferson/Lafourche Parishes

E = Offshore IIarsh Island

• Greatest conlrtbuUoD to landlnp

Figure 5

Lousiana's major oyster-producing areas in order of contribution to total landings (from Berrigan et a!., 1991).

in leasing, and by 1979 more than 50 leases were

approved.

Relaying of the contaminated oysters began in mid1977, and by 1980 most closed areas had been nearly

depleted of marketable oysters. Relaying continued to

decline throughout the 1980's, and no relaying by lessees

was conducted in 1989 or 1990. The number of active

leases has also declined.

No inventory of the oyster reefs exists, nor has there

been any attempt to determine the amount of productive and nonproductive reef acreage within the leased

acreage. Fishermen commonly lease nonproductive areas surrounding their productive reefs to protect them

from oyster poachers.

History _

Louisiana

Louisiana (Fig. 5) produced about half the oysters in

the Gulf of Mexico during 1961-95 (Table 2) and, in

some years, has been the largest producer of eastern

oysters in the nation (as it was in 1993). Its production

has remained relatively constant during the past 30

years, though harvests during the 1980's were about 2

million pounds of meats above its average annual 1961-

95 production of nearly 10.5 million pounds (2.3 million bushels of whole oysters).

Fishermen harvest oysters from public and private

grounds. The public oyster grounds total about 324,000

ha (800,000 acres) east of the Mississippi River; however, only about half of this acreage is in production at

anyone time. The private grounds total about 137,700

ha (340,000 acres).

Prehistoric oyster use dates from at least 2,000 B.C.

(Wicker, 1979). Native Americans left middens predominantly of oyster shell, showing that oysters were

important in their diet. Oysters were collected by hand

by wading in shallow waters (Wicker, 1979) or by crude

tools devised to aid gathering. One such device consisted of rakes made of two strong poles, curved at the

ends and interlaced with string vines (Dyer, 1917).

Archaeologists infer that Native Americans consumed

oysters smoked, dried, and raw. Oyster trading was probably not extensive due to limited transportation (Wicker,

1979).

In his Historie of Louisiane, DuPratz (1758) stated

that early French settlers harvested oysters; however,

they ate them only when other food supplies were scarce.

By the 19th century, the market for oysters expanded,

and they became popular in areas along the Gulf coast.
194 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

DuPratz (1758) also tells us of the abundance and

deliciousness of the oysters in Louisiana bayous. When

the Europeans arrived on the Louisiana shores, they

recognized the local oyster as a "cousin" of the European flat oyster, Ostrea edulis. The earliest oyster consumers lived near the water and gathered oysters as

they needed them for their daily consumption. As the

human population increased, fishermen living near the

oyster-growing areas realized the commercial potentialities of oyster and began selling them with fish.

From 1840 to 1850, many Yugoslavs arrived in Louisiana and remained in New Orleans with some relocation along the Gulf Coast (Vujnovich, 1974). Many

among them had made their living as fishermen in the

Adriatic Sea. Some could not find employment in New

Orleans and went down the Mississippi River to fish for

a living in lower river parishes (Louisiana's counterpart

of counties). The rich delta country with its many bays,

bayous, and inlets provided a good supply offish, shrimp,

and oysters.

As their numbers increased after the Civil War,

Yugoslavs fished for oysters in other bays, lakes, and

bayous of the Mississippi Delta. They set up camps,

which at first were simple one-room structures built on

four corner pilings. As the camps were improved, some

areas later became substantial settlements, only to be

destroyed by hurricanes.

The Yugoslavs remembered the successful cultivation

of oysters in the old country, and decided to try to do

the same with the Louisiana oysters on a somewhat

larger scale but using a different method which the

Louisiana Acadians later adopted. Louisiana Acadians

are displaced people of French descent from Nova

Scotia who settled in Louisiana's central coastal areas in

the 1800's. Many became commercial fishermen.

The Yugoslavs found that the area east of the Mississippi River had an abundance of natural reefs where

oysters grew and multiplied at a rapid rate. They also

discovered through persistent and careful observation

and experimentation that if the overcrowded, flavorless, natural-reef oysters were transferred to the west

side of the Mississippi River and spread more thinly

where the salinity was proper, the current steady, and

the microscopic food supply plentiful, the narrow seed

oysters developed a round-oval shell, matured to market size in a few months, and most important, acquired

that tangy taste for which this type of oyster soon became famous.

Here, then, in the early 1800's were the beginnings

of Louisiana oyster cultivation as it is practiced to the

present day and the development of a dual method

(use of private and public oyster grounds) of oyster

fishing. The cultivated oysters soon were in great demand mainly in New Orleans and were served in all its

better restaurants, oyster bars, and hotels.

At the beginning ofthis oyster cultivation, the method

of gathering oysters was primitive. The Yugoslav

oystermen picked the oysters from the water with their

bare hands while wading in water, separated the market-sized oysters from clusters, dead shells, and small

immature oysters, placed them in skiffs which were

rowed or sailed to the favorable areas, and deposited

them in the water again. In the early 1800's, they

"planted" the oysters one by one, spacing them a few

inches apart to give them room to grow. They enclosed

the planted area with wooden boards to protect them

from predators, such as drumfish, Pogonias cromis, and

from poachers. Because this was slow, tedious, and backbreaking work, they experimented with implements to

gather the oysters and bring them to the surface in larger

quantities. They probably used ordinary garden rakes to

scoop the oysters in small piles and later (probably during

the cold winter months) crossed two ofthe rakes in blacksmiths' tongs fashion to harvest oysters from boats.

Tonging typically was done from wooden skiffs 4.9-6

m (6-20 feet) long; in the 1930'sand 1940's, skiffs were

powered by outboard motors. The skiffs have been

constructed with wide beams and flat bottoms and may

have a large deck and wide railing on which the

oystermen stand while tonging (Fig. 6).

In 1905, a Yugoslav fisherman initiated the "new"

method of fishing oysters, i.e., dredging, which is still in

use, when he installed the first pair of oyster dredges on

an oyster boat. The oyster dredge, a V-shaped iron frame

with a ring-mesh bag about 1 m (3-4 feet) long, is towed

with a chain. For many years, the dredges were hoisted

aboard with manually operated winches, an improvement

over tongs but still a difficult task. In 1913, oystermen

developed the first power hoists for oyster dredges.

A vessel tows one or more dredges, whose sizes and

weights vary among vessels, but most measure about 1

m (3 feet) wide and weigh about 120 pounds. They usually are handled from the side ofthe vessel slightly forward

of midships, but may also be pulled from the stern.

Leasing Bottoms for Oystering

Beginning in the 1850's, the oystermen leased water

bottoms from Jefferson, St. Bernard, or Plaquemines

Parishes to protect their oysters and identify their location. They were charged a set fee/acre. Since 1902,

however, when the Louisiana Oyster Commission (predecessor of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission) was established, the water bottoms have been

leased from the State of Louisiana.

As of December 1991, at least 2,000 people held

about 9,000 individual, active leases encompassing about

137.700 ha (340,000 acres) of Louisiana water bottoms.

The leases are issued for 15-year periods and their
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 195

Figure 6

Louisiana oystermen tonging for oysters.

Figure 7

A Louisiana oyster lessee loading his vessel with seed oysters from a

public oyster ground.

average size is about 14.6 ha (36 acres).

Most leases are in the eastern half of

the state, while others are in the central parishes ofTerrebonne, Iberia, and

St. Mary. No leases are located west of

the Vermilion Bay complex; however,

one lease is located south ofVermilion

Bay, II km (7 miles) offshore in the

Gulf of Mexico.

A 1982-85 study (Melancon, 1990)

of the expenses of an oyster farmer

(leaseholder) showed that the farmer

han'ested from 0.03 to 1.68 sacks of

market oysters from each sack of seed

he planted. The lower yields were attributed to vandalism and poaching.

When bedding oysters from the public

grounds, the vessels consumed an average of 78 gallons of diesel fuel/day, and

when harvesting for market 24 gallons/

day. An average of 2.1 quarts of diesel

fuel was consumed/sack of oysters sold.

Each year, a typical oyster farmer spent

an average of 69 worker days of labor

bedding seed (based on a crew of3) and

tried to take about 20 loads of 600 sacks/load from the

public grounds to his leases (Fig. 7). Daily operating expenses were 18% higher while bedding than while harvesting for market sale, and a profit was made only when

sufficient quantities ofseed were available to bed.

Transporting and Marketing Oysters

From the beginning of Louisiana's active oyster cultivation in the 1850's until the oyster vessels were motorized

during the first decade ofthe 20th century, the most time-
196 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

consuming activitywas transportation. Itrobbed oystermen

of precious fishing time and sapped their energy.

At first, they used regular fishing skiffs; later, they

constructed low-decked, shallow-draught, one-masted,

lateen-rigged sailboats 9-12 m (30-40 feet) long (Fig.

8). These oyster smacks were propelled by sails, oars,

and, in shallow waters, by poles that the fishermen

pushed. Since the boats did not have any equipment

except basic rigging and cost only $300-$500, most

oystermen could purchase their own boats. Others built

two-masted schooners, which they used primarily to

transport seed oysters from public reefs to their private

bedding grounds and to carry the marketable oysters to

New Orleans. Louisiana market ports are some distance

away from the harvesting areas. A one-way trip took 1-2

days, the time governed by the winds and tides. There

are currently 44 well-established docks where fishermen land oysters along the coast, with many more small

docks scattered throughout the coastal area.

During the sailboat era, oystermen brought oysters to

the market in New Orleans themselves or sold them to

luggermen who took them to the city. Either way they

were at a disadvantage. They lost almost a week's time

making the round trip to sell the oysters. If, hecause of

favorable winds, too many boats arrived at the market at

the same time, they were at the mercy ofthe buyers who

dictated the price. The oystermen had no choice but to

Figure 8

A sailing vessel (smack) employed by Louisiana oyster

fishermen in the early 1900's. Source: The historic New

Orleans collection, Museum/Research Center, New

Orleans. Ace. no. 1974.25.13.141.

sell at the going price for time was against them; the

oysters could not keep forever.

The Louisiana barrel held three present-day sacks of

oysters, and the market barrel held two sacks. Around

1880, the Louisiana barrel sold for $1.00 at the bedding

grounds, though in New Orleans the market barrel sold

for $2.00. Natural-reef uncultivated oysters were also

brought to market and sold for $0.50-$0.80jbarrel.

The cultivated oysters were brought to the inclined

landing in New Orleans at the foot of Dumaine Street

in the "French Quarter" (Fig. 9) which could accommodate up to 200 boats at a time. The small boats

ground their bows on the landing, the exact spot depending on the height of the river.

Before motorization of the oyster industry, when the

oysters became delivered at a predictable time, the

oystermen sold directly to restaurants, oyster shops,

and shucking houses that sent their wagons to buy at

the oyster landings.

The first oysterman in Louisiana to install a motor on

his boat was a Yugoslav fishermen in 1902. Others soon

followed, for although it represented a sizable investment, forcing many to borrow money or to form partnerships, they realized the enormous advantages of

rapid transportation and assured timely arrival for their

perishable product. The smaller fishermen kept their

sailing vessels, however, and it was not until 1920 that

the last of the quaint sailing smacks disappeared. The

dealers, in turn, to assure delivery, started giving the

oystermen orders for a definite amount of oysters on a

certain day, usually on Thursday for Friday consumption.

Texas _

Oysters occur in all Texas bays (Fig. 10), but their

abundance varies greatly among them (Diener, 1975).

Fishermen harvest oysters from public reefs that total

7,100 ha (17,532 acres) and private leases that total 954 ha

(2,356 acres). About 91 % of the public reef acreage is in

the Galveston, Matagorda, and San Antonio Bay systems,

and about 90% of the landings are from public reefs.

The remaining 10% of oyster landings are from private leases, all 43 of which are in Galveston and East

Galveston Bays. Leases average about 22 ha (54 acres)

each. Most oysters on them are transplants from

uncertified, closed areas in public reefs (Quast et al.,

1988). Leases granted in other bay systems have not

been successful, and they have been returned to the

state. The amount ofsuitable bay bottom for leases and

the quantity oftransplantable oysters are limited, mostly

occurring in the Galveston Bay system. The other substantial concentration of oyster reefs (about 567 ha

(1,400 acres)) is in Corpus Christi Bay and the adjoining Aransas-Copano Bay area.
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 197

Figure 9

French market dock in the early 1900's. Source: The historic New Orleans collection, Museum/Research

Center, New Orleans. Ace. no. 1974.25.17.129.

In 1983, Texas oyster production was 7.9 million

pounds of meats (1.7 million bushels) exceeding any

other single-year harvest by more than 2 million pounds

(430,000 bushels). By comparison, the 1976-80 average

annual production of2.2 million pounds (473,000 bushels) was less than half of the 1981-85 average annual

landings (Table 2) (Quast et a!., 1988).

Coastwide oyster abundance has fluctuated among

years in response to changes in fishing pressure and

environmental conditions (Hofstetter, 1977), but between 1956 and 1981 the overall trend in oyster abundance for the Galveston Bay system, the state's major

oyster producing area, was downward atjust under 1%/

year. The only major exception was an extremely large

population increase in 1982, but this was followed by a

decrease through 1988.

From 1977 to 1986, average annual landings in Texas

were 3.6 million pounds (775,000 bushels) with an

average ex-vessel value of $5.5 million. The oyster industry had an average annual total economic impact

through the application of a multiplier (3.12) of $17.1

million on the Texas economy during this period.

The Texas legislature historically has managed the

state's oyster fishery, but limited authority has been

delegated to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

(TPWD) for adjusting the season and enforcing the

laws. In 1985, the Sixty-ninth Texas Legislature finally

provided the TPWD full authority to regulate the Texas

oyster fishery.

Processing Gulf Oysters

In 1993 (November), About 320 dealers (shellstock

shippers) were buying and selling whole shellfish, and

about 140 shellfish plants were shucking and packing

shellfish (shucker-packers) in the Gulfstates. The dealers and plants handle mostly oysters. Most are in Florida

and Louisiana (Table 3). Many of the businesses are

small and their numbers vary as operators enter and

leave the business frequently.

Historical Perspective

Biloxi, Miss., historically was the major producer of

steamed oysters along the Gulf coast. Along with Mississippi oysters, large quantities of Louisiana oysters were

processed by Biloxi factories and plants; some 90% of

oysters opened in the state were brought in from Loui-
198 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

1 Source: Interstate certified shellfish shippers list, I November 1993. U.S. Dep. Health Human Serv., Pub!. Health

Serv.. Food Drug Admin.

Table 3

Number of shellfish dealers and plants 111 the Gulf

states, 1 November 19931•

49

28

12

40

II

140

Plants

(shuckers and packers)

130

29

24

122

16

321

Dealers

State (shellstock shippers)

Florida

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Totals

sors decided not to rebuild them, because competition

from imports offoreign steamed oysters was increasing

and consumers preferred fresh and frozen oysters. This

was a wise decision at the time, because in 1978 the one

remaining Louisiana steaming plant ended production

for economic reasons.

Many oysters currently harvested in Louisiana yearround are taken to Biloxi by refrigerated tractor-trailer

trucks to be shucked fresh along with oysters harvested

from local waters. Most shuckers now are Vietnamese

immigrants.

• Greatest contribution to landings

'I Gah.ston Bay

2 East lIalagorda Bay 3 San Antonio Bay 4 Aransas Bay

Figure 10

Texas' m~or oyster-producing areas in order of contribution to local landings (from Berrigan et aI., 1991).

siana. Its canning operations began in the 1870's and

1880's. The first large shucking and canning factory

was constructed in 1878, and by 1900, there were five or

six such factories. Biloxi also had about 24 small shucking plants. In 1915, when Biloxi had 12 canneries and 6

raw houses, it was second only to Baltimore, Md.. in

having the most oyster canneries in the United States.

Four other Mississippi cities each had 1 cannery and 1-

2 raw houses. At this time, Florida had 4 oyster canneries and about 12 raw houses, Alabama had 1 oyster

cannery, Louisiana had 6-7 oyster canneries, and Texas

had 2-6 shucking houses in each of 9 ports, but it did

not have any canneries (Churchill, 1920).

The sail-dredging schooners (Fig. 11) unloaded their

oysters onto docks in front of the Mississippi factories.

Workers piled the oysters into carts which measured

about 2.4 m (8 feet) long and 0.6 m (2 feet) wide, and

then pushed them into a steam box in the factory.

When the oysters gaped, they were hand-shucked (Fig.

12) and packed into cans (Churchill, 1920). The Mississippi dredging sloops were eventually replaced by motorized vessels (Fig. 13).

In 1965, the Biloxi factories were substantially dam-·

aged by Hurricane Betsy. The Mississippi steam procesProblems of the Oyster Fisheries _

Many factors, including habitat loss and pollution, contribute to oyster fishery problems along the Gulf coast.

Associated issues, such as user conflicts, environmental

degradation, public health, and enforcement, also consume a substantial portion of the attention of state

management authorities. The combination of environmental and user-related problems has created a complicated and diverse fishery management challenge.

