A current investigation is being conducted by Dr. B. B. Brandt, Professor of Zoology, North Carolina State College, who has been collecting young shad and studying their rate of development and other aspects of their ecology for a number of years. He has concentrated his efforts on the spawning grounds of the Roanoke River area and Albenlarle Sound. In the former area he has not found many adults, but from the latter area he has taken most of his specimens, both young and adult. He has made observation on plankton, water quality, and interspecific competition among fishes in the area.

The U. S. F. W. S. Laboratory a t Beaufort is the headquarters of the current shad investigations group. The plans of this group call for a systenlatic study which began on the Connecticut River and has been moving southward, reaching the Chesa- peake in 1952. At present, therefore, the group cannot offer an opinion on the shad situation in North Carolina. In 1953 work will be undertaken in North and South Carolina and Dr. G. B. Talbot states (in Iztt.) that a t least one North Carolina stream will be investigated intensively.

SHAD FISHERIES LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA There are few specific references to shad in the current laws. Most of the laws

have to do with the prescribing of what nets may or may not be used in very circum- scribed areas. Parts of the Cape Fear River and Albemarle Sound have been closed to shad fishing. There is an arbitrary division between Commercial Fishing Waters and Inland Waters which are administered respectively by the Commercial Fisheries Division of the Department of Conservation and Development and thc Wildlife Re- sources Commission. Inland waters are closed to nets. In general the division points are set f a r enough up the rivers that they do not have any appreciable effect upon shad fishing. Short stretches of the Catawba and Pee Dee Rivers are open for conlmercial fishing above the South Carolina line. In the case of the Catawba there are large power dams downstream in South Carolina so that shad can not penetrate to the hTorth Carolina portion.

The 1951 General Assembly greatly simplified the fishing laws of the State, according to verbal reports, but these laws are not a t present available. The closed season extends from April 25 to January 1 in the northern part of the State, and from April 1'5 to January 1 in the Southern part of North Carolina. The season is closed on Sunday, and legal size of the net mesh is one and one-eighth inch bar , measure.

TREND IN THE NORTH CAROLINA SHAD FISHERIES As mentioned above, Roelofs (1951) made a general analysis of the statistics

on the annual production of shad. However, a niore comprehensive interpretation ' is possible. The production of a little over 8,900,000 pounds of shad for 1897, was the zenith of the catch in North Carolina waters. Prior to that period the statistics, beginning a t over 3,200,000 pounds in 18180, illustrate how fishing intensity, with a I resultant greater annual harvest, was increased by such factors as: (1) better fishing methods; (2) more men entering the fishery, probably North Carolinians taking a lesson from the transients from the northern states who were exploiting their fishery; ( 3 ) more markets and better transportation facilities. After the turn of the century there was a gradual decline in production which might have been due as much to industrial expansion in the Southern States, which lured the younger men from fishing careers, as to the number of fishermen exceeding the supply of shad.

Fy 1908, only 44 percent of the 1897 harvest was landed; by 1918, only 18 per- cent was taken; between 1923 and 1929 production was up to roughly 29 percent of the 1897 level. From 1930 to 1946, with five years lacking in sfatistics, the annual production has averaged about 1,090,000 pounds, or about 12 percent of the 1897 level. This sustained level of production is probably indicative of a uniform har- vesting procedure, a relatively even turnover of fishing personnel, and the generally uniform demand for shad by the public. Such rationalization is difficult to justify because of the absence of objective data on the economics of shad fishermen. Since 1945 the harvest has been recorded by bienniums. For 1947 through 1950, the annuaI production has averaged 450,000 pounds, or about five percent of the 1897 production. The reasons for such a decline (see Figure 11) in the shad catch can be summarized only with broad generalizations which may include (1) the complex, interlocking factors of increased fishing intensity; ( 2 ) the changes in the physical and chemical qualities of waterways brought about by man; and (3) a combination of the so-called "overfishing," poor law enforcement, dams, over-exploitation a t spawning grounds.

51

NORTH CAROLINA -

- 1880-1950 DISCONTINUOUS

YEAR FIGURE 11

ANNUAL ClATCH STATIlSTICS OF SHAD LN NORTlH CAR0LI)NA Year Poulzds Value 1880 3,221,000 * 1887 4,746,000 * $298,069 1888 5,693,000 * 295,029 1889 5,356,000 * 280,198 1890 5,768,000 * 306,015 18916 8,843,000 * 417$43 1897 8,963,000 * 362,811 1902 6,567,000 * 884,808 1904 3,300,000 ** 31&,950 1908 3,942,000 * 373,000 1918 1,657,000 * 376,000 1923 2,370,000 * 582,5911 1927 2,387,000 * 475,292 1928 3,118,000 * 573,007 1929 1,913,000 * 350,424 1930 1,172,000 * 209,989 1931 883,000 * 139,409 1932 925,000 * 125,926 1934 1,274,000 * 193,187 1'936 1,095,000 * 176,627 1937 698,000 * 106,151 1938 1,032,000 * 164,571 1939 859,000 * 137,310 1940 801,000 * 119,505 1945 912,000 * 198,613 1945-1946 Biennium 1,800,00,0 *** 450,000 1947-1948 900,000 "** 225,000 1949-1950 900,000 *** 225,000

* Based on statistics compiled by various agencies of the Federal government. ** Based on statistics published by Smith (!907).

*** Based on figures piiblished by the Division of Gommerical Fishes, The Department of Conservation and Development of the State of North Carolina.

SHAD FISHERIES OF VIRGINIA EARLY HISTORY OF SHAD FISHERIES OF VIRGINIA

In the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries are located the principal shad fisheries of America. William Byrd, in his N a t z ~ ~ a l History of Vir- ginia, written in 1737, published some of the earliest references to shad on record. He stated, "There are also many beautiful shads on the sea-coasts. They are caught in great numbers in the summer [but] are somewhat bony." Annually, the large aggregation of shad passes through the 12-mile entrance between Capes Charles and Henry, and the migrations ascend the James, York, Rappahannock, Potomac, and the rivers above. Stevenson (1899) expressed this matter as follows : Approximately 5,000,000 shad, 40 percent of the product on the entire Atlantic Coast, passes into Chesapeake Bay, of which 5010,0~00 entered the James, and equal quantity up the York, nearly as many up the Rappahannock, 1,250,000 in the meantime being caught on the shores of the Bay below Smith Island, reducing the number to 2260,000 by the time the mouth of the Potomac is reached. The Potomac River attracted about 750,000 leaving 1,501),000 to pass into the middle and upper waters of Chesapeake Bay and tributaries.

Thomas Jefferson is said to have brought shad to Monticello, and George Wash- ington, a resident of Virginia, was in the fish business and frequently made notes concerning the shad fishery on the Potomac in his diary between the years 1748 and 1799, according to Jackson (1934). He employed a considerable number of people in the fishery near his Mount Vernon estate. He carefully observed the weather conditions and their effect on the catch. He also kept tab on the supply and demand for fish in the markets. For example, he wrote on April 20, 1787, "The Shad began to run today, having 100, 200 and 300 a t a draught.'' The presence of a bountiful supply of fish in the Potomac during the post-Revolutionary days, when there were only a few fishermen engaged in the industry, is evidenced by his entry for April 4, 1788, "Caught 500 shad today." Washington also leased fishing rights and privi- leges on his Potomac shores. Further shad records noted in his diary are repro- duced below :

"April 10, 1771. Began to Haul the Seine, the few fish were catched, and those of the Shad kind, owing to the coolness of the Weather. Many Shad had been catched on the Maryland shore."

"April 1,1788. Made a draught with the Sein this evening a t the Ferry landing, 1

and caught 15 shad and a few hundreds of Herrings a t one haul." Washington marketed his shad in Baltimore and he undoubtedly disposed of

some a t Georgetown and Alexandria. He salted large quantities for feeding his I own slaves and probably sold some for the same purpose to his neighbors. I

The United States Commissioner of Fisheries, writing in his report for 1873- 74-75,, gave some idea of the abundance of shad about 35 years after the death of Washington: "In the Gazetter of Virginia, published in 1835, is the statement . . . that 'the number of shad frequently obtained a t a haul is 4,000 and upward. * * * I

The lowest prices a t which these fishes sell when just taken . . . [is] . . . $1.50 per hundred for shad, but they generally bring higher prices, often . . . from $3 to $4 per hundred . . . In the height of the season, a single shad, weighing from 6 to 8 pounds, is sold in the markets of the District for 6 cents.' ''

Jackson (1934) stated that "The catch of shad in 1835, before the depletion of the fishery began, was 22,500,000 as compared with 884,000 pounds in 1922. . . . * * * The records of the Bureau show that the fish were most depleted in 1873 with a catch of only 186,000 pounds and that a great improvement followed the intro- duction of artificial hatching of shad by the Bureau of Fisheries. After five years of this work the catch increased to 868,9010 and this approximate balance has been annually maintained since, fair proof that the shad fishery is largely dependent upon artificial propagation. * * * " Actually, this apparent upsurge in production cannot be correlated with the output from artificial stocking. Subsequent stocking, particu- larly during the last three or four decades has shown that there has been no incrqse, but actually a decline in numbers of shad harvested. This has followed in spite of improved hatchery methods, and greatly augmented hatching o f shad fry.

In an article, Shad in the Potomac, 1854 to 1881, Mr. Withers Waller, writing from Markham, Fauquier County, Virginia, showed the rapid decline of the fishery: "When I commenced fishing in 1854 there were fifty large seines hauled on the Potomac. Now I doubt if there are more than eight or ten. During all the years from 1854 to 1860, inclusive, fish were very abundant with the exception of 1857, when there were scarcely any [and] the fishermen lost heavily. From IS54 to 1860

513

we caught an average each year of 1,500,000 herring and 30,000 shad, with the exception of 1857 when there were no fish. In 1861, '62, '63, '64, '65, and '66 there was no fishing on the Virginia side as low down the river as Stafford County, near Aquia Creek, and I suppose very little anywhere on the Potomac. 1877 and 1878 were good seasons, the catch amounting to from 800,000 to 1,000,000 herring and 15,000 shad. I n 1879 there were scarcely any fish. With a seine 1,200 fathoms long, and worked with fifty men and seven horses, I caught only 150,000 herring and 4,000 shad during the season of thirty days. Since then there has been a gradual increase, ranging from 300,000 to 400,000 herring and 8,000 shad, which scarcely paid expenses, and unless there is a change within the next five years there will not be a large seine hauled on the Potomac." (Jackson, 1934.)

Stevenson (1899) critically examined the shad fisheries of Virginian waters, and his observations for each river in the lower Chesapeake Bay a rea a r e very pertinent. He noted that shad appeared to pass up the Bay mainly along the western shore, attracted by the fresh water from the large tributaries entering on tha t side. Over 90 percent of the total catch was obtained on t ha t shore. He stated, "If con- ditions a re such tha t during the early season the waters of the rivers a r e warmer than those of the Chesapeake, large runs of shad occur up the rivers. But if rains and melting snows send down cold waters during April and May, then the shad remain longer in the bay and large catches a re made there. I n this section of the Chesapeake shad a re taken almost exclusively by means of pound nets, this being the location of the most extensive pound-net fishery on the Atlantic Coast."

Stevenson declared, "Within an area 70 miles long and 10 miles widc, covering the western side of the bay and the mouths of the tributaries from the James to the Potomac rivers, there were set in the spring of 1896, 738 pound nets, worth $185,025, taking 1,638,593 shad, worth $156,950 a t local prices. Of the above, 334 nets, taking 566,752 shad, were located in the mouths of the various rivers, leaving 404 nets, with a yield of 1,071,841 shad, a s the number on the western shore of the bay proper." H e described two nets set in Lynnhaven Roads in three o r four fathoms of water, one net being set off the head of the other. They were very large, the leaders being 3127 fathoms in length, with 3% inch mesh, and the crib 50 by 60 feet with 2% mesh. Other nets were set nlostly in strings of six or seven each, but sometimes many more. Stevenson described in detail the specific areas where shad fisheries were

, located. iffobjack Bay.-This area located on the lower western portion of Chesapeake

: Eay, receives the waters of a number of small streams, the Severn, Ware, North and Eas t rivers. It is a side elongation of Chesapeake Bay, 12 miles i n length and

t three or four miles wide, with depth of water ranging from 18 to 25 feet. Pound I nets were the only gear used Tor taking shad, the number in 1896 being 76.

James River.-The James is formed by the junction of Jackson and Cowpasture : rivers in Botetourt County and empties into Chesapeake Bay about 20 miles from

the ocean. The total length is about 335 miles, and in the lower portion the width ranges from two to six miles, while from the entrance of the Chickahominy, 50 miles from the mouth, to the entrance of the Appomattox the average width of the river is less than one mile. At the entrance of the Appomattos the fluvial characteristics begin, and to Richmond the banks a r e quite steep and the course narrow and tortuous. A t Richmond there a re numerous falls and rapids extending through a rocky bed a distance of three miles, in which the total descent is about 84 feet, and in these rapids Stevenson reported in 1896 tha t several dams supplied power to mills in Richmond and Manchester. These obstructions, however, did not entirely block the upward passage of shad, being low and extending only partly across the stream. Bosher's Dam, from nine to twelve feet in height and 900 feet in length, m-as located nine miles above Richmond, and this formed a permanent barrier to the ascent of shad. In addition there were 14 dams from nine to 16 feet high within the 200 miles above Bosher's Dam. Prior to the erection of these obstructions large numbers of shad ascended as f a r a s the junction of Jackson and Cowpasture rivers, and were taken in considerable quantities in those two tributaries over 335 miles from Chesa- peake Bay. According to Marshall McDonald, the annual catch of shad between Richmond and Lynchburg was a t one time f a r in excess of the present yield for the entire river, and even in the "Valley of Virginia," west of the Blue Ridge, seine fisheries were operated with profit. From April 1 to April 10, 1779, 2,200 shad were taken in one seine located a t Wood Island, 10 miles above Richmond. During 1,896 few shad passed above the falls a t Richmond, and practically none went higher than Bosher's Dam. The shad fisheries of the James were naturally divided into

54

three geographical sections. (1) From Chesapeake Bay to Chickahominy River. The principal form of gear below the Chickahominy was the stake net, with an occasional pound net and seine. The season began during the first week of March and ended about the last week of April. Fishing could have been extended several weeks later, but because of the low prices of shad and the deleterious effect of the warm water on the nets i t was not generally profitable. Even with less than two months' fishing it was usually necessary to replace the nets a t least once. (2) From Chickahominy to Appomattox. Drift nets and seines were used by men living a t Claremont, Sandy Point, Coggins Point, and City Point. Stevenson noted that between the two rivers there were formerly many seine beaches, most of which were then abandoned because of the unprofitableness of the fishery, and in one or two oases, destruction of the beaches by engineering operations tending to improve the navigation of the river. (3) From Appomattox to Bosher's Dam. Drift nets were the only gear used by fishermen a t Bermuda Hundred, Turkey Creek, Deep Bottom, Dutch Gap, Cox and Graveyard Reaches. In the falls of Richmond there were numerous finger and fall traps in which several hundred shad were taken annually.

Chickahominy Rive?*.-This river, once considered one of the finest shad streams of the United States for its size, rises in Henrico County, 12 miles northwest of Richmond, and after flowing a distance of 60 miles empties into James River 50 mnes from the Chesapeake Bay. Shad fisheries extended throughout the length of the river, but were most extensive in the vicinity of Lanexa. A short distance above Providence Forge, where the river is only a few feet in width, there were three or four hedges or pockets, each consisting of a crude dam, two or three feet high, per- mitting the passage of shad only through the current passing through an opening therein. Fishermen were said to stand a t this opening with a net in hand to scoop out such fish as might attempt the passage. At the hedges in 1896, 1,800 shad were taken, the greater portion of which were either ripe or had alrfiady spawned. Drift nets and seines were used to harvest shad. Stevenson stated, Chickahominy River in the vicinity of Lanexa presents favorable conditions for the establishment of an auxiliary shad hatchery. " * * J J

Appomattox River.-This river, the longest tributary of the James, rises in Appomattox county, and after flowing about 140 miles empties into the James a t City Point. Shad ascended only 13 niiles to Petersburg, their progress above being barred by numerous rapids and dams. In a distance of 6% miles above the city there were five dams in 1896, each from 2% to eight feet high, and numerous falls I

and rapids,. giving the total descent of 110 feet. Shad were taken by means of drift nets and selnes, the former operated a t Broadway, ~Covington Beach and Swift Creek. The fishermen lived niostly in Petersburg, camped on the shores during the season and paid the owners for the privilege at the rate of one shad per week per fisherman. I In the falls just above Petersburg there were about 20 fall or finger traps in 1896.

York River.-The York is formed by the junction of Pamunkey and Mattaponi ! rivers at West Point, and, following a southeasterly course for a distance of 41 miles, I

it unites with Chesapeake Bay about 16 miles north of Fort Monroe. Pound nets I

and stake nets represented the principal gears used in the shad fisheries, but a few shad were taken in fyke nets and seines. The catch of shad in 1896 was 182,375, of which the pound nets yielded 138,8195, stake nets 42,640, fyke nets 590, and seines 250. The pound net fisheries were located between York Spit Light and Gloucester Point, near Tue Point and Poquoson Flats, a t Plum Point. Stake nets were located on both sides of the channel from Cappahosack to West Point. Except sufficient for local use, all the catch was sent to Baltimore by steamers.

Pasn~tnkey River.-This river, which takes its name from a local tribe of Indians, the remnant of which is yet engaged in shad fishing, is formed by the junction of the North Anna and South Anna Rivers and flows 100 miles to its union with the Mattaponi a t West Point Shad ascended its length in considerable numbers, but were talren in greatest abundance in the lower 30 miles. Of the 184,257 shad caught in 1896, 180,642 were taken by means of drift nets, 2,334 by seines, and 1,281 in stake . nets. The fisheries were concentrated around Lester Manor, Williams Ferry, White House, Smith Ferry, Sweet Hall and Hanover Courthouse. Shad were not recorded above the latter locality, and probably none were taken in South Anna and North Anna rivers. Sltevenson stated that the Paniunkey between Hill's Landing and White House Station was well-adapted for shad-hatching operations, and he gave several reasons.

Mattapo~zi River.-This river rises in Spottsylvania County, and after flowing over 120 miles, unites with the Parnunkey. Drift nets and haul seines were the means of capturing shad, of which a large portion of the catch was sold locally, but most

55

of it was sent by boat to be hauled across land to the West Point branch of the Southern Railway, and then shipped to Richmond and other distant markets.

Rappuhan?zock River.-This river rises on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains, in Fauquier and Rappahannock Counties, and crosses the Fall Line a t Fredericksburg, 106 miles from its mouth. About two miles above Fredericksburg there was a dam 900 feet long and 18 feet high, built in 1860 for water power, which became the upstream boundary of shad. The shad fisheries were divided into three sections: (1) From Chesapeake Bay to Deep Creelc. This section ranges from 2%-4 miles in width. Pound nets, the only gear used for shad, were introduced in this locality in 1872. Nets were located between Windmill Point Light and Windmill Point Creek, between Mosquito Point and Corrotoman River, between Corrotoman and Deep Creek, between Urbanna Creek and Parrott Creek. Most of the fish were sent to Baltimore by steamers. (2) From Deep Creek to Layton. The total catch of shad in 18916 in this section was 171,080 valued locally a t $13,489 of which 104,118 were taken in sltake nets, 51,575 in pound nets, 7,580 in drift nets, 6,792 in seines, and 1,105 in fyke nets. Prior to 1885 a hatchery was operated on the river opposite the Portobago seine fishery, the eggs from which were used for artificial propagation, the hatchery being 71 miles from the mouth. (3) From Portobago Bay to Fredericks- burg. This section consists of a tortuous stream, 356 miles in length, in which drift nets, pound nets, and seines were used for taking shad. At the extreme upper limit, in Falmouth Falls above Fredericksburg, there were several fall or finger traps. The drift nets and pound nets were used from Portobago Bay to Hop Yard, the lower 17 miles, and the seines were used a t the two extremities. Of the 52,642 shad obtained in 1896, 312,774 were caught by drift nets, 16,562 by pound nets, 2,948 by seines, and 58 by fall traps. In the short drifts, fishing was prosecuted only during slack water. When the water was clear fishing was restricted to night; when i t was muddy the fishermen operated mostly during the day.

Potomac River.--Although the Potomac River forms the boundary line between Virginia and Maryland, it is located politically within the limits of the latter State. By a compact made in 1785, a right of fishing in this river, the binding power of which remains questionable in Maryland, was enjoyed alike by the citizens of the two states. Although the former fisheries of the Potomac are described under the discussion of shad in Maryland, the yield of shad on the Potomac during 1896 num-

I bered 684,063 of which 450,825 worth $43,084 were taken by residents of Virginia. 1 I

I PRESENT SHAD FISHERIES IN VIRGINIA

The summary presented below is based on observations made by Mr. William Massmann, biologist of the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, and those made by Cable

I I and Hollis (1949). For further details, see Massmann (1952). Shad are taken a t I I the following areas and rivers:

Mobjack Bay is fished rather intensively by a small group of fishermen, although this fishing ground is not comparable in magnitude to those up the rivers. In the James River pound nets are found from Hampton Roads to the vicinity of Jamestown Island. Shake gill nets are used from Burwell Bay upstream to probably a location not as f a r as Hopewell. Hoop fykes are used from the vicinity of Jamestown Island to Turkey Island. Drift netting is carried out a t Wyanoke Point to Windmill Point, and off Hopewell. According to Mr. Massmann fishermen catch ripe shad a t Windmill Point and Wyanoke Point. Both anglers and commercial fishermen operate below the dam a t Walkers, erected in 1943. In the Appomattox River shad fishing is done by drift-netting in Old Walthal Channel near Point of Rocks; very little fishing occurs above this point. Stake nets are abundant a t the mouth of the Chickahominy River, and drift-netting takes place around and between Watts Point and Lanexa. In this area eight or ten haul seines are used, but they are primarily for herring; shad are taken incidentally. Shad are taken up to the dam in the Chickahominy.

The York River, and its components, Poquoson River to the south and Mobjack Bay to the north, are intensively fished. Pound nets are located in the York from the mouth to Clay Bank. Set gill nets are used from Pages Rock to West Point. Hoop fykes are used from Pages Rack to West Point. In the Pamunkey River, stake gill nets are used in the vicinity of West Point, and drift gill nets are fished from West Point to White House, the upper limit of the fishery. However, shad are known to ascend a t least to a point about six miles below the bridge on U. S. Highway Route 360. White House is also the upper limit of the commercial shad fishery because the river above this point is full of snags that prevent drift-netting. No haul seines are known to be used. In the Mattaponi River stake gill nets afford good shad fishing

56

In the vicinity of West Point, and this gear is replaced with drift gill nets from West Point to Walherton. Commercial fishing in the Mattaponi extends only five or six miles above the Mattaponi Indian Reservation. Few if any haul seines are used. The State operates a hatchery on the Pamunkey and Mattaponi rivers, hoping that stocked shad f ry will augment production. To date there has been no indication that shad production has increased due to artificial propagation.

