Present Condition and Future Prospects of the Oyster Industry
[A paper read before the American Fishcultural Association.]
I beg that you will bear in mind that in a consideration of the oyster industry, present or future, there is opened to us so wide a field for investigation that it is hardly