Habitat Losses

Loss of habitat (human-caused or natural and temporary or long-term) is perhaps the most serious and

chronic problem facing the Gulf oyster industry. Oyster

reef" and integral reef shell or cultch have been lost

through fishing, shell removal, and dredging and filling activities. Past incidents of such destruction were

most numerous in high-growth coastal areas when habitat protection laws were not in effect. In addition, oyster reefs have been scoured or buried by strong tidal

surges produced by hurricanes (Berrigan, 1988), and hur-
___ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 199

F"tgore 11

Crew of three men winding in a dredge on an oyster schooner in Mississippi Sound, 1930.

Photograph courtesy of Maritime and Seafood Museum, Biloxi, Miss.

ricanes and storms have eliminated portions of coastal barriers and barrier islands that used to protect inshore reefs.

Restoring depleted oyster reefs or

constructing new reefs with cultch has

long been an accepted and successful

management practice. Dredged and

processed oyster shell have been widely

used as cultch; however, shell availability in the future may be limited by other

competing uses. The shape and noncompaction character of oyster shell

make it a highly desirable material for

road-bed construction, particularly in

low-lying or swampy areas. An alternate cultch source for oysters would be

useful, but suitable alternatives may be

difficult to develop, depending on availability, cost, and effectiveness.

Changes in salinity regimes can have

a profound effect on oyster populations. Total mortality of oysters and

losses of reef complexes can occur as a

Figure 12

Opening oysters at a Biloxi, Mississippi, factory, 1930. Photograph courtesy of Maritime and Seafood Museum, Biloxi, Miss.
200 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 13

Oyster dredging in Mississippi Sound, 1963. Photograph courtesy of Maritime and Seafood

Museum, Biloxi, Miss.

result of 1) freshwater flooding or "freshets," 2) prolonged high-salinity periods associated with droughts, and

3) freshwater diversions that lead to high salinities allowing predators to move into oyster habitats and decimate

the oysters. Changes in salinity regimes may be seasonal or

long term, and they may be human-induced or natural.

Many salinity changes, resulting in the greatest longterm negative impacts on oyster populations, have been

associated with human actions. Channelization and

other deepening projects in shallow estuaries have allowed high-salinity wedges to infiltrate reefs, and construction of levees, dams, locks, and freshwater diversion structures, as well as freshwater withdrawal from

streams and shallow aquifers, have reduced the natural

supplies of freshwater to reefs.

Habitat Rehabilitation

All Gulf states conduct resource development or restoration programs to mitigate habitat losses, mainly by

spreading dredged or fossil oyster and clam shell as

cultch. Since the early 1960's, the Gulfstates have used

mostly Atlantic rangia clam shells, Rangia cuneata, which

have been relatively inexpensive and available, as a

replacement shell for oyster reefs (Dugas et aI., 1991).

Since 1982, Louisiana has been the primary source of

the dredged clam shells but future availability from this

state is uncertain. The availability of processed oyster

shell may also be limited since it has other uses.

The increasing need for suitable cultch combined

with decreasing availability of oyster and clam shells

have prompted resource managers to look for alternative cultches (Dugas et aI., 1991). Substantial management problems are anticipated, if alternative cultches

cannot be obtained.

Various techniques are used to establish oyster populations, ranging from building prominent structures to

loosely scattering shells over existing reefs. Throughout

the Gulf coast, shell is planted by washing it from the

decks of barges using high pressure water streams or by

dispersing it using a crane and bucket system. To make

reefs as permanent as possible, shell is planted in a

pattern resembling a natural reef, with thicker shell

layers in the middle and thinner layers near the edges.

In Florida, this practice, referred to as the "Ingle

Method," has produced reefs that have remained productive for at least 40 years. Because oysters grow rapidly in Gulf waters, new reefs can produce harvestable

oysters in 16-24 months (Berrigan, 1990).
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 201

Each Gulfstate employs different management strategies. For example, Florida's rehabilitation efforts focus on public reefs for direct-to-market oyster harvesting, while much of Louisiana's efforts are directed toward developing oyster seed grounds where fishermen

harvest and transplant the seed to their private leases.

States often hire private companies to provide and disperse cultch material on designated reefs. Florida currently operates its own shell collecting and planting

program, but also relies on private contractors.

Natural Mortality

Disease and environmental stress substantially limit oyster production. The incidence and severity of disease

outbreaks within oyster populations may be likened to

similar situations in agriculture. Once epizootics of oyster diseases are present, they may totally devastate an

entire population. Resource managers have had minimal success in reducing mortality from disease.

Perkinsus marinus is the most devastating oyster pathogen, and it has caused massive mortalities. Its distribution and abundance are limited by salinity and, to a

lesser degree, by temperature. Its rate of spread and

development is low at salinities <14---15%0, and in wet

years its incidence is much lower. The incidence and

intensity of P. marinus may also be exacerbated by environmental stress and pollution burdens (Ray et aI.,

195;~; Quick and Mackin, 1971; Soniat and Gauthier,

1989).

Predation represents a serious threat to oyster populations with severe consequences to commercial harvests (Berrigan et aI., 1991). Numerous investigations

confirm the seriousness of oyster predation by protozoans, anemones, coelenterates, helminths, mollusks, crustaceans, and finfish along the Gulf. Rocksnails (southern oyster drills), Thais haemastoma; stone crabs, Menippe

spp.; and black drums, Pogonias cromis, have made devastating attacks upon oyster populations (Pearson, 1929;

Butler, 1954; Gunter, 1955; Menzel and Hopkins, 1955;

Menzel and Nichy, 1958; Menzel et aI., 1966; Powell

and Gunter, 1968; Hoffstetter, 1977). Low salinities act

to bar rocksnails and most crabs from oyster beds reducing predation.

Pollution

Pollution is another major problem. Pollutants including bacteria, viruses, and toxic chemicals (pesticides,

herbicides, petrochemicals, and heavy metals) may be

accumulated by oysters to many times the concentrations in the surrounding water. Chemical pollutants

and contaminants can stress and ultimately kill oysters

directly or in combination with other factors, particularly diseases. Other forms of pollution may affect oyster reproduction and survival by reducing oxygen concentrations.

Pathogens from human and animal feces as well as

other contaminants that reach oyster growing areas can

be passed on to human consumers, causing illnesses.

poisoning (PSP), or, in rare instances, death. Public

health problems are aggravated when productive growing waters are located near discharges of sewage and

wastes. This problem is increasingly evident in highly

developed coastal areas and is exacerbated by the fact

that oysters flourish in low salinity nearshore waters.

User Conflicts

Problems within the oyster fishery are also associated

with leasing (privatization) and with open access (common property resources). Problems with the lease fishery primarily involve the "taking" of perceived common-property bottoms by leaseholders while excluding

other resource users. Questions concerning appropriate fees, qualirying criteria, and proper marking of

leases are common. Additionally, it is sometimes argued that leased areas are not sufficiently worked and

could produce more oysters.

Problems with open-access fisheries occur among user

groups and between users and regulators. Fishermen

often squabble over preferred areas and harvest practices. An important problem with the open-access fishery centers on overfishing, whether in fact or perception.

Also, conflicts occur between fishermen and dealers/

processors regarding culling and adequate measures.

There is considerable conflict among oyster fishermen themselves also. Conflicts between tongers and

dredgers often occur when reefs reserved for a separate

gear are located near one another. Tongers perceive

that dredgers work illegally on tonging reefs. Enforcement efforts to resolve conflicts are hampered by inadequate definition of the areas.

Other activities that conflict with oystering are shrimp

trawling, coastal development, manufacturing, oil and

gas resource development, and water use and consumption. Some user groups in coastal zones or flood plains

have degraded or diverted freshwater or discharged

waste water that has rendered shellfish unfit for human

consumption.

Economics

The major economic problem facing the Gulf oyster

industry is the highly variable supply of oysters. The

broad variation and lack of predictability cause prices
202 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

to fluctuate widely during and among seasons. Profits

and other economic measures thus are difficult to determine. Increasing dependency is expected to be placed

on private enterprise, since the private sector may be

more capable ofstabilizing production, ensuring a continuous availability, and guaranteeing product quality.

Recent Condition of the Oyster Fisheries__

Since about the mid 1970's, harvesting and marketing

oysters in Florida and Louisiana have become yearround tasks instead of occurring mainly in the cooler

months. The reasons are that state regulations allow

oysters to be harvested from leases in summer, and

refrigeration extends shelf-life in summer. The Gulf

states currently have abundant supplies of oysters, resulting from higher rainfall and improved environmental conditions during the early 1990's. But while supplies are ample in each state, landings have not increased substantially because market demand is weak.

The nation's economic status and publicity linking the

consumption of raw oysters (and often all oyster products) with potential public health risks have contributed

to the weak demand. Publicity, accurate and inaccurate,

identifYing the potential risks associated with the bacterial

pathogen Vibrio vulnijicus when oysters are eaten raw, has

created confusion and eroded consumer confidence.

Florida

In Apalachicola Bay, oyster abundance has fluctuated

dramatically over the past decade, primarily in response

to the devastating effects of Hurricane Elena in 1985

and extended drought from 1987 through 1989

(Berrigan, 1988). The hydrological impacts of Hurricane Elena damaged many ofthe Bay's most productive

reefs, and sustained resource recovery was slowed by

drought over the following years. Resource recovery

was not complete until 1992, when oyster abundance

reached prehurricane densities on most reefs.

Following Hurricane Elena, harvesting restrictions

were imposed to foster resource recovery. Restrictions

included bag limits (15 60-pound bags/day) and a reduction in the number of days/week (Monday-Thursday) and hours/day (sunup to 4:00 p.m.) when the bay

was open for harvest. Daily landings averaged 7.3 bags/

vessel/day from 1986 to 1991; only 4.5 bags/vessel/day

were harvested in 1989. Between 1990 and 1993, landings from the bay exceeded 300,000 bags annually (>2

million pounds of meats). By 1993, harvesters were

easily reaching the daily bag limits and new management policies were enacted to remove harvesting restrictions. Although oysters currently are abundant and

preliminary landing statistics show that landings in

1992 and 1993 may be the highest in nearly a decade,

soft market demand probably will continue to limit

landings.

The size ofthe oyster fleet on the west coast ofFlorida

remained fairly stable from the 1960's through the

1980's with about 500-725 boats (and vessels) and from

600 to nearly 900 fishermen (Table 4). Most oyster

boats in Apalachicola Bay are 4.9-7.6 m (16-25 foot)

flat bottom, shallow draft skiffs, powered by 5-250 hp

outboard motors. Their gunnels have low washboards

on both sides that enable the fisherman to walk and

tong around the entire boat. The skiffs typically have a

"dog house" to store equipment and provide the fisherman with protection from bad weather. Boats often

may be used in several fisheries. For example, fishermen may harvest oysters from the same boats used to

catch shrimp, Penaeus sp., or mullet, Mugil cephalis.

Most oystermen in Apalachicola Bay work only at

harvesting oysters year-round. But in other parts of

Florida, oystermen also fish for crabs and finfish.

Table 4

Operating units and fishermen by type of fisheries in Florida's west Gulf coast oyster industry, 1961-891

.

Tongs By hand Total

Year Boats and vessels Fishermen Boats Fishermen Boats Fishermen

1961-65 avg. 594 740 33 36 627 776

1966-70 " 563 708 35 35 598 743

1971-75 " 492 593 19 19 511 612

197G--80 " 537 692 N/A2 N/A 537 692

1981-85 " 665 879 665 879

1986-89 " 727 799 727 799

1 Sources: Fishery Statistics of the United States (1961-77) and unpub!. data provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

2 Not available.
__ Dugas et aJ.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other MoUuscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 203

Table 5

Operating units and fishermen by type of fishery in the Alabama oyster industry, 1961-881

•

Dredges Tongs Total

Years Boats and vessels Fishermen Boats Fishermen Boats Fishermen

1961-65 avg. 2 8 445 690 447 698

1966-70 " 3 13 398 678 401 691

]97]-75 " ] 3 228 360 229 363

1976-80 " 0 0 234 376 234 376

1981-85 " 0 0 200 385 200 385

]986-88 " 0 0 ]43 280 ]43 280

J Sources: Fishery Statistics of the United States (]96]-77) and unpub!. data provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

From 1989 to 1992, the Department of Natural Resources issued 712, 1,120, 905, and 872 Apalachicola

Bay Oyster Harvesting Licenses, respectively. In any

one day, the oyster fleet usually consists of 250-500

boats with 1-2 tongers and a culler working on each

boat. Each person working on a boat must possess an

oyster harvesting license. Oysters harvested from

Apalachicola Bay are landed primarily in the towns of

Apalachicola and East Point in Franklin County, but oysters may also be landed in towns in neighboring counties.

Alabama

In the early 1960's, Alabama had about 500 oyster boats

and 700 oystermen (Table 5), but since then the numbers have declined. Alabama oystermen harvest all oysters with tongs in 4.25 m (14 foot) boats powered by

outboard motors. About 150 men go oystering, but they

also fish for shrimp, blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus; and

menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, seeking whichever earns

them the most money. In the 1992-93 season, in any

one day, only 30-40 men were oystering.

The state limit for each boat is 12 sacks (72 pounds/

sack) of oysters/day. In 1992-93, the average price

fishermen received was $O.l1/pound (whole oysters) or

$7.90/sack. Some Alabama oystermen purchase a nonresident license to dredge or tong on Mississippi reefs.

Mississippi

The numbers of boats and fishermen have also declined in Mississippi. The fishermen harvest oysters by

dredging on state-designated dredging reefs and by

tonging on state-designated tonging reefs. From 1965

to 1985, the number of dredging vessels and tonging

boats ranged from 663 to 811 and the number of men

from 762 to 1,195 (Table 6). The dredging vessels are

11-20 m (36--65 feet) long. In the 1992-93 season, the

state issued licenses for 116 resident boats and 21 nonresident boats to dredge oysters. The state limit for a

dredge boat was 40 sacks ofoysters/day. In anyone day,

60-100 boats (and vessels) were dredging. The crews

use them to dredge oysters in the fall and winter and to

trawl for shrimp in the spring.

Table 6

Operating units and fishermen by type of fishery in the Mississippi oyster industry, 1961-881.

Dredges Tongs Total

Years Boats Vessels Fishermen Boats Fishermen Boats and vessels Fishermen

]96]-65 avg. 3] ]63 567 6]7 628 8ll ],]95

]966-70 " 2] ]34 465 525 531 680 996

]97]-75 " 40 68 297 448 465 556 762

]976-80 " 46 38 201 364 383 448 584

]98]-85 " 228 94 604 341 358 663 962

]986-88 " ]01 61 347 ]97 197 359 544

1 Sources: Fishery Statistics of the United States (1961-77) and unpub!. data provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
204 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

The tong boats are 5.5-8 m (18-26 feet) long. Usually, two men are in each boat; in some, both tong and

then cull; in others, one tongs while the other culls.

The state daily limit for tong boats is the same as for the

dredge boats. In 1992-93, there were about 50 crews

tonging per day; some crews harvested their limits in

only 3 hours. The crews use the boats for oystering in

the fall and winter and for blue crabbing and gill netting mullet and speckled trout, Cynosion nebulosus, in

the spring and summer.

The state oyster season opens each year on a date in

September or October, as agreed to by processors,

oystermen, and the State Conservation Commission.

Reef conditions playa major role in making the decision on the date. In 1993, the season opened on 11

October. The state limit for each boat initially was 40

sacks/day, but it was raised to 60 sacks/day because the

oysters were abundant. The boats dredged an average

of 5-6 hours a day to harvest their limits. The season

closes on 30 April.

In 1992-93, the oystermen were paid $10-15/sack (a

sack yields 1 gallon of meats, 8 pounds). They sold 47%

of the oysters to Mississippi dealers, 15% to Alabama

dealers, and took the remaining 38% home to shuck.

Most oysters are shucked; dealers pack the remaining

shellstock oysters in 100-count boxes and sell them to

restaurants that serve them raw on the half-shell.

Louisiana

From the 1960's through the mid 1980's, about 500

oyster boats (and vessels) and 1,100 oystermen harvested oysters nearly year-round in Louisiana (Table 7).

In the late 1980's, the fleet increased and, by 1992-93,

during the peak of the oyster marketing season, about

600 boats were oystering on the public and private

leased grounds in anyone day. The dredge boats range

from 7.6 to 18 m (25-60 feet) long (Fig. 14) and have

from one to three men on them, depending on their size.

A typical work day for an oysterman depends on

whether he is harvesting market oysters or transplanting seed. When dredging oysters for market, he leaves

home about 4:00 a.m. and runs his boat to the public

grounds or to his leased grounds. He has a predetermined order from a dealer for so many sacks of oysters,

and in some instances the sizes of oysters as well as their

saltiness is specified. The oysterman dredges until 11:00

a.m., breaks for lunch, and finishes dredging at about

2:00 p.m. He usually has harvested 75-100 sacks. He

then motors back to the dock, which takes 1-3 hours,

and puts the oysters on a truck to be delivered to the

dealer. Sacks of oysters sold for as low as $5.00 in 1973

and as high as $28.00 in 1992; in 1993, they sold for

$7.00.