Pound nets extend in the Rappahannock River from the mouth to Fones Cliffs. The pounds are more numerous near the river. Stake gill nets extend from Junes Point to the vicinity of Port Royal. Drift gill nets operate from Horsehead Point to Long Point. Haul seines are known to harvest shad a t Tappahannock, Leytonk Landing and Portabago Bay, and may be used elsewhere in the river. The Rappa- hannock River shad migration extends more than 95 miles, that is to the dam a t Fredericksburg.

The commercial shad fisheries on the Potomac River are concentrated currently from just south of Alexandria, to almost the mouth of the river for a distance of over 50 miles. Virtually no shad are caught by commercial fishermen a t or above Washington, D. C., but a sport fishery for shad has developed in recent years below Great Falls. Below Fort Belvoir to the area opposite King George drift nets are used. Stake nets are abundant along the Virginia side of the Potomac down to the region of Hague and Mt. Holly. Here they begin to merge into the pound nets of Westmoreland and Northumberland counties, where the greatest catches of shad are reported for the river.

Within Chesapeake Bay proper of Virginia, pound nets form the largest fishery for shad, and are usually fished in as deep water a s is consistent with regulations enforced by U. S. Engineers. There are heavy concentrations of pound nets all along the western shore of thefBay. There are few pound nets set for shad below Pocomoke Sound on the Eastern Shore presumably because shad do not enter the shallower waters available there for fishing ((Cable and Hollis, 1949). Possibly the lack of fresh water entering the Bay is an important factor in the lack of numbers of shad in this area. In the lower sections of the river of Virginia pound nets of smaller size than those of the bay are extensively used; further up the rivers stake gill nets, haul seines and fykes are employed. Drift gill nets and smaller haul seines form the principal fishery well up the rivers. All areas are extensively fished. The legal season for catching shad in Virginia extends from October 15 to June 1.

SPORT FISHING FOR VIRGINIA ISHAD According to Southern Outdoors (1946), fly fishing for shad has become popular

in Virginia, about 20 miles below Richmond above the Walker's dam on the Chicka- hominy River. Two expert fly fishermen averaged 30 a day for two days, and some specimens weighed as much as five pounds. White bucktails and small spoons were the most successful lures. In addition, sport fishing for shad takes place each spring on the Fotomac between Georgetown and Great Falls a t Washington, and a t the dam on the Pamunkey River.

ECONOMICS OF VIRGINIA SHAD FISHEMEN tCable and Hollis (1949) pointed out that, "One of the striking points noted in

this study has been how few upriver fishermen consider fishing their principal occu- pation. Practically all turn to another occupation when the shad season is over and many are pursuing another occupation coincident with their fishing. In the upper James River there are many part-time fishermen. These include salaried industrial workers or small business men who supplement incomes by fishing one tide a day or several tides a week; others are farmers who fish when their duties may be slighted. Few above Hopewell and Shirley consider fishing a major part of their livelihood. At most, about 37 units operate full time for shad above Wind- mill Point, which would mean about 75 bona fide fishermen. Hundreds of part-time fishermen fish this area. Of the questionnaires returned by those fishing on the Chickahominy, only 17 of the 3'5 indicated fishing to be their regular business." Cable and Hollis also noted that the fishing effort of part-time fishermen, and of regular fishermen to a lesser extent increases or diminishes in direct relationship to the availability of the fish. Thus in years when the run of shad is large, the fisher- men set their nets more often than when the run is small. Quittmeyer (1950) has presen'ted a detailed study of Virginia fishermen that should be reviewed for a better understanding of the shad fisheries.

57

In both the blattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, the principal fishery for shad is conducted by Indians. These fishermen live on reservations and no licenses are required for their activities. In recent years about 20 baats have fished from the Pamunkey reservation and about a dozen from the Mattaponi reservation. 0,thers who fish in this area include farmers who operate part-time, and industrial workers in the vicinity of West Point who fish in off hours. Preliminary figures for licenses issued in 1946 indicated 122 float nets, six stake gill nets and two haul seines fished in this general area in addition to the fishing activities of the Indians. Soine of the Indians on the Reservation on the Pamunkey River have given accounts to Massmann about how their fathers fished for shad along much of the Atlantic Coast. In rnid- winter they journeyed to the St. Johns River in Florida and gradually worked their way up to the Hudson River, following the peak runs of shad throughout the season. I t is not known definitely how long ago they engaged in such transient fishing, but probably before and a t the turn of the century before the various states instituted regulations on season and time of fishing. They do not pursue shad fishing outside of Virginia today. Pound netters, who are the most important shad fishermen in the lower Chesapeake Bay, are full-;time operators, and as such, usually do not leave the industry during periods of prosperity or depression. They produce a large portion of the shad yield, and yet littIe information is available on the turnover in personnel over the years and the various factors that control their fishing habits.

TREND IN DECLINE OF FISHERIES A general analysis of the catch records of shad in the Virginia section of the

Chesapeake Bay and within the rivers of the State has been made by Cable and Hollis (1949). They wrote, "During this period [11880-19451 the catch has fluctuated between 11,529,000 pounds, caught in 1897, and 1,615,000 pounds, caught in 1936. The general trend has been downward since 1897 with slight increases in abundance for a few years after each World War [See Figure 121. The number of nets licensed to fish for shad has been increasing in the recent post-war period, hence it was to be expected that the catch per net would decline and, even though many of the nets are fished by part-time fishermen, that the total catch would eventually decline under heavy pressure of fishing."

J 1880 1890 1900 IS10 1920 1930 1943 !?no

Y E A R FIGURE 12

Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) declared that, "The shad is the most valuable food fish in Chesepeake Bay, its value in 1920 being $1,482,294, or more than the combined value of the four next important species-namely, alewives, croakers, squeateagues, and striped bass. It ranked third in number of pounds caught

(9,074,333), being exceeded only by the alewives and the croaker. " " " In Virginia i t ranked third in quantity and first in value, the catch being 2,199,390 shad, weighing 7,257,987 pounds, worth $1,138,184. Of this amount 76 percent was taken in pound nets, 23 percent in gill nets, and 1 percent in seines and fyke nets. The three counties credited with the largest catches were Mathews, with 2,895,730; Northumberland, with 1,291,4188; and Lancaster, with 526,129 pounds."

An interesting series of records of annual shad harvests made between 1908 and 1923 by the Buchanan Brothers' fishery was cited by Hildebrand and Schroeder. Pound nets and seines only have been used in this fishery, located a t Lynnhaven Roads, Virginia. They have always been operated in the same immediate vicinity and no evident physical changes had taken place during the 16 year span for which statistics were quoted. Although the gear was not uniformly employed during this period, the figures show roughly the trend of abundance of shad and may reflect the general rise and fall in abundance over a series of years for the entire Bay. Disre- garding changes in the gear used and in the number of men and boats employed in the fishery, a general downward trend was reflected in the commercial production of shad. For individual years the statistics do not always agree with the trend followed by shad statistics of the U. S. F. W. S. For example, the banner year (11921) a t the Buchanan Brothers' fishery is not reflected for the rest of the Bay, as the Government's report shows a larger catch for 1920 than for 1921. The decline of shad a t this fishery, based on the average yearly catch for the first and second halves of the period covered by the statistics, was 39.4 percent. A very pronounced decline in the catch of shad took place in 1914 and 1915. After that time a partial recovery is shown, as averages (arrived a t as before) for 1914 to 1923 show an increase of 12.6 percent. Hildebrand and Schroeder reasoned that, "Because of the especially strategic position of the present fishery (almost within the mouth of the bay) it seems probable that a somewhat equal percentage of the entire body of migrating fish may be caught from year to year. The only exception that has been found to this supposition in the study of the records is brought about by exceptionally large catches sometimes made within the course of a day or two, when apparently large schools of fish are intercepted by the nets." They presented the following catch records for shad from the Buchanan Brothers' fishery:

1908 ............... 7,410 lbs. 1914 ............... 4,220 lbs. 1920 ........,..... 3,555 lbs. 1909 ............... 17.025 1915 ............... 3.430 19\21 ............... 12.460

1913 ............... 11,935 1919 ............... 4,015 An interesking aspect of the trend of the Virginia shad fisheries is the probable

effect of the Maryland Fish Management Plan upon the stocks of shad that nor- mally enter the rivers in Virginia. Theoretically, the plan should not greatly influence the total Virginia fishery, since in general it protects the stocks of fish that travel into Maryland rivers and bays presumably obeying the parent-stream instinct. If the Plan was designed to insure an increase in production and a sus- tained yield for the Maryland portion of the Bay, the conflict will arise if the Maryland stoclis bound for Maryland are harvested prematurely in Virginia waters as the fish leave the ocean and ascend the Bay or the reverse. From this viewpoint some responsible authorities see that in the future the shad fishery should be managed on the basis of the total Chesapeake Bay population, and not on a piecemeal, political boundary basis. One of the big problen~s posed by the Plan is whether the various river stocks of Virginia shad migrate from one river to another, and whether Mary- land shad are harvested prematurely in Virginia waters. The Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, and the U. S. F. W. S. attempted to gather facts pertinent to this question by tagging and other studies of Chesapeake Bay shad in the spring of 1952.

FACTORS AFFECTING DECLINE OF SHAD Cable and Hollis (1949) in an unpublished report attempted to analyze the

factors affecting the decline of shad in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay. They cautioned that the decline ". . . can only be conjectured in the light of recent data on conditions in this fishery and in other fisheries under study on the Atlantic Chast. The composition of the Virginia populations of shad in recent years indicates that overdishing has been an important factor in the decimation of the runs and a deterrent to their recuperation." They stated further that, ". . . . the fishing rate

in Virginia waters was reduced from [taking] an average of 92% to 82% of the run . . . the remaining fish provide a shocliingly small spawning stock to sustain the fishery. Thus, the shad populations in Virginia continue to be made up princi- pally of fish making their first spawning migration with very few shad that have spawned one or two times and a rare one that has spawned three times. The fishery then is almost entirely dependent on the virgin spawners. * * * Should virgins fail to appear in a run of shad ib Chesapeake Bay, a t the present high total mortality rate, virtually no shad would be available for capture by the fishery."

An apparent contradiction to the recommendations made from the preliminary study presented in 19418 by the Service, was introduced in the Fiftieth and Fifty- First Annual Reports of the Comnlission of,Fisheries, published in 1949, when one of the Virginia officials wrote: " * * * Studies have been undertaken by the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory in conjunction with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an effort to determine the cause of the fluctuations in the catch of fish from year to year and season to season. * * * I t has been strenuously contended in the past, by even the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that Virginia fishermen were depleting the shad supply by not permitting a sufficient number of fish to escape the nets and go on to the spawning grounds. Virginia authorities have resisted this argument, believing that more information was needed before fishing activities were curtailed. A t the Annual Meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in September of this year [1949?] it was admitted by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the shad studies of the Service up to the present time give a great deal of information on total mortality but in their present form and under interpreta- tions made thus far. they give no indication of how much of the mortality is due to ~ishing intensity."

The Virginia Fisheries Commission report continued, "This conclusion is directly /

opposed to that reached by representatives of the same agency in the past. The easiest way out has been to declare the fluctuations in the fish population to be due to overfishing. However, the Colnmission of Fisheries has been unwilling to recom- mend measures that would deprive the watermen of their means of livelihood by prohibiting them to fish as in the past, without adequate information upon which to base such regulations. We think the illustration cited relative to the shad fishery in the Bay justifies the position assumed by the Conlmission. In the past the Hudson River shad fishery has been a stock example of what could be accomplished by a limited catch of fish and an escapement as reconzmended by some authorities. How- ever, in spite thereof, the Hudson River shad catch has declined to an alarming extent and studies have been launched to determine the reason thereof, some now contending such decline is due to pollution but it is conceded that in any event it is not due to fishing intensity.'' The latter statement is not entirely true. There is enough data available for an unbiased observer to conclude that overfishing is a cause of the decline of the Hudson fishery.

Marshall (1949A) has analyzed the present shad management situation from a keen, if not spirited approach. His views, quoted below, more or less represents sonic of the more recent ideas on how shad should or should not be managed. In a sense, he is in line with the sentiments of the present biologists of the U. S. F. W. S. He pointed out that ". . . the three greatest obstacles to the improved management of our fisheries are: (1) the lack of important basic knowledge; (2) the need for further public education to absorb what information is acquired; and (3) the failure to analyze the tnte nature of conflicting fisheries interests. * * * . . . I proposed to the Chesapeake Bay Panel of the Atlantic Skates Marine Fisheries Commission that we discontinue reviewing all Bay problems as though conservation were on one side and the lack of such were on the other. Instead we should seek the true issues of a controversy, i. e., the social, economic, natural depletion, fisheries depletion, or other features that comprise the problem."

He developed his thesis further, "Nowhere is this approach more urgently needed than in the numerous Maryland-Virginia controversies. Most of these controversies revolve around the problem of fair sharing of the fishery resources. * * * When a fish migrating into Chesapeake Bay from the ocean traverses Virginia waters, the people of that region want to catch him first for themselves . . . * * * Obviously some fish must get by both the Virginia and Maryland nets if they are to spawn and maintain abundant populations of their own kind. Maryland has a management plan one purpose of which is to permit proper escapement but, when Maryland sug- gests more moderate fishing in the Virginia waters, Virginians want to know and have a right to know to what extent the motive is one of increasing escapement on

60

a Bay-wide basis and how much it is a matter of letting more fish get into the Maryland nets. When we have as little data as we have today as to the quantity of breeding fish that must escape, i t is very easy for even the be& of thinkers on the Maryland side to exaggerate this need and for the best of thinkers on the Virginia side to minimize it. Meanwhile, the scientist has such limited information a t this early stage of his work that he can seldom take a definite stand one way o r another, though he may guide his people with due qualifications and precautions. I t is cer- tainly a problem bf recognizing, facing, and studying the basis of different interests rather than in vain to establish a singleness of purpose."

The question as to what is the proper management measure ultimately ta rehabilitate shad on a sustaining basis is repeating the dilemma that the decline of shad posed 75 years ago. "We are back where we started from," some observers declare, even though a considerable array of facts is available on shad ecology. Marshall (1949B) summarized the Virginia position regarding shad management as follows, "In 1948 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented a preliminary study suggesting that shad in Virginia has declined because of overfishing. Further analysis of the data involved in this study has resulted in concurrence on the part of the Service's chief scientists and the Laboratory staff to the effect that the available faots do not show fishing mortality and thus do not demonsstrate overfishing. We continue to stand, therefore on our initial recommendation which was to the effect that the shad probIem should not be handled as an overfishing problem unless and until it is shown to be such. Other threatening factors, for example dams, pollution, and siltation in spawning areas, should also be weighed as the cause for depletion is investigated."

Marshall (1949iA) recognizes the fact that the abundance of fish naturally fluc- tuates to a pronounced degree. "Science has clearly demonstrated that marine popu- lations undergo great fluctuations in abundance. Unfortunately, however, the fishing industry tends to build to the peaks of such fluotuations resulting in a general weakness a t other times and critical conditions during lows in abundance which, contrary to popular belief, seldom represent depletion. Maryland has faced this by restricting the amount of fishing gear, supposedly a t a level suited to the average in the ever changing supply. The Maryland Management Plan is, theoretically a t least, of great merit in this resl~ect. If Virginia fishermen are opposed to such State restriction, they must, instead, apply a degree of self-restraint in their enterprises. Since it is unlikely that all types of fisheries will be a t a low a t any time, diversity of fishing endeavor, as contrasted with over-specialization, is to be recommended."

The statement from the Virginia and Federal sources more or less precludes the formulation in the near future of a management program for Virginia, that is based on the available data on natural and fishing mortalities. Unfortunately, this situa- tion may be seized upon by some unscrupulous officials as a justification for scrapping or rejecting future management measures involving fishing mortalities that in them- selves may be intrinsically valuable. Such an interpretation must of nccessity be subjective, but its worth can perhaps be demonstrated if carried out for a long period. The Maryland Fishery Management Plan, based on natural mortality and fishing mortality theories developed by Herrington, Nesbit, and Cable, must be analyzed from this viewpoint.

Dams have been held to be an important deterrent In the produotion of shad. They have been built on the James, Rappahannock, and Chickahominy. However, Cable and Hollis (1949) stated that, except for the Chickahominy, dams have not delimited the spawning operations of shad. "The dams, therefore, could not have been the cause of the declines in produotion of shad noted since 1897." They pointed out that pollution of various types may have contributed to the decline of shad. In the James River discharges from industrial plants above Hopewell, and in Richmond are known to IiilI fish and aIso to injure the sale of fish by ruining its flavor. In the York River the discharges from the paper mill a t West Point have been rendered relatively harmless by plant authorities. In the Rappahannock River there is a dam a t Fredericksburg. Treated sowage and oil may also be a hazard in this river. Treated domestic sewage is discharged from Washington and its environs into the Potomac River, but industrial and oil pollution is considered a more serious type of pollution. Fish shoots and fall traps in the Rappahannock River in the vicinity of Fredericksburg are said to destroy large numbers of fish.

61

REHABILITATION OF VIRGINIA 'SHAD Measures have been taken in recent years to improve shad production in the

State by (1) a limited operation of hatcheries which have not proven their value to date, ( 2 ) a cleanup campaign on polluted rivers by the State Water Control Board, and (3) the continuance of the regulation that the rivers be left free of obstructions for half their width. According to Dr. J. L. MaHugh, director, and William Massmann, biologis't of the Virginia Fisheries $Laboratory, there was no evidence available on which to base the production estimates or trends of shad produotion until recently. There is no management program comparable to the elaborate ~Maryland Fish Nan- agement program, although some observers believe that stocks of shad that migrate up the rivers of both states in the Chesapeake Bay should be controlled by a broad and comprehensive plan that would disregard political boundaries.

Shad hatcheries are operated a t the present time on the Chickahoininy a t Lanexa, Pamunkey and Mattaponi rivers. These were established by the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries more than 15 years ago. The Pamunkey hatchery has been operated by the State for twelve years. Such hatcheries are operated largely as a token gesture ta placate commercial fishermen who have great faith in them.

Meyer (11945, 1947, 1949) made the following report regarding the hatching success of shad a t the following locations devoted to artificial propagation:

NUMBER O F SHAD EIGIGS COLLECTED Year nfattaponi River Parnunkey River Chickahominy River 1944 1,050,000 * 2,887,000 * 6864,000 **

........... ...... 1945 854,000 * 1,447,000 * - -... 1

................. ..... 1946 1,2,32,000 '** 1,776,000 ""* - 1 1947 2,173,000 *"*"* 2,188,000 * 903,000 **"" 1948 690,000 "**"* 1,617,000 * W Y * 1,325,000 ***** 1949 1,215,000 ***"* 1,748,000 ";K*"* 1,077,000 *****

Percentage of shad hatching at the various hatcheries are: * 85 percent; ** 65 percent; '** 80 to 85 percent: **** 70 to 7 5 percent: "*** 80 percent. I The hatchery was not operated during those years because of the lack of a building in which to work, and the necessary experienced help to carry out the work.

Figures are available for the years previous to 1944, but the statistics above suffice to show the theoretical insufficiency of such stocking (i. e., if it is assumed that a rough approximation of perhaps one adult shad from every 100,000 shad f ry results at the end three to five years (Moss, 195OL4)). Such records have been examined critically by Jlarshall (1949Al who compared them with the commercial catch records. His recommendations are as follows: "In 1947 I was asked whether the

I I Commonwealth should aid in the support of a hatchery at Fort Belvoir. A review I of available records on shad hatcheries did not indicate population increases relating I to hatchery output. Since a single roe shad may spawn 100,000 eggs, it is not

surprising that the hatchery did not stand out above nature's output. Weighing these facts and the results of investigations on comparable situations, I advised against the support of such hatchery endeavors." The State of Virginia does not participate in the shad hatchery work at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, wieh the Maryland authorities, but it still maintains the three hatcheries listed above.

The Virginia Council Committee on Fisheries of the Advisory Council on the Vir- ginia Economy, issued a report in 1951 entitled, "The commercial fisheries of Vir- ginia," that included a number of recommendations relative to the seafood industry. These were divided into the field of private and government action, in which research in the new methods of marketing seafood (based primarily on the work of Quitt- meyer, 1950), and the establishment of a sysitem for obtaining periodic fisheries statistics, were the primary fin-fishery subjects. Almost no action relative to the findings of this Committee was taken a t the 1952 session of the General Assembly of Virginia. Sometime later the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council (1951), is~sued a re,port entiitled "The seafood statutes and the rehabilitation of the seafood industry," in which the main points, among others, were concerned with shellfish, crabs, fin-fish and a criticism of the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory's work. They also advocated that, "A shad hatchery should be established on each important river in Tidewater and financed by the State and federal governments. The Council has been greatly encouraged by the increase in the supply of shad brought about by a small hatchery in the area east of Richmond. * * ' " The latter premise, for exam- ple, has no basis in fact, and is typical of the subjective approach to seafood problems in the report. I t was obviously recomlnended at the suggestion of fishermen who, during the compilation of the report, conferred with the Committee. In a sense, the

62

report of the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council repudiates the objective approach contained in the report of the Virginia Council Committee on Fisheries. In the meantime, the shad fisheries of Virginia continue to decline, according to the annual catch statistics, although during spring, 11952, fishermen were said to have reported one of the best shad seasons in their memory.

A fishway was constructed in the Chickahonliny dam many years ago, but ap- parently it has not been used by shad. In recent years no large dams have been built below the upper limits of main shad spawning grounds, so that this problem has not been a focal point in recent years. The dam closest to Tidewater is situated on the Chickahominy River but there does not appear to be any evidence that the dam has had appreciable effect on shad runs. Among certain scientists who have examined stahistics and factors affecting the abundance and relative saarcity of shad in dammed and unobstructed rivers, there is a growing feeling that in certain cases dams alone are not responsible for shad decline. In some rivers that have remained undammed, such as the Edisto River in South Carolina, there has been a scarcity of shad. In other unobstructed shad rivers appreciable declines have taken place where no specific factor or series of factors could be directly assigned to the decline. On the other hand in some large rivers that have been dammed, some for long periods, shad con- tinue to ascend the river, such as on the Susquehanna, in numbers. Although they cannot negotiate the large modern dams, some shad continue to mill a t the base of the spillways year after year.

Although there has been a widespread interest in the rehabilitation of shad in Virginia waters, there has been no official demands by commercial and sports fisher- men. Special shad studies have been conducted by the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory for the past three years. An extensive study on shad spawning has been published (~Massmann, 19512), and interim reports have been made. No catch records are gathered by the State; the U. S. F. W. S. has collected such records in past years.

VIRGINIA LAWS REGULATING SHAD FISHING Virginia permits anyone to get a fishing Iicense upon application and the pay-

ment of the fee. The current law states, "It is unlawful to catch any white shad or to have in possession any so caught between the first day of June and the 15th day of October. The fishing season for shad and herring in the Potomac River begins March 1 and ends June 1." Shad under 10 inches in length are specifically protected, so that juveniles descending the rivers in autumn are protected. Haul seines and drift nets must not exceed 500 yards in length. Furthermore, "It is unlawful to use any net or nets across any river, creek, etc., for a greater distance than ?/a the width thereof so as to impede the run of fish or to interfere seriously with navigation.'' In 1947, the members of the Virginia Conmlission of Fisheries recommended +hat the Commission be empowered to shorten the shad fishing season, but it has not been shortened. Marshall (19494) has represented the iconoclast with regard to laws. He stated, "Extreme caution should be exercised in the adoption of measures restrict- ing, in the name of conservation, the methods of fishing and the size and quantity of fish taken. When a fishery is depressed or thought to be so there is a tendency to rally support for some new restriction since, out of the vast complexity of factors affecting aquatic populations, the catch is the only thing that vividly comes to man's attention and is 'real' to him. On writing this I must add that, except for upriver limitations on shad and herring fishing, I could not defend with tested facts any fishing restriction now applied to our migratory fin8sh. . . . * * * The soundest procedure is to avoid all new regulations until pertinent facts are obtained. Actually, however, most of our regulations are the result of guesses in the strict sense of the word." Marshall, however, does not advocate scrapping all the present regulations, but he does pose the question, ". . . why [are] we . . . cautious in destroying some- thing that is without foundation?"

ANNUAL CATCH STATtLSTIOS OF SHAD IN VIRGENIA * Y e a r Pounds Y e a r Pounds 1880 3,172,000 1904 7,420,000 1887 3,815,000 1908 7,314,000 1888 7,057,000 19019 6,080,000 1890 72166.0100 191.5 4.71 4 nnn

Year Pounds 1930 6.183.000

Year Pounds 1940 2.811.000

1936 3,635,000 1948 3,205,900 1937 3,0886,000 1949 2,801,200 1938 3,608,000 1950 3,031,500 1939 3,559,000

* Statistics from published reports of surveys made by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its predecessors, the Bureau of Fisheries, and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries.

SHAD FISHERIES O F MARYLAND EARLY HISTORY ow THE SHAD F ' I S H ~ I G B IN MARYLAND

The early written accounts of colonists in Maryland described shad as a valuable and nourishing item of food. Oine of the earliest, by Father Andrew White, S. J., prepared in 1633 some months before the departure of the first col- onists to Maryland, states that Maryland ". . . has two very large arms of the sea, both of them bays abounding in fish. One of these, named the Chesapeak. is twelve miles wide, and spread out between two districts, runs from aouth to north a hundred and sixty miles. It is navigable for large skips and is inter- spersed with various large islands suitable for grazing; and a t these islands can be caught, in the greatest abundance, the fish called shad."

The colonists were alerted early to be prepared for such bountiful supplies of fish. An anonymous writer in A Relation of Maryland in 1635 advised the English people contemplating emigration to Maryland that they must make the following provision for fishing: ". . . necessaries for a boate of 3. or 4. Tunne; as Spikes, Nayles, Pitch, Tarre, Ocome, Canvis for a sayle, Ropes, Anchor, Iron for the Ruther: Fishing-lines for Cod and Macrills, etc. Cod-hookes, and Machill- hookes, a Seane and Basse-net, Herring-netts, Leade . . ." During the subsequent dekelopment of the colonies shad were a staple item of diet, and are frequently mentioned in many early accounts.

Pinkett (1951) described how shad figured prominently as a source of food supplies during the American Revolution. He stated, "Meanwhile the fisheries of Maryand were being used to some extent to help provide provisions for the army. In February, 1778, General Horatio Gates, then chairman of the Continental Board of War, was informed by the State Council that several persons who had fisheries on the Potomac River would willingly sell considerabe quantities of large shad, possibly 2;000 to 5,000 barrels. Later several hundred barrels of shad and herring were shipped from Charlestown and Baltimore to the Head of Elk. A deterrent to greater use of fish seems to have been the acute shortage of salt for preservation purposes. Considerable quantities of fish were reported as spoiled on arrival a t the Head of Elk." The lack of salt may have been the reason why Semmes (1937) wrote, "During the entire proprietary period and for many years after Maryland had become a crown colony no effort was made,to salt fish for exportation [to England].

Uhler and Lugger (1876) sounded one of the first notes of alarm concerning. human depredations on shad. They remarked, ". . . the American Shad . . . IS the most salvory of all fishes, and was formerly common in all the rivers emptying into the Chesapeake Bay on the Western Shore, and in the principal ones of the Eastern Shore. The principal fisheries are now in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Chester rivers, although smaller numbers are taken in the Patuxent and Severn. I t has been almost cleared out of the Patapsco River, although a few stragglers venture to get beyond tide during almost every spring. There are several "runs7' of this fine fish in the lower Potomac River, which follow each other a t intervals of a few days."

McDonald (1887F) surveyed the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay, and concentrated his attention upon the Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers. He says of the former river, "Reports of [the shad's] magnitude have come to us from early days, and from them we gather that the production must then, a s compared with our own day, have been simply fabulous. * * * The fisheries of

64

the river annually decreased in value and production up to the time of the [Civil] War ; the intermission which then ensued in the fishing operations on account of those of a martial character allowed the fisheries to recuperate, so that in the years immediately succeeding the war i t was found that they had in a measure recov- ered from their former depletion. In 1878 the minimum of production was at- tained, during which season less than 200,000 shad were taken in the entire river. In 1879 the results of previous artificial propagation first manifested themselves, and there was a considerable increase in the run of shad, from which time the shad fisheries steadily increased, until in the season of 1880 nearly 600,000 were taken. The early fisheries of the Potomac were prosecuted entirely by means of haul seines. About the year 1835 gillnets were introduced from the North. These have steadiIy grown in favor and for the last few years have been the principal instrument employed for the capture of shad. In 1880, only e lhen large haul seines were in use where fifty had been fished in early days. Within the last five years pound-nets have been introduced. They are increasing in numbers rapidly, and are by degrees displacing the gill-nets, which, as above stated, displaced the haul- seines."

McDonald continued, "The most important fishing industry on the Susquehanna is the gill-net fishing, though twenty large haul-seines are operated a t various points, in what is termed the 'head of the bay,' the Northeast River and in the Susquehanna itself, a short distance above Havre de Grace. In consequence of the peculiar natural characteristics of the fishing grounds of this river, the land- ing of the seines is provided for by special constructions. In some places large floats are used on which to land the seines. * * * In other cases, instead of floats, a 'battery' is built of logs; this is filled in with earth and stones, and upon it the seine is landed.'' The "gilling ground," described in McDonald's account, ex- tended from Havre de Grace, eastward and southward, to the mouth of the Chester River. An excellent description is given of the fishing methods employed a t that time. McDonald quotes Dr. MiIner in describing very vividly predation by eels upon gilled shad. He says, "The habit is to run the net a s soon as it is all out, and take the fish out immediately, before they can be injured by the eels. The eels never mesh; they are too slippery to get tangled. In the shoal fishing, when the weather becomes warm, the 'eel-cuts,' as these are called, often outnumber the marketable shad. The fishermen salt down the better ones for their winter food. The net is run twice or three times and is then taken up. * * * The cap- tures, to each boat with two men, nuniber from 'water hauls' to several hundred shad." Under the then existing Maryland law the use of pound-nets a t the head of the Bay was prohibited. McDonald did not consider the minor tributaries of Chesapeake Bay sufficiently productive of shad to be compared with the Potomac and Susquehanna although he indicated that he had no catch statistics from these rivers.

FORMEB SHAD F I S H ~ I E S OF MARYLAND

The report of Stevenson (1889) represents the most detailed analysis of the shad fisheries of Maryland waters. The extent by water areas, of each branch of the shad fisheries, is summarized in the following totals: (1) Number of persons employed in the shad fisheries in 1896: 4,514; (2) Number of boats and gear em- ployed: 1,976 boats, 2,638 drift nets, 3,955 stake nets, 901 pound nets, 90 seines, 335 fyke nets, 128 bow nets; (3) Yield of shad by each type of gear: drif t nets, 695,651 shad; stake nets, 129,034 shad; seines, 223,351 shad; pound nets, 449,567 shad; fyke nets, 15,835 shad; bow nets, 27,612 shad. The figures listed above a re broken down in detail for each of the large rivers of the State.

Chesapeake Bay in Maryland Chesapeake Bay extends northward into Maryland a distance of 120 miles,

running to within 12 miles of the northern boundary, dividing the State into two large portions, the Eastern Shore and Western Shore. It is from four to 20 miles wide and covers an area of roughly 976 square miles, but, including its numerous trib- utaries up to the limit of tidewater, it covers an area of 2,359 square miles within the limits of the State. The depth is from three to 18 fathoms, and the water is salty, except in the northern portion above Swan Point, where it becomes some- what brackish and then fresh. A number of important rivers enter the Bay from either side, and the Susquehanna River enters a t the northern end, continuing the separation of the two shores of Maryland and draining a large area of Penn- sylvania and part of New York.

65

Stevenson (1899) presented some striking figures relative to the shad-produc- ing potentialities of the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries with this vivid statement of the annual migrations: "At its entrance into Maryland, Chesapeake Bay re- ceives each year 2,250,000 or more shad, of which 750,000 pass up the Potomac, 330,000 proceed up the Pocomoke and Tangier Sound tributaries, 50,000 up the Patuxent, 350,000 up the Choptank and tributaries, 50,000 up the Chester, 650,000 in the meantime being taken on the ,shore of the Chesapeake and i ts smaller trib- utaries, leaving 70,000 or more to pass up into the Susquehanna. These figures include only the shad that are taken by the fishermen, and not those otherwise destroyed or that escape these fatalities and return to the sea, as to the number of which no estimate can be formed."

He also declared that, "Many of the shad obtained in the bay are taken in the extreme upper end. Because of the differences in the physical characteristics, in the forms of apparatus used, and also in the seasons a t which shad are taken therein," the shad-producing sections of the Bay were divided into two parts:

(1) From the Vi~ginia line to Swan Foioinl8.-This portion of the Bay is 90 miles long and from four to 20 miles wide. From the western side it receives the waters of the Potomac and Patuxent rivers, while from the east it receives the Pocomoke, Wicomico, Nanticoke, Choptank, and Chester rivers, and some smaller streams. The shad fisheries outside of the rivers were of comparatively small extent and confined to the use of pound nets and a few stake nets. The location of pound nets on the Eastern Shore were as follows: Pocomoke Sound, below Little Annemessex River, Smith's Island, Tilghman Island, and Wittman and Kent Island. On the Western Shore nets were located a t Point No Point, Mouth of the Patuxent River, Governors Run and between Holland Point and Gibson Island. Most of the nets were of the "single heart" variety. The stake nets were located along the shore from Tilghman Island to Kent Island, and the fishery produced shad pri- mariIy for local use.

(2) Fvom Swan Point to head of Chesapeake Bay. - This section of the Bay, comprising less than one-fourth of its area, is bordered on the east by Kent and Cecil counties and on the west by Baltimore and Harford counties. The depth of water in the channel ranges from three to five fathoms, yet there are numerous shoals and flats where the depth is from a few inches to two fathoms. The water is normally brackish, but foIlowing heavy freshets it may become fresh above Spesutie Island or &en lower down. Susquehanna River enters the ex- treme northern end, and on the northeast three arms extend several miles inland, forming the estuaries of Northeast, Elk and Sassafras rivers. The principal fish- ing centers are Havre de Grace on the Western Shore, and Charlestown, Northeast, Betterton, Tolchester, and Rock Hall on the Eastern Shore. This was the principal shad region of Chesapeake Bay as determined by both the quantity and quality of the product, and also the location of the most valuable drift-net fishery of the Atlantic Coast south of Delaware Bay. The nets were operated from the mouth of the Susquehanna down to Poole Island, in the Northeast River, and extreme lower ends of Elk and Sassafras rivers. The nets, ranging from 150 to 400 yards each, were drifted in water from three to 30 feet in depth, but were desig-ned primarily for depths of 14 to 18 feet of water. Stevenson (1899) stated that "The catch by drift nets has been decreasing for several years, attributed by the fish- ermen to the increased number of pound nets in the Virginia section of Chesa- peake Bay." Writing in 1896 he stated, "Twenty-five years ago stake nets were extensively operated in this portion of Chesapeake Bay, but they have gradually given way to the more effective and less costly drift nets. They are yet operated along the shore of Kent County between Swan Point and Worton Point, and especially on the flats off Tolchester Beach, the fishermen living on Kent County Shore.'' Seines were used in the extreme northern end of the Bay at, Carrott Cove, Carpenter Point, Fishing Battery Light, and Spesutie Island. Such seines ranged from 1,500 to 2,500 yards in length, and were used during the season which began the second week of April and lasted six or seven weeks. The seines a t the Fishing Battery Light were operated from large floats or batteries, containing stables, storehouses, salting sheds, quarters for men, etc. An average float was a large raft, 60 by 80 feet, of sufficient bouyancy to be removed to any desirable point on the flats, where i t was secured into position by stout chains. These could be raised or lowered a t will so that seines could be hauled in the same manner a s on shore. The fourth side was used as a wharf. When practicable three hauls were

66

usually made each day, two on the ebb tide, and one on a flood tide, the yield of shad on the former being five or six times a s great as the latter. Pound nets were located between Turkey Point and Northeast, between Charlestown and Car- penter Point, off Betterton, and from Miller's Island to North Point.

Stevenson (1899) made detailed notes on the shad fisheries in the major rivers of the Chesapeake Bay area. They are enumerated below.

Potomac River.-This river, the largest and most important tributary of the Bay, is formed by the union of the north and south branches a t Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. As a boundary line between Maryland and Virginia it flows a distance of 290 miles to its entrance into the Bay, 75 miles above Cape Henry. Below Washington, D. C. i t is broad and sluggish, forming one of the largest estuaries on the Atlantic Coast, covering 370 square miles, not including its tributaries. The estuary is about 100 miles in length and varies from two to seven miles in width. At Washington, and from that point to Great Falls, 15 miles above, there are numerous shoals, with several small falls. At Great Falls, where the Potomac crosses the escarpment line, the total fall in a distance of one and one half miles is 80 or 90 feet, and as a result shad have nevw ascended the river above this point. An appropriation of $50,000 was made by Congress in 1882 with which to erect suitable fishways a t Great Falls, and in 1885 construction was begun, the plans providing for a fishway in six sections in the Maryland channel. A heavy runoff during the night of Oktober 29-30 considerably damaged the partly completed sections, and after examination i t was decided that "the fishways were not planned sufficiently strong to with- stand the effects of violent floods of the locality in which they were placed," and the project was abandoned.

It was reported in 1871 that 24 seines were then in use on the Maryland shore of the Potomac, requiring the services of 619 men, 74 boats, and 51 horses, and that they caught in the spring of the year 110,400 shad, worth $14,353. During the same year 243 drift nets were reported, requiring 456 fishermen and 213 shoremen, which took 351,800 shad valued a t $38,698. In 1896 Stevenson reported 87 seines and 241 drif t nets, and 184 pound and bow-nets, which caught 233,238 shad, valued a t $20,524. In 1896 the drift-net grounds extended from Mathias Point to Alexandria, a distance of 60 miles, being concentrated from Indian Head to River View. Stake-nets of the Potomac were of little importance, being operated mostly by residents of Virginia. Mary- land pound net fishery was confined to the lower half of the river, being can- centrated between Nanjernoy Point and Blakistone Island. Seining was formerly the most extensive branch of the Potomac River shad fisheries, but during Stevenson's time they were becoming less important each year. At Great Falls, 14 miles above Georgetown, there were a few bow nets used each spring from the last week in April to the first or second week of June, operated from a point known as "Shad Rock." (See figure 13).

Patuxent River.-This river was considered the most important shad stream between the Potomac and the Susquehanna. I t rises in Howard and Montgomery Counties, and flows a distance of 110 miles to its entrance in Chesapeake Bay, 20 miles above the mouth of the Potomac. I t was navigable for steamers to Bristol, 46 miles from the mouth. Aside from the numerous gears of capture, shad met with no serious obstructions to their ascent of the river until near Laurel, 95 miles from the mouth, where the Fall Line and two dams for developing waterpower were located. Because of the numerous fisheries in the lower half of the river and the narrowness of the stream very few shad elver reached Laurel. As the shad entered the Patuxent they encountered first the pound nets near the mouth; after proceeding about 35 miles they reached the lowest seine beach, and a short distance farther up, between Dunkirk and Leon, they reached the drift- net grounds. Of 52,354 shad taken in 1896, 24,375 were seined, 19,700 by drift nets; and 8,279 in pound nets. Pound nets numbering 33 in 1886, were operated in the lower end of the river, mostly between Point Patience and Drum Point. The seine beaches were located entirely in the upper reaches of Prince George and Anne Arundel Counties, from Hill's Landing to Leon, where the river is 500 to 600 feet wide. 011ly 10 shad seines were reportedly in operation. Stevenson stated that 18 drift nets were used only in a reach five or six miles in length in the Dunkirk and Leon area.

67

Severn, Patapsco, and Gumpozuder Rivers.-Stevenson (1899) did not report any shad production from these rivers, although Uhler and Lugger (1875) implied that shad formerly ascended the Patapsco when they wrote, "It has been almost cleared out of the Patapsco River, although a few stragglers venture to get beyond tide during almost every spring." The principal reason for the shad's absence from these rivers in commercial quantities is because the Fall Line is near the mouth of each river, and each became so shallow and narrow that shad could not successfully propagate there. On the other hand, Ferguson (1875) stated that shad ascended the Gunpowder in such densities that they could be speared from horseback.

Susquehanna River.-While the Susquehanna is one of the longest rivers of the Atlantic Coast, only 12 miles of i ts length is within the limits of Maryland. The Maryland section ranges from a half to nearly one mile in width. The shad fishing grounds on the Susquehanna flats were usually more profitable than the river fisheries, but required larger and more costly fishing gear. Gill nets were drifted between the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad bridge and Port Deposit, and of 49 boats engaged most of the fishermen resided in Port Deposit, Frenchtown, Perryville, and Lapidum. Seines, used a t the mouth of the river, were of two sizes, (1) large seines, 600 to 800 yards in length; and ( 8 ) small seines from 100 to 150 yards in length, which were operated by a total of 295 men in 1896. I n 1896, 15 fish pots or fall traps, consisting of a small breakwater of rocks forming a triangle with the apex pointing downstream were located in that area. A box or trap a t the apex caught shad as they swam along the stone breakwaters. Bownets were not used extensively in 1896 because of the scarcity of shad, although formerly they were operated from boats and rocks situated in favorable places in the channel.

Stevenson (1899) provided good appraisal of the physiographic differentiation of the Eastern and Western Chesapeake drainage areas, and his observations are summarized below. The rivers entering Chesapeake Bay from the east are quite different from those on the western side of the Bay. The eastern tribu- taries are more numerous, and draining a low, flat region, their declivity is nearly uniform and without falls. Excepting two or three of the smaller ones, they rise in the somewhat elevated area forming the western portion of Delaware and flow in a general southwesterly direction, expanding a t their mouths into broad estuaries. They are tidal nearly to the upper limits, and are navigable for vessels of five or six foot draft for three-fourths or more of their length. Beginning a t the southern boundary, the most important are the Pocomoke, Wicomico, Nanticoke, 'Choptank, and Chester rivers, yet the tribu- taries of these and the small streams are so numerous that there is probably no point on the Eastern Shore of Maryland over eight miIes distant from tidewater.

Powmohe River.-This river rises in Great Cypress Swamp, on the Maryland- Delaware Line, and flows between narrow banks a distance of about 65 miles to i ts entrance in Pocomoke Sound. The water is muddy, due to the vegetable stains and the suspension of soil and detritus from its source, and much of this is deposited a t the mouth, forming the "muds" over which a t low tide there are shallow depths in some cases of only a few inches. The shad fisheries were of considerable local importance, and extended from the mouth to several miles above Snow Hill, the principal fisheries existing a t Pocomoke, Mattaponi Landing, and Snow Hill. The bow-net or dip-net fishery yielded 80 percent of the total number of shad taken. The nets were either operated from a boat or a stationary point, in which two men harvested the fish. During some years as many as 1000 shad were taken in a single bow net. The catch was practically a11 marketed in the towns and settlements on or near the river, the price ranging from 10 to 30 cents per fish. Drift nets were used in the lower end of the Pocomoke, from Shelltown to Rehobeth, and near Snow Hill, the head of navigation. Only six seines were used in 1896 and they were located a t Cedar Hall, mouth of Nassawango Creek and McKee Island above Snow Hill. Fyke nets, although not used especially for shad, were operated near Rehoboth and Shelltown. Stevenson stated that between Pocomoke and Wicomico rivers there are three small streams entering Tangier Sound, i. e., Annemessex, Big Anne- messex, and Manokin, in which a very few shad were found, especiaIly in the last named; but there were no established fisheries, and the shad taken incidentally were used in the home of the fishermen.

68

Wiconzico River.-This river rises near the elevated rim which encircles Great Cypress Swamp, alid after flowing a distance of 35 miles enters the head of Tangier Sound. During Stevenson's time the, yield of shad, averaging about 75,000 fish annually, was considered remarkable considering the river's small size, being surpassed only by the Choptank and Nanticoke river on the Eastern Shore. Drift nets were operated from White Haven to Williams Point, one mile below Salisbury, a distance of 12 miles. Several rows of stake nets were operated annually near the mouth by men living a t Victor and Mount Vernon, and the number of stake nets as increasing in 1896. Five "double-heart" pound nets were located on the north side of the river four miles below White Haven. Three small seines were operated near the headwaters within four miles of Salisbury, while fyke nets, used incidentally for shad, were set in the lower portion of the rivers. Except for shad sold in the immediate locality, most of the fish from the Wicomico were sent to Baltimore.

Nanticoke River.-The headwaters are in Kent and Sussex Counties, Dela- ware, the two branches uniting in a navigable stream a t Seaford and 11 miles lower down crossing into Maryland. About five miles from the Delaware line it receives the waters of Marshyhope Creek, and from this confluence flows 30 miles to its entrance into the head of Tangier Sound. The Nanticoke ranked third among Maryland Rivers in extent of the shad fisheries in 1896, being sur- passed only by the Choptank and Potomac. Drift nets numbering 73 in 1896 operated from Quantico Creek to the Delaware line, and were most numerous from Vienna to Sharpstown. Stake nets numbering 282 in 1896 were used in the extreme lower end of the river from Roaring Point to Sandy Hill, while pound nets, numbering 26 in 1896, were set between Nanticoke and Roaring Point, but most of these were located above Quantico Creek. Fyke nets, numbering 148 in 1896 were set in the lower part of the river, below Quantico Creek, but they caught few shad. Marshyhope Creek was famous for the extensive shad fisheries, which once were prosecuted from the mouth a t Riverton to Federalsburg, but being most extensive about Brookview. Shad were harvested by means of drift nets, haul seines, and pound nets. The yield of shad from Nanticoke River in 1896 was 216,308, of which a total of 125,181 was taken in the Maryland portion of the main river, while 52,467 were obtained in Delaware and 88,660 in Marshyhope Creek.