The dealer trucks the oysters to local shucking houses

and raw oyster bars in Louisiana or to outlets in other

states for sale. New Orleans has the most raw oyster bars

in the state with about 42.

When an oysterman beds seed oysters, which usually

is sporadically from September through October and

in February and March, his fishing excursion can last

for as long as 30 days before returning home. He remains on the boat the entire time, sleeping and eating

on it. Dredging usually begins early in the morning,

because the oysterman is trying to put a full load of

about 600 sacks aboard during the day to take to one of

his leases (Fig. 7). He makes the run to a lease at night

and hopefully can unload during the night and finish

before morning. This allows him to return to the seed

grounds that day to repeat the process. Depending on

the seed supply and the quantity on his leases, an oyster

farmer would prefer to make about 20 trips to the seed

grounds each year.

Table 7

Operating units and fishermen by type of fishery in the Louisiana oyster industry, 1961-881•

Dredges Tongs By hand and rake Total

Years Boats Vessels Fishermen Boats Fishermen Boats Fishermen Boats and vessels Fishermen

1961-65 avg. 200 193 904 258 400 43 58 694 1,362

1966-70 " 197 228 1,004 97 138 18 20 522 1,142

1971-75 " 212 227 1,013 57 89 8 14 504 1,116

1976-80 " 210 226 1,021 79 98 1 3 515 1,119

1981-85 " 192 229 1,013 76 113 1 1 493 1,127

1986-88 " 395 239 1,292 102 169 27 35 736 1,327

1 Sources: Fishery Statistics of the United States (1961-77) and unpub!. data provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

2 Oyster tongs are limited to Calcasieu Lake/Sabine Lake, La., portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 205

Texas

The numbers of oyster boats and oystermen have declined somewhat in Texas from about 250 dredging

boats (and vessels) and 33 tonging boats and 600 men

in the 1960's to 160 dredging boats and almost no

tonging boats in the early 1980's (Table 8). The number of boats working is governed by the market demand

for oysters. In 1992-93, about 65-100 boats were dredging per day, and 75% were in Galveston Bay. 0 one

tongs oysters anymore in Texas. The dredging boats are

mostly 9-12 m (30-40 feet) long, but some Louisianatype lug boats are also used. Each has a crew of three, a

man who owns the boat and steers and two hired men

on wages who cull the oysters. The dredges used are 1.2

m (4 feet) wide and hold up to 6 bushels. The boats

often move among Texas bays to where catches and

earnings are highest.

The Texas oyster season runs from 1 ovember to 30

April. Oyster boats dredge from daylight to early afternoon. The state limit for each boat is 150 bushels/day,

but in the 1992-93 season, the market was poor and

Figure 14

Oyster dredging vessel in Louisiana.

Table 8

Operating units and .fishermen in the Texas oyster industry, 1961-1985'.

Dredges Tong, By hand2

Years BoalS Vessels Fishermen Boab Fishermen Boats Fishermen

1961-65 avg. 135 83 537 31 33 17 17

1966-70 " 121 153 603 35 36 1 1

1971-75 " 67 162 50U 13 24 0 0

1976-80 " 43 132 362 2 2 0 0

1981-85 " 54 106 349 2 3 0 0

I Sources: Fishery Statistics of the United States (1961-77) and unpub!. data from the National Marine Fisheries Service.

2 Fishermen collected oysters offshallow reefs by hand during extreme low tides.
206 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

they could sell only 25-35 bushels/day. The fishermen were paid

$1l-14/bushel for the oysters.

Nearly all the oystermen trawl for

shrimp when the season is open.

In the bays, the brown shrimp

season runs from 15 May to 15

July, and the white shrimp season

is from 15 August to 15 December.

Most Texas oysters are shucked

in houses at the docks where they

are unloaded. The number of

shuckers in each ranges from 2-

20. The remaining oysters are

trucked to Louisiana and Florida

for shucking.

The Future

Figure 15

Eating raw oysters in a bar in New Orleans, La., 1993. The Gulf states will probably always have substantial commercial

oyster resources. However, pollution problems and concerns associated with the consumption of raw oysters will likely

dictate a different approach to oyster fishing, farming,

processing, and marketing in the next 10-20 years. For

many years the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,

Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, and state

control agencies have ensured product safety by guaranteeing that shellfish harvesting areas have good water

quality and are free of potential contaminants. The

identification of Vilmo vulnificus as a causative agent in

specific shellfish-borne illnesses has prompted the need

for new approaches to protect public health. Public

health protection must now also rely on identifYing and

warning all consumers of the potential risks of consuming raw shellfish. Consumer confusion about the potential for shellfish-borne illnesses has dramatically weakened consumer acceptance and sales and will remain a

serious problem for the industry. Educating the consumer will be an important aspect of increasing understanding and product appeal.

Preparing Oysters for Eating _

Along the GulfCoast, people eat raw oysters in cocktails

and on the half-shell (Fig. 15). Canned oysters are

broiled, grilled, stewed, fried, and used in gumbo. Fried

oysters are commonly placed on hero sandwiches, 6 or

12 at a time, then seasoned with ketchup or a sauce with

horseradish. Although raw "half-shell" preparations are

the most popular among consumers, it may become

necessary to promote the numerous cooked recipes

and presentations as consumers become aware of potential health risks associated with raw oysters.

Other Molluscan Resources _

Florida's Sunray Venus Clam

Despite published information that commercial quantities of the sunray venus clam, M. nimbosa, may be

present in the Florida panhandle (Akin and Humm,

1959), no major harvesting was attempted before February 1967. George M. Kirvin, ofApalachicola, Fla., had

observed that when a boat became grounded on a small

sand shoal near Port St. Joe, the propeller washed out

many large sunray venus clams. On the basis of this

observation, he applied to the FDNR for a permit to use

a 68 cm (27-inch) Nantucket-type hydraulic dredge to

harvest them. Since the area, called Bell's Shoal, was

white sand with no silt or vegetation that could be

disturbed, the permit was granted with the proviso that

a FDNR biologist be present during the first few mon ths

of harvesting. The biologist's observations were published and present an excellent review of this fishery

(Stokes et al., 1968). The Bell's Shoal area was relatively

small and most dredging was in 5.5-7.6 m (18-25 feet)

of water. Dredge tows of only 10 minutes often produced catches of at least 8 bushels of clams 127-178

mm (5-7 inches) long. Such clams were 4-5 years old.

Production was limited by mechanical problems and

a lack of workers to process the clams, but the fishery
__ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 207

gradually expanded, first through the use of a larger

dredge (152 cm (60-inch) blade) and then with the

addition of a second vessel. Following initial success,

catches began to decline and finally ceased, prompting

the FDNR to stop issuing additional permits.

While the fishery was underway, an exploratory hydraulic dredge survey along the Gulf coast by the FDNR

identified some other potentially commercial quantities of sunray venus clams, but none in the concentrations first seen at Bell's Shoal. The FDNR is currently

unaware of any harvests, except perhaps recreationally

for the shells, meat, or both.

Calico Scallops in West Florida

The first commercial harvesting of calico scallops, A.

[fibbus, in west Florida began in 1958, though concentrations had been observed earlier. Limited markets

and processing availability hampered the early efforts,

but the major problem was the extreme variability in

abundance of the scallops. In one year, large beds

might yield as much as 20 bushels/IS-minute tow, but

for the next several years beds would be nonexistent. As

techniques for locating scallops improved and increasing prices made the searches more profitable, stability

of supply improved somewhat, but the current fishery

on the east and Gulf coasts still is plagued with boom

and bust cycles.

Large catches of calico scallops are shucked mechanically. When fishermen find substantial beds, their production is massive and profits are excellent. Because

their equipment and facilities are costly, however, the

fishermen often become bankrupt during the bust

phases of the cycle. The calico scallop fishery had been

concentrated south of Apalachicola and Port St. Joe,

during the spring (February-May), but it ceased abruptly

by June 1993.

Bay Scallops

Until the 1980's, the bay scallop, A. zrradians concentricus,

was common and often abundant in many of west

Florida's nearshore coastal waters. Bay scallops are often associated with dense stands ofturtle grass, Thallasia

testudinum, and occur in shallow, high salinity estuarine

systems. Populations of the bay scallop, however, experienced dramatic declines during the last two decades,

and current stocks are too low to support a commercial

fishery on Florida's Gulf Coast. In 1994, Florida's Marine Fisheries Commission prohibited commercial harvesting of bay scallops and restricted recreational harvesting. Landing statistics for previous commercial landings indicated a consistent trend of decreasing landings

for more than 30 years. Accurate landing statistics for

recreational harvests are lacking.

When stocks were sufficient to sustain commercial

harvests, fishermen usually towed small, light scallop

drags (dredges). The drags were pulled slowly over the

grass beds, where scallops were forced out of the grass

by the tynes on the leading edge of the drag into a

collection bag. Bay scallops provided only an opportunistic fishery at a subsistence level. Bay scallops

are taken by sport fishermen primarily by wading or

snorkeling.

Because the scallop catch varies substantially, most

shucking is done by hand. Annual harvests vary considerably, but are much smaller than those of the calico

scallop. The largest commercial production used to be

in Port St.Joe Bay (Gulf County), which has a depth of

1-2 m (4-6 feet). Commercial scallop fishing has since

been banned in the bay, and for the past ten years the

bay has supported a popular sports fishery. Hundreds

of people using snorkels and bags now collect the scallops by hand. Florida sport harvests of scallops are

larger than commercial harvests.

Oyster Drills

Some interest has been expressed in the commercial

harvesting ofthe rock snail or oyster drill, T. haemastoma,

as a food source in Louisiana. No major market has as

yet been developed.

Quahogs

Commercial and recreational harvests of hard clams

target the northern quahog, M. mercenaria, and the

sympatric species, the southern quahog, M. campechiensis.

Northern quahogs are most common along the Atlantic coast and rarer along the Gulf coast; southern quahogs occur southward along Florida's Atlantic coast to

St. Lucie Inlet, but are more abundant along Florida's

Gulf coast, except in the Keys. Various degrees of hybridization occur throughout their ranges, and may

have been encouraged in Florida by the introduction of

hybrid and northern quahogs during a project called

Operation Baby Clam in the early 1960's.Juvenile quahogs from the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

(now NMFS) Laboratory at Milford, Conn., were distributed to six sites within Florida for growth experiments. Quahogs in southern waters reach harvest size

(1 inch (25 mm) across the hinge) 15-18 months after

setting.

Recorded quahog production began in Florida in

1880 and increased substantially in 1908 with the exploitation of large quahog beds in Collier and Monroe
208 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Literature Cited _

Aquarium Fishery for Florida Mollusks _

Akin, R. M., and H.J. Humm.

1959. Macrocallista nimbosa at Alligator Harbor. Q.J. Fla. Acad.

Sci. 22(4):1-3.

Table 9

Total numbers of mollusks harvested in Florida for

aquarium sales, 1990-91.

2,031

30,814

1,116

35,418

41,700

1991

(Individuals)

4,207

43,688

2,316

18,963

72,000

1990

Group or species (Individuals)

Nudibranchs

Flame scallop

White flame scallop

Chestnut turban

Other snails and cowries

programs in the Suwannee Sound and Charlotte Harbor regions have resulted in an emerging hard clam

aquaculture industry. Currently, more than 600 ha

(1,500 acres) ofsubmerged land leases have been placed

into hard clam production. This growth has been supported by the construction of more than 40 hatchery

and nursery facilities using improved genetic stocks.

The fishery for aquarium sales includes nudibranchs,

flame scallops, Lima scalJra; white flame scallops, Lima

scralJra tenera; chestnut turbans, Turbo castanea; other

snails; and cowries, Cypraea sp. Nearly all nonfinfish

species entering the aquarium trade are hand-collected

by scuba diving and snorkeling, and great effort is expended to maintain the specimens alive and healthy.

This is usually accomplished with various types ofwatercirculating and aerating devices on the collecting boats.

Once the animals are brought back to home base, good

water quality must be maintained, usually aided by extensive filtration procedures.

In 1984, Florida passed legislation requiring that anyone selling saltwater products have a license and complete a "trip ticket" for each sale to a wholesaler. Since

people who gathered living marine resources for sale to

the rapidly burgeoning saltwater aquarium trade also

fell under this reporting requirement, FDNR began to

obtain landing data on this industry for the first time.

Table 9 lists the preliminary landings data (individuals

taken) for 1990 and 1991 for only a few species or

species groups, and should be considered incomplete.

Nevertheless, they represent a substantial harvest in

numbers and value that will increase over time.

Counties (Godcharles andJapp, 1973). For many years,

the most productive and extensive quahog bed then

known in the United States existed from Cape Romano

southward through the Ten Thousand Islands along

Florida's lower Gulf Coast (Schroeder, 1924). From

1913 to 1947, this area supported a sizeable fishery that

peaked at more than 1,000,000 pounds of meats

(125,000 bushels of whole quahogs) in 1932. Harvesting with mechanical conveyor-type dredges began in

1905 and continued until 1947 when production fell

below the quantities necessary to operate three canning operations in Marco, Fla. (Godcharles and Japp,

1973). By 1950, landings plummeted and the resource

has not recovered. The reasons for the disappearance

of the quahog populations remain obscure, but coincident with the decline was a devastating outbreak of red

tide (Steidinger and Joyce, 1973) and the completion

of the Tamiami Trail, a major highway diverting freshwater flow in the Everglades.

Fishermen have harvested quahogs in other parts of

Florida, including Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, St.

Joseph Bay, and the Indian River (Godcharles andJapp,

1973). Except for the Indian River during the 1980's,

quahog resources have supported only short-term and

intermittent fisheries. A small quahog fishery currently

exists in St. Joseph Bay, where ten licensed vessels use

dredges to harvest the quahogs in about 6 m (20 feet)

of water.

During the 1950's and through the early 1970's, several exploratory surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the FDNR failed to discover any commercial concentrations of quahogs in Florida (Godcharles

and Japp, 1973). Other evidence suggests that there

may yet be areas where quahogs are present but

underexploited, such as the Indian River proved to be.

Abundant quahogs have been observed in estuaries in

Florida's panhandle (West Bay and East Bay, Bay

County), but extensive resource assessment surveys have

not been conducted. In the mid 1980's, a 6-month

attempt to harvest quahogs commercially in Louisiana

was unsuccessful because supplies were too small.

On the Gulf coast, interest in purifying quahogs from

restricted waters in depuration plants has been limited.

This contrasts with Florida's Atlantic coast where controlled purification has contributed substantially to quahog landings. As many as six controlled purification

plants were depurating quahogs from the Indian River

area during the mid 1980's.

Southern quahogs are considered less suitable for the

half-shell trade than northern quahogs because they readily

gape when kept in cold storage. Research is continuing to

improve methods to increase their shelflife and quality.

Innovative aquaculture techniques ar~ also being

employed to increase quahog production on Florida's

Gulf coast. Aquaculture training and demonstration
___ Dugas et al.: History and Status of the Oyster and Other Molluscan Fisheries of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 209

Berrigan, M. E.

1988. Management of oyster resources in Apalachicola Bay

following Hurricane Elena.]. Shellfish Res. 7(2):281-288.

1990. Biological and economical assessment of an oyster resource development project in Apalachicola Bay, Florida.].

Shellfish Res. 9 (1): 149-158.

Berrigan, M. E., T. Candies, T.,]. Cirino. R. Dugas. C. Dyer,]. Gray,

T. Herrington, W. Keithly, R. Leard,]. R. Nelson, and

M. V. Hoose.

1991. The oyster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. United States:

A regional management plan. Gulf States Mar. Fish Comm.

Rep. 24. 233 p.

Butler, P. A.

1954. A summary of our knowledge of the oyster in the Gulf

of Mexico, its origins, waters, and marine life. U.S. Dep.

Inter.. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 55(89) :479-489.

Churchill, E. P.,Jr.

1920. The oyster and the oyster industry of the Atlantic and

Gulf coasts. U.S. Bur. Fish., Rep. Comm. Fish.1919. app.

VIII (Doc. 890), 51 p.

Danglade, E.

1917. Condition and extent of the natural oyster beds and

barren bottoms in the vicini ty ofApalachicola, Fla. U.S. Bur.

Fish., Rep. Comm. Fish., app. IV (Doc. 841). 68 p.

Diener, R. A.

1975. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico estuarine inventory and

study- Texas: Area description. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA

Tech. Rep. NMFS Circ. 393, 129 p.

Dugas, R.]., R. Leard, and M. Berrigan.

1991. A partial bibliography on oyster cultch materials and

resource management projects. Gulf States Mar. Fish.

Camm., 12 p.

DuPratz, A. Le Page.

1758. Histoire de la Louisiane. Manuscr., Louisiana Room,

La. State Univ.

Dyer,]. O.