Fishing Bay.-This Bay is a broad estuary, 11 miles in length and two or three in width, connecting the Transquaking and Blackwater rivers with the head of Tangier Sound. During some seasons the shad yield was of much local value. Stake nets were set on the flats a t the sides of the channel. Small pound nets were located near the entrance of Blackwater River and off Fishing Point. In the Transquaking River shad were taken principally by nearby residents for local use by means of pound nets, "stick weirs," and bow nets. Stick weirs were constructed by fixing sticks and brush in the bed of the river so a s to form a trap. The Blackwater River, separated above its mouth into two branches, the Little Blackwater and Big Blackwater, was ascended by shad to the uppermost limits, and were taken at numerous points in drift nets, pound nets, and stick weirs.

Choptank River.-This is the largest and most important of Eastern Shore rivers. From the Chesapeake to Hunting Creek, a distance of 30 miles, it is a tidal estuary. About 18 miles above Hunting Creek it receives the waters of Tuckahoe Creek, a tributary nearly as long as the main stream abdve this point. Pound nets extended from Cook Point, near the mouth, to two or three miles above the entrance of Tuckahoe Creek, but the nets were most numerous between Oxford and Windy Hill, a distance of 25 miles. A total of 185 nets was set in 1896 and they produced 114,758 shad valued a t $11,811. The drift-net fishery was most extensive from the mouth of Tuckahoe Creek to Denton, but was carried on from Windy Hill to the head of the river. A total of 118 drift-net boats, caught 80,591 shad, valued a t $8,541. The upper limit of the stake-net fishery on the Choptank was in the vicinity of Hunting Creek, near the lower limit of the drift-net fishery, and from this point to Castle Haven, a distance of 18 miles. These nets were abundant. All shad seines on the Choptank were operated within eight miles of Denton, from Williston to Greensboro, but only 14 boats were used for seining. The seine shores were not so valuable in 1896 as 20 or more years earlier, but were worth from $50 to $500. Between Dover Bridge

69

and the entrance of Tuckahoe Creek there were a score or more of fyke nets, and until 1895 stick weirs were operated in the headwaters of the C'hoptank.

Tuckahoe Creek.-The shad fisheries of the Tuckahoe extended from the Choptank to ~Hillsboro, and the yield in 1896 was 62,344, rendering it one of the most important shad streams on the Atlantic Coast for its size. Drift-nets were located a t Cowarts Point, New Bridge, Rees Landing, Covery Landing, Frank Landing and Todd Landing. The seine beaches extended from Hillsboro to within a few miles of the mouth of the river. Several pound and fyke nets were operated from the Talbot County side of Tuckahoe Creek, taking but few shad. Except sufficient for local use and for sale in the neighboring settlements and towns, all the shad taken on Tuckahoe Creek, as well as on Choptank River, were shipped to Baltimore by steamers.

Miles River.-Eastern Bay is a side elongation of Chesapeake Bay, cokering about 100 square miles and receiving the waters of the Miles, Wye, and smaller rivers. Miles River is the only shad rhrer of any consequence. Fishing in it was confined to the operation of several strings of stake nets, and shad were marketed i n the nearby settlements.

Chester River.-This river is the second largest stream entering the Chesa- peake Bay on the east, being surpassed in size only by the Choptank. The shad fisheries were located from the mouth of the river to the headwaters, but the catch was most numerous in the pound nets set near the mouth an@ in the stake nets from Chestertown to Millington. The stake nets were set from Quaker Neck to Millington, and were fished by 63 boats. A number of drift nets was formerly fished in the Chester, but they had gradually been replaced by stake nets in 1896; two drift-nets were fished a t Chestertown. A total of 14 haul seines were employed in 1896; located below and a t Chestertown, Crumpton, and Queenstown. The principal pound-net fishery of Chester River was located near the mouth of the river on both sides of the channel. The nets were set between Love Point, and the Narrows, between Eastern Neck Island and Swan Point, and near Chestertown, Quaker Neck and Crumpton. Fyke nets were operated below Chestertown, but they yielded few shad, although this river ranks second among Maryland rivers in the number of shad taken in fyke nets, being surpassed only by the Nanticoke. The surplus of Chester River shad, after supplying the local demand, was sent to Philadelphia and Baltimore, good shipping facilities existing to those points by both steamer and rail.

Sassafras Rivei-.-This tidal stream is but 18 miles long, and few shad were ever taken in it. Stevenson (1899) accounted for this by saying, " . . . the great abundance of fresh water coming down from the Susquehanna attracting [shad] past the mouth of this river." The few that were harvested were taken in pound nets.

Elk River.-This river rises in Chester County, Pennsylvania, and enters Chesapeake Bay near the northern extremity. I n 1896, there were no professional shad fisheries in the Elk, except for the pound nets! set on both sides of the Channel from the mouth off Plum Point near the head of the river. Most of the shad were taken in pounds located near the mouth.

CURRBNT SHAD FISHBRIEIB O F MARYLAND

Shad are harvested a t the present time a t essentially the same localities listed by Stevenson (1899). Methods of fishing and types of gear have changed very little. The tidewater areas are still supported in part by revenue from commer- cial fisheries and their relative importance is reflected in annual catch records. Anderson and Power (1951) in writing about Chesapeake Bay statistics stated, "The shad runs of 1948 showed no sign of returning to the abundance of previous years. Prices were maintained at a profitable level for both fishermen and dealers, but the fish were comparatively small." On the other hand, landings made by a large number of people fishing in the upper reaches of the large rivers on the Eastern Shore are not recorded since they are largely unlicensed, and consequently, are not required to submit their records, although they are allowed to sell their catch.

The small operators are incidental fishermen who live on this short seasonal occupation as a supplemental effort. They are mostly farmers and residents in small towns who have taken advantage of the statute allowing them to fish unlicensed with as many nets as possible not exceeding a total of 100 yards in

70

length. Most of them use gill nets, and they frequently interchange between drifting and staking the nets. Many of the fishermen who pursue daytime non- fishing occupations often fish during sunset and evening hours. Fyke nets, set primarily for white perch, known as the "money" fishery, catch but a few shad. During the last few years there has been a marked tendency among these fyke- net operators to sell their catch. In earlier years the unlicensed fishermen are said to have salted down their shad, rarely selling them.

Since most of the small-scale fishing is located a t the headwaters, a large number of ripe shad is caught over spawning beds. This factor may possibly affect the breeding potential of shad in certain rivers where they are caught in large numbers downstream in pound and stake nets, therefore allowing just a few fish to enter the spawning areas. Although i t i s not suggested that eels are responsible for the decline of shad, shad fishermen still suffer extenske depreda- tions of gilled shad by eels, An observation illustrated vividly how the market value of shad can almost be destroyed by eels. During a slack tide a roe shad was watched as it was followed by two bucks swimming to a drift net. As the female approached the eggs were noted to be exuded in the water, and imme- diately behind the ejected roe were two eels, apparently attracted by the eggs. Allowing the shad to gill firmly in the net for a few minutes, the net was pulled up and an eel was found to have eaten a portion of the vent, and had partially inserted its head in the abdominal cavity. The roe was unfit for sale. On another occasion a stake net left overnight was partly ruined because eels had twisted portions of it into tangles in their efforts to eat the roe of gilled shad. All of the shad in the net had been eviscerated by eels, and were not suitable for selling. As a result of this situation, fishermen in the headwaters rarely leave stake nets unattended overnight.

The following locations support shad fisheries, most of the data being sup- plied by Harry Hensel, fishery investigator, Dr. Richard Tiller, biologist, and G. F. Beaven, C. B. L., Md. D. R. E., and from material gathered by Hammer, Hensel and Tiller (1948). The major fisheries are divided as follows:

Northern Region of Chesapeake Bay.-Shad are captured a t the following locations: by drift gill nets-from Port Deposit in the Susquehanna River south into the Bay to the mouth of the Sassafras River, also in the Northeast and Elk rivers; by anchor gill nets-from Spesutie Island to Port Deposit; by stake I gill nets-Susquehanna Flats, Northeast and Elk rivers; by pound nets-Betterton, 1 Turkey Point to Northeast, and Carpenter Point to Stump Point; by haul seining -Turkey Point, Northeast and Elk rivers, Spesutie Island, Sassafras River, and , other points on the Susquehanna flats. Pound and stake nets are prohibited ; over 800 yards off shore in the Head of the Bay area. Some idea of the relative 1

value of the various gears may be obtained from the catch records for this section in 1945; haul seines, 5,996 pounds; anchor gill nets, 58,785; drift gill nets, 33,520; stake gill nets, 2,867; pound nets, 56,203. The total poundage was 157,371, valued a t $29,613.

Upper Central Region of Chesapeake Bay.-The important fisheries are a s follows: ,stake nets-from Swan Point to Worton Point; drift nets--from Howell Point to Sandy Point Ferry. Pound and anchor nets are scattered along shore in these areas. The catch by gear breakdown in pounds for 1945 is as follows: haul seines, 95; anchor gill nets, 5,133; drift gill nets, 5,657; stake gill nets, 63,275; pound nets, 2,321. The total poundage was 76,481 pounds, valued a t $15,860.

Lower Central Region of Chesapeake Bay.-The fisheries are located a t Herring Bay, West River, Governor's Run, Flag Ponds, Cove Point and Drum Point, all of which use pound nets. Stake gill nets are located off Tilghman's Island and in the Little Choptank. The catch by gear in pounds for 1945 was: haul seines, two; drift gill nets, 650; stake gill nets, 5,434; pound nets, 177,319; fyke nets, two. The total poundage was 183,405 pounds, valued a t $40,239. This area is by f a r the most valuable shad fishing grounds.

Sozc.thern Region of Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.-The fisheries a t present are located off the mouth of the Potomac River and below Cedar Point. A few shad are taken in the Crisfield area, Richland Point, and Hooper IsIand area of the Eastern Shore. The only method for taking shad here is by pound nets which landed 46,160 pounds in 1945, valued a t $12,814,

Chester River.-The present fisheries are centered mostly around Centreville, Queenstown, Crumpton, Millington, Grasonville, Stevensville, and Chestertown. The catch by gear in pounds for 1945 is as follows: haul seines, five; stake gill nets, 2,848; pound nets, 500 pounds. The total pounds amounted to 3,353, valued a t $529. 7 --

Choptank River.-The fisheries are as follows: pound nets-Tilghman, Cam- bridge, Secretary, and Choptank; drift and stake gill nets-from the town of Choptank upstream to the head of the river, and in the Tuckahoe, but most of the fishing is located around Denton. The catch by gear in pounds for 1945 was: haul seines, two; drift gill nets, 6,381; stake gill nets, 6,779; pound nets, 17,451; fyke nets, five. A total poundage of 30,613 was taken, valued a t $6,653.

Eastern Bay.-The fisheries are located around Claiborne, and shad are taken incidental to other species. Only two methods are used to harvest shad in any numbers. In 1945 the catch by gear poundage was: stake gill nets, 2,287, and pound nets, 105. A total poundage of 2,392 was valued at $586.

Fis~hhzg Bay.-The only shad taken are harvested in pound nets located off Farm Creek, Elliott Island, and immediate area. Only two types of gear were used, and their 1945 catch in pounds was: stake gill nets, 2,485; pound nets, 16,035. A total of 18,620 pounds, valued a t $3,872, was landed.

-Ho*tga River.-Some seine fisheries are located a t the upper part of the river. Pound nets in the mid-part of the river took 1,362 pounds of shad valued a t $334 in 1945.

Nanticoke River.-The fisheries are as follows: drift and stake gill nets- Vienna, Federalsburg, Sharptown, Galestown, Eldorado, and areas adjacent to them; pound nets-Sharptown and Nanticoke; bow-nets-Mardela Springs. An extensive amount of drift netting occurs in Delaware near Seaford. Fyke nets, resembling modified pound nets, are fished in about 20 feet of water for other fish, but a large number of shad is taken. Bow-nets are used to take large numbers of shad by unlicensed fishermen in Marshyhope Creek. The catch by gear, 1945, in pounds, was as follows: drift gill nets, 3,875 ; stake gill nets, 5,556; pound nets, 6,411; fyke nets, 764. A total of 16,606 pounds, valued a t $3,283, was taken in 1945.

Patuxent River.-The fisheries have deteriorated to a level where in 1945 only four-tenths of one percent of the 1896 (about 180,000 pounds) level wqs harvested. Many of the former fisheries have disappeared, mainly in the upper reaches of tidewater, although an occasional shad is caught by hickory shad sports- fishermen near Hardesty. The present fisheries operated on a small-scale, a re carried on by drift-netters a t Bristol, Nottingham, Lower Marlboro, down to Benedict, and stake nets are used interchangeably with drift-nets. Bow-nets on occasion catch shad from Nardesty to Central Avenue Bridge. The catch in pounds by gear, 1945, was: haul seines, 49 pounds; drift and gill nets, 330; stake gill nets, 398; pound nets, 72. Thus, a total of 849 pounds, valued a t $171, was taken in 1945. The drastic drop of shad production in this river may be due indirectly to the heavy gravel washings that have entered the river for a t least three decades. The silt load from gravel has increased markedly during the last 10 years, and has built up the alluvial deposit over the already altered spawning beds of shad in the Bristol area. The lower Patuxent is bordered by tobacco fields that thrive best in eroded soil poor in nitrogen content. Siltation probably has progressed steadily during the last century.

Pocomolce River.-Tlze fisheries are as follows: pound nets-Shelltown; drift and stake nets-Pocomoke City, Snow Hill and vicinity; bow-nets-Pocomoke City and Snow Hill; fyke nets-mouth of Nassawango Creek. The catch by gear, 1945, in pounds was: hauI seines, 29; drift gill nets, 393; stake gill nets, 447; pound nets, 927. A total of 1,796 pounds, valued a t $426, was harvested.

Poeomoke Sound.-The fisheries are located below the mouth of the river on the Virginia side near Saxis Island, but in Maryland drift and stake gill nets catch shad near Apes Hole and Marunlsco Creeks. The catch by gear, 1945, in pounds, was: drift gill nets, 634 pounds; stake gill nets, 1,167; pound nets, 15. A total of 1,816 pounds, valued at $498, was taken.

Potomae River.-The fisheries on the Maryland portion of the river were a s follows: drift and stake gill nets-staggered from Mathias Point Shoal Light, Indian Head, Marshall Hall, Silesia, to the region south of Alexandria, in which stake nets are distributed further downstream to beyond the Potomac River bridge;

72

pound nets-mouth of Nanjemoy Creek, Port Tobacco River, Cobb Island, Blaki- stone IsIand, becoming scarcer toward the mouth; haul seines and fyke nets- in Blakistone Island area. The catch by gear a s recorded by the U. S. F. W. S. in 1945 and 1948 illustrates the fluctuations in catch that are possible in two years of shad runs:

Catch by gear in pounds, 1945 and 1948 Gear 1945 1948

(649 fishermen) (518 fishermen) Haul seines 413 ... 9,900 Drift gill nets 15,000 12,554 Stake gill nets 28,817 69,900 Pound nets 8,359 13,500 Fyke nets 175 -. ..---- --

Total 50,318 108,300 The 1945 fishery was valued a t $19,260, while the 1948 fishery was valued at

$15,855. (See figure 13 for production of Potornac River shad fishery).

POrOMAC RIVER FISHERIES MARYLAND -VIRGINIA

1878 - 1950

WARMSV OF SHAD-

1890 I%)O 1% 1910 1920 I950

YEAR FIGURE 13

Tangier Sound.-The fisheries are located on the eastern side of the sound, and nets are found principally in the Deal Island area. Stake nets, set primarily for striped bass, are fished a t the head of the Sound, and shad are caught incidentally. The catch by gear in pounds, 1945, was: haul seines, 18; stake gill nets, 9,005; pound nets, 2,540. A total of 11,563 pounds, valued a t $2,853, was landed.

Wicomice, River.--The fisheries are located from White Hall to Salisbury, where drift nets are used along the river. Haul seines operate a t White Hall, and pound nets are located a t Mount Vernon. The catch by gear in pounds, 1945, was: haul seines, 2,006) pounds; stake gill nets, 815; pound nets, 1,069. A total of 3,884 pounds, valued a t $654, was landed.

Atlantic 0ceun.-The fisheries, operated by pound-netters off Ocean City, have declined in recent years because of the reduction of numbers of species of fish other than shad. Trawlers operating offshore account for a small number of shad, since they do not faithfully observe the law requiring them to drag outside the three-mile shore limit. Very few shad are caught in the waters inside of Assa- teague Island, since there are no rivers of any consequence that would provide fresh water for spawning. The catch by gear in pounds for 1945 was: pound nets, 10,351; otter trawls, 226; a total of 10,577 pounds, valued a t $868.

73

The Eastern Shore rivers have undergone surprisingly little change. There is not a great degree of siltation, although in farming, a major vocation, there remain some poor agricultural practices. On the other hand, the relatively flat Coastal Plain does not allow ready drainage, hence the topsoil is not extensively carried to the rivers. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that islands and marshy bars have appeared in a man's lifetime on shoal areas of the Choptank River, while many have disappeared. There are no dams a t the wide locations of rivers, but dams on many of tributary heads a t the mill-ponds may have hindered the movements of a few shad. A few of the rivers are subjected to the dumping of cannery wastes in summer, and this causes oxygen depletion which to some extent may affect young shad. Domestic sewage from small towns is a local problem, but apparently the water in most rivers is not altered enough to harm shad. In general, however, shad move into almost all of the eastern Chesapeake Bay streams as they did a century ago.

One of the major biological problems tha t possibly may become serious is the interspecific relationship between shad and introduced species of fish in rivers and streams. These species, not native to Maryland waters and introduced within the last 100 years, may compete with shad for spawning areas and for food. Moreover, their occurrence in areas where shad spawn may possibly lower the breeding potential of shad by their aggressive display and by aggregating in such numbers and exhibiting behavior that may be antagonistic to shad. Such activities may conceivably prevent shad from spawning. However, there are no actual data to indicate that these species interfere with shad. The introduced fish that are well-established in shad rivers include: (1) largemouth bass, Micropterm s. sal- moides-abundant in brackish and fresh waters of the Susquehanna, Northeast, Elk, Sassafras, Chester and Choptank, Blackwater, Pocornoke, and Potomac Rivers; ( 2 ) smallmouth bass, M. d. dolomieui,-found in the Susquehanna to Havre de Grace; (3 ) carp, Cyprinus carpio-abundant in salt (up to 18 p. p. t. salinity), brackish and fresh waters of the Chesapeake Bay and all major tributaries; ( 4 ) ) goldfish, Carassius auratus-established in the Sassafras, Choptank and Potomac rivers in fresh and brackish waters; (5) walleye, Stixostedion v. vitreum -established in slightly brackish and fresh waters of the Susquehanna, Northeast, and Elk rivers; (6) white crappie, Pomoxis annularis, and black crappie, P. nigro- macutatus-locally distributed in brackish and fresh waters of the Susquehanna,

I Northeast, Elk, Sassafras, Bohemia, Chester, Choptank, Pocomoke, Potomac, Pa- tuxent, and Gunpowder rivers; (7 ) southern channel catfish, Ictalurus pzcncCatus,-- fresh waters of Susquehanna and Potomac rivers.

The Bay's western rivers are somewhat different from the eastern rivers today I in that they are more completely silted down. Most of the rivers have exhibited I wide fluctuation in commercial production, and in every case they have shown a

steady decline of shad. Many areas that were fished successfully in 1896 have been all but abandoned because of the decline. Yet the Potomac has managed to sustain a fairly large fishery, despite pollution, siltation, and industrial expansion.

SPO.RT FISHING FOR SHAD IN MARYLAND For the last two decades sport fishing for shad has been the vogue in Mary-

land waters. Fishermen angle for two species, the "white" shad, AEosa sapidis- sima, and the hickory shad, Pomolobus mediocris, the latter species being caught in the largest numbers. As f a r as local records are concerned, Tom Loving, fishing in the Susquehanna, took the first ' ' ~ ' n i t e '~ shad by fly-rod in 1930. Prior to this event shad were captured by a few anglers with small silver spoons, which with buck- tails and feathers are lures that are commonly used today. As many as seven shad have been taken during one day by one sports fisherman in Maryland waters. Truitt (1950D) stated, "It had been supposed generally tha t shad, a feeder on the smaller organisms in the water, would not take a lure . . . * * * When a shad is hooked, it is game, as indicated by its plnnges, slicing runs, leaping from the water and 'shaking-loose' motions. Tender mouthed, relatively big, a fast quarry, &shed by light thread and a game fighter . . .," shad are taken by rod and reel in the Su~quehann~a below Conowingo, and in the Patuxent below Hardesty. The sport (fishery has become so popular that a sporting-goods store has printed elaborate maps showing locations where shad can be caught (see Dillon, 1953). Shad are also caught in the Potomac by anglers near Little Falls, and efforts have been made to develop sport fisheries on the Chester, Choptank, and Wicomico rivers on the Eastern Shore, but so f a r only hickory shad have been taken successfully a t these points.

74

DBCLINE OF SHAD IN MARYLAND

Ferguson and Downes (1876) gave some numerical indication of the early decline of shad. "By the courtesy of the owner of one of the largest fisheries in the Upper Bay, we examined his well kept books, and found that in 1824 when he worked a seine of only five hundred fathoms [long], his catch of shad during the season ending May 24th, amounted to [52,617], whereas, i n that of 1871, he took with a seine, one thousand one hundred and fifty fathoms [long] only [17,800] shad. The catch last year was considerbly larger, a s it was the best shad season for many years. On the 8th of May, his catch was [28,409]. The diminuation in shad is evec more marked than would appear from the above statement, for we learned that twenty-three fisheries above the mouth of the North East, which were in operation some forty years ago, have been abandoned." He also made some comments on the decline in the Potomac. In the latter and a t many points in the Chesapeake Bay, many established fisheries were abandoned. He quoted f$om the "Martin's Gazetteer of Virginia and the District of Columbia," published in 1835, when in six weeks time, 22,500,000 shad were harvested. In 1876, during which time only 32 fisheries were operating, 319,079 shad were taken from the Potomac. He pointed out that the implements for the capture of shad were more efficient in 1876 than 40 years before. "The fishermen operating with very much larger seines; in some cases on the Potomac hauling them by means of steam engines."

Ferguson (1876) suggested why shad and other food fishes had declined in Maryland. He stated "that the decrease is attributable to: 1st. Excessive fishing; Znd. The cutting off of the migratory fishes from their spawning beds; 3rd. The disturbing of the breeding fish on their spawning beds; 4th. The destruction of spawn, by washings from cultivated fields, and natural enemies; 5th. The destruction of young fish, by improper means and modes of capture." Ferguson's remedies to the decline were: "1st. Artificial propagation to supply the excessive drain caused by increased population, and improved means of capture; 2nd. By prohibiting all fishing with nets, seines or fixed apparatus for thirty-six hours in each week, during the migration of anadromous fishes, . . . 3rd. By! protecting the fish on their spawning beds; tha t is, by prohibiting their capture as their spawning seasons approach (the habits of each species must determine the period during which it should be protected) ; 4th. By the apparatus of fislh culture to protect the eggs and young fish from the causes of loss; 5th. By regulating the size of the meshes of nets and seines, and by prohibiting the erection or use of 'fish-traps' or 'fish-baskets,, (We cannot too strongly urge the abolition of 'fish-traps') ."

Earlier, Ferguson pointed out that dams and natural falls prevented shad from reaching spawning areas. It was believed then that the Potomac River fishery could be expanded by establishing a fishway a t Great Falls. The Maryland and Virginia Fish Commissions prepared an elaborate fishway plan in JuIy, 1875 for the Potomac River a t Great Falls. It provided for the construction of a channel, by bIasting of rocks, with a grade of about three feet to the hundred. By means of devices for breaking the current, the pass was to ascend in some 200 feet about 16 feet, and then by following the low places in the rocks, was to ascend some 28 feet in 800. This fishway was never installed in i ts entirety, although Stevenson (1899) mentioned the progress made on it. Ferguson and Downes (1876) stated, "We find that i t i s entirely feasible to construct fishways over the dams throughout the State, and recommend that some statutory pro- vision be made to insure the enjoyment of the ancient and common law right which the people living on our rivers have to the free passage of the fish to their spawning beds. They have bean entirely cut off from the Gunpowder by the several dams on that stream. We are informed by Mr. Henry Carroll that before the dams were erected, that the shad and rock ascended in numbers as f a r up as his estate and were taken by the people on horseback by spearing them. Since they have been cut off from access to their spawning beds in the upper river, they have greatly diminished and almost disappeared from the lower re- gion." By the same token many of the dams built on the impounded millponds on the Eastern Shore limited the movements of shad, aIthough in a much smaller way.

Ferguson and Hughlett (1880) attempted to gain some information regarding the facts of shad decline. A year before Colonel Thomas Hughlett, one of the

7 5

Commissioners of the State, addressed a questionnaire to Eastern Shore fishermen in which were phrased pertinent queries on shad. The results are summarized as follows: fishermen in the Choptank River attributed the decline to set seines, fyke or hoop nets, stake pounds, pound weirs, and to the fact that eels fed exten- sively on the spawn of shad. In addition one fisherman stated that young shad were caught while still very small, and that roe shad were prematurely taken before they could reach spawning grounds. The reasons cited for shad decline in the following rivers were very much like those given for the Choptank River: Chester River-"Cannot state cause [for shad decline]. Have known them to be as scarce in previous years and then rapidly increase;" Wicomico River-haul seines and, "A hard winter is generally followed by a good fish season, a s the fish that are kept back by the cold weather comes in large numbers a t the opening af the season." Tuckahoe Creek to Oxford-haul, float, net seines and weir nets. Of 18 fishermen who supplied detailed answers to the questionnaire, several noted a n increase in shad production, attributing this phenomenon to artificial stocking, while the majority noted a decline in production, blaming the decrease mostly in the use of the gear listed above. One fisherman reported that in 1875 over 2000 shad were caught per boat, and were sold for 10c apiece; in 1880, 500 were caught per boat, selling a t 25c apiece. With the decline most fishermen stated that shad were selling for $10 to $20 per hundred, depending on the season.

In his survey of ' the Maryland shad fisheries, Stevenson (1899) made some miscelIaneous observations concerning reasons for shad decline. I n the Susquehanna he noted, "Considerable complaint is made in this portion of the river regarding the refuse from a sulphide paper mill established in 1891 a t Conowingo, about 10 miles from the mouth of the river. When the water is low this refuse moves back and forth with the tide, doing considerable injury to the fisheries, but during high water the refuse is carried out into the bay, where it does little damage."

In the Wicomico River, Stevenson declared, "For many years the river was made a receptacle for refuse matter from numerous sawmills on its banks, to the great injury of the spawning-grounds; but during recent years this refuse has been burned in the mill yards." He pointed out that closed seasons recognized by local fishermen on the Choptank River were working a t cross-purposes with one another. "In the lower half of the Choptank the shad season begins about

I the middle of March and ends about the 10th of May, whereas in Tuckahoe Creek / and the upper portion of the Choptank the season begins about the 1st of April

and closes by law on May 15, giving those sections nearly two weeks less of fishing than is enjoyed in the lower C h o p h k . As a matter of fact, taking 1,000 shad after May 15 is generally less injurious to the future prosperity of the fishery than taking an equal number before that date; since the percentage of spawned shad in the former lot is greater than in the latter, thus yielding many more young shad when the fish are caught after May 15 than when taken before that date. Catching a shad immediately before i t has spawned certainly prevents i t from adding its quota to the supply of young fish; but this is also prevented if the shad be caught near the mouth of the river a month or more before its spawning period. It cannot be denied, however, that many eggs are destroyed when seines are dragged over the spawning-beds."

Truitt (1937) made some interesting comments regarding the decline of the shad fisheries in Maryland waters. He stated, "The shad frshery in Maryland waters has been seriously depleted in recent years. In 1920, 1,867,000 pounds of shad were taken; while in 1934, the latest available figures, the catch amounted to only 885,300 pounds. Hildebrand and Schroeder . . . have suggested that 'This decline in the abundance of Shad while millions of young were being liberated no doubt is attributable mainly to overfishing and to pollution in the streams. Many of the gravid Shad are taken in the Bay before they reach fresh water, and those that are successful in entering streams must follow a maze to escape the numerous nets set in the rivers in order to reach their spawning grounds. A boat trip on the lower part of the Chesapeake Bay during the Shad season will convince the most skeptical that i t is astonishing that any Shad a t all reach their spawning grounds.' While observations by these men were made at an early period, it is of interest to note here that during 1934 in Maryland there were licensed 531 pound nets, 305 haul seines, of the total length of 31,735 yards, and 3,399 stake gill nets with more than 292,614 square yards of total surface. I n Virginia waters during the same year, these gears were still more numerous,

76

there being for instance, 2,081 pound nets in operation. Additional information concerning the general biology of the species will give a more complete picture upon which the problem of shad hatcheries and their location, and other principles of conservation may be based. Outstanding in these observations is the fact that most of the fishery resources of the Chesapeake Bay are joint property of the states of Maryland and Virginia and the management of same is essentially an interstate problem, though there is much that can be done by the states acting independently."

In 1936, Dr. R. V. Truitt, director of the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, planned a series of investigations on the ecology of shad, and the factors contrib- uting to a decline. He assigned Dr. V. D. Vladykov and Mr. Dlavid H. Wallace to survey the spawning conditions and the habitat requirements of shad. A study of 76 fish showed that although some shad may spawn quite early in the lower tributaries, only a small number of these fish was ready to shed eggs in the upper reaches of the Bay during the latter par t of May and June. In his annual report for 1936, Dr. Truitt recorded the following: "Of special interest in con- nection with this problem is the general belief in Maryland that depletion of the species i s due largely to exposure, in the Susquehanna River, of eggs by the mil- lions when the flows of impounded water are cut off a t the Conowingo Power Dam two days per week. While investigations made to date are too limited to permit of drawing conclusions, there is marked indication that injury from this source is not as great as reports would have it. T'his region showed only one female that had spawned and another with ripe eggs in early June. The remaining fish indicated that spawning would have been delayed a t least two weeks, thus indicating that Shad in the region do not spawn early regardless of the impound- age of water and consequent water level. During this early period, no Shad eggs were found exposed whan the water was being impounded. * * * "

In early spring of 1937, Mr. J. P. Snyder, a fish culturist of the U. S. B. F., who w~as in charge of hatchery work a t the head of the Bay when the work was terminated about 1919, was requested to make a survey of the possibility of once again establishing shad propagation near Havre de Grace. His report contained some interesting observations that relate to the decline of shad. He wrote, "During my stay a t Havre de Grace, Md., I was permitted to meet most of the gill net shad fishermen. I found practically all men fishing on Chesapeake Bay Flats used anchored gill nets. They told me conditions have changed radically during the past twenty years due to sediment, sunken logs and stumps deposited during flood stages on the Susquehanna River. They said this made it imprac- ticable to drift nets on the flats. They also say this has restricted the spawning area of shad. Prior to this year only drift gill nets were used in the river channel from Havre de Grace to below the Old Battery Station and i t was in this area where most of the large catches of Shad were made in May and early in June in recent years. Due to broken submerged stakes left in this channel during dredging operations last summer none of the fishermen ventured to put nets in this channel during illy stay a t Havre de Grace. Most of the netting still being done between Port Deposit' and the 3. & 0. R. R. bridge is still of the drift type. Most of the shad taken in this 'area were still hard. Whether this was due to the water coming from the Conowingo Dam being colder than the water on the bay flats or to other causes is not known."

Snyder continued his observations, "Early in May just prior to my arrival a t Havre de Grace unusually large-for recent years-catches of shad were made by all gillers a t the head of the Bay. Men took from 50 to 100 shad per night but after May 10th the catches dwindled to anywhere from five to about 40 shad per boat. It was generally believed this enlarged run of shad early in May was due to the fact that most pound nets in the Bay were temporarily pub out of commission by a severe storm thereby permitting shad to reach the head of the Bay. Upon resetting of these thousand or more pound nets the number of shad reaching the head of the Bay rapidly decreased. * * * "

"All the gillers thought shad had been more abundant after the close of the season on June 10th than prior to that date in recent years and all seemed tar think they could get a lot of eggs if permitted to fish after the closing date. That some 'bootleg' fishing has been done in previous years seems certain. Two men told me that on the night of June 20th last year in one drift just off Battery Station they took 109 shad and that over 300 lbs. of these were large roe shad

77

still containing eggs. " * * Whether this abundance of shad in recent years after the closing season, June loth, was due to the removal of pound nets or due to shad dropping down the river after congregating below Conowingo Dam is not known. "; * *"

I n 1937 a limited amount of tagging of shad was oarried out by the Chesa- peake Biological Laboratory in the Chesapeake Bay, and Dr. Truitt justified this part of the work by re1,ating the following, "A theory that recently has become established among the fishermen in the region holds that Shad no longer con- centrate in the middle and upper Chesapeake Bay, but instead, move up the coast. Along with the development of this theory there has come about a much larger Shad fishery in New Jersey and in New York, especially along the Hudson River. This situation leads to the long debated question as to whether or not every locality possesses its own Shad population, or whether Shad from different parts of the Atlantic Coast belong to the same school or body of fish and during some years enter certain bays and rivers for spawning purposes, while in other years they may concentrate in still other bays and rivers."

Over 350 shad from Nova Scotia, Delaware Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay were studied to determine the occurrence of distinct populations a t widely sep- arated locations. From a detailed study of counts of vertebrae, pectoral fin rays, and ventral scutes, Vladykov and Wallace (1937) ) found that Shubenacadie River shad from Nova Scotia showed the highest averages in all above characters, by means of which they could be readily separated from shad from Delaware and Chesapeake Bays. They found that the Delaware sample was characterized by the smallest averages, while the Chesapeake shad occupied an intermediateposition. They concluded that shad studied from the three localities belonged to three dis- tinct populations. Although their data indicated that each locality possessed i ts own shad population, the possibility of mixing of different populations in a given locality was not excluded. The work of Warfel and Olsen (1947), discuss- ing variations in meristic features of shad in Chesapeake Bay and other areas, has been summarized in our report on the Connecticut shad fisheries. Vladykov (1936) had previously reported that during an unusually cold March, 1935, over two dozen shad had been taken per haul in Canadian otter trawls in, about 50 fathoms southwest of Middle Ground Bank off Nova Scotia, and from this ob- servation believes that there might be a possibility of different populations of shad mixing there. Further evidence of such a possibility was secured when a shad tagged during spring, 1937, a t Spesutie Island, a t the head of the Bay, was recaptured in June, 1937, a t Race Point, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, a distance of approximately 900 miles. This information, of course, is not suf i ient either to corroborate or disprove the viewpoint held by fishermen, that shad hatched in one area are absorbed when mature by the fishery of another area.

During 1938 the MaryIand shad tagging program mas greatly expanded. From 625 shad tagged during the spring run, 330 were released in April, 1938, near the mouth of the Bay, of which 28 percent were recaptured, the greater part being taken in the vicinity of the actual tagging. At head of the Bay, 225 shad were tagged with external tags and 62 with internal or "bellyy7 tags, a s well a s with external markers. Truitt (1939) described the results as follows, "This experi- ment was designed to determine the fishing intensity as well a s the number of spawners which returned during the following seasons. Comparatively few of the tags released in this immediate experiment have been returned, possibly be- cause the fish were released after the general fishing season had expired. One of these tags was later taken from New Jersey waters, giving further evidence of the fact that there is some northward migration after spawning of the Shad takes place in the Chesapeake area. Shad racial studies were continued during the year on fish from New York and the Chesapeake Bay, in which there was gained further information indicating that distinct populations exist in the two areas."

The shad program of investigation for 1939 a t the Chesapeake Biological baboratory consisted largely of co-operation with the U. S. B. F. Shad were tagged both on the up-run and on the down-run of the Chesapeake Bay. "Tagging returns from the 1938 releases were received indicating, further, that this form visits the same breeding areas during successive years, a problem that i s being more comprehensively surveyed in a coast-wide study by the Bureau." (Truitt, 1940).

78

The Chairman of the Conservation Commission of Maryland, Edwin War- field, Jr., summNarized the attitude toward the decline of shad in the Eighteenth Annual Report of his agency in 1941. He estimated that the loss of revenue to the industry resulting from decline in catch of shad "is approximately one million dollars a year." He noted also that the market had suffered along with the de- clining production. "Many people gave up the use of shad, resulting this year with a production of only one million pounds for the whole of Chesapeake Bay on a price average of not more than five cents per pound. It has been conclusively [sic.] established that shad hatched in the Chesapeake area return again as mature fish, after their ocean sojourn of four or five years, to the river where they were spawned. Since this is the case, the problem of the rehabilitation of this fishery is squarely up to the two States, Maryland and Virginia, who share the ownership of the Bay."

During this period a committee was selected by the commercial fishermen of Maryland to work on the problem with the Commission, scientists from the Chesapeake Biologiclal Laboratory and the U. S. F. W. S., the successor of the U. S. B. F. According to Warfield, "Many suggested explanations of the decline in the production of fish were studied by this group. Pollution, Virginia fishermen, destruction of breeding grounds, insufficient hatchery work, Conowingo Dam, trawling in the ocean off the Capes, shad enemies and overfishing were all exhaustively considered. It developed from these studies that overfishing is so predominant as a cause of decline tha t the other factors bearing on the subject a re comparatively insignificant. * * * The above constituted one par t of the problem. The remaining part, the greater one, was to find ways and means to restore the fishery that would be fa i r and equitable to the fishermen of Maryland and Virginia and the different fisheries interests of both States. To find this answer, a series of meetings was held between the above mentioned group and the fish,ery officials and representatives of the industry from Virginia." Warfield still maintained that hatcheries should not be abandoned, a l tho~gh enthusiasm for them had waned considerably. He stated, for example, that . . . h~atchery work is considered only as a ;valuable adjunct to the fishery program. It has been shown that it alone cannot be depended upon to effect restoration of the several fisheries of the Chesapeake Bay. * * * Shad hatchery work in the past, even when practiced on an extensive scale, did not prevent a marked decline in this fishery. A study of this failure with a view to correcting i t and, possibly, instituting a program for rearing f r y to fingerling sizes, so as to assure survival and restora- tion, is urgent."

During the late thirties the distribution of stocks of shad in the respective areas of Maryland and Virginia came into focus, particularly so, since each state blamed the other for contributing to the decline of shad. Accordingly, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, in close cooperation with the U. S. F. W. S., began to investigate this situation by tagging 328 shad in the region above the mouth of the Potomac River. Truitt (1941) justified this research project by stating, "The question here is essentially one of whether Virginia watermen catch fish of Maryland origin or whether these fish move from the ocean directly to the Maryland areas unintercepted in the industry. * * * From [a collection of scale samples from 12,000 fish] the better scales were selected, cleaned, and referred to the Service for study in order to establish the extent to which shad, after once having spawned, return to the Chesapeake Bay to spawn again, and to determine, if possible, the origin (parent stream) of the shad taken in the various areas of the Bay." The results of this work was presented by Hammer (1942), and an abstract is given later in this paper.

Truitt (1947B) also pointed out that "commercial fishermen are inclined to take a dark view of the [largemouth bass, Micropterus s. salnzoides] and envision his gobbling down vast quantities of young shad during those months in summer and early fall when small shad are still in brackish waters tributary to the Bay." Although no evidence is available to support such a view, "It i s the opinion of many commercial fishermen, especially in the region of the head of the Bay, that the large-mouth black bass is a major factor in reducing the annual yield of shad." The difficulty in obtaining a large enough sample of bass during the late summer period has hindered the progress ef an investigation of the food habits of the largemouth bass in recent years.

79

Between 1941 and 1951 no elaborate efforts were made to determine the decline of shad except for the work of Cable (1944C). The Maryland Fishery Manage- ment Law, however, was inaugurated to check the decline. A concerted effort was made by Federal and State agents to study various segments of the ecology of shad during these years, but no results were published that could definitely point to any factors except possibly to overfishing as is described in the section of this paper devoted to rehabilitation and management.

REHABILITATION AND MANAGEMEINTI OF SHAD IN MARYLAND

When T. B. Ferguson was made Commissioner of Fisheries of Maryland in 1874, shad culture received a new impetus in the United States. Artifical propagation of shad was considered the only modern rehabilitation measure during that period. In his first report published in 1876 [which contained the reports for 1874 and 18751 he appealed for support by emphasizing the following, "It is much to be regretted that we are without reliable statistics of the annual yield of our waters, and have only to rely on information furnished from the memory of fishermen and fish dealers, but enough has been obtained to satisfy us, that most valuable fisheries are becoming less and less productive, and oar waters are being depleted of their yield of fishfood, to an alarming extent, and we feel that necessity for the protection of our fishes, and [we must] resort to artificial means of fish culture to restore our waters . . . * * * The spring fishes of the Chesapeake Bay being the earliest in market, will command the most remunerative prices, and the great rail- road faciIities, and the improved means of transporting fresh fish to the interior, by the use of ice, and refrigerating cars, renders i t possible to so overstock the market, that the capture of our best food fishes would be unremunerative."

Ferguson was responsible for the early cooperative effort between Virginia and Maryland authorities to provide " . . . for the increase of fishes, [by] creating a commission, and making an appropriation for fish culture . . . " on the Potomac River. Although the Maryland Assembly had enacted such a bill, Virginia did not comply with its part of the bargain until March, 1875. Following Virginia's action, Ferguson wrote to Professor Spencer F. Baird, Commissioner General, Fish and Fisheries, of the U. S. Government, about arrangements and advice regarding shad culture. He also negotiated with Seth Green, of Rochester, N. Y., who had notable success in shad hatching, regarding the use of Green's shad hatching boxes. The latter were the only receptacles that could be adapted to shad hatching in Maryland waters, and Green took advantage of his enviable position by offering the use of the boxes to the State for the then large sum of $2,000 in cash and royalty for their use for three years. Ferguson and Downes (1876) outlined the negotiations as follows: "Proposed memorandum of agreement between the Maryland Commissioners of Fisheries, and Seth Green . . . for hatching Shad in Maryland during the spawning season of 1874: 'Seth Green agrees to furnish the necessary labor for manipulating the fish and the necessary imple- ments and equipments, and perform all the work connected therewith during the spawning season for Shad, furnish the necessary transportation for, and board the men employed by him for two camps, one on the Patuxent river, and one on one of the rivers of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The Commissioners of Fisheries of Maryland, agree to furnish the fish as taken a t the several camps to Seth Green to be manipulated for spawn, and agree to pay to Seth Green eleven hundred dollars, one-half of the amount, being five hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid when the camps are established, and the other one-half . . . to be paid a t the close of the season." Unfortunately, the bargaining extended well into the shad season, so that no agreement was made before the close of the fishing season of 1874. Ferguson stated, however, that a series of experiments was conducted and necessary information was obtained to insure a success in shad hatching the ' following season.

Professor Baird assured Ferguson that should Congress pass a bill, then pending, making the necessary appropriation for fish culture, in time to find any ripe fish in the Potomac, he would push operations vigorously on that river. The season was too f a r advanced before appropriation was made, so Dr. J. H. Slack, in charge of the Federal shad hatching camp a t Point PIeasant, Pennsylvania, on the Delaware River, was authorized to transfer as many young fish as he could to the waters of Maryland. When the Maryland Commissioners arrived a t the hatchery they learned that Dr. Slack had contracted pleurisy by exposure a t the camp, and died shortly after. I n his absence, the young fish intended for

80

Maryland waters, were stocked in the Delaware River by the fishermen. A few days were spent trying to persuade the fishermen to give up a portion of the fish to be transported to Maryland waters? but the Commissioners found i t "impossible" to do so.

Ferguson and Downes felt that "The heretofore accepted theory, that shad formed in an immense school, on the Southern Atlantic Coast, which sending off divisions as i t moved northward up the several rivers successively, from Florida to Nova Scotia as the season advanced, is no doubt incorrect for the more Southern Rivers do not continue their abundance, but those rivers formerly abundant which have been exhausted by over fishing, or by obstructions preventing the fish from reaching their spawning grounds, continue unproductive, irrespective of their geographical position, and those rivers in which artificial propagation has been resorted to, continue year by year to be more and more productive. The immense numbers and the extreme delicacy of the shad, which prevents their being handled, and the probable length of time which they remain in the sea, has rendered i t impossible to ascertain with . . . accuracy [the migratory movements of shad]. * * ' We, therefore report, that the best means to restock our rivers, ~vould be to estab- lish hatching stations on as many of them a s spawners can be obtained and the fish should be turned into the streams a s high,,up as practicable, and that the maximum amount of ova be collected each year.

Ferguson and Downes (1876) continued, "To accustom the young fish to the upper waters, and to create in them a desire to ascend to the sources of our rivers, in case fishways are erected to provide their passage over the Great Falls of the Potomac and the Gunpowder, we transported and turned into the Potomac, a t Piedmont, some sixty thousand young shad, and into the Gunpowder, near Cockeysville, some thirty thousand."

I n April, 1875, the Federal, Virginia and Maryland authorities visited several localities in Maryland to establish two shad hatching camps, for which they had secured a small appropriation. "We examined the fisheries on the Potomac, and then ascended the Patuxent, as f a r as Bristol, examining the fisheries on that River. We found Freestone Point, lying between Powell's and Neabsco Creeks, admirably adapted for shad hatching; being an excellent shad fishery, the ripe fish apparently selecting the extensive flats a t this point for spawning, and Pow- ell's Creek furnishing a safe harbor for the hatching boxes, protected a s they would be from the north and northwest winds. * * * Moxley's Point, . . . located a t the mouth of Piscataway Creek, . . . was also selected as a suitable location for a second camp." Two years before the U. S. Fish Commission had successfully hatched shad a t Jackson's City, and the same methods were to be applied to Maryland. Fishermen on the shores were visited and the subject of the Com- mission was explained. The proper manipulation of ripe shad for s p a y and milt was demonstrated, and "we found the fishermen hopeful of the results.