1917. The Lake Charles Atakapas, period 1817-1820. Howard

Mem. Libr., New Orleans, La.

Emery, K. 0., and E. Uchupi.

1972. Western Atlantic Ocean: Topography, rocks. structure,

water, life, and sediments. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol.,

532 p.

Folger, D. W.

1972. Texture and organic carbon content of bottom sediments in some estuaries of the United States. Geol. Soc. Am.

Mem. 133:391-408.

Futch. C. R.

1983. Oyster reef construction and relaying programs. In S.

Andree (ed.), Apalachicola oyster industry: Conference proceedings, p. 34-38. Fla. Sea Grant ColI. Rep. 57, 85 p.

Godcharles, M. F., and W. C.Japp.

1973. Exploratory clam survey of Florida nearshore and estuarine waters with commercial hydraulic dredging gear. Fla.

Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar. Res. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. 21, 77 p.

Grosline, D. S.

1967. Contrasts in coastal bay sediments on the Gulf and

Pacific coasts. In G. H. Lauff (ed.), Estuaries, p. 219-225.

Am. Assoc. Advance. Sci., Publ. 83.

Herbert, T. A., and Associates.

1988. Franklin County fishery option report. Tallahassee. Fla..

140 p.

Hofstetter, R. P.

1977. Trends in population levels of the American oyster,

Crassostrea virginica, Gmelin on public reefs in Galveston

Bay, Texas. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Coast. Fish. Branch,

Tech. Ser. Rep. 10,99 p.

Ingersoll, E.

1881. The oyster industry. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The history

and present condition of the fishery industries. Gov. Print.

Off., Wash .. 251 p.

1887. The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone industries. In G. B. Goode (ed.), The fisheries and fishery industry of the United States. Sect.lI, p. 507-626. Gov. Print. Off.,

Wash.

Ingle, R. M., and C. E. Dawson,Jr.

1953. A survey ofApalachicola Bay. Fla. Board Conserv., Tech.

Ser. Rep. 10,38 p.

Joyce. E. A.

1972. A partial bibliography of oysters, with annotations. Fla.

Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar. Res. Lab., Spec. Sci. Rep. 34, 846 p.

Kilgen, R. H., and R.]. Dugas.

1989. The ecology of oyster reefs of the northern Gulf of

Mexico: An open file report. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl

Serv., Minerals Manage. Serv., Open File Rep. 89-03, 113 p.

Melancon, E.]"Jr.

1990. Environmental and economic influences on the oyster

fishery of Lower Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Louisiana State

Univ., Baton Rouge, Ph.D. dissert., 155 p.

Menzel, R. W., and S. H. Hopkins.

1955. Crabs as predators of oysters in Louisiana. Proc. Natl.

Shellfish Assoc. 46:177-184.

Menzel, R. W., and F. E. Nichy.

1958. Studies of the distribution and feeding habits of some

oyster predators in Alligator Harbor. Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci.

Gulf Carib. 8(2):125-145.

Menzel, R. W., N. C. Hulings, and R. R. Hathaway.

1966. Oyster abundance in Apalachicola Bay, Florida, in relation to biotic associations influenced by salinity and other

factors. Gulf Res. Rep. 2(2):73-96.

Pearce, A. S., and G. W. Wharton.

1938. The oyster leech Stylochus inimicus Palombi associated

with the oyster on the coasts of Florida. Ecol. \1onogr.

8:605-655.

Pearson,]. C.

1929. Natural history and conservation of redfish and other

commercial sciaenids of the Texas coast. Bull. U.S. Bur.

Fish. 44:129-214.

Powell, E. H., and G. Gunter.

1968. Observations on the stone crab Menippe mercenaria Say, in

the vicinity of Port Aransas, Texas. Gulf Res. Rep. 2:285-299.

Prytherch, H. F.

1933. Extensive oyster investigations in northwest Florida.

U.S. Dep. Commer., Bur. Fish., Mimeogr. Rep., 9 p.

Quast, W. D., M. A.Johns, D. E. Pitts,Jr., G. C. Matlock, and

]. E. Clark.

1988. Texas oyster fishery management plan. Tex. Parks Wildl.

Dep.. Coast. Fish. Branch, Fish. Manage. Plan Ser. I, 178 p.

Quick,]. A., and]. G. Mackin.

1971. Oyster parasitism by Lalryrinthomyxa marina in Florida.

Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. 13,55 p.

Ray, S. M.,]. G. Mackin, and L. L. Boswell.

1953. Quantitative measurement of oyster disease caused by

D. marinum. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Carib. 3(1):&-33.

Schroeder, W. C.

1924. Fisheries of Key West and the clam industry of southern Florida. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. 1923 App. 12,74 p.

Smith, R. O.

1937. Gulf coast oyster laboratory, Apalachicola, Florida. In

Second Biennial Report to the State Board of Conservation,

p. 173-179.

Soniat, T. M., and]. D. Gauthier.

1989. The prevalence and intensity of Perkinsus marinus from
210 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

the mid-northern Gulf of Mexico, with comments on the

relationship of the oyster parasite to temperature and salinity. Tulane Stud. Zoo!' Bot. 27:21-22.

Steidinger, K A., and E. A. Joyce,Jr.

1973. Florida red tides. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar. Res.

Lab., Educ. Ser. 17,26 p.

Stokes, Rj., E. A.Joyce,Jr., and R, M. Ingle.

1968. Initial observations on a new fishery for sunray venus

clam, Macrocallista nimbosa (Solander). Fla. Board Conserv.,

Mar. Res. Lab., Tech. Ser. 56, 27 p.

Swift, F.

1897, Report of a survey of the oyster regions in St. Vincent

Sound, Apalachicola Bay, and St. George Sound, Florida.

Rep. U.S. Fish. Comm. 22:187-217.

1898. The oyster grounds of the west Florida coast. Their

extent, conditions, and peculiarities. Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm.

17:285-287.

Vujnovich, M. M.

1974. Yugoslavs in Louisiana. Pelican Pub!. Co., Gretna, La.,

412 p.

Whitfield, W. K

1973. Construction and rehabilitation of commercial oyster

reefs in Florida from 1949 through 1971 with emphasis on

economic impact on Franklin County. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour.,

Spec. Sci. Rep. 38, 42 p.

Whitfield, W. K, and D. S. Beaumariage.

1977. Shellfish management in Apalachicola Bay. Pastpresent-future. In R j. Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr.

(eds.), Proceedings of the conference on the Apalachicola

drainage system April 23-24, 1976, Gainesville, Fla., p. 130-

140. Fla. Mar. Res. Inst. Pub!. 26.

Wicker, K M.

1979. The development of the Louisiana oyster industry in

the 19th century. La. State Univ., Baton Rouge, Masters

thesis, 214 p.
The Mangrove Oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae, and

Queen Conch, Strombus gigas, Fisheries of Cuba

RENE]. BUESA*

Director (Retired)

Coastal Fisheries and Mariculture Department

Fisheries Research Center

Havana, Cuba

ABSTRACT

The mangrove oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae, has been harvested around Cuba since

pre-Columbian times. The island of Cuba and adjacent cays have numerous mangroves

growing on 4,288 km of shoreline. Oysters grow on variable stretches of mangrove trees.

From 1957 to 1962, about 150 boats and 450 fishermen were involve~ in the oyster fishery,

but the number fell to 76 who were active in the mid-1970's. To harvest the oysters,

fishermen cut the mangrove roots bearing oysters and loaded them into floating boxes.

Between 1960 and 1977, an average of 2,288 metric tons (t) of oysters were landed/year.

The oysters were sent to fish markets and sold to restaurants, hotels, and street vendors.

After 1960, the fishery changed from private to government control. In the early 1980's,

oyster farms were created to maintain oyster production. Between 1984 and 1989, oyster

production was 1,100 t/year, about half ofwhich came from the farms. By 1991, there were

14 farms, and new methods such as submerged raft culture and a hatchery had been

introduced. The queen conch, Strombus gigas, the other commercially important mollusk in

Cuba. also has been fished since pre-Columbian times. The Indians ate the meat and used

the shells for ornaments, cutting and hammering tools, and sound-producing instruments.

For many years, sponge fishermen were the only ones who harvested conchs. After the

development of diving gear, the fishery expanded and 2,353 t were landed in 1977. Between

1982 and 1989, landings averaged 353 t a year.

Introduction

The mangrove oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae, occurs in

many sheltered areas around Cuba and its adjacent

cays, more correctly considered as the Cuban archipelago (Fig. 1). Some believe this to be the sweetest

tasting oyster species growing in North America and

Europe. The queen conch, Strombus gigas, occurs on

sandy bottoms around Cuba.

The Mangrove Oyster Fishery _

The mangrove oyster, also known as the common oyster, commercial oyster, rock oyster, Antillean oyster, or

just oyster (in Cuba "ostion"), is the climax species in

the marine area ofmangrove swamps, composed mostly

of the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle, or "mangle

colorado." Cuba has mangroves growing along 4,288

km of shoreline-2,691 km along the north coast and

cays, and 1,597 km along the south coast and cays.

Continuous stretches of oysters, which vary in length

and are more prominent in the north, are called oyster

banks. They are least common around the southern

cays, all farther from the main island than those in the

north (Buesa, 1977c) (Table 1).

Natura! History

Oysters grow on the aerial roots of the mangrove trees,

in bunches containing 4-35 oysters but averaging 15.

There are 6-7 oyster bunches per meter of coast, and

their average biomass is 0.8 kg. The total oyster biomass

in Cuba is about 2,100 metric tons (t) (Table 1). About

*Current address: 3905 Fern Forest Road, Cooper City, Florida

33026.

211
212 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

lsabela de Sagua

Bahia Honda

f = fishing effort (days x fisherman)

V = A catch of (tons/month per oyster banks or port)

V/f = A catch of per unit effort (kg/fisherman x day)

500

V

20

50

300

/"~'

° ° '. ~I x

I 0"-.:,

100

Nuevltas

';:I~f" ,(1

a 100 '

Puerto Padre

VI'

200 V

15

OL------r--'

Casilda

50

Puntas de Cartas

VI'

100

Buenavantura,

Gobernadora,

Mulata

Vi'

50

VI'

300

Figure 1

Cuba and its adjacent cays, and summary of oyster harvesting operations in the main oyster banks

(Buesa, 1981a).

30% of oysters occur in the adjacent cays, especially on

the north coast (Table 2) (Buesa, 1977g).

Oysters cannotsurvive great environmental variations.

The best habitats have water currents of only 0.2 to 0.6

knots, yellow to brownish water 0.5 m deep or deeper,

an oxygen content of2-5 ml/L, and salinities of26-38%0

(Fig. 2). The mangrove oyster is more marine than

estuarine and is unable to survive low salinities caused

by heavy rains (Buesa, 1977e). Water temperatures average about 27°C, are fairly stable, and do not adversely

affect the oysters (Buesa, 1977b).

Tidal amplitudes in the Cuban archipelago range

from 21 to nearly 80 cm and are larger on the north

than the south coasts. The vertical amplitude of the

oysters is 27-53 cm (Table 2); oysters grow best where

tides range from 40 to 45 cm.

Oysters are diecious, but probably protandric hermaphrodites, with male:female ratios ranging from 1:1.3

to 1:2.9 (Table 3). The smallest identifiable male was 14

mm long, and the smallest female was 19 mm long.

Spawning begins at 20-30 mm and is massive at lengths

of 30-39 mm at an age of 3-4 mon ths after spat settlement (Table 4). Fertilization is external (Soroa and

Simpson, 1975a).

Spawning is continuous but there are usually peaks

before and after the cold or dry season (NovemberDecember), and at the end of the rainy season UulyAugust). Usually, oysters >50 mm spawn first and the

smaller ones follow. An average spawning accounts for

11.3-12.8 Kcal/kg of live oyster per month, and will

reduce the fresh body weight by about 9%, accounting

for 12-16% of the energy budget of the oyster (Buesa,

1970).

The free swimming period of oyster larvae lasts about

1 week. To ensure that sufficient larvae are present to

maintain an oyster bank, a live oyster biomass of at least

1 kg/m of coastline is needed (Buesa, 1977h) (Fig. 3).

Growth rate varies by area and season, but generally

oysters attain the legal size of 50 mm 3-5 months after

spat settlement (Table 3). Growth experiments showed

that if oysters were always kept under water they would

grow faster in the first 2 months, but would stop grow-
Buesa: The Mangrove Oyster and Queen Conch Fisheries of Cuba 213

Table 1

Summary of information on natural mangrove oyster banks.

Coastal area

34

51

45

1,330 2,141

6,814 11,761

Aspect S.E. S.w. N.W.

Mangrove shoreline (km) I 791 806 454

Oyster bank (km) I 552 270 266

Oyster density in the natural banks (kg/m)

Minimum 0.10 0.20 0.20

Maximum 1.61 0.90 2.37

Average 0.85 0.39 0.89

Average size of oysters (mm)

Minimum 24 20 24

Maximum 48 41 48

Average 42 40 34

Population biomass (t) 471 104 236

Potential natural production (t/area/year) 3,485 447 1,015

1 Figures include the coast of the main island and nearby cays.

N.E.

2,237

1,685

0.20

2.17

0.79

Total

4,288

2,773

63

1.13

21-37

2.4-2.5

27-41

6--17

4-21

24-357

0.5-1.2

3.4-20.8

0.1:1-117:1

84

North coast South coast

0.87

37-64

3.0-4.3

33-53

10-12

13-35

130-420

1.0-1.2

2.9-7.7

0.3:1-78:1

Data

Table 2

Characteristics of the mangrove environment1•

Percent ofshorelines with

mangrove trees

Relative mangrove shoreline:

main island coast/cays coasts

Tide range (cm)

Mangrove trees height (m)

Oyster vertical distribution (cm)

Bunches of oysters/m

Oysters/bunch

Oysters/m

Biomass (B) of oysters (g/m)

Individual weight (g/oyster)

Oyster total B/all other

10 20 30 40 so sessile filter feeders B

O--r----,---------,,-------,-----,---o--J

o

40

SO --,------------------:,q------,

10

-=....

:; 30 ...

.Cl

...

...

c..

... '"...

r;; 20

6

Salinity (%0)

Figure 2

Density of oysters in relation to salinity in Cuba.

I Total biomass offilter feeder mollusks =about 2,855 t: clams =

15% (about 429 t), mussels = 10% (about 285 t), oysters = 75%

(about 2,141 t).

ing at 52-54 mm when 4 months old. Oysters grew best

when they were in and out of water for about equal

periods and at a depth of about 45-50 mm when in

water. Growth is directly related to phytoplankton abundance. In phytoplankton-rich areas as in most of the

south coast, oysters attain a length of 50-80 mm within

6-8 months. In the northern areas, the length is usually

45-70 mm at the same age (Simpson et aI., 1975a).

Water currents, transparency, salinity, and depths,

and especially availability of food determine the wide

array of sizes in the natural banks, with average sizes

ranging from 24 to 51 mm (Table 1). The total wet
214 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Biomass (kg/m)

1 2 3

O+----d-----,-------r------

o

3

<>

0

2

Me

.., .. 0

'"t:

..:l '" 0

1

The chemical composition of the oyster is similar in

all areas. The shell comprises 81-84% of total fresh

weight, the meat 11-14%, and the remainder, 2-8%, is

the intervalvar water. Proteins constitute 10-11 % ofthe

total fresh weight, carbohydrates 3-6%, fat 2-3%, ash

about 3%; the bulk is water (Castro, 1975b).

Usually about 13% of all oysters in a natural bank are

dead. Major causes of mortality are salinities <20%0

(caused by heavy rains) and >40%0, high turbidity,

rough water, low oxygen, food scarcity, and pollutants

(Bosch and Nikolic, 1975). In laboratory experiments,

80% of oysters died after 72 hours of continuous exposure to high concentrations of algae (in this case,

Nannochloris sp. at a concentration of 8 million cells/

ml). This could account for high mortalities of oysters

in some eutrophicated coastal areas (Buesa, 1977h).

Figure 3

Density of oyster larvae in relation to density of adult

oysters in Cuba.

Aspect Min. Max. Average

Male:female ratio 1:1.3 1:2.9 1:2.0

Bunches/m 6 17 12

Oysters/bunch I 56 15

Vertical distribution (em) 25 80 36

Shell length (mm)

for ages in months

Age I 3 19 15

2 9 36 29

3 20 52 41

4 35 67 53

5 52 79 62

6 69 84 71

7 73 90 79

8 79 94 85

Months required to get to a

shell length of

40mm 2.0 4.3 3.0

50mm 2.5 6.5 4.0

Total fresh weight (g) for

shell lengths of

45.5 mm 8.16 8.21 8.19

55.5 mm 12.31 12.77 12.62

Minimum shell length (mm)

at first spawning 20 32 28

Table 3

Summary of biological information on the mangrove

oyster, Crassos/rea rhizophorae.

weights for those sizes range from 6 to 9 g (an average of 7

g); they correspond to 1 g ofwet meat per oyster (Castro,

1975a). Most oysters in the banks are 3-6 months old.