Ferguson presented Professor J. W. Milner's account of shad hatchery opera- tions of that period. "The apparatus devised by Mr. Green was merely a light pine box, 22 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches deep; the bottom was wire cloth, about twenty wires to the inch. It was used without a cover. On the ends of the box, two pieces of two by four scantling were nailed diagonally to the lines of the box, so that floating in the water i t was slightly tilted, the side of the box, sunk to the least depth, being up stream, so that the wire screen bottom was presented to the current a t a slight angle, sufficient to produce a circulation of the water inside the box. that kept the light shad eggs in gentle motion."

"The angle of the floats [varied depending on velocity of the current], the object being to produce a current that will move the eggs a s gently as possible, a more rapid motion being regarded as injurious, especially in the later stages of development when i t materially hastens the rupture of the shell membrane, and effects a too premature birth. * * * Ferguson and Downes (1876) further quoted Milner. "As soon as the bag of the seine comes near the shore, the fishermen, gathering the lead line and cork line in their hands, gradually work i t up to the top of the water, shaking the fish into the bunt of the bag, a boat is brought alongside, and the fish thrown into i t with a scoop net, the shad being a t once separated from the other speeies. The operators provided with ordinary six-quart milk pans containing about three-fourths of an inch of water . . . are in the boat, and taking up the shad one by one, detect a t once, by gentle pressure on the belly of the fish if the spawn is ripe by its free emission from the gviducts.

81

"* * * When a female is found, from which the eggs flow in a liquid stream when a gentle pressure is applied, i t is carefully taken in the hands of the oper- ator, the left hand applied closely around the tail, and the head of the fish crowded against his body, while with the right hand, a slight pressure is applied with the thumb and finger to the abdomen of the fish, and a stripping motion executed which causes the eggs to flow rapidly into the pan. * * * A slight pres- sure on the ripe male near the anal opening will force out two or three jets of the milt, which falling into the pan is stirred by a gentle movement of the hand with the fingers spread . . . [and] the pan i s left for a few minutes to allow the spermatozoa to come in contact with the eggs. * * * Mr. Green estimates the number of ova taken from an average spawner, a t about 20,000 eggs, and rarely estimates above 28,000 for the most prolific shad. Mr. C. C. Smith, operat- ing the Connecticut State Commission, estimates an average good spawner, a t 50,000 ova. * * * "

In early spring of 1875, 2,355,000 shad f r y were released in the Patuxent River from the shad hatchery a t Bristol. At the same time 1,985,000 were re- leased from the Chester River hatchery a t Coppage's Landing. Some were re- leased in the Chester River, but an aggregate of 190,000 was sent to the Cnoptank River, Elkton, Gunpowder River and Potomac River. A t the hatchery located a t Freestone, Virginia, on the Potomac, a total of 1,156,750 shad were propagated. At Moxley's Point on the Potomac, 1,182,000 shad f r y were released; a t Jackson City on the Potomac 1,072,800 were released; a t Ferry Landing on the Potomac, 1,263,000 were released. Thus, a total of 4,975,550 shad f r y were released in the Potomac River.

During 1876, Ferguson (1877) stated that several small boats suitable for gathering spawn of shad and herring were constructed. The steamer "Lookout" was prepared to move quickly from one fishery to another, gathering spawn a s the large seines were landed so that the fisheries within a space of eight to ten miles could be visited. On board shad eggs were placed in a tank with five dis- tributing pipes that were hung on frames so arranged that the vessels retained their perpendicular position notwithstanding the rocking of the boat. An inde- pendent steam tank-pump kept the reservoir tank supplied constantly with water from overboard.

During 1876 the Federal Hatchery a t Ferry Landing produced only 686,000 f ry of which 586,000 were placed in the Potomac. Ferguson took advantage of the "hundreds of gill nets" on the Susquehanna Flats near Havre de Grace, where a hatching camp was established under the old railroad bridge. Another camp was established a t Swan Creek, near Spesutie Island, while another was located a t Carpenter's Point. Over 1,660,000 fish were hatched a t these stations; in ad- dition, 459,000 were hatzhed a t Light House, where a fish culturist ". . . operated a gang of boxes there. Over 2,081,000 shad f r y were hatched from eggs ob- tained from the gill nets alone. One of the great diflkulties in these hatching operations was the scarcity of males during the abundance of eggs. Hundreds of thousands of eggs were thrown away because illales were not available to fertilize the eggs. Occasionally male herrings or striped bass were used to fertilize the eggs, and Ferguson remarked, "After hatching, as we had no means to keep them that their development might be observed, we released these Hybrids."

[Commercial fishermen have long believed that the hickory shad is a hybrid between the white shad, and the alewife, Po?nolobus pseudoharengus, or glut herring, P. aestivalis. Hildebrand and Schroeder (19128) did not collect any young hickory shad under six inches in length, and said that . . . investigations show rather conclusively that the hickory shad does not ascend the fresh waters of the Chesapeake region to spawn," and that they probably leave Chesapeake Bay to spawn, although they are known to remain in the Bay until autumn. Speci- mens caught by hook and line in the Patuxent possess well-developed gonads. In addition, spent hickory shad have been reported by authoritative observers in Maryland and Virginia waters in recent years. During shad hatchery operations white shad eggs have been fertilized in the past by buck herring on numerous occasions in the absence of buck white shad. The eggs have been observed to pro- gress beyond the f ry stage, but no observations have been made on the further development of these fish. No one has made a concerted study of the life history of the hickory shad in recent years, and no one has described the spawning grounds of this species, so that its natural history represents an interesting problem for

82

future investigation. To date, however, no ichthyologist has suggested that the hickory shad is a hybrid.]

A camp was established in 1876 a t Bristol Landing on the Patuxent, but only 175,000 shad f ry were hatched. The camp was prematurely shut down be- cause the catch of shad was so small. Ferguson concluded after two years of shad culture, "We are convinced from our attempts and failures on the several smaller rivers of the State, that until these rivers can be brought up to their former degree of productiveness, that i t will not be profitable to establish camps on them; that we must increase the Shad of these rivers by hatching them in large numbers a t the Head of the Bay, and then transporting the young fish to these rivers after they are hatched." Over 1,660,000 fish were hatched a t Carpenter's Point on the Northeast River.

Ferguson displayed a rare enthusiasm and zealous devotion to shad rehabili- tation in Maryland waters. His plans and hopes for future shad culture were based on education and an altruistic faith in the fisherman's interest in producing a sustained resource for his own security. Ferguson declared, ". . . it has been our aim each year to instruct one or two more of our own citizens in the duties connected with shad hatching, and i t is hoped by the time these rivers are better stocked, that we will have a sufficient number of trained men in the State to multiply the points a t which we can conduct operations. It would be of great permanent advantage to the State if each year during our operations in shad hatching we were abIe to employ a man from each county in the Shad regions, so that in the course of a few years we could have experts in all portions of the State."

In 1877 State authorities hatched 8,444,300 shad, of which 7,319,300 were released in Maryland waters and the remaining transferred to other localities by the United States Fish Commissioner. Departing from the usual procedure of hatching shad in Maryland waters, the Maryland Fish Commission entered in an elaborate agreement to transfer operations to Albemarle Sound, North Caro- lina. Here in cooperation with the Fish Commissions of the United States and Virginia, and the Department of Fish Culture of North Carolina, the shad were hatched and a large portion of the yield of shad was made available for distribu- tion in those several states. Maryland contributed the steamer, much of its equipment and the experience. Over 2,000,000 shad f ry were made available to Maryland, but during transportation, almost all of them died from one o r more causes. Shad hatching operations were also continued successfully a t the Head of the Bay during that year.

During 1878 over 9,820,000 shad were hatched and distributed in Maryland and North Carolina waters. During 1879 the following stations were operated:

Stations Shad Fry Released Spesutie Narrows-Susquehanna River 9,515,000 Old Bay Fishery near Havre de Grace-Susquehanna River 1,252,000 Havre de Grace-Susquehanna River 7,757,000 Ferguson tried to justify the shad hatching operations by denionstrating how

shad had increased during his tenure of office. Thus for 1879 he and Hughlett stated, "The sudden and marked increase in the supply of this valuable fish in the Chesapeake Bay is a result most flattering to the labors of the Commission." Fishermen in the vicinity of Annapolis had noted an increase in the supply of shad during 1878, and since Ferguson believed that ". . . the return of shad could be expected during their third year," the increase was the "result of our hatching operations in the spring of 1875." He obtained the following statistics from one gillnetter in the Havre de Grace area:

Year Number Yea$ Number 1870 48,527 1875 40,150 1871 30,101 ' 1876 35,539 1872 62,451 1877 47,150 1873 40,295 1878 50,310 1874 50,246 1879 75,525

83

Statistics from 19 seines operated a t the Head of the Bay in the Susquehanna showed the following :

Year 1872 1873

Number Year 156,212 1876 133.050 1877

Number 136,633 152.765

The Health Commissioner of Washington, D. C., kept an accurate record of shad brought to and consumed there:

Year Number Inspected Year Number Inspected 1872 917.221 1876 319.079 1873 852;900 1877 131;199 1874 628,637 1878 121,785 1875 464,215 1879 328,435 A cursory glance a t these figures, particularly during 1879 does show a n

increase, but it is so slight that Ferguson was hardly justified in attributing the increase to stocking of shad fry. In view of the present knowledge of mortality among young stocked fishes, and also the belief prevalent among scientists, but a s yet unsubstantiated, that one out of 100,000 shad f r y (see Moss 1950A) will live to five years of age, the small number of shad f r y stocked in the rSvers mentioned above would hardly result in enough adult shad to make a significant change in the commercial production returns.

During 1883 Commissioner Ferguson left the Maryland Fish Commission, and was succeeded by G. W. Delawder. Apparently the two Commissioners were a t odds with one another for the latter ". . . found that this predecessor was oper- ating in connection with the United States Commission and was using the appa- ratus of that Commission. When therefore, your newly appointed Commissioner went into office, he was without any of the appliances for hatching." Notwith- standing these difficulties, the co-Commissioner Thomas Hughlett established shad operations a t the following stations:

Stations Shad Fry Released Sharps PointWicomico River 2,335,000 Coward's Point-Tuckahoe Creek 3,745,000 Millington-Chester River 415,000

No shad were hatched in the Potomae River because of the apparent friction between the State and Federal authorities.

Brooks (1893) preserved some of the early facts regarding the effects of stocked shad f r y in Maryland waters. The information that he compiled is on the surface rather convincing. He wrote, "In 1888 more shad were .caught in salt water than were caught altogether in 1880, and yet the shad fisheries are now increasing in value from year to year, and this change has been brought about, not by enactment of laws to restrict the fishery, but by the production of more fish. In 1880 the U. S. Fish Commission began, systematically and upon a large scale, the work of collecting the eggs from the bodies of the shad which were cap- tured for the market in the nets of the fishermen. These eggs were artificially ferti- lized and the young were kept for a short time in hatching jars, and the waste of eggs was thus prevented. This work has been prosecuted steadily ever since, and the results, u'p to the end of the season of 1888, a re given in the following table:

In Salt and Brackfish Percentage of In-

Water In Rivers Total crease over 1880 ............................... 1880 ............................ 2,549,544 1,581,424 4,140,968

1885 ............................ 3:267,497 1,906,434 5,172,931 25 percent 1886 ............................ 3,098,768 2,485,000 5,584,368 34 percent 1887 ............................ 3,813,714 2,901,661 6,715,405 62 percent 1888 ............................ 5,010,101 2,650,373 7,660,474 85 percent

"The money value to the fishermen of the excess in 1888 over the total catch of 1880 was more than $700,.000. We have no record for 1889 or 1890, but in the latter year the fisheries were more profitable than they have been for many years, and our markets were stocked with an abundance of fine shad, which were

84

sold a t prices which ten years before would not have been thought possible. The percentage of increase in 1889 and 1890 has been much greater than i t was in any of the years given in the table, and this result is not due to any change i n the method of fishing. It is exclusively due to the increase in the supply. The conditions are now more unfavorable than ever to natural reproduction, and i t can be proved that if no shad had been produced by man, while the other factors had remained as they now are, the fisheries would be completely ruined and aban- doned."

"The mature fishes are now excluded by dams and other obstructions from the most valuable spawning-grounds, and the area which is now available is restricted to the lower reaches of the rivers, where there is little proper food for the young, and where the bottoms are so continually and assiduously swept by drift nets and seines that each fish is surely captured soon after its arrival. The number of eggs which are naturally deposited is now very small, for while the spawning-grounds have increased from 1,600,000 to 2,600,000, the take in salt water has increased from 2,500,000 to 5,000,000, and the shore of our bays and sounds are now so lined by fyke nets and pounds tha t the number of shad which reach the spawning-grounds a t all is proportionately much less than i t was in 1880, and more shad are now taken each year in salt water, where spawn- ing is impossible, than were taken altogether in 1880."

In essence, the above argument represented the consensus of opinion among responsible authorities who advocated all-out hatchery production of shad. The apparent increase of shad oould be attributed to no other fact@ except artificial stocking. The trend toward continuing such operations is very strong even today among certain groups. Basically, watermen have always felt that artificial propagation and stocking is a means of management that can result in nothing else but adult fish. They do not consider the natural mortality and the host of calamities that befall a fish during its development. It is even more a paradox that Dr. Brooks was blinded by the apparent rather than the real results of hatcheries, and that he did not give adequate consideration to the ecology of shad.

Brooks continued his argument for shad hatcheries. "This fact, rightly considered, means that the shad is now an artifical product, like the crops of grain and fruit, which are harvested on our farms and orchards. If more shad than the natural supply were taken in 1880 in all waters, and if still g$r;reater numbers are now taken each year in deep water, before they reach the spawning- ground, i t follows that we are now entirely dependent upon the artificial supply."

Brooks carried this thesis still further: "In some respects the shad is the most remarkable of donlestieated animals, for i t is the only one which man has yet learned to rear and to send out into the ocean in great flocks and herds to pasture upon its abundance, and to come back again, f a t and nutritious, to the place from which i t was sent out. From this point of view the maintenance of the shad fishery by man, by the use of artificial means, is one of the most notable triumphs of human intelligence over nature."

That Dr. W. K. Brooks, the distinguished zoologist of the Johns Hopkins University, could write about shad culture in such rapturous terms, is an indication of the honest but mistaken feeling toward hatcheries which seized not only fishermen but biologists a t the turn of the century, although even then the premise should not have stood up under more objective scrutiny.

Brooks continued his discussion of Maryland shad, "In our own waters a fishery which is very productive one year may yield very few shad another year, and a stream which they enter in great numbers one season may be almost completely passed by another season. When the harvest of shad is unusually abundant in the Potomac River it is below the average in the Susquehanna, and a season of experimental abundance in the Susquehanna River is a season of comparative scarcity in the Potomac. These facts prove that shad is not brought back to its birthplace by an unerring instinct of locality, but that the exact source of i ts migration is determined by external influences; and there has been much speculations as to the character of these influences." He cited the work done by McDonald who indicated that shad were positively rheotactic before spawning and that they also were attracted into Chesapeake Bay by the warm temperature of the water. Such work has not been carried out to the elaborate degree that is necessary to prove or disprove such principles of animal migrations.

85

These facts, among many others, led McDonald to believe that while the purpose of migration is the perpetuation of the species, their directing influence is the temperature of the water.

Stevenson (1899) mentioned the occurrence of hatcheries during the interim when no reports were forthcoming from the State of Maryland. He noted, "For several years the State of Maryland has maintained a small shad hatchery a t Salisbury, on the Wicomico River, from which several million f r y are annually distributed, not only in the Wicomico but i n other streams of the peninsula." On Tuckahoe Creek "A small shad hatchery has been maintained for many years by the State of Maryland a t Cowarts Point, a few miles above the mouth, from which five or ten million young shad are annually distributed.",

In the Annual Report of the Conservation Commission of Maryland for 1908-1909 the Commissioners presented some facts concerning the shad industry in Maryland based on observations made by the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries. They enumerated eight locations a t which a n aggregate of 24,362,000 shad f r y were distributed in 1908. In spite of the large number of f r y liberated, the Corn- missioners and Bureau of Fisheries technicians implied tha t stocking was not as successful as formerly held. They noted, "Even this artificial propagation scarcely offsets the dangers of capturing such a large proportion of the mature fishes before they reach their spawning grounds. Then, too, the spawning g-rounds have been greatly restricted, those of most value having been cut off by the construction of dams and other obstructions. Consequently, the catch in the streams of the State has declined, steadily, while that of the open bay has increased." The very last statement is obviously a subjective statement probably based on speculation for even during the turn of the century the fact was well established that there was not a Bay population of shad; they all spawned up the rivers in fresh water.

The Conservation agencies of the State of Maryland were reorganized and under a n act of the Assembly of 1922 the Conservation Department of Maryland acted with new vigor in its efforts to check the decline of shad. Harrison W. Vickers, the Commissioner, stated in the first annual report in 1923 that, "While this Department had favorable reports from the catch of shad in certain localities of the bay, the general decline of this most valuable and delicious seafood is perceptible, and no permanent results may be expected until State and FederaI legislation curb the setting of nets and give the spawning shad a chance to reach the headwaters of the bay and tributaries." Then the artificial propagation of shad was once again intensified.

W. G, Bell, superintendent of the fresh water hatcheries operated by the State, released the following shad f r y in 1923:

Principio 5,700,000 Rock Hall 400,000 Crumpton 2,044,000 Bush River 1,150,000 Denton 3,125,000

Shad hatcheries were located a t : (1) Crumpton on the Chester River; (2) Charlestown in Cecil County. In 1924, the following numbers of shad f r y were released.

Crumpton 2,295,000 Principio 1,944,000 Aberdeen 108,000 Betterton 999,000 Charlestown 5,724,000

The attitude a t the time toward the condition of Maryland and coastwise shad fisheries was summarized in 1926 by Swepson Earle, who became Commis- sioner of the Conservation Department in 1924. His statements are as follows: "The conference called by Honorable Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, Washington on May 22, 1925, to discuss the conservation of migratory fishes, created much interest. This conference was brought about by studying the statis- tics compiIed by the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, showing depletion of the shad . . . to such an extent that these valuable seafoods are threatened with extinction. I n Secretary Hoover's address, he laid special stress on the shad situation, and showed the great decrease not only in the waters of every Atlantic Coast State,

but especially in the waters of Chesapeake Bay. The statement shows that thirty years ago the annual take of shad in the States of Georgia to New York was over 50,000,000 pounds. Overfishing has steadily decreased the supply until during the past few years i t has averaged less than 13,000,000 pounds, or a decrease of seventy-five percent. It was agreed that there could be no real protection unless the whole range of the Coast from Georgia to New York can be protected by some common action. The Federal Government has no authority over State waters. As a result of unco-ordinated action of our state authorities, we see these great natural assets solenlnly disintegrated. The Federal Bureau of Fisheries trans- ported young shad into California where there was never a shad before. Under the careful protection of the California Fish Commission, they thrived until this year California shipped about 2,000,000 pounds on ice, 3,000 miles into the Atlantic seaboard states, where they are solemnly sold a s the great and rare delicacy of the Atlantic water."

Earle also helped to perpetuate a misconception of shad migrations tha t exists in some degree today. He stated that, "From the experience of Fish Culturists in Connecticut and New Jersey, i t was found that the shad requires four years to mature, that the shad after leaving the waters of any of the Atlantic states likely follows the Gulf Stream southward, and after reaching maturity starts on i ts migration northward. It was a t one time thought that the shad sought the waters where spawned, but i t seems that coming up the coast, he will seek the first available waters, where the eggs mature, and for this reason qvery State should do its utmost in fish hatchery work in producing more shad."

Earle demonstrated an interest in the rate of mortality of stocked shad fry, and noted in 1925, over 80,000 out of 2,600,000 shad f r y hatched, were kept in boxes until they had attained a length of two inches. "It was found that the shad could be helped with very little expense to the State, and the mortality was greatly reduced when turning out a fish that is a fingerling instead of one that is in the f r y stage."

The following methods of alleviating the shad decline were recommended a t the Hoover conference: (1). since pound nets were too long and too close together to allow shad to contmue upstream, the State of Virginia would give more space between nets in their waters and curtail their lengths; (2) Maryland and Virginia were urged to set aside spawning ground sanctuaries for shad, and the former State agreed to set aside spawning areas a t the head of the Bay.

Virginia declared a closed season on shad in 1925, from May 15 to October 15, and Earle recommended in the Third Annual Report of the Conservation Depart- ment that Maryland follow suit. His action was based on the figures released by the government showing that the shad supply had been reduced 50 percent. "It is difficult to convince the fisherman that the shad is rapidly becoming extinct, because they are really making as much money today as they did when the fish was plentiful, and with less work." In addition, he praised the efforts of the U. S. B. F. for maintaining the shad hatchery a t Bryan Point on the Potomac River, even though the annual stocking of shad in the Potomac River from this hatchery for two or three decades had not proven fruitful. I n 1927, a shad hatchery was established a t Millington in Kent County and a t Denton in Caroline County. In 1928 shad were so abundant that roe shad sold for as low a s $1 in Baltimore markets, about half the price for 1927, and it was believed that the marked increase was attributed to hatchery work. Earle went so f a r as to say, "The Chesapeake Bay may be reaping the benefits af the hatehery work of the New England states. Every effort is being made by Maryland to increase its shad production." In 1928, the U. S. B. F. took 42,000,000 shad eggs a t Bryan Point, and hatched out about 85 percent. The f r y were distributed in various Maryland rivers.

During the Thirties the shad hatchery output had fallen so low that plans were made to enlarge the production by finding new locations for operations. During 1934, hatchery stations were located a t Denton, Crumpton, Millington, Charlestown, and Pi-incipio, but in 1935 efforts were made to reopen operations a t the former hatchery site a t the mouth of the Suscluehanna. Operations did not begin a t the Havre de Grace station until 1937. In the meantime, Swepson Earle noted in April 1935, that many ripe shad were being taken in the Pocollloke River. He strongly advised the establishment of a hatchery on the Eastern Shore to balance the Federal hatchery on the Potomac a t Bryan ,Point. His suggestion was not followed.

87

In the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Conservation Department of Maryland fqr 1937 a complete account of the hatcheries devoted to shad on tidewater was glven. The report noted that the Department owned and maintained several rather large buildings for the purpose of shad culture. "It has been considered impractical up to this time to combine this hatchery work and locate it a t a single point due to a number of factors that work adversely such as availability of spawn- ing fish, proper water conditions and cooperation of interested persons." The hatcheries were a s follows: Denton-Results from shad operations on this river were limited despite the work of efficient spawn collectors and the amount of work done. Brood stock did not come from the Choptank River proper, but from the tributary, Tuckahoe River. During 1937 a large number of shad f ry was reared up to two inches in length, and then released. Rock Hall-Shad were propagated a t this station last in 1923, but operations were abandoned because production was very low. Crunipton-Shad culture was discontinued here after 1937. Millington-Shad spawn was collected a few miles up the Chester River and hatched a t the Millington 'station.

Other stations discussed in the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Conservation Department of Maryland included:

"Charlestown: This station, located on the Northeast River, had been operated since 1923, but in 1937 recommendations were made that i t be abandoned in favor of the hatchery a t Havre de Grace, although work was carried out there later. The small number of eggs collected, the muddy and rough condition of the river, was responsible for the close of operations."

Havre de Grace: Hatchery work in this section of the Susquehanna and Northeast rivers had not been attempted since the discontinuance of the floating hatchery during the season of 1919. During 1937 eggs were taken first on May.10 and incubation of them was attempted a t Silver's Wharf by means of floating boxes. The eggs did not develop a t this point and pollution was blamed. The work was subsequently moved to Murphy's Wharf where the waters were considered satisfactory. Some idea of the occurrence of shad a t the head of the Bay during 1937 is given in the following, "The catch of mature shad in the Havre de Grace region, including the Northeast River and south to Spesutie Island, was far from satisfactory from the viewpoint of hatchery operation although the 319 ripe female fish taken in the region represents a greater number than has been taken during the more recent years. This catch refers to that of the gill netters alone. A larger quantity of shad was taken from pound netters but their fish are not available for hatchery purposes since the nets are lifted a t a time of the day when the spawn is not prime which, typically, is from 5 to 11 p.m."

During the mid-thirties there was a tendency among trained men to look upon the work of artificial propagation of shad f ry with doubt. Albert Powell, fish cul- turist of the old Conservation Department, defended in part the hatchery view- points in the Fifteenth Annual Report, Conservation Commission of ,Maryland. He said, "Since there is a tendency on the part of many scientists to depreciate the value of hatcheries in releasing shad f ry the results obtained . . . may be indicative of a change in the policy of hatching." By this he inferred that grea4er emphasis would be made to retain shad f ry until they had reached a two or three inch fingerling size before they were liberated. His general attitude toward hatchery work was embodied in this statement made in 1937, "It cannot be too strongly urged that some plan of cooperation be effected throughout the Chesapeake whereby there may be a greater escapeage from the nets to result in larger numbers of spawning fish on the breeding grounds. At best, hatcheries are an auxiliary to replenish the natural spawn released, which is the greatest factor in restoration of this fish." During 1938, shad were so scarce that inany gill netters, from whom spawn was obtained, did not operate. Conditions for ripe shad were so poor in the Bay that efforts to establish a permanent hatchery was postponed.

Although fishery biologists and conservation administrators doubted the wis- dom of pouring millions of shad fry into rivers annually, they made no efforts to gauge accurately the effects of releasing the larval fish from hatchery jars di- rectly into the many rivers of the State, many of which possessed water char- acteristics that were often quite different from the natal waters of shad fry. During 1940 the hatcheries were placed for the first time under the supervision of biologists from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. They released 7,500,000 shad f ry in Maryland waters. Nearly three million of the shad f ry were released in the waters of the Patuxent River as a basis of an experiment to determine the value of such planting operations. "A review of the hatchery statistics during the past decades indicates poor returns from this effort a t rehabilltation. The box

88

system of shad egg hatching is within itself outmoded and more or less an expedient to meet a persistent demand for hatchery work. * * * The Patuxent ~ i v & was chosen as the best suited area in which to determine the value of planting shad fry. The river is vastly depleted of this species, and catch records are now and will continue to be available during the years ahead. The catch records of this river will not be skewed by segments of shad populations from other rivers on the one hand nor by complicated fishery records on the other; since the entire river is fished only by local fishermen who are interested and willing to cooperate in the study that has been initiated." (Truitt, 1941). This experiment is still being carried out.

Truitt and Wallace (19411, although assuming administrative responsibility for all shad hatcheries in Maryland waters except the Fort Belvoir shad hatchery, simultaneously discussed the "new" attitude toward artificial propagation of shad. "More and more the efficacy of shad hatchery work is questioned. When shad were abundant extensive hatchery operations were carried on by Federal agencies and by many states. In spite of the immensity of the program and the vast quantities of fry, millions upon millions of which were released annually, there developed a decline, that has continued until the Atlantic Coast fishery a t present, with one exception, is a t the lowest level of production ever known. The one exception is in the Hudson River section where, contrary to expectation, very little hatchery work has been carried on and where such work has played virtually no part in the rehabilitation process. Since the Hudson is heavily polluted such a factor cannot explain the failure of the Chesapeake Bay to produce. Moreover, i t has been de- termined definitely that shad return to the streams of their origin and thus Chesa- peake fish do not go to the Hudson. In this river years ago, the shad were fished down to a level a t which nets and fishing effort virtually disappeared. After some twenty years, largely unknown to the absentee fishermen, restoration took place and in 1939 an unprecedent yield was realized, The problem clearly was one of overfishing and the Chesapeake operations unquestionably are following the same course to complete exhaustion of the fishery even though continued effort is being made to meet the difficulty by hatchery operations. Maryland shad fishermen realize this situation and are moving to lower the fishing effort by spreading out the catch over a longer period of years, thereby taking advantage [of] increase in size and a t the same time permitting one, two or even three natural spawnings."

Although Truitt and Wallace (1941) have in essence technically repudiated the alleged material contribution of stocked shad to the Bay populations, they cited extensive operations a t temporary shad hatcheries set up on the Chester and Susquehanna, as well as the Federal hatchery on the Potomac, establishing for the first time that, "Eggs were collected in Maryland largely in a salvage way from the commercial fishery." On the Potomac, fishermen operated directly for hatchery purposes. Efforts were made to raise fingerling shad, which when they " . . . reach as much as 3-4 inches in length . . . , in contrast to fry, are strong, active, thriving and alert to escape enemies when released. Such fish can be reared from fry planted in deserted millponds of which there are many available in all of the tidewater sections of Maryland, if such ponds are somewhat dammed and con- trolled." In addition to work with fingerlings initial action was taken onllshad rehabilitation in the Susquehanna River above the dam. They reported, Shad planting operations in the Susquehanna section were a part of the program afforded by funds from the Conowingo Dam project. . ."

Truitt and Wallace (1941) summarized their "new" policy toward the ultimate rehabilitation of shad in Maryland. "WhiIe shad hatcheries alone do not offer great promise in the solution of the problem of depletion they can, from present indica- tions, contribute more effectively through stocking rearing ponds for fingerling production. Urgent demands are being made for an extension of hatchery work in Maryland. However, from data available we do not recommend such action or the appropriation of money for that purpose. We do recommend, on the other hand, that an effort be made to establish rearing ponds for fingerling production."

Unpublished data from the Maryland Department of Research and Education secured during E'astern Shore shad operations indicate that the collection of eggs for hatchery operations in many instances actually resulted in a loss of potential production of fry. The capture of "green" roe shad, stripping of only a small part of the total eggs from a fully ripe fish, and the failure to secure milt for fertiliza- tion before the stripped eggs became inviable largely nullified the increase in larval survival rate achieved by hatchery operations.

89

Simultaneously, and in cooperation with the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the U. S. F. W. S. conducted investigations in 1937 on shad populations and fishing intensity in the Bay. Initial impetus to this work was given by Nesbit (1939) and the work was culminated and interprected: by Cable (1944C). The metl~od consisted of the examination and interpretation of the markings on the scales of a large number of shad collected a t suitable and widely scat- tered points on the Bay by the fishery inspectors of Maryland and Virginia. These markings corresponded to the number of times a shad had spawned, and it was, therefore, possible to calculate what percentage of each run is made up of fish tha t have escaped the nets in previous years, and from this figurd to determine the intensity of the fishery. I t was foand from a study of scale samples in 1939 that only eight percent of the fish had previously spawned. Consequently, 92 percent of the shad run of 1938 had been caught in tha t year, although no mention was made about the difference in recruits and effects of ocean mortality. In 1943, 23 percent of the spawning shad was believed to have spawned a t least once in previous years. Cable stated, "Because fewer fishermen have been engaged in the industry since the beginning of the war, the fishing rate has declined and in 1943 took 77 percent of the runs. Even this colnparatively slight reduction benefitted the stock of shad so greatly that the number of spawners was more than doubled. Because of the upward trend in the spawning stock, it i s possible that the fishery will be restored to a desirable level of abun~dance without further reduction in the amount of gear fished. However, it is recom- mended tha t the present rate of fishing be maintained until i t is learned how large a stock of shad will be built up as the spawning reserlve increases under the relatively favorable conditions now prevailing." A recent evaluation of the above method of determining fishing intensity indicates that i t is not valid because (1) i t does not take into account differences in recruits each year, and (2) it does not determine effects of natural mortality. (See Moss, 1946).

Cable outlined her method of estimating fishing rates on shad. She wrote that the markings on the scales, which record the number of times the fish have spawned, were valuable tools for estimating fishing rates. Calculation of the percentages of virgin and repeater shad in the runs, a s indicated by the presence o r absence of spawning marks, gave what was believed to have been a fairly accurate estimate of the fishing rate. The effects of the known fishing rates, on groups of 1,000 shad each, have been worked out on a theoretical basis. S h e declared, "At the lower fishing rates, inore fish live to spawn more times. The older shad spawn a greater number of eggs in a season than first-run shad and weigh more when finally taken. They are, therefore, more valuable than the younger fish, both to the fishery and to the fisherman who catches them."

"The annual runs of shad are made up of virgins coming into the fishery for the first time, first-year repeaters which represent the escapement of virgins from the nets the previous years, and the older repeaters in proportion to their escapement from the fisheries in the several years they have spawned. I t is possible. therefore, to obtain material to estimate the fishing rate by sampling a single run. When scale samples for a number of years have been studied, they may be compared one year with another, or an age group may be traced through them from the time i t enters the fishery until it is completely fished out."

Cable's scale studies for 1943 based on a study of markings on 1,033 scale samples taken from Maryland are of special interest. The scales indicated that there was a great variation, ranging from 9.1 to 60 percent, in the percentage of repeater shad entering the fisheries a t the various localities sampled. Such a spread indicates and exemplifies the fact that scale samples should have been taken through the whole fishery and season. The mean percent of repeaters in all samples combined was 24.6 percent, and the areas sampled were as follows:

Location Percent Repeater Number of Number of Shad Specimens Samples

Rock Hall. Md. 24.6% 114 6 ken t Shor;?, Md. Chester River, Md. Eastern Bay, Md. West River, Md. Tuckahoe Creek, Md. Lower Choptank, Md.

Location Percent Repeater Number of Number of Shad Specimens SampIes

Upper Choptank, Md. 25.0 78 16 Little Choptank, Md. 11.8 17 2 James Point, Md. 21.7 46 3 Sharp Island, Md. 23.1 20 1 Fishing Bay, Md. 20.0 20 4 Transquaking River, Md. 9.1 11 2 Tangier Island, Va. 60.0 10 2 Watt's Island, Va. 46.7 15 3

-- - - Mean: 24.6 Total: 674 Total: 72

Cable said that, "The repeater fish from the combined samples were calculated per 1,000 virgins to make the Maryland samples comparable with the Virginia samples. When the numbers of repeaters per 1,000 were plotted on the graph . . . the break in the line connecting the points is similar to the break in the line representing the Virginia fishing ra te . . . [indicating] that the fishing ra te is changing and that repeater fish are accumulating a t a more rapid rate than virgin fish are coming into the fishery. This is not surprising because such a short time has elapsed since the fishing rate began to decline, in 1940, that the offspring from the enlarged spawning reserve have not yet grown to maturity." Much of Cable's and Nesbit's data was instrumental in formulating the fundamentals of the Mary- land Fishery Management Law, which has been described elsewhere in this paper. The theoretical basis for Cable and Nesbit's work, however, has been criticized by Moss (1946) in a study of Connecticut River shad (see account of Connecticut shad fisheries).

The institution of the Maryland Fishery Management Law in Maryland was widely hailed by fishery administrators, scientists, and commercial fishermen. Although a basic premise of the management plan presupposes that its effect can- not be readily recognized until a t least four or five years after i ts inauguration, efforts were made to do so by Cable (1944C), the Maryland Department of Tidewater Fisheries (1944) and especially by Hammer (1942). During the spring of 1940, 11,399 scale samples from shad were collected and a comparable number of body measurements were made by Hammer. In an unpublished manuscript entitled, "The homing instinct of the Chesapeake shad, Alom sapi&s.inza Wilson, as revealed by a study of their scales," he found that the scales of adult shad have two patterns of scale growth; (1) an inner area formed in fresh water, and (2) a more extensive outer area formed in marine waters. Hammer used measure- ments of these areas, or zones, to compute the juvenile body lengths attained a t the termination of their stay in fresh water. He said, "The resultant significantly different calculated lengths indicate that the mature Chesapeake shad return to spawn in the stream of their origin; that is, they obey the parent stream theory. No significant differences were detected from data based on calculated lengths of scales coIlected within the James, the York, and the Pocomoke rivers. However, other scale characteristics denote the existence of populations peculiar to each river."

Hammer also found that "Marked and significant differences were established for the fingerling lengths computed from scales of the Rappahannock, the Potomac, and the Susquehanna Rivcr shad. Two sdf perpetuating shad populations were also found to exist in the two tributaries of the York, namely the Mattaponi and the Pamnnkey rivers." He pointed out that "Although a knowledge of environ- mental factors encountered by shad eggs and f r y in the Chesapeake spawning grounds is limited, i t is entirely possible that each spawning area may have unique chemical and physical properties directly influencing juvenile growth and behavior. Therefore, it is probable that the f ry from each have features peculiar only to shad of the river of their origin. Available food, for instance, would govern early growth and in turn determine the size of juvenile shad a t the time of migrating to waters of higher salinity. " + " It is possible that inherited factors governing early growth also may bring about lengths peculiar to certain rivers." Unfortunately, the work was not repeated over several consecutive years in order to determine whether the differences in characters are consistent.

Hammer's (1942) results were not published, and his work, although extensive and well-documented, has not been utilized by investigators concerned with the

91

rehabilitation of shad. For example, Hollis (1948) stated unequivocally "That shad do return to the stream of their nativity has not been demonstrated." How- ever, he reported on some experiments with tagging young shad. "In 1941 I was able to tag successfully juvenile hatchery reared shad by holding them in Ringer's solution, after tagging, until incisions were healed. To date, three of the tagged fish have been reported. A11 of these were recaptured within a radius of 10 miles from their point of release [Pembroke Creek, near the shad hatchery a t Edenton, North Carolina] 3, 4, and 5 years after tagging. * * * The fact that all of the returns were made from the immediate vicinity of the place a t which the young shad were released and that no returns were made from other areas in this complex system of waterways . . . is consistent with the theory that shad do return to the stream of their nativity."

In 1945 the following conservation legislation of the 1945 General Assembly was recommended by the Board of Natural Resources with the intent of directly or indirectly rehabilitating shad in the Susquehanna River. (1) Disposition of the Conowingo Fund., Chapter 1008. The Annotated Code of Maryland (Article 39, Section 16 and Article 99, Section 90) requires that any dam constructed on any stream of the State shall be provided with a fish ladder or fish way to permit the free passage of fish up and down the stream; or in case a fish ladder or fish way is not deemed practicable, that the owner or operator of the dam shall pay to the State annually a specified sum of money to be used in keeping the stream stocked with fish above and below the dam. A t the time the Conowingo Dam was built, a fish ladder or fish way was not cansidered practicable in that case, and the Susquehanna Power Company has accordingly paid to the State annually a sum of $4,000 to operate hatcheries and otherwise to keep the stream stocked with fish. In recent years all of this fund has been a t the disposal of the Depart- ment of Tidewater Fisheries. Chapter 1008 of the Acts of 1945 divides the Fund equally between the Department of Game and Inland Fish and the Department of Tidewater Fisheries. (2) Construction of dams on the Susquehanna River, House Joint Resolution 8. This requests the Department of Game and Inland Fish to erect a series of small dams in the Susquehanna River below the Conowingo Dam to improve the River for the spawning of shad.

Shortly after the introduction of the Maryland Fishery Management Law, the Maryland Department of Research and Education made a concerted effort to ex- plain the basis, function, and results of the Law on a popular level. Tiller (1944A, 1944J3, 1944C, 1945) succeeded in presenting the theory and facts associated with the Law's progress up to that time in a manner that would appeal to watermen; vzx., "The ability of the Maryland commercial fishermen to harvest his crops is based not on years, but on generations of experience. His knowledge of fishing methods and operations is unequaled. An attempt to tell him how, or when, or where to fish his gear would be as ridiculous as a fisherman attempting to tell a surgeon how to perform a delicate operation. " * * . . . the Maryland Fishery Management Plan is not an attempt to tell the fishermen how to do their job. * * * The object. . . is not only to protect the fish, but the fishermen as well. * * * "

In a paper entitled, "The Maryland management plan and the shad fishery," Tiller (1944C) declared that, "The runs of shad have nearly doubled in the three years that the Maryland plan has been operating. This season fishermen of the Bay reported the greatest runs of shad in many years." In a later paper (Tiller, 1945), writing about the trends of the shad catch for pound net fishermen during 1937-1944, noted that 'iPeriods of temporary recovery occurred in 1939 and 1941, but in each case the next year was marked by a decline which exceeded or nearly equalled the recovery. I n 1943 another recovery occurred, but this time i t was not followed by a decline, for in 1944 the catch continued upward reaching a point about five times above the 1942 level. * * * . . . the recovery of one year was not followed by a decline in the next year. It is here that the effect of management is seen."

In 1947 the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory began a study under the direc- tion of Coit Coker on daily temperature fluctuations of the shad-productive Susque- hanna River several miles below the outlet of the Conowingo power dam. "Prelim- inary study of records for the past two years shows that, for the spring and early summer months, the daily temperature fluctuations of the Susquehanna were simi- lar in degree to those of the Patuxent River (a t Solomons), but less frequent, over an equal number of days. The effect in the Susquehanna is attributed to the

92

stabilizing influence of the impounded waters continuously released by the Dam during that period. Further expansion of this study is indicated for 1948 to cover periods when the flow may be more intermittent." (Truitt, 1947). During 1947 an experimental hatchery area for shad was carried on in the North East River a t Charlestown, but difficulty was experienced in getting sufficient quantities of salvage shad spawn because of delay in ripening of the fish until the extreme latter part of the hatchery season. Over 1,313,000 shad f ry were released from this station. Hatchery operations were also carried out in cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service a t Fort Belvoir, Virginia, the 3,251,000 resultant f r y being planted in the Patuxent River. In 1946 shad hatchery operations were carried out a t the same stations listed above, but in 1945, hatchery operations for shad were carried out a t two snlall stations a t Denton and Millington, and on the Potomac River.

In 1948 the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory concentrated on tagging finger- ling shad, which were pond-reared a t the Fail-lee Pond in Kent County. The work was carried out by Coit Coker in cooperation with Edgar Hollis of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in which efforts were made to develop an effective internal tagging procedure. An incision was made on the body wall of the fish through which a small printed plastic strip was inserted into the body cavity. Shad thus tagged were held over for a two-week period of recovery in a modified Ringer's saline solution, which was constantly serated. The experiments were only moderately successful, but "This general method . . . is believed to hold considerable promise." In addition, nluch information is provided by Truitt (1948) on necessary conditions for pond-rearing shad, and details regarding the eoopera- tive work a t the Fort Belvoir shad hatchery with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Over 9,675,800 shad f ry were released in the Potomac River, 3,000,000 in the Patuxent Rixer, 2,000,000 in the Susquehanna River, 2,000,000 in the North- east, Choptank and Chester Rivers.

In 1949 G. Maxfield of the Chesapeal~e Biological Laboratory completed a study of the food habits of pond-reared shad. The same pond-reared shad were sub- jected to a study of relative effects of size, age, sex, heredity, and environment on the establishment of the racial characters selected. Truitt (1949B) described this as follows, "Preliminary work has been initiated on this problem and shad reared in three separate ponds in Maryland and Virginia are being studied. Fin ray, ventral seute, and vertebral counts are being made on the three separate populations. Results thus f a r indicate that significant differences do exist. Nor- mal range of variation within a year-class subjected to uniform conditions, and the relation of size to meristic numbers, can also be shown for the three groups when the data are analyzed statistically. Comparison is being made with selected groups of adult shad taken from nature. Results of this exploratory study may point the way to more critical experimentation." Hatchery operations were car- ried out in 1949 in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service a t Fort Belvoir, from which 20,637,000 shad f r y were distributed in the Potomac, Choptank, Ghester, North East, Susquehanna, and the Patuxent rivers. In 1950, the Fort Belvoir shad hatchery was turned over completely to the Maryland Department of Research and Education by the Fish and WildIife Service. A total of 16,068,000 shad f ry hatched in the P o t o ~ a c was released in six Maryland rivers.

The Chesapeake Biological Laboratory continued in 1950 to carry on exten- sive investigations of shad. Among the projects were: (1) A cooperative project with the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory was undertaken In which an effort was made to determine the food habits of wild larval and fingerling shad taken in the Pamunkey River, Virginia. Previous work a t the Chesapeake Biological Labora- tory had shown that larval shad began to feed on plankton four days after hatch- ing and prior to the complete absorption of the yolk sac. Examination of shad larvae taken from the Pamunkey River has substantiated this finding. (2; Forty- eight "spent" shad were tagged in the Potomac River near Fort Belvoir In order to determine the subsequent movement of fish that had spawned so that the parent stream theory could be tested. Truitt (1950E) stated, "It had been planned to tag a larger number of fish but such was not possible. Nevertheless, it has been frequently demonstrated in prior tagging experiments with various kinds of fish and by various workers that 'small batches' frequently yield greater proportionate returns than large batches of tagged fish. This has been borne out in the present experiment in that several returns have already come in, all but one from the

93

general area where the fish were tagged. One return was from a fish subsequently caught in a trawl net during the summer off the coast of Maine. The type of t ag used in this experiment was the Pcterson disk, or button affixed to the back of the fish by a stainless steel pin." (3) A "sky pond" was constructed near the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory a t Solomons for the production of shad finger- lings, and the ultimate tagging and release of these shad in the Patuxent River. (4) A comparative study of the physical, che~nical and biological factors was begun in the areas of the Potomac, Patuxent and Susquehanna rivers, where shad spawn and where early larval stages undergo their development. "The Potomac was chosen because it appeared to offer conditions approaching the present-day optimum, judging from the commercial production of shad. The Patuxent in years gone by has also produced well, but has declined very markedly in the last ten years with no signs of recovery despite annual plantings of hatchery-produced shad f r y numbering in the millions. The Susquehanna has also produced fairly well, comparatively. The results of the study under way will bring out certain of the conditions which occur in these areas, and comparative analysis nlay throw light on the problem of variable production. A station was set up on each of the rivers and visited once a week in order to sample . . . * * * A general trend for all three Rivers was for a rise in temperature and a drop in dissolved oxygen content as the season advanced. The Patuxent River exhibited a greater range of temperature fluctuation from day to day and, as a corollary, was less stable in the retention of heat, both of which characteristics can undoubtedly be attributed to the relatively small volume of water in the Patuxent on its shad spawning grounds as compared to the other two streams. The average daily temperatures of the Susquehanna were more stable than those of the Potomac and averaged roughly five degrees lower which latter might have been expected due to the more northerly location of the Susquehanna and its drainage area and to certain im- mediate conditions affecting its flow. The Potomac River and the Susquehanna River showed consistent, but opposite, trends in light penetration, the former slowly downward, the latter rapidly upward, whereas the Patuxent River fluctu- ated wildly, reasons for all of which will become apparent as the other data are analyzed and presented. It is believed that when the final analyses have been made and interpreted the original problem will be much more clearly delineated and a way pointed toward its conclusion." (Truitt, 1950E).