Growth is variable, with a higher rate in the dry season

(winter) than in the rainy season. The largest oyster ever

found was 12 em long (Bosch and Nikolic, 1975).

Mangrove oysters are selective filter feeders. Their

stomachs have up to six times more dinoflagellates than

does water near the banks (Soroa and Simpson, 1975c).

Table 4A

Gonadal stages of Crassos/rea rhizophorae.

Stage

o

1

2

3

4

Gonad characteristics

Virgin; translucid gonad, grayish-green to pale

yellow.

Larger than Stage 0; whitish to pale ivory.

Covers a great deal of the other organs; ivory color;

no gametes are released after pressure.

Covers almost totally all other organs, has an old

ivory color; gonoducts are visible; gametes are released after pressure.

Smaller than in Stage 3: anterior portion is

translucid; is a grayish spent gonad.

Table 4B

Abundance of different gonadal stages in the southeast

coast (Casilda area).

Percentage of

oyster in the stages

Period 0 I and 2 3 4

Spring I 62 26 11

Summer (rainy season) 3 32 23 42

Autumn/winter (dry season) 17 63 17 3
Buesa: The Mangrove Oyster and Queen Conch Fisheries of Cuba 215

About 30 species compete with or prey on the oysters. Their most importantfood competitor is phytophagous zooplankton, while the flat tree-oyster, Isognomon

alatus; mussels, Brachidontesspp.; and barnacles, Balanus

spp. and Chthamalus spp., are other important competitors for both food and space. Associated organisms also

include several algae, sponges, turbelarians, other

bivalves, gastropods, crustaceans, polychaetes, ophiurids,

and ascidians. There are some endobiotes, such as a

polyp, Eugymnanthea crassostrea, a sponge, Cliona sp.,

and an annelid, Polydora hoplura, that is able to perforate the mantle (Nikolic and Soroa, 1971; Saenz, 1978).

Competition causes fewer mortalities when the oyster

biomass is at least twice the combined biomass of all the

other species. The most important competition is intraspecific, as the oysters compete with one another

(Buesa, 1977g). Oyster predators include three gastropods (west Indian murex, Murex brevifrons, west Indian

crown conch, Melongena melongena, and common crown

conch, M. corona), two crabs (knotfinger mud crab,

Panopeus lacustris, and Bocourtswimming crab, Callinectes

bocourti) , and one fish, the checkered puffer, Sphaeroides

testudineus (Formoso, 1978).

History of the Fishery

Mangrove oysters have been gathered or fished in Cuba

since pre-Columbian times. The Siboney Indians, who

were cave dwellers and gatherers and knew no agriculture, left a midden, about 2 ha in area, in a cave east of

Havana, called "EI Indio." Besides oyster shells, by far

the most numerous, it contains shells of clams, mussels,

Figure 4

Two fishermen collecting oysters from a natural bank

by wading.

queen conchs, and land gastropods. The oyster shells

in the entire midden represented a total live weight of

about 900 1. The Siboneys were unable to survive the

early European conquests.

Samples of oyster shells from the midden averaged

51.8 mm long. Oysters taken recently from the nearby

Tacajo River had an average length of 51.0 mm. The

difference between the two was not significantly different (P>0.3), and neither was the difference between

the national average length of oysters, 42.8 mm, and

length ofshells from the midden (P>0.5) (Buesa, 1979a).

This indicates that ecological conditions for oysters in

Cuba may have remained stable for at least the last 500

years.

From 1957 to 1962 there were about 150 boats and

450 fishermen involved in the oyster fishery (Buesa,

1977f). Oyster fishermen have always used small boats,

8-10 m long (Buesa, 1964). When arriving at an oyster

bank, they approached the mangroves by wading (Fig. 4)

or paddling canoes, 1.5-2.5 m long, called bongos (Fig.

5). The fishermen cut the aerial mangrove roots with a

machete or small ax and loaded them into floating boxes

made from the petioles ofthe large complex leaves ofthe

royal palm, Roistonea regia (Nikolic and Alfonso, 1968a).

Oyster landings from 1960 to 1964 were higher than

previous years mostly because fishermen began to land

oysters in 20 I cans and included pieces of roots with

them. The pieces comprised up to 11% of the total

weight. In addition, improved data gathering implemented in 1960 registered landings more accurately

(FAO, 1983-1991; Salmon, 1963) (Table 5).

Owing to the hard work involved and the creation of

other less arduous and better payingjobs, the numbers

Figure 5

A fisherman collecting oysters at a natural bank from a

"bongo." Note the small size of this auxiliary boat.
216 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

of oyster fishermen declined steadily in the 1960's and

1970's. Their numbers declined from 259 in 1963 to

only 76 in the mid-1970's (Buesa, 1977h).

From 1960 to 1977, fishermen landed an average of

2,288 t of oysters per year. The maximum sustainable

yield was set at about 2,500 t/year, which is an amount

that 100 fishermen could land by working 20 days/

month during 12 months of the year (Buesa, 1977f).

The catch per unit of effort (kg/fisherman/day) was

29-138 from 1964 to 1966 and was 7-440 from 1972 to

1976 with large variations in the areas and zones sampled

(90 fishing areas and 14,000 fishing trips grouped into

28 major fishing areas exploited from 10 ports) (Table

6,7).

Landed oysters have been cleaned, sorted by size,

bagged, and sent to fish markets in the main cities.

They were sold to restaurants, hotels, and street venTable 5

Mangrove oyster landings, 1960-89 in metric tonsI.

Average annual Average annual

landings (t) landings (t)

Period for the period Period for the period

1960-64 1,993 1980-84 2,438

1965-69 2,747 1985-89 2,402

1970-74 3,038 1960-89 ~,416

1975-79 1,878

1 Total landings in Cuba account for an average 80% ofthe total

landings of the mangrove oyster in the Caribbean area (Cuba,

Dominican Republic. Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, and Venezuela,

Le., 29.000 out of 36,275 t landed between 1978 and 1989).

dol's. The street vendors sold them at strategic street

locations, usually near a popular restaurant or busy bus

stop. Passers-by could purchase a "glass of oysters," the

meats of 3-5 oysters, depending on their size, with

lemon juice and some ketchup, for the equivalent of

$1.00-$1.50, depending on the season (Salmon, 1963).

The street vendors were licensed and inspected for

sanitary conditions. The fisherman received as much as

$1.00 per 100 oysters, while the vendor received about

the same for the meat of only 3-5 oysters, but the

largest profits were made by the middlemen in the port

and the wholesalers.

Mter 1960 the fishery changed from private to government control. The fisheries department of the National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA) took over

the entire fishery, created fishing cooperatives, and

increased the pay for fishermen to about $7.00/can of

500 oysters. This was a pay increase of about 40%. All

the operations (fishing, landing, cleaning, transporting, and marketing) were concentrated under the INRA.

The net result was higher landings but lower quality,

the depletion of some natural oyster banks, and a reduction in the number of fishermen. All those conditions forced the INRA (and later the INP or National

Fisheries Institute) to approve all the research required

for the establishment of a sound oyster culture policy.

Implementation of the directives, however, has been

extremely inconsistent.

Table 7

Summary of mangrove oyster fishing activitiesl .

1 Sampling: !'<inety fishing areas (exploited from 10 ports)

were surveyed for the period 1972-76. Total fishing trips

recorded (during 712 monthsxarcas) were 14,000.

2 Units: Y = Total landings/port = tons/month = t!mo, f =

fishing effort = fishermenxday/month = fXd/mo, Y/f =

catch/unit effort = kg/fishermenxday = kg/fxd.

Table 6

Ranges of mangrove oyster fishing activities, 1972-761.

Units

Y f Y/f

Ports (areas) (t/mo) (fxd/mo) (kg/fxd)

Casilda (S.E. coast) 25-90 65-804 70-300

Punta de Cartas (S.W. coast) 2-7 13-93 30-440

Berracos, Gobernadora,

Mulata (N.W. coast) 1-3 37-288 7-60

Bahia Honda (N.W. coast) 2-15 30-370 43-77

Isabela de Sagua (N.E. coast) 28-67 180-550 60-235

Nuedtas (N.E. coast) 4-21 11-166 62-305

Puerto Padre (N.E. coast) 3-18 40-235 68-128

1 Units: Y = total landings/port = tons/month = t/mo,

f = fishing effort = fishermenxday/month = fXd/mo., Y/f =

catch/unit effort = kg/fishermenxday = kg/fxd.

Area

Eastern areas

Western areas

Average Y/f:

Summary2

2 ports in the southeast (Casilda and

Santa Cruz) and 2 ports in the

northeast (Nuevitas and Puerto Padre).

Y: 3-90 t/mo per port

f: 11-804 fXd/mo

Y/f: 60-305 kg/fxd

Average Y/f= 164 kg/fxd

1 port in the southwest (Punta de Cartas)

and 4 ports in the northwest (Berracos,

Gobemadora, Mulata and Bahia Honda).

Y: 1-5 t/mo per port

f: 13-288 fxd/mo

Y/f: 7-440 kg/fxd

Average Y/f = 115 kg/fxd

eastern areas/western areas = 1.43
Buesa: The Mangrove Oyster and Queen Conch Fisheries of Cuba 217

Among the regulations for oysters were a closed season (not really needed) and a minimum legal length of

50 mm. The legal length was never fully enforced and

was unnecessary from a biological point of view, since

oysters spawn at a small size and have great fertility. The

manner in which oysters are gathered, on entire

branches when the aerial mangrove roots are cut, made

it impossible to observe a true size limit (Buesa, 1977e).

Oyster banks, especially those in the cays, are far

enough from populated areas that sewage pollution has

never been a problem. Thus, oysters received by the

restaurants and vendors were not polluted, though it

was possible for handlers to contaminate them or expose them to flying insects. Sanitary regulations were

not designed especially for restaurants or street vendors, but they had to observe all sanitary regulations for

any food vendor. Mter 1970 when oysters first appeared

in some ports, such as Casilda and Isabela de Sagua, the

INP "self-inspected" and was in charge of controlling

sanitary conditions. Inspections were generally good in

spite ofthe conflict ofinterest that self-inspection meant.

There have been no official reports of food poisoning

from eating oysters in Cuba.

There was once some industrial pollution of oyster

banks. Wastes from paper and sugar mills, distilleries

producing alcoholic beverages, and plants producing

fertilizer have destroyed some banks (Milera and

Arguelles, 1979).

In Cienfuegos Bay, on the western end of the southeastern insular shelf, fishermen used to gather the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, which grew on hard

bottoms. It is believed that those oysters were descendants of some seed oysters brought to Cuba by researchers from the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University when they visited their Cuban Botanical Garden,

the 'Jardin de Soledad" in Cienfuegas in the 1920's.

The seed oysters survived and produced a small natural

population that endured at least until the 1970's (Buesa,

1977d).

Present Status

As the existing banks of mangrove oysters are located

away from inhabited areas, they are not threatened

with degradation. In addition, plans for industrial development in Cuba today are suspended and thus industrial contamination is not likely to be a factor in the

near future. The banks that once existed near towns

and cities have already disappeared.

Oysters are now a commodity for tourists who have

had foreign hard currency to purchase them. Oysters

are included with shrimp, lobsters, crabs, conchs, and

other fancy marine products to be eaten only in hotels,

restaurants, food markets, and facilities reserved solely

for tourists and inaccessible to the general population,

which has struggled to survive under extreme food

rationing and shortages.

In the mid-1970's, government authorities considered the oyster fishery to be at a crossroads, because

arduous working conditions led to a reduction in the

number of oyster fishermen (Buesa, 1977f). No more

than 150 people were involved in oyster gathering, and

the entire fishery, including those on land, involved

less than 300 people (Ubeda, 1975). Had oyster farming not been initiated, the fishery would have slowly

disappeared.

Future of the Cuban Oyster Fishery

The only sure way to maintain the oyster fishery was to

create oyster farms. They would provide better working

conditions for the fishermen and allow planning of

oyster production. All the methodology required for

such farms was available in the mid-1970's from studies

at a large experimental farm established in the late

1960's in Isabela de Sagua on the northeast coast

(Nikolic, 1973; Nikolic and Alfonso, 1968b; Simpson et

aI., 1975b).

The potential for oyster farming in Cuba had been

known since 1883 (Vilaro-Diaz, 1883, 1886), but not

until 1951 were the first experiments with Spanish roof

tiles covered with cement, similar to the method used

in France, begun near Havana (Perez-Farfante, 1954).

Experiments were repeated in Isabela de Sagua (Fig. 1)

in 1961, and in 1964. with technical assistance from

FAO, the program began earnestly (Simpson, 1975;

Simpson et aI., 1975b). The most important finding was

that mangrove branches were the best collector for

oyster spat because they were readily available and cost

little (Nikolic and Alfonso, 1971) (Figs. 6, 7). Branches

set in the water to collectspat each yielded 1.0-4.5 kg of

oysters of several sizes after 6 months (Soroa and

Simpson, 1975b).

Government technicians surveyed areas for establishing farms. The areas had to have good characteristics

for oyster culture: water depth at least 0.5 m, salinity of

26-37%0, an oxygen content of 2-5 mg/I, gentle currents, and protection from large waves. Site selection

was important because farm sizes would, in part, govern

the oyster yield. The annual potential production of a

farm can be up to 30 times the biomass of the natural

population if it has a surface area of less than 100 ha,

but up to 120 times if it has a surface of more than 300

ha as some lagoons have (Buesa, 1977b). A total of 198

coastal and cay areas, 103 in the north and 95 in the

south, were surveyed. Of these, 14 areas in the north

having a total of 55 ha and 8 areas in the south having

60 ha had good potential for culturing oysters (Soroa,
218 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 6

Oysters growing on red mangrove branches at an experimental oyster farm at Puerto

Jobabo (Casilda).

FIgure 7

Four-month-old oysters growing on red mangrove branches at an experimental farm.
Buesa: The Mangrove Oyster and Queen Conch Fisheries of Cuba 219

1975a). The overall yield of a farm was estimated to be

about 7 kg/m2 or 70 t/ha (Simpson, 1975).

In the early 1980's the Cuban government began

construction of oyster farms. From 1984 to 1989 total

oyster production was about 1,100 tons a year, about

half of which came from the farms (Cigarra Alvarez,

1991). Currently, there are 14 such farms (Fig. 8, 9),

and some new methods have been introduced, such as

raft culture and a hatchery to produce spat (Baisre and

Castell, 1991). The hatchery was needed to compensate

for shortages of natural seed resulting from coastal

pollution from sugar mills (Cigarria Alvarez, 1991).

Recently, there have been unsuccessful attempts to culture C. virginica and the Pacific oyster, C. gigas; both

species had high mortalities probably because temperatures were too high (Baisre and Castell, 1991).

Queen Conch Fishery . _

The queen conch, called "cobo" or "fotuto" in Spanish

speaking coun tries, has also been fished since

Figure 8

View ofthe Isabela de Sagua oyster farm at "Enfermeria"

Cay, north of the port.

pre-Columbian times. As mentioned, its shells, whole

and fragmented, are found in Indian middens. Indians

ate the meat and used the shells for ornaments, for

cutting and hammering tools, and to produce various

sounds. From the latter use came the names "fotuto"

and "botuto," Spanish words for an instrument producing a loud sound (Buesa, 1979a).

Because the conch has tough meat, it has had minimal use as a food, but has been valued mainly for the

beauty of its shell. When the main use is for meat as in

the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands, the

shell must be broken to remove the meat, ruining the

ornamental value. This means that the conch could be

used for its meat or shell, but not for both.

The average population density is about 4-5 conchs/

100 m (Buesa, 1979b). Less than 0.5% of all conchs are

of commercial size. Conch shells grow 4-8 em/year in

length in Cuban waters (Table 8). Growth is most rapid

Figure 9

View of part of an oyster farm at Isabela de Sagua.

Workers are attending the lines from "bongos."
220 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

in depths of 0.3-2.0 m and during May-August. The

adult length is attained 2.7-4 years after metamorphosis. Food supply is important for growth and internal

color of the shell; conchs that consume green algae

have the brightest and reddest shells. The calcareous

alga, Amphiroa jragilissima, several filamentous algae,

and turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum, have been identified as conch foods (Alcolado, 1976).

The meat of the conch comprises 8-16% of its total

weight. Larger conchs with more massive shells have a

smaller proportion of meat than smaller ones (Alcado.

1976).

For many years, sponge fishermen were the only persons who collected conchs in Cuba, though most conchs

were not then sold (Buesa, 1964). But the fishery later

expanded considerably when scuba gear was developed,

as it allowed fishermen to gather conchs by diving (Fig.

10); production reached 2,353 tin 1977 (Table 9) as

the conchs were used as food and ornaments. Conch

populations were evidently unable to cope with such an

exploitation and the government closed the fishery

between 1978 and 1981.

Fishing was permitted from 1982 on and, between

then and 1989, annual landings averaged 353 t, which is

below the calculated annual sustainable yield of 560 t

(Buesa, 1979b). The recommended management

for the conch is to gather them within the recommended sustainable yield limit, and to sell those with

ordinary shells as food and those with beautiful shells as

ornaments.