During 1952 the shad section of the Middle and South Atlantic Fishery In- vestigations group of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a cooperative study with the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory and the Virginia Fisheries Lab- oratory in the Chesapeake Bay. In addition to tagging and the collection of scales for analysis, length, age, and sex composition of the runs to and from representa- tive spawning areas were tabulated and combined with catch per-unit of effort data collected from the fishermen. This work is a part of a long-range study being conducted in major shad production areas along the Atlantic Coast upon recommendation of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

ECONOMICS O F MARYLAND SHAD FISHERIEIS

An analysis of changing economic conditions in the Maryland shad fishery shows that they a re closely associated with the decrease of this resource. Brooks (1893) commented on this m.atter. "The fishermen fully recognized the danger and were loud in their demands for laws to restrict other fishermen who, they held, were causing the decline by improper ways of fishing. The fishermen of the interior complained of the fishermen further down along the shores of the salt- water bays and sounds, where the fishes were captured in pounds and weirs, f a r away from their spawning grounds. They believed that legislation alone could save the fisheries, and that if these obstructions were prohibited by law. and all the shad were permitted to reach fresh water before they were captured, enough eggs would be deposited to keep up the supply, but that the destruction of such numbers in salt water must necessarily result in extermination."

"This seemed to fresh-water fishermen to be good logic, but the salt-water fishermen took a different view of the matter. They wanted more legislation them- selves, but of a different sort, and they claimed that what was needed was pro- tection for the shad upon the spawning grounds. They said that they themselves furnished most of the shad for the market; that without them the cities would not be supplied, and that enough shad escaped their nets and reached fresh water

94

to supply all the eggs that were needed, if thy could be left to lay their eggs in peace."

Brooks concluded, "There seemed to be good sense in this view also, and a s in the endless controversies between the oyster dredgers and the oyster tongmen, it was difficult for a disinterested outsider to tell who was right. The only thing which seemed clear was that the shad were growing scarce, and that if the Legis- lature did not do something to protect them they would soon be exterminated." The statement regarding the scarcity of shad was somewhat paradoxical inas- much as Brooks had reiterated that shad production was a t an all time high due to hatchery production and stocking.

An important factor in the economics of the shad fisheries of Maryland was fishing gear. Stevenson (1899) has presented the important details of the evolu- tion of fishing gear and harvesting attitude in the Potomac River. His observa- tions follow: Although the portion of the river below the District of Columbia is entirely in Maryland, the compact of 1785 provided that neither of the two States alone, could apply regulations to the shad fisheries of the Potomac, and the citizens of both States could enjoy equal fishing privileges in the river. Prior t o 1830 shad fishing was carried out almost exclusively by means of seines, the fisheries being controlled by the well-to-do riparian proprietors, the best-known being George Washington (see section on Virginia). Nearly every large plantation on the river had its fishing shore, the returns from which were large, some of them renting for several thousand dollars. During the 1830's drift nets were introduced by fishermen from Delaware River, and by 1835, they had increased to such a n extent a s to embarrass the owners of seining operations and to lessen materially the profits. A convention of fishermen was held a t Alexandria, Virginia, to pro- test against the use of drift nets and to take measures to secure legal prohibition of them. This was the beginning of the contest which was waged for years be- tween the riparian owners and the wandering fishermen who have successfully contested the right to equal fishing privileges with the former.

Stevenson also presented a thumbnail sketch of the problems of shad pro- duction along the Choptank River as they existed during the decade prior to the beginning of the Twentieth Century. "Nearly all the shad taken in the Choptank are shipped by steamer to Baltimore. As most of them reach market after April 10, when large supplies are being received from Virginia waters and Delaware Bay, the price a t which they are sold is necessarily quite low. This was especially true during the season herein reported, when the market was so glutted about the middle of April that many Choptank River shad were thrown away, and other shipments did not bring enough to pay expenses of marketing them."

The U. S. Bureau of Fisheries (1909), writing for the Conservation Commis- sion of Maryland, gave an excellent example of the effects of the decline of shad on the gill-netting operations by stating, "The gill net fisheries of the upper por- tions of our rivers have practically disappeared in the last few years, the decline in total catch from 1901 to 1904 being 43 percent in the Potomac, 41 percent in the Susquehanna, 71 percent in the Choptank, 11 percent in the Nanticoke, and 17 percent, in the Wicomico, and while these figures are in a measure offset by the open water catch, they emphasize the precarious condition of a fishery which prevents reproduction except by artificial means." In a sense, the fishermen themselves were responsible for their plight in the upper portions of the rivers. During the latter part of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century many of the more important shad streams began to silt down with eroded washings from poorly managed farms. The part time fisherman was the farmer when the shad was not running. The upper limits of almost all Maryland rivers a r e now so heavily silted that i t is not possible to bring boats drawing fihie or six feet of water up to points ascended a half or a full century ago.

Cable (1944C) has discussed the role of the fishermen and his responsibility to strive for and maintain a sustained shad fishery. She stated that, ['A run of shad is reduced in two ways, by deaths of some fish from natural enemies a t sea, and by the removal of large numbers of fish in the fishermen's nets," the latter mode of moi-tality being known as the ['fishing rate." "When the proportion [of shad] removed is too great, not enough fish are left in the water to keep the fishery up to normal size. Depletion follows. Every one of us has heard the wartime plea to the fishing industries for greater production. We feel an urgency to increase production in all fisheries and have given much thought to what should

95

be the role of the shad fisheries of Chesapeake Bay in this program. Many think the way to increase production is to relax existing regulations and provide a greater number of fishermen with modern boats and better nets. For centuries the English, too, approved this method of securing large quantities of fish. Then, in recent years, they awoke to the fact that they were removing more than two- thirds of the fish from the North Sea every year, and that it was too great a drain on the fisheries. * * * " Cable quoted Michael Graham, a British fishery biologist, regarding the replenishing of the "depleted" North Sea fishery by the four-year cessation of fishing during World War I. She continued, "Rejuvenation of a declining fishery after a war during which the fishery has been prosecuted less extensively than usual, is not exclusively a North Sea phe~omenon. During the last war the fishing rate for shad in Chesapeake Bay decreased because, then a s now, there was a manpower shortage in this area. Following the war and for several years thereafter the catches of shad in the Bay were larger than they had been before the war. The population had increased through natural reproduction. But, after the war, fishing was not held down to the wartime rate and the fish- eries did not stand up under the higher postwar fishing rate. * * * Further reduction in fishing intensity may not be necessary for the restoration of the shad fisheries in Chesapeake Bay, but, if the population is to be increased, it is im- perative to maintain the fishing rate a t its present level, a t least until i t is known what regular supply of shad will be produced by it. If further reduction in the fishing rate should be desirable later, it may be obtained by reducing the amount of gear to be employed in taking the fish. It is for the fishermen and consumers of the states in which the fisheries occur to decide whether they shall fish a t a moderate rate and have a prosperous fishery or a t a high rate and have an iin- poverished fishery." Accordingly, her findings and interpretations, amplified by the efforts of Nesbit and Truitt, in 1939 and 1940, were embraced by Maryland State officials. In 1941 they succeeded in having the Maryland State Legislature pass the Fishery l\'lanagement Law, although much of Cable's findings were dated after i ts acceptance.

In the First Annual Report of the Maryland Board of Natural Resources published in 1944 the Maryland Department of Tidewater Fisheries presented the history of the Fishery Management Law, and most of i t is reproduced below: "The records of past performance seem to indicate that the only practicable method available for the conservation of our commercial fisheries is through one or more types of restrictions. Such restrictions usually embody, a s previously suggested: I. Limitations on size of nets; 2. Limitations on kind of nets; 3. Limi- tations on fishing seasons; 4. Limitations on fishing area; 5. Minimum sizes; 6. Limitations on the number of nets; 7. Catch quotas.

"All these devices are calculated, jirsf, to insure tha t any stock of fish be taken a t its maximum value, and second, that there always be left a sufficient number of breeding adults to insure production of an adequate new generation.

"All the restraints enumerated above are employed in Maryland except that of the catch quota, each fisherman within the limits of the other restrictions being allowed to catch as many fish of any species as possible. Of the restrictions enumerated above the first five are commonly applied in other places and are too well known to require an explanation. In general, Maryland laws are 1enien.t in these respects and in the opinion of this Department must remain, so. The reason is that the fishery of Maryland includes a number of species, most of which are important most of the year. Nets, therefore, commonly catch or impounkl a variety of fishes differing in shape and size depending upon the season and location of the net. I t follows, therefore, that gear which would take the most desirable size i n one species, would permit the escape of other species which ought to be caught, or to retain the proper size in the second species might also insure the capture of other which ought to remain in the water. The same difficulty arises in restricting season, for to protect a species which needs protection a t one time may also protect another which is better caught a t that ime. To sum up, Maryland restrictions on gear, size, seasons, and so on, are a series of compromises and are necessarily lenient.

"Under these circumstances, a group of commercial fishermen formulated in 1940, with the advice and assistance of the Department of Tidewater Fisheries and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service another type of restriction which had not hitherto been imposed upon Maryland fishermen. These restrictions listed a s

96

No. 6 above are generally referred to as the Fish Management Law. In sub- stance, this measure fixed or 'froze' commercial nets in Maryland waters a t the number operating in 1941. I t provides, however, that additional licenses may be granted in the future whenever the fish population has increased sufficiently to justify a more intensive fishery, without endangering future high production.

"In recent months considerable opposition has developed, the opposition usually taking the view that the State is 'discriminating' or that the State has no right to ckeep any man out of any business! Since this sort of restriction is new in the fisheries and has evoked widespread interest in this Country and Canada, i t may be profitable to recapitulate the argument which led to the passage of the law.

"a-lma~dequate Restrictions of Older Lams. It was suggested above that other restrictions against the fishery are extremely lenient, and must necessarily be so because of the diversity of species involved. Prior to 1941, anyone might enter the fishery provided only that he possessed the modest license fee required. Under these easy conditions, the intensity of the fishery, i. e., the number of fish- ermen, fluctuated widely from year to year depending on the number of fish available, their market value, and the employment available in other fields. AS a rewlt, whenever the other employment failed, when fish became abundant, o r the price attractive, the number of commercial fishermen has increased and remained a t a high level until the fish population was dangerously depleted. When this occurred, fishing became less profitable and fishermen dropped out until the stock was somewhat restored or until the market justified continued pursuit of dimin- ishing fish populations. Obviously, such an arrangement gave the State no oppor- tunity to carry out conservation measures, or in other words, it placed the fin fishes of the State a t the mercy of transitory fishermen who often had no perma- nent interest in preserving the fishes or the industry.

"This Commission feels, however, tha t this kind of fishermen not only is injurious to the fish population, but materially reduces the economic level of per- manent fishermen by first, producing gluts thus forcing downward the price, and secondly, increasing the rate of fishing so that insufficient escapeage of spawners occurs.

"b-Role of the State i r z the Preservation of the Fisheries. Because the waters of the State are accessible to everybody, i t appears to be a common view that the fisheries are the property of nobody or of anybody. However, both American tradition and law make the game, fish, and similar assets the property of the State-

'The State holds the propriety of this soil for the conservation of the public rights of fishery thereon, and may regulate the modes of that enjoy- ment so as to prevent the destruction of the fishery. In other words, it may forbid all such data as will render i t less valuable, or destroy i t altogether. This power results from the ownership of the soil, from the legal jurisdiction of the State over it, and from its duty to preserve unimpaired these public uses for which it is held.

If this decision be valid, then clearly the fisheries of Maryland belong to the entire State and not any particular group situated on any of its shores.

"c-Ana.logies with other laws. As suggested above, i t is frequently contended that the Fishery Management Law may prevent a man from entering the fishery; that i t vioIates his freedom to enter a. chosen vocation. This is true only in the degree to which i t is true of certain other enterprises. One may not, for instance, establish a taxicab business, or a bus line, or a radio station without the consent of the appropriate authorities in each case. These activities are conducted under what amounts to a public franchise and to admit additional enterprises in these fields would only jeopardize the invostments of those already operating and would end in general economic confusion. Moreover, fish net licenses and locations a re transferable and one may enter the business a t any time by the simple expedient of buying a license and the location rights of an operating fisheman. The same restrictions are placed on potential farmers or operators of common carriers; the land must be purchased or the privileges and rights-of-way bought from a present operator.

"A close analogy to the fisheries is found in the grazing right on public do- main in the West. While theoretically any rancher possessing the proper fees has the right to graze these areas, practically the right is restricted to selected

individuals for the reason that the available forage would accommodate only a limited number of livestock. In the same way, the fisheries of Maryland will accommodate only a limited number of fishermen. The Fishery Management Law is designed to take this into account and to distribute equitably the privilege of exploiting the fishery which is the property of the State.

"d-Catch Records and Additional Licenses. Within the past year arrange- ments have been made by this Department for the comprehensive collection of daily catch records of all Maryland fin fishermen. This project has been worked out by the Department of Research and Education in cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. By means of a punch card system, the daily catch by gear, locality, and season will be available to this Department. The Fishery Management Law provides that additional licenses may be issued whenever an increase in fish population justifies a greater number of fishermen. Administra- tion of the law requires a close watch on the stock of fish and the only index to fish populations is the records of operating fishermen."

From the viewpoint of the management-wise conservationist, the Maryland Fishery Management Law seemed to be the ideal answer to both scientist and fishermen. The Second Annual Report of the Maryland Board of Natural Re- sources, Maryland Tidewater Fisheries Department, stated in 1945, that "TI1e Potomac River, however, seemed to present a special problem. No part of the River lies within the bounds of Vii-ginia, but since the Compact of 1785 the two states have had an equal right to its fishery. Since the passage of the present law which limits the number of Maryland nets, the Commission has applied this law to the Potomac as well as to other waters of the state. The number of Mary- land nets in the Potomac has, therefore, been limited, while Virginia, having no such law, has issued licenses to all applicants. As a result Maryland has not shared equally in the Potomac River fishery. For this reason the Commission voted to issue up to 150 new licenses for 1946. The population of fish, moreover, seemed to justify this, for the 1944 spring gill net fishery was the best in recent years with a large run of rock [striped bass] ranging from three to four pounds."

MARYLAND SHAD FISHF!iRIHS LAWS

Stevenson (1899) gave a summary of the laws existing before the Twentieth Century a t various locations in Maryland shad waters. He noted that the use of pound nets or stake nets was prohibited ". . . in Chesapeake Bay, north of a line one mile south of Pool Island, except the bay shore of Kent County up to Howell Point a t the mouth of Sassafras River.'' Fish pots or fall traps were used in the Susquehanna River a t a time when an interdiction existed against their use in Pennsylvania, but their use in Maryland was unrestricted. These traps had en- gendered considerable bad feeling among the fishermen on the river.

In 1930, Earle listed the lawful seasons for catching shad, the dates being adopted by the General Assembly of 1929. Nets were not allowed to be used for catching shad a t the following places during the closed periods: (1). In Chesa- peake Bay and tributaries, below Poole's Island, except in Potomac Rlver, March 1 to May 31, both dates inclusive; (2) In Chesapeake Bay and tributaries, above Poole's Island, March 15 to June 10, both dates inclusive; (3) In Chincoteague and Sinepuxent bays and their tributaries, ,March 1 to May 3,1, both inclusive; (4) In Potomac River, March 1 to May 31, both dates inclusive; (5) In those rivers, creeks, coves, or inlets where the Conservation Departm-ent is engaged in collect- ing spawn for hatching purposes, the Commissioner is authorized to make such rules and regulations (provided the season is not shortened) during the last 10 days of the season as he may adopt for the better protection of the fish and the collection of spawn for the shad hatching purposes. All nets with mesh less than 2% and 2% inches became unlawful by the acts of the General Assembly of 1931, and the opening of the shad season below Poole's Island (except Potomac River) was changed from March 1 to February 1.

Laws now prohibit the capture of shad a t any other time than between January 1st and June l l th , but they previously also prohibited the possession of shad during the closed season. This had made i t impossible, or a t least illegal, for Maryland dealers, packers, or consumers to have shad during the Maryland closed season even though the fish may have been caught legally in other states to the north or south of Maryland. Construed literally, the law would also prohibit the possession of frozen shad or canned shad during the closed season in Maryland. The 194j9 General Assembly recognized this situation and amended the law to per-

98

mit Maryland packers and dealers to buy and sell &had during the closed season, provided the fish are taken outside Maryland. The law was amendedeto establish a single State-wide season to begin on January 1 and to end June 5 each year. I t still remains "unlawful for any person to catch, offer for sale, or to have in possession any shad . . . caught in Maryland between June 11 and December 31, inclusive."

T ~ N D OF SHAD PRODUCTION I N MARYLAND

Although commercial shad fishing in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay has existed since the 18th century, reliable records of annual harvest are available only since 1880, when over 3,700,000 pounds of shad were taken. Between 1880 and 1890 there was a gradual i-icrease of the annual catch, culminating in over 7,100,000 pounds of shad in 1890 [see Figure 141. The factors that contributed to this all-time high of shad poundage for Maryland are many, principally biologic and economic in nature. During the latter part of the 19th century, the fisheries were expanding in personnel, methods, effectiveness and numbers of fishing gear. Transient fishermen from New England States introduced gill and pound nets to local fishermen who up to the latter part of the 1880's utilized haul seines as the principal harvesting gear. These gears increased the efficiency of catch operations and served to attract many local fishermen who were able to expand their opera- tions far out in the rivers and for some distance offshore from the site of seining operations. Such conditions conceivably could have increased the poundage of shad without an appreciable increase in the natural shad populations.

1 t t COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF SHAD I

o L l I I 1 , I I J lee0 leO0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1M

YEAR FIGURE 14

From 1891 until 1909 there was a steady decline, averaging roughly about 60 percent of the all-time high of 1890. Tnne catch for 1909 was reduced to 3,250,000 pounds, or about 45 percent of the 1890 level. No records are available from 1910 until 1915 when the catch had declined to over 1,450,000 pounds of shad. Between 1915 and 1933 the catch averaged about 1,400,000 pounds, (based on the nine years for which records are available) or about 20 percent of the 1890 level of production. This period demonstrates how annual catches had continued to decline, with but short periods of partial recovery to break the downward trend. From these figures i t may be supposed that the fluctuations in catch may have been due primarily to factors such as economic conditions, climatic changes, idiosyncrasies in the migra- tion and movements of shad, market demands, and other complex factors. From 1934 until 1940 the annual catch averaged 620,000, or nine percent of the 1890 level. During these periods of declining catches many fishermen were forced out of busi-

99

6.

a P

f" 0 0 k 4 . -

0 (D Z 3. P d

MARYLAND -

'.J, 1880- I950 t - ---

.! DISCONTINUOUS I N -CONTINUOUS ]STATISTICS !

b

-- .--- I

-

1

t

\'* ,-., 1.

W' - '-&.--

ness and those who remained in the shad fisheries found little profit in them. Even during the depression period fishing intensity did not increase as might have been anticipated. The normally-ultraconservative fishermen felt that something should be done to restore the fisheries to their former productivity. As a consequence of this unprecedented attitude among the fishermen, the Maryland legislature installed the Maryland Fishery Management Law, which limited the number of fishermen and fishing gear in the Maryland part of the Chesapeake Bay. The law began in 1941 and received the support of fishermen, legislators and biologists.

From 1941 until 1950, there was a steady apparent increase in the production of shad, although the catch averaged only 850,000 pounds, about 12 percent of the 1890 level. The three-year catch for 1948-1950 averaged about 1,174,000 pounds or about 16 percent of the 1890 level. Dr. R. E. Tiller has pointed out that a hasty perusal of the statistics would attribute the slight upsurge of production to the effectiveness of the Maryland Fishery Management Law, but a number of factors discourage a hasty acceptance of this premise. These include: (1) the effect of the greatly reduced fishing intensity during the World War I1 period (1941-1945); (2) the greatly-reduced fishing area in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay due to restrictions placed by the U. S. War Department for bombing and target ranges and for defence areas; (3) ,the variation in the actual fishing pressure among licensed fishermen due primar~ly to market demands, material and personnel shortages, and the availability of more lucrative employment; (4) the numbers of small operators who have been illegally fishing a t many scattered localities; (5) the effects of the relatively unlimited fishing intensity in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay on various stocks of shad that enter Maryland waters. Duzing post-war years the increase in shad lured many part-time men into legal, un- licensed fishing (i.e., with nets totalling up to 100 yards).

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published fairly reliable annual catch records in Fishery Statistics of the United States of which the latest was for 1948. In them is a detailed breakdown on species of fish, manufactured fishery products, operating units of gear, catch by gear, etc. The Maryland Department of Research and Education is carrying on this work in greater detail with respect to shad.

ANNUAL CATCH OF SHAD IN MARYLAND IN POUNDS Year 1880 1887

Catch 3,774,OO~O 4,041,000 4,868,0100 7.128.000

1930 '998;000 1931 1,196,000

All figures, except those marked by an ~ n d Wildlife Service and related agencies.

* Based on figures collected from the

Year 1932 1933 1934 1935

1949 1950

asterisk are based on published figures of

Maryland Department of Research and

Catch 1,667,000 1,374~000

885.0800

725;000 711,000 617,000 718,000 868,000

1,001,292" 1,082,900" 1,440,115"

the U. S. Fish

Education.

SHAD FISHERIES O F STATE O F DELAWARE FORM= SHAD FISHEEIEB OF THI STATU OF DEZAWARE

The shad fisheries of the State of Delaware were prosecuted principally in the Nanticoke River, Delaware River, Delaware Bay, and small tributaries enter- ing them. Stevenson (1899) presented the most complete account of these fish- eries, giving a detailed tabulation of the numbers of fishermen and gear, boats, shore property, and yield of shad from the Bay, rivers, and numerous creeks. I n 1896, 699 fishermen, operating from 350 boats, and fishing 309 drift gill nets,