Table 8

Summary of population information on the queen conch, Strornbus gigas.

Segment of insular shelf

Aspect S.E. S.w. N.W. !'I.E.

Shell length (em) at each age (years)

Age 1 11 8 10 8

2 18 13 18 15

3 23 16 23 20

Shelf area with preferential distribution of the population (km2) 1,900 3.200 1,400 4,000

Average population density (animals/l00 m2) 3.9 4.9 3.5 4.5

Animals with commercial size in the population 0.40% 0.25% 0.49% 0.25%

Commercial density (conchs/km2) 160 123 173 113

Commercial biomass (t) 375 486 299 558

Permissible annual catch (t) 140 130 110 180

Table 9

Queen conch landings! in Cuban ports.

Periods Average landings (t)

1969-71 560

1972-74 180

197.'>-77 1,646

1971:l-80 0

1981-82 280

1984-86 444

H187-89 216

1 Maximum landing, 1977 = 2,353 t: minimum landings, 1978,

1979,1980, and 1981, ofzero.
Buesa: The Mangrove Oyster and Queen Conch Fisheries of Cuba 221

North

Western

Shelf

South

Western

Shelf

3

6 7

North

Eastern

Shelf

South

Eastern

Shelf

9

Strombus gigas MAIN FISHING AREAS

1 - Niquero - Cabo Cruz - Pilon

2 - Doce Leguas

3 - Diego Perez to Rosario

4 - Isle of Pines to San Felipe

5 - Coloradas

6 - Cardenas Bay

7 - Sabana Cays

8 - Cays North of Santa Clara and

Camaguey Provinces

9 - Nuevitas Bay Area

10 - Nipe Bay Area

Figure 10

Cuba and its adjacent cays, and main fishing areas for the queen conch in Cuba.

Literature Cited and Selected References __

Aguayo, C. G., and I. Perez-Farfante.

1951. EI ostion: nuevos datos sobre su ciclo vita!' Soc. Cuba

Hist. Nat. F. Poey. Vo!. 5:30-36.

Alcolado, P. M.

1976. Crecimiento, variaciones morfologicas de la concha y

algunos datos biologicos del cobo Strombus gigas L. (Mollusca, Mesogastropoda). Acad. Cienc. Cuba. Inst. Oceano!.,

Ser. Oceano!. 34:1-36.

Baisre,]. A., and]. D. Castel!.

1991. Aquaculture in Cuba. World Aquacult. 22(4) :28-34;41.

Bosch, C. A., and M. Nikolic.

1975. Algunas observaciones sobre el reclutamiento.

crecimiento y mortalidad de ostiones Crassostrea rhizophorae

guilding, cultivados experimentalment. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res.

Invest. 2:96-100.

Buesa, R.].

1964. Las pesquerias Cubanas. INP/CIP, Cuba; Contrib.

20:1-93.

1965. Investigaciones sobre la pesca. MinEd-Univ. Sintec,

Cuba; Sem. Sist. Nat!' Educat.. p. 5-28.

1970. Transformations energeticas en Puerto]obado duran te

la primavera de 1970. INP/CIP, Cuba; Reun., Ba!' Trab.

2(2):2-34.

1977a. Eficiencia ecotrofica primaria en ecosistemas costeros

limitados. INP/CIP, Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion 1:1-106.

1977b. Metodologia para la prospeccion y explotacion de

areas adecuadas para la ostricultura. MIP/CIP, Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion 2:1-35.

1977c. Interelaciones mangle colorado ostion. MIP/CIP,

Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion 3:1-5.

1977d. Pesca de bivalvos en Cuba. MIP/CIP, Cuba; Infrmo.

Proy. Ostion 4:1-20.

1977e. Resumen de los ciclos biologicos del ostion de mangle.

MIP/CIP, Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion 5:1-21.

1977f. Evaluation de la explotacion de los bancos naturales

del ostion de mangle (Crassostrea rhizophorae) en Cuba. MIP/

CIP, Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion 6:1-81.

1977g. Biomasa de las poblaciones naturales del ostion de

mangle. MIP/CIP, Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion 7:1-47.

1977h. Produccion anual de las poblaciones naturales del

ostion de mangle. MIP/CIP, Cuba; Inform. Proy. Ostion

8:1-38.
222 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

1978. La captura maxima permisible como funcion de la

relacion produccion/generaciones anuales. MIP/CIP, Cuba;

Primer Foro Cient. CIP, p. 25.

1979a. Ostiones en un residuario siboney. MIP/CIP Cuba;

Inform. Proy. Ostion 9:1-7.

1979b. Sinopsis biologia del cobo, Strombus gigas. MIP/CIP,

Cuba; Inform. Proy. COBO 1:1-76.

1981a. Ostion. In].A. Baisre and]. Paez (eds.), Los recursos

pesqueros del archipielago Cuban, p. 19, 38-39, 70, 78.

Estud. WECAF 8.

1981b. Cobo. In].A. Baisre and]. Paez (eds.), Los recursos

pesqueros del archipielago Cuban, p. 39-40, 71. Estud.

WECAF8.

Castro, R. de.

1974. Transformacion energetica en los cayos de la Enfermeria

y Puerto jobabo. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest. 1:154-156.

1975a. Estudio fenometrico y bioecologio del ostion Grassostrea

rhizophorae (Guilding) en Cuba. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest.

2:47-50.

1975b. Composicion quimica y contenido energetico del

ostion Grassostrea rhizophorae (Guilding) en Cuba. INP/CIP,

Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:244-248.

Cigarria Alvarez, j.

1991. Oyster culture in Cuba. World Aquacult. 22(4):14-18.

Cowley, L. M.

1883. Influencia de la ostricultura en la salubridad de las

poblaciones. Acad. Ciene. Med. Fis Nat., Cuba, Ana!. 20:443-

447.

FAO.

1983-91. Fishery statistics. Catches and landings. Food Agrie.

Organ., V.N. Rome. Var. years, pagin.

Formoso, M.

1978. Fauna asociada al ostion (Grassostrea rhizophorae

(Guilding» en Isabela de Sagua y Puerto jobabo. MIP/CIP,

Cuba; Foro Cient. 1:7.

Garcia del Barco, F.

1974. Contenido calorico de algunos organismos costeros.

INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest. 1:141-142.

1975. Contenido calorico de organismos acuaticos. INP/eIP,

Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:255-259.

Gomez de la Maza, F.

1933. Ostricultura y mejoramiento del ostion Cubano. Minist.

Agric. Cuba; Rev. Agric. 14:93-96.

jmeliova, N. N., and]. Sanzo

1969. Respiracion y algunas particularidades de la alimentacion del ostion Grassostrea rhizophoreGuilding. Acad. Cienc.,

Cuba; Inst. Oceano!., Ser. Oceano!. 3:1-20.

Milera,]. F., and L. Arguellas.

1979. Problemas del ostion de mangle Grassostrea rhizophorae

Guilding, 1828 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Ostreidae) en los rios

Damuji y Salado. Acad. Cienc., Cuba; Inst. Oceano!., Res.

Evento Cient. 5:14.

Nilkolic, M.

1973. Bioecologia y cultivo de algunas organismos marinos

de la plataforma Cubana. FAO, Rome, Rep. AT 3205, 15 p.

Nilkolic, M., and S. Alfonso.

1968a. EI ostion de mangle. INP/CIP, Cuba; Nota Invest.

7:1-30.

1968b. Initial experiments on farming the mangrove oyster

(Grassostrea rhizophorae, Guilding 1828). Proe. Symp. Molluscs, Cochin, India 3:967-971.

1971. El ostion de mangle Grassostrea rhizophorae Guilding,

1828. Explotacion del recurso y posibilidades para el cultivo.

FAO Fish. Rep. 71.2:201-218.

Nilkolic, M., and]. Soroa.

1971. EI ostion de mangle Grassostrea rhizophorae Guilding,

1928. Algunas observaciones sobre sus dimensiones, pesos y

sexos. FAO Fish. Rep 71.2, FIRM/R 71.2:201-208.

Perez-Farfante, I.

1954. EI ostion comercial en Cuba. BANFAIC/CIP, Cuba;

Contrib.3:1-42.

Saenz, B.

1965. EI ostion antillano Grassostrea rhizophorae Guilding y su

cultivo experimental en Cuba. INP/CIP, Cuba; Nota Invest.

6:1-34.

Salmon, G. C.

1963. Informe al Gobierno de Cuba sobre la encuesta ace rca

de las pesquerias. FAO, Rome; Proy. CU/TE/FI, Inform.

1597:1-100.

Simpson, A. C.

1975. Perspectives del cultivo del ostion en Cuba. INP/CIP,

Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:250-251.

Simpson, A. c., S. Alfonso, and]. Soroa.

1974. Fijacion, rendimiento y crecimiento de ostiones

cultivados. Ir\P/CIP. Cuba; Res. Invest. 1:157-162.

Simpson, A. C.,]. Soroa, and S. Alfonso.

1975a. Crecimiento del ostion de mangle Grassostrea rhizophorae

en relacion con el nivel demareas y su cultivo. INP/CIP,

Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:66--69.

1975b. Manual del ostricultor. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest.

2:251-253.

Soroa,].

1975a. Areas ostioners de Cuba. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest.

2:148-149.

1975b. Moluscos cubanos con perspectivas de cultivo. INP/

CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:253--254.

Soroa,].. and A. C. Simpson.

1975a. Observaciones sobre el indice de condicion en ostiones

de mangle. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:62-63.

1975b. Observaciones sobre el rendimiento de ostiones en

colectores de mangle rojo. INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:64-

65.

1975e. Informe sobre el contenido estomacal de ostiones.

INP/CIP, Cuha; Res. Invest. 2:65-66.

Ubeda, L.

1975. Viaje a la vida sedentariadel ostion. I P, Cuba; Mar

Pesca Il8:4-9.

Vasquez, B.

1978. Identificacion de las larvas delostion de mangle (Grassostrea rhizophoraeGuilding). MIP/CIP, Cuba; Foro Cientif. 1:25.

Vasquez, B., and A. C. Simpson.

1975. Estudio de la ftiacion del ostion de mangle rojo Grassostrea rhizophorae sobre colectores de mangle rojo. INP/CIP,

Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:71-73.

Vasquez, B.. S. Alfonso, and A. C. Simpson.

1975. Abundancia de las larvas de ostiones en al plancton de

Puerto jobabo y Cayos de la Enfermeria durante 1969-74.

INP/CIP, Cuba; Res. Invest. 2:69-71.

Vilaro-Diaz, j.

1883. Cria de ostras por medio de la fecundacion artificia!.

Acad. Cienc. Med. Fish. Nat.. Cuba; Anales 20:375-378.

1886. Instrucciones para el establecimiento de las industrias

ostl'icolas en ellitoral Cubano. La Habana, Cuba; La Antillana

Pub!., 97 p.
The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Strombus gigas, Mangrove Oyster,

Crassostrea rhizophorae, and Other Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico

RICHARD S. APPELDOORN

Department ojMarine Sciences

University ofPuerto Rico

Mayagiiez, PR 00681-5000

ABSTRACT

The molluscan shellfish resource of Puerto Rico is composed of a variety of gastropods

and bivalves, but the two prominent species are the queen conch, Strombus gigas, and the

mangrove oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae. The fishery historically can be divided into three

phases. The first occurred during the pre-Columbian period. The harvest of mollusks is one

of the principal characteristics of the Taino culture, with the shells of some species also

being used as tools or ornamentation. The second period covers the time from Spanish

colonization through the first half of the 1900's. During this time there was little interest in

molluscan fishing, although oysters were commercially harvested to some degree toward the

end of the period. The most recent era is characterized by the development of large-scale

fisheries for the queen conch and mangrove oyster. The former fishery peaked in 1983,

yielding an estimated $930,000, but landings have since dropped by 70%. The oyster fishery,

once widespread, now has been reduced to a single lagoon. The catch fluctuates and is

valued at less than $100,000 per year.

Introduction

Puerto Rico (Fig. I) is the smallest and easternmost of

the Greater Antilles. It measures approximately 160 km

(100 miles) long and 55 km (35 miles) wide, with 540

km (335 miles) of coastline and 5,700 km2 (2,200 mi2)

of insular shelf. The climate, coastal geography, and

oceanography of Puerto Rico with respect to its fisheries resources was presented in detail by Appeldoorn

and Meyers (1993); only a brief review is given here.

Puerto Rico contains a wide variety of marine habitats, including coral and rock reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove lagoons, soft bottom areas, sand and algal plains,

and sandy beaches, but these are patchily distributed.

Along the northwest and north coasts the insular shelf

is narrow (2-3 km) and seas are generally rough. This

area is a mixture of coral and rock reefs and sand

beaches. The east coast has a broad shelf that extends

to the Virgin Islands, with typical depths of 18 to 30 m.

The south coast is variable in width, ranging from 2 to

15 km. The shelf is widest (25 km) off the southern

portion of the west coast. This area and the south coast

are characterized by hard or sand-algal bottoms with

emergent coral reefs, grass beds and mangroves inshore,

and submerged reefs offshore and along the shelf edge.

The marine environment is tropical, with average

temperatures ranging from 25° to 28.5°C; inshore maximum temperatures may reach 30°C. Coastal waters are

generally clear and oligotrophic, except near river

mouths and in mangrove embayments. The south and

southwest coasts receive little river runoff. Pelagic primary production is low, on the order of 50 gC/m2/yr.

However, benthic primary production from macroalgae, sea grasses, symbiotic zooxanthellae, mangroves,

and benthic diatoms can be quite high. The limited

production of phytoplankton places severe constraints

on the abundance and distribution of commercially

important, filter-feeding bivalves.

Fishing Traditions _

The long tradition ofmolluscan shellfisheries in Puerto

Rico, dating back to pre-Columbian times, is poorly

documented. Early systematic works on the mollusks of

Puerto Rico (Stahl, 1882; Gundlach, 1883; Dall and

Simpson, 1902; McLean, 1951; Warmke and Abbott,

1961) give little or no information on commercial importance. The same is largely true for early reports on

fisheries resources (Wilcox, 1900, 1904; Jarvis, 1932;

223
224 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

10 20 30 40 so Km ! ! I I !

1b 2b 3b MI Atlantic Ocean

66'

18 '

(:::.;···················•••••.•••••.••..••••.•••. 200 ··•·••••••••••·•••·••·•·••·••••••.•.•.. TL•..•.....•..•....•..•..•.••....••.••.••••..........••...••....••••.•.•••

o /....... CT SanJuan

De5echea Is. " FJ • cu~a Is.

i} ':·.) EH.

'. .': ;' PS .Po~_ ,~~;:. \ .. .....~. .................•.................... ~~............................................... '"

•••. 200 ..... \. CM

....................

Caribbean Sea

67' 66'

Figure I

Puerto Rico and its insular shelf (indicated by the 200 m contour). Hatching shows the

principal areas for the commercial harvest of queen conch. Other areas shown are discussed

in the text: BQ = Boqueron, EC = El Combate, LP = La Parguera, PS = Playa Santa, GB =

Guayanilla Bay, CM =Caja de Muertos,JB =Jobos Bay, EH =Ensenada Honda (Ceiba), FJ =

Fajardo, TL = Torrecilla Lagoon, CT = Catano.

h1igo, 1963). The importance of these fisheries and of

specific species, both culturally and economically, has

varied markedly.

The first well documented culture in Puerto Rico was

that of the Igneri, who came to Puerto Rico as part of

the Arawak migration out of South America and the

Lesser Antilles. Rainey (1940) and Rouse (1952) reported that the Igneri used a variety of coastal mollusks,

but only in small amounts; the principal fishery resource was land crabs. In the area of Puerto Rico and

Hispaniola the earlier Igneri culture gave rise to the

Taino culture (Rouse, 1952), which persisted until the

Spanish conquest ofthe area. In marked contrast to the

Igneri, the Tainos were avid molluscan shellfishermen

and left numerous large shell middens throughout

Puerto Rico (Rainey, 1940; Rouse, 1952). The extent of

those middens was reduced in regions well inland, although the largest reported by Rouse (1952) was 6

miles from the coast. The occurrence of middens in

interior areas indicates that mollusks were transported

throughout the island. The extent of middens also is

lower on the Atlantic coast, where few sheltered bays

exist. The Taino harvested a wide variety of coastal

bivalves and gastropods; in addition to using them for

food, shells were used to make a variety oftools (chisels,

hoes, hand axes, plates) and ornamental objects (Rainey,

1940) .

Little is known about Puerto Rican fisheries while

under Spanish rule. Under Spanish rule, individuals

could obtain exclusive rights to fish in the most favorable areas, and these rights were advertised and sold to

the highest bidder (Wilcox, 1900). Fishing was controlled by the local port captain. Fishermen were required to obtain a license from the port captain and

report catch records to him. In some areas fishermen

were required to pay a tax on their catch, and all fishermen were required to enroll in the reserve force of the

Spanish Navy. Unfortunately, when the United States

assumed authority over Puerto Rico in 1898, the departing Spanish administration removed most records,

which were subsequently lost. Furthermore, all previous fishing regulations and report requirements were

eliminated.

Spanish colonizers were apparently agriculturally oriented and did not have the established tradition of

fishing, as did the Tainos. Nevertheless, the consumption of seafood was relatively high. Wilcox (1900) reported the levels of imports of seafood during the last

years of Spanish rule. These totalled over 34 million

pounds for a population estimated to be between

800,000 and 1,000,000; yet, local fisheries at that time

were considered surprisingly small and underdeveloped.

Among the imports reported, shellfish constituted less

than 0.05% in both weight and value; these came largely

from Spain and other European countries.

The molluscan shellfish resource of Puerto Rico is

comprised of a variety of bivalves and gastropods and

supports both commercial and recreational fisheries.
Appeldoom: The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Mangrove Oyster, and Other Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico 225

Historically, and at present, the two most important

species are the queen conch, Strombus gigas, and the

mangrove oyster, Crassostrea rhizophorae. Catch statistics

have been recorded only for these two species.

The Queen Conch _

Habitat Description

Queen conchs are large herbivorous gastropods. They

inhabit sandy bottoms in sheltered areas where bottom

disturbance and turbidity are low and plant cover

(macroalgae, seagrasses) is high. Historically, conch

are considered to be most abundant in seagrass beds

(particularly turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum) at shallow depths (<10 m; 30 feet). However, they can range to

depths of 60 m (200 feet), although they occur infrequently at depths below 30-40 m (100-130 feet). At

mid-depths they are found typically on sand and algal

plains, but also occur in areas of rubble bottom or silty

sand. Conch are found and fished along all coasts of

Puerto Rico. However, because of its limited shelf and

rougher seas, the north coast contributes little to production. Greatest production comes from the southwest corner of the island where the shelf is broad, with

extensive sand-algal plains at depths of 18-24 m (60-80

feet) and inshore seagrass beds. Fishing for conch in

these areas is conducted primarily from the village ofEl

Combate, the southernmost fishing village on the west

coast (Fig. 1). Favorable habitat is also found on the

south coast, particularly in the vicinity ofCaja de Muertos

Island. Conch are also found in the deeper waters (>24

m; 80 feet) off the east coast, between the islands of

Culebra and Vieques, with fishing being centered from

the island ofVieques. Principal fishing areas are shown

in Figure 1.

History of the Fishery

The queen conch fishery can be divided into three

phases. The first is the pre-Columbian phase associated

with the Taino culture. Queen conch is one of the

principal species occurring in shell middens (Rainey,

1940). The meat was used for food and the shell was

used to make hoes, hand axes and other tools, and

ornamental objects. Harvesting was probably done by

wading out onto shallow grass beds or from canoes.

The second phase began with the decline of the

Taino culture and the rise of Spanish colonization and

ended during the mid-1900's. During this time there

appeared to be little or no conch fishing. Wilcox (1900,

1904) makes no mention of conch fishing or even of

the potential of the resource, while Dall and Simpson

(1902) give only a general statement about conch being an important food item within the Caribbean as a

whole. The first reference specific to fishing queen

conch is by Jarvis (1932), who stated that conch were

harvested "by naked divers in shallow waters." At this

time conch were used primarily as bait, but they were

also eaten by fishermen.

The third and modern phase of the conch fishery is

characterized by the development of a large-scale commercial fishery. During the 1950's and 1960's, considerable effort was spent developing local fisheries (Inigo,

1963). While no specific reference to the conch fishery

at this time was reported, in consort with the rest of the

fishery it can be assumed that catch and effort increased

at this time. Catch data have been collected since the

late 1960's; these are given in Table 1. While the accuracy of these data is suspect, they probably represent

overall trends.

In the first half of the 1970's, landings were stable,

with catch rates at approximately 200,000 pounds/yr.

Landings began to increase in 1975, first on the east

Table I

Estimated landings in pounds of queen conch in Puerto

Rico (by coast and total) and price per pound. Data

obtained from the P.R. Fisheries Research Laboratory,

Dep. Nat. Resour.

Landings (pounds) Price

per

Year North East South West Total pound

1970 465 57,611 10,058 86,164 154,298 $0.41

1971 1.250 33.750 8.750 162,500 206,250 0.41

1972 0 22,500 12,500 175,000 210,000 0.45

1973 0 13,750 8,750 162,500 185,000 0.47

1974 2,500 8,750 15,000 170,000 196,250 0.51

1975 2.500 12,500 17.500 200,000 232,500 0.63

1976 1,250 17,500 30,000 206,250 255,000 0.65

1977 3,750 35,000 83,750 191,250 313,750 0.77

1978 1,099 1[2,088 126,374 151,648 391,209 0.81

1979 10,299 93,913 99,219 227,881 431,312 0.91

1980 11,804 76.968 79,340 298,845 466,957 1.05

1981 11,557 46,312 48,439 220,917 327,225 1.10

1982 8,465 97,484 75,544 368,831 550,324 1.20

198314,459 96,923 139,603 466,123 717,108 1.30

1984 12,736 76,966 163,270 435,782 688,754 1.37

1985 18,273 208,248 61,343 293,463 581,327 1.45

1986 5,563 46,072 30,949 170,725 253,309 1.54

1987 2,150 39,166 39,600 189,895 270,811 1.63

1988 2.318 131,521 52,089 240,370 426,298 1.81

1989 1.214 97,421 41,893 146,232 286,760 1.88

lY90 1,069 21,451 44,608 [44,784 211,912 1.93

1991 3,945 17,220 79,219 111,690 212.074 2.02
226 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

and south coasts, then on the west coast. This increase

closely follows increases in the value of conch meat

(Table 1). Appeldoorn (1991), who reviewed the conch

fishery, stated that the lag in production on the west

coast could be explained by the generally lower price

obtained for meat farther away from the metropolitan

areas of the northeast. In the latter 1970's through

1983, there was a dramatic increase in production, particularly from the west coast; total landed value was

estimated at $930,000. Again, this paralleled increases

in the price of conch meat; suggesting that the driving

force behind increased production was an increase in

the value of the product.

During 1982-85, landings increased at a substantially

greater rate than price (Table 1), and then began to

decline. Appeldoorn (1991) attributed this increase to

the occurrence ofa dominant 1980 year class that temporarily increased catch per effort. Following the rapid

depletion of that year class, landings dropped precipitously. That there was no large increase in price concomitant with this decline in landings probably reflects

the increased importation of conch meat to supply

demand. The amount of conch imported is substantial,

but exact figures are not available, as conch import data

are lumped with all other shellfish, including lobsters.

The increase in production during the late 1970's

came from an increased number offishermen entering

the fishery, an increased use ofscuba diving for harvesting, and the fishing of previously unexploited areas

farther afield and in deeper waters. Interviews offishermen in 1984, during peak production, indicated no

apparent concern over decreasing conch densities, absence oflarge individuals, or overfishing, although some

fishermen admitted they needed to range over a greater

area than before. By 1986 these attitudes had changed;

fishermen admitted that conch were now scarcer than

before and that low densities had caused a change in

fishing methods (Appeldoorn, 1991).

Characteristics of the Fishery

Commercial conch fishing in Puerto Rico has always

been artisanal. The traditional fishing boat in Puerto

Rico is the "yola," a small «7 m) narrow, flat- bottomed

wooden skiff (Fig. 2). During early years, these were

rowed, but that gave way to the use of outboard motors

(25-40 hp), primarily during the 1960's. In recent years

these have been replaced by commercial fiberglass boats

of similar size. A few larger boats (<10 m), some with

inboard engines, have been employed in the recent

conch fishery. Fishing previously done by skin diving in

shallow waters is now conducted almost exclusively in

deeper water with the use ofscuba gear. Depths fished

Figure 2

Typical Puerto Rican yota.
Appeldoorn: The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Mangrove Oyster, and Other Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico 227

range from 7 m to >45 m. Fishermen make daily excursions and usually work in teams, with one person remaining in the boat and one or more divers in the

water at anyone time. On average, one or two scuba

tanks per person are used per trip, although some use

as many as three.

When fishing, an area is generally searched either by

towing free divers or by free divers making shallow test

dives to locate conch aggregations. When density is

high, divers will load conchs into a basket, which is then

raised to the boat, emptied, and lowered back down.

Conchs are shucked by punching a hole through the

shell, dorsally on the second whorl (using a hammer

and chisel, rock hammer, or hatchet), and inserting a

knife to cut the adductor muscle. The visceral mass is

removed and, generally, the mantle is trimmed from

the meat. The shucking and cleaning is done in the

boat while fishing is in progress and/or while returning

to port. Shells are thrown over the side while in transit.

More recently, with declining densities, fishermen have

started to remove the meat from the shell while on the

bottom. This allows the diver to cover a greater area per

dive in search of scattered individuals. When densities

are high, fishermen will selectively harvest larger individuals, gradually taking smaller ones as harvesting continues; the smallest individuals taken are about 15 cm

in length (Appeldoorn, 1991).

The fishery is pursued by both full-time and parttime commercial fishermen, and by recreational fishermen. In a 1992 census, there were 162 commercial

fishermen who reported harvesting conch, but only

about 90 regularly reported their landings. Until recently, full-time fishermen usually were specialists, fishing exclusively for conch. Recently, there has been a

greater trend for fishermen to generalize by fishing

lobster or spearfishing. Nevertheless, individual trips

are usually dedicated to a single activity.

Traditionally, part-time fishing varied seasonally, dropping particularly during sugar cane harvesting. However, their contributions to the reported landings are

slight. Monthly landings tend to show large oscillations

over short and long periods, without any apparent pattern. In 1988 and 1989 the average catch per trip reported was about 90 pounds of meat (Matos Caraballo

and Sadovy, 1990); however, daily catches vary greatly.

The level of recreational fishing is unknown, but may

be substantial in some areas. Small juvenile conch occurring in shallow grass beds are particularly vulnerable and are willfully taken.

Use of Conch

Conch are not further processed prior to sale. They are

usually sold at the dock to wholesalers or directly to

restaurants. Preparation for cooking involves the removal of the "skin," operculum, eyes and proboscis, and

gut. The meat is softened in a variety of ways: boiling,

pressure cooking, beating, or marinating. In Puerto Rico,

conch is primarily served as conch salad or as conch

cocktail (preparation is similar). On occasion it is stewed,

often in combination with tomatoes. Conch is also a popular filling for "empanadillas," a type ofturnover.

Fishermen retain the most beautiful adult shells, selling them to shell and tourist shops. There they are sold

individually ($7-$10/shell) or incorporated into tourist-oriented or artisan shellcraft products.

Regulations and Mariculture

Local waters in Puerto Rico extend approximately 10

miles from shore and cover almost all of the resource.

All fishermen operating in local waters are requested to

report their landings. While reporting is voluntary, those

complying are eligible for benefits in licensing and

assistance. Federal waters are regulated by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, composed ofmembers from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In

Federal waters, harvested conch must have a minimum

total shell length of 9 in. (22.9 cm) or a shall lip thickness of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm); conch must be landed in the

shell, and there is a daily catch limit of 150 conch/day

for commercial fishermen. The fishery is closed from 1

July to 30 September. Regulations to extend these measures into local waters are currently under review.

Culture of conch in Puerto Rico is not currently

conducted or contemplated. Research into the feasibility of conch culture was conducted during the early

1980's. This was sponsored by the U.S. National Marine

Fisheries Service, the Corporation for the Development

and Administration ofthe Marine, Lacustrine, and Fluvial Resources of Puerto Rico, the University of Puerto

Rico-Mayaguez, and UPR Sea Grant, and was conducted

at the UPR Department ofMarine Sciences. During this

time, larviculture was successfully carried out on both

queen conch and the related milk conch, Strombus

costatus (Ballantine and Appeldoorn, 1983). However,

slow growth of laboratory-reared juveniles and high

mortalities among field-released individuals showed that

substantially more research on basic biology and ecology was needed before mariculture would be practical

(Appeldoorn and Ballantine, 1983).

Prognosis for the Future

The queen conch is considered to be overfished

(Appeldoorn, 1992). The fishery is currently conducted

in deeper offshore waters, and fishermen are pressing
228 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

the limits of diving safety in pursuit of conch. Most

Puerto Rican diving accidents can be attributed to this

fishery. The deepwater conch represent the oldest individuals, and the fishery in the past has survived on the

harvest of this surplus biomass, as opposed to surplus

production. The fishery on the west coast developed

earlier, and old conch have since disappeared. They

can still be found in the deeper waters around Vieques

off the east coast. Deepwater areas were considered to

serve as a refuge for mature conch, but as these become

increasingly depleted, the potential for sustained recruitment failure will increase.

Management is needed to curtail fishing mortality to

improve yield per recruit and prevent recruitment overfishing. The large size of conch, coupled with their slow

mobility and aggregative behavior, make them quite

susceptible to fishing. However, management offishing

effort will probably not restore conch harvest to previous levels. Inshore areas, particularly shallow, sandy

seagrass beds, are thought to have been important as

settling and nursery grounds, as well as for supporting

mature conch. The abundance ofconch in pre-Columbian

shell middens attests to the past availability ofthe resource

in shallow areas. For reasons unknown, these areas do not

seem to be productive anymore. The most likely explanation

is that nearshore habitat has been modified or destroyed.

Inshore habitats have been substantially affected by

human activities. Siltation has increased as a result of

coastal development and poor land-use practices. Power

boats contribute substantially to sediment resuspension

in shallow areas. Beaches associated with nearby grass

beds may constitute a primary settlement area for queen

conch (Stoner et aI., 1994); almost all such beaches in

Puerto Rico receive heavy recreational use. Given the

lack of planned management and the potential for loss

ofinshore habitat, a continued decline in the fishery is

expected.

The Mangrove Oyster _

Habitat Description

Mangrove oysters primarily are found in the intertidal

and shallow subtidal zones attached to the roots of the

red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle. Highest concentrations are found in inlet lagoons, where waters are calm,

with little exchange with the sea outside but where they

are subject to wind-driven circulation (Mattox, 1949).

Historically, the largest and most abundant populations

are found on the Caribbean side of the island (Mattox,

1949). The most important area for oysters is Rincon

Lagoon in Boqueron on the west coast (Fig. 1,3), which is

2.4 km long and 0.8 km wide in its greatest dimensions.

Oysters are more abundant along its northwest side.

Other principal areas where oysters grow include the

mangrove lagoons off of Guayanilla, La Parguera, Salinas, and Jobos Bay on the south coast; Fajardo and

Ceiba (Ensenada Honda) on the east coast; and Puerto

Real on the west coast (Fig. 1) (Wilcox, 1900, 1904;

Mattox, 1949). Oysters are concentrated in a narrow

band, as the tidal range along the south coast is small

(<10 cm) (Kjerfve, 1981). Temperature range is 25°-

30°C, and best growth is achieved at 28°C and a salinity

of 38%0 (Mattox, 1949). Mangrove oysters can spawn

year-round, and spawning appears to be triggered by

sudden decreases in salinity that occur after heavy rains

(Watters and Acosta Martinez, 1976).

History of the Fishery

Mangrove oysters were one of the principal mollusk

species harvested by the pre-Columbian Tainos. Shell

middens near mangrove lagoons (Fig. 3) are composed

almost entirely of mangrove oysters (Fig. 4). As with

queen conch, the importance of local oyster populations was slight among early European colonizers. At

the beginning of this century, Wilcox (1900) reported

oysters among the shellfish imported. Some fishing was

done in a few areas, but not all (Wilcox, 1904). Oysters

from Guayanilla were occasionally harvested, placed in

old kerosene tins, and sold in Ponce for $0.20 per tin.

Oysters were harvested, in equally low numbers, elsewhere, such as Fajardo, and sold for prices ranging

from $0.01 to $0.10 per dozen.

Mattox (1949) reported on the oyster fishery during

the 1940's, when the principal area was in Boqueron

Bay. The Boqueron oyster harvest was then estimated at

4,000 oysters per week or, at roughly 10 per pound,

25,000 pounds/yr. At $0.20/pound, the year's catch

was worth about $5,000, and it was sold in San Juan,

Mayaguez, and Ponce. Minimum size was 45 mm shell

length, and the average size was 57 mm. Mattox considered the fishery to be stable.

By the early 1970's, only the Boqueron population

was still supporting fishing, and Puerto Rico was importing over 90% of its oysters (Watters and Acosta

Martinez, 1976). Other once productive areas had declined for a variety ofreasons: sewage, extensive cutting

of mangrove roots for oyster harvest (e.g., Jobos Bay),

and development (e.g., marinas in Fajardo, Roosevelt

Roads Naval base in Ensenada Honda, an oil tanker

port in Guayanilla). By 1970, between one-fourth and

one-third of Puerto Rico's mangroves had been destroyed, with the vast majority ofthis destruction occurring during the 5-year period of 1965-70 (Heatwole,

1985).

Landings data specific for mangrove oysters have

been reported since 1972 (Table 2). Estimated catches
Appeldoorn: The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Mangrove Oyster, and Other Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico 229

Boquer6n Bay

1 mile

. .. .. .. .............

Boquer6n Bay

----- .. ............

. .,::.:<.:: +:.. :.......:.::: .... : : . Rtr.~~~ Lagoon

....... '. . . . . .

• Shell Midden

Figure 3

Rincon Lagoon off Boqueron Bay.

of 40,000 to 60,000 pounds of whole oysters in the early

1970's agree well with independent estimates reported

by Watters and Prinslow (1975). Prices at that time were

$l.OO/pound. Reported landings have since varied considerably, but generally have been higher than in the

early 1970's, at around 70,000 pounds/yr. Recent landings data are not reliable because most oyster fishermen have refused to cooperate with the data collection

program in protest over the closure of areas in the

lagoon near sewage outfalls (Fig. 3). The two sewer

outfalls come from small primary treatment plants serving about 100 small vacation cabins operated by the

Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources as part

of the adjacent Boqueron Beach Recreational Center.

Price per pound began rising during the early 1980's

(Table 2), and over the past four years has fluctuated

between roughly $1.50 and $2.00/pound. The catch of

oysters is valued at less than $100,000/year.

Oysters in Boqueron are harvested by fishermen from

small, outboard-powered boats. They are primarily sold

to restaurants or from small kiosks for the tourist trade

in coastal towns, particularly in Boqueron, where they

are sold directly by the fishermen (Fig. 5). Prices at the

kiosks run from $1.50 to $2.00/dozen. In an average

weekend a fisherman may sell 30-40 dozen, which are

eaten raw. Only about 8-10 fishermen currently harvest

oysters in Boqueron.

Regulations and Mariculture

It is unknown if the Tainos practiced any form of husbandry. The West Indian murex, Murex brevifrons, a

predator of mangrove oysters, is common in oysterdominated middens, but they may have been harvested

directly for food. Wilcox (1904) reported that no oyster

cultivation or husbandry was practiced at the turn of

the century. The only husbandry mentioned by Mattox

(1949) was the removal ofmurex when encountered by

fishermen. Mattox made specific recommendations to

improve oyster harvests. These included the enhancement of settling substrate by planting stakes of mangrove branches into shallow, open areas, banning the

cutting of mangrove roots for the harvest of oysters,
230 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Figure 4

Taino shell-midden located on the south side of Boqueron Bay. Left: Entire midden; vertical

rod is 3 feet long. Right: closeup view of the midden; horizontal rod is 3 feet long.

and regulating the diversion of fresh water away from

lagoonal areas. This last situation was particularly worrisome in Boqueron where freshwater was being diverted

for agriculture. Occasionally salinities reached a peak

of 40%0; furthermore, reproduction could have been

affected by attenuating an important spawning cue.

In the early 1970's, Watters and Prinslow (1975) and

Watters and Acosta Martinez (1976) made specific studies into the mariculture of mangrove oysters, using

natural sets. Their principal method was to enhance

settling substrate with plaster-covered boards suspended

from rafts. Despite complete biological and economic

studies using cheap and locally available materials which

showed the feasibility of such culture, none of their

techniques were adopted.

The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board establishes standards for water quality. A year-long study

conducted in 19831 found no enteroviruses in oysters
Appeldoorn: The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Mangrove Oyster, and Other Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico 231

Prognosis for the Future

Table 2

Estimated landings in pounds of mangrove oysters (by

coast and total) for Puerto Rico and price per pound.

Data from the Fisheries Research Laboratory, Dept.

Nat. Resour.

Landings (pounds) Price

per

Year West South North East Total pound

1972 62,500 0 0 0 62,500 0.92

1973 37,500 0 0 0 37,500 1.00

1974 51,250 2,500 0 0 53.750 1.00

1975 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 1.00

1976 95,000 0 0 0 95,000 1.00

1977 73,750 0 0 0 75,000 1.00

1978 69,231 4,396 1,099 0 74,726 1.00

1979 66,000

1980 68,000

1981 48,000

1982 68,000

1983 87,811 0 0 339 88.150 1.27

1984 82,368 13 170 34 8~,585 1.38

1985 51,184 0 1,241 0 52,425 1.23

from Boqueron, although coliform bacteria were found

in oysters near the two outfalls; water near the outfalls

always exceeded maximum contamination level for shellfish growing waters, while areas away from the outfalls

exceeded this level only on occasion. The study also

reported several undocumented cases of hepatitis resulting from the consumption of raw oysters. The areas

near sewage outfalls are now closed to shellfishing.

In an effort to preserve mangroves, as opposed to

enhancing oyster production, the cutting of mangroves

has been banned, and this is enforced by the Puerto

Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER). Recently, efforts have been made to

return a freshwater flow into Rincon Lagoon in

Boqueron. This effort has been led by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the DNER. Again, this was not

done with oysters in mind, but to preserve wildlife, principally birds, in the areas of Cartagena Lagoon (source of

the fresh water flowing toward Boqueron) and the

Boqueron Bird Sanctuary, adjacent to Rincon Lagoon.

The latter area had originally been diked off from the

lagoon by DNER to create an open, freshwater habitat for

birds, but it is now periodically opened to allow exchange

of fresh and salt water. At present there are no specific

management measures regulating the level of harvest.

I Hazen T. C., and E. W. Billmire. 1985. Assessment and control of

enteric virus contamination of shellfish in tropical waters. Univ.

Puerto Rico, Sea Grant Prog. Final Rep. EN/P-45, 31 p.

The current fishery in Boqueron appears stable. Principal threats to its continued productivity are coastal

development, which could degrade water quality in the

lagoon and adjacent Boqueron Bay, and overfishing,

Based on reported catch levels, the lagoon is highly

productive and can withstand heavy fishing, Nevertheless, the chronically high levels of unemployment in

Puerto Rico could drive others into the fishery, resulting in overfishing.

Over the past 10 years the mangrove areas in Puerto

Rico have stabilized and in some areas have increased.

Areas near La Parguera and Playa Santa are now state

forests, and the outer portion ofJobos Bay is now managed under the U.S. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Thus, there is potential to enhance production

by rehabilitating such once-productive areas. At present,

Puerto Rico has no policy on the use of public water for

commercial mariculture, so it is unlikely mariculture

will soon be forthcoming.

Other Species _

Several other mollusks are harvested commercially and

recreationally in Puerto Rico, but for most, there is little

or no historical or current information. The fisheries for a

few of the more important species are briefly reviewed.

Thick Lucine, Lucina pectinatus

The thick lucine, sometimes called mud clam, is a common deposit-feeding bivalve that reaches a maximum

length of 4-5 cm (Warmke and Abbott, 1961). It is

found in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, buried

deep in the firm mud oflagoonal channels, particularly

in mangrove habitats. Sanders Mair (1976), working off

La Parguera on the southwest coast, reported densities

up to 81m2• Water temperatures varied from 24 to

35°C, and salinities varied from 32 to 39%0, with greatest changes occurring after heavy rains.

This species is common in Taino shell middens located near appropriate habitats (Fig. 3). Jarvis (1932)

reported that clams were occasionally harvested with

the aid of a pointed stick in Boca Congrejos (near San

Juan) and other lagoons. He did not mention which

species, but the most likely possibilities were Lucina or

Mercenaria. In southwest Puerto Rico, the thick lucine is

currently harvested in the area of La Parguera (Fig. 1)

and sold raw to tourists at the same kiosks selling mangrove oysters (Fig. 5). Since this species shares its habitat with that of the mangrove oyster, its history of habitat loss and future potential are similar.
232 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127 _

Figure 5

Top: closeup of kiosk showing piles of mangrove oysters (left) and mud clams (right). Bottom:

typical kiosks in Boqueron selling raw shellfish.

Hard Clam, Mercenaria spp.

Three taxa of hard clam, all exotic, occur in Puerto

Rico: Mercenaria mercenaria, M. mercenaria natata, and M.

campechiensis. The distribution and commercial importance of hard clams was reviewed by Juste and Cortes

(1990). Hard clams occur only in specific areas; the

mechanisms for their introduction are unknown, but

they must have occurred during the period of Spanish

colonization. The areas of occurrence are Catano Lagoon and Torrecilla Lagoon on the north coast, Fajardo

and Ceiba on the east coast, and Playa Santa on the

south coast (Fig. 1). In Catano Lagoon, maximum temperatures reach 38°C and salinity varies between 15 and

34%0; clams were found only in the sandy sediments

occurring near shore.
Appeldoorn: The Fisheries for the Queen Conch, Mangrove Oyster, and Other Shelled Mollusks of Puerto Rico 233

In Torrecilla Lagoon, commercial harvesting of clams

is thought to have existed for over 100 years, but it

ceased in 1986-87. Several toxic acid spills occurred at

that time which may have been responsible for killing

large numbers of clams. In Fajardo, hard clams are

commercially harvested from Isleta Marina, a small island just offshore, and sold by fishermen to retailers.

They were also fished off Playa Santa, at the small island

of EI Obispo, but overfishing has reportedly reduced

the population to near extinction.

West Indian Top Shell, Cittarium pica

The top shell is common among the coral reef habitats

of Puerto Rico and reaches a maximum dimension of

about 10 cm (Warmke and Abbott, 1961). Although no

records are available, this species is quite popular and is

fished by commercial (mostly part-time) and recreational fishermen. They are collected by hand by wading along the top of reefs, or by skin and scuba diving.

Jarvis (1932) reported that various gastropods were

collected, and the top shell must have been one of

these.

West Indian Fighting Conch, Strombus pugilis

The fighting conch reaches a maximum shell length of

10 cm. It occurs primarily in soft, silty-sand bottoms in

sheltered areas, but may occur offshore in clean sand

areas. It is very common in Puerto Rico (Warmke and

Abbott, 1961).

The fishery for fighting conch has only recently developed. It is fished primarily for its shell, which is sold

in large numbers to tourists, either directly or via

artisanal shellcraft. The extracted meat is not wasted,

but is used as a substitute for queen conch as a filling

for "empanadillas." No records are kept on the levels of

harvest, but Reed (1992) documented that fishermen

harvested one entire population, estimated at 10,000

individuals, in less than a week.

Milk Conch, Strombus costatus

This species is smaller than the queen conch (<17 cm

shell length) and has a thicker shell. It is fairly common

and found in roughly the same habitats as queen conch,

but prefers slightly softer sediments.

The milk conch is occasionally fished by recreational

and part-time commercial fishermen. Despite its abundance, its smaller size and thicker shell make it less

attractive to full-time conch fishermen.

Caribbean Donax, Donax denticulatus

The donax species is common along the sandy beaches

of Puerto Rico and reaches 2.5 cm in length (Warmke

and Abbott, 1961). It has been found in pre-Columbian

shell middens dating back to the Igneri culture (Rainey,

1940). While Warmke and Abbott (1961) make no mention ofits fishery importance, they stated that it is good

in chowder or served over rice.

Donax has the local distinction of having an annual

festival celebrated in its honor. This is held in the town

of Ailasco, just north of Mayagiiez on the west coast.

The clams are served as a filling in "pastelies. "

Acknowledgments _

I would like to acknowledge the Fisheries Research

Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources for supplying unpublished landings statistics.Juan Posada drew

the maps.

Literature Cited

Appeldoorn, R. S.

1991. History and recent status of the Puerto Rican conch

fishery. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 40:267-282.

1992. Preliminary calculations of sustainable yield for queen

conch (Strombus gigas) in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

Islands. Proc. GulfCaribb. Fish. Inst. 41:95-105.

Appeldoorn, R. S., and D. L. Ballantine.

1983. Field release of cultured queen conch in Puerto Rico:

Implications for stock restoration. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish.

Inst. 35:89-98.

Appeldoorn, R. S., and S. Meyers.

1993. Fisheries resources ofPuerto Rico and Hispaniola. FAO

Fish. Tech. Pap. 326:99-158.

Ballantine, D. L., and R. S. Appeldoorn.

1983. Queen conch culture and future prospects in Puerto

Rico. Proc. Gulf. Caribb. Fish. Inst. 35:57-63.

Dall. W. H., and C. T. Simpson.

1902. The mollusca of Porto Rico. Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm.

20:351-524.

Gundlach, D.].

1883. Apuntes para la fauna Puerto-Riquena. Anal. Soc. Espan.

Hist. Nat. 12:5-58,441-484.

Heatwole, H.

1985. Survey of the mangroves of Puerto Rico ... A benchmark study. Caribb.]. Sci. 21:85-103.

Inigo, F.

1963. Desarrollo pesquero en Puerto Rico. Rev. Agric. Puerto

Rico 50:83-104.

Jarvis, N. D.

1932. The fisheries of Puerto Rico. U.S. Dep. Commer., Bur.

Fish., Invest. Rep. 13,41 p.

Juste, V., and R. Cortes.

1990. Distribution and biological aspects of the hard clam

Mercenaria mercenaria (Linnaeus), M. mercenaria notata (Say),

and M. campechiensis (Gmelin) in Puerto Rico. Caribb.]. Sci.

26:136-140.
234 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 127

Kjerfve, B.

1981. Tides of the Caribbean Sea. J. Geophys. Res.

86(C5):4243-4247.

Matos Caraballo, D., and Y. Sadovy.

1990. Overview of Puerto Rico's small-scale fisheries statistics

1988-1989. CODREMAR, Puerto Rico, Tech. Rep. 1(4):1-

17.

Mattox, N. T.

1949. Studies of the biology of the edible oyster, Ostrea

rhizophorae Guilding, in Puerto Rico. Ecol. Monogr. 19:

339-356.

McLean, R. A.

1951. The Pelecypoda or bivalve mol1usks of Porto Rico. NY

Acad. Sci., Sci. Surv. Porto Rico and Virgin lsI. 17(1):1-183.

Rainey. F. G.

1940. Porto Rican archaeology. N.Y. Acad. Sci., Sci. Surv. of

Porto Rico and Virgin lsI. 18(1):1-~08.

Reed, S. E.

1992. Reproductive anatomy, biology and behavior of the

genus Strombus in the Caribbean with emphasis on Strombus

pugilis. Univ. Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Ph.D. dissert., 149 p.

Rouse, I.

1952. Porto Rican prehistory: Introduction; excavations in

the west and north. N.Y. Acad. Sci., Sci. Surv. Porto Rico and

Virgin lsI. 18(3) :307-460.

Sanders Mair, I. M.

1976. Contribution to the ecology of the mud clam, Lucina

pectinatus (Eulamel1ibranchia, Lucinidae). Univ. Puerto Rico,

Mayaguez, M.S. thesis, 75 p.

Stahl. A.

1882. Fauna de Puerto Rico. Imprenta Bol. Mercantil, 242 p.

Stoner, A. W., M. D. Hanisak, N. P. Smith, and R. A. Armstrong.

1994. Large-scale distribution of queen conch nursery habitats: Implications for stock enhancement, p. 169-189. In R.

S. Appeldoorn and B. Rodriguez Q. (eds.), Queen conch

biology, fisheries and mariculture. Fund. Cientifica Los

Roques, Caracas, Venez.

Warmke, G. L., and R. T. Abbott.

1961. Caribbean seashells. Livingston Publ. Co.. Narberth,

Pa., 348 p.

Watters, K. W., and P. Acosta Martinez.

1976. A method for the cultivation of the mangrove oyster in

Puerto Rico. Contrib. Agrop. Pesq., Dep. Agric. Puerto Rico

8(1):1-35.

Watters, K. W., and T. E. Prinslow.

1975. Culture of the mangrove oyster. Crassostrea rhizophorae

Guilding, in Puerto Rico. Proc. World Maricult. Soc. 6:

221-233.

Wilcox, W. A.

1900. Notes on the foreign fishery trade and local fisheries of

Porto Rico. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., Rep. Comm. 1899, 25:

1-34.

1904. The fisheries and fish trade of Porto Rico in 1902. U.S.

Bur. Fish.. Rep. 28:367-395.
NOAA Technical Reports NMFS

Technical Reports ofthe Fishery Bulktin

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 lDethods, Results,

Discussion (or Conclusions), and AclmowledgJDents. Headings within each

section must be short, reflect a logical sequence, and follow the rules of multiple

subdivision (i.e. there can 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 Office

S!yle Manual (1984 ed.) and the CBE S!yle

Manual (5th ed.) for editorial style, and

the most current issue of the American

Fisheries Socie!y's Common and Scientific

Names of Fishes .from the Uniud Stales and

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-ease eI Q).

Tezt 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. Where 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 Serinl Sources jOr the

BIOSIS Previews Database. Authors are

responsible for 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 point~ 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.

Submission

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 WordPerfect

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 NatioMI Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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 technic~ infortnation in

the following kinds of publications:

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS-Important definitive

research results, major techniques, and special

investigations.

CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS-Reports

prepared 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 par~

tiallisting includes data serials; predictions and outlook

periodicals; technical manuals, training papers, planning reports, and infonnation 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.

Information on availability of NOAA publuations 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: 1997-PROG 2057-5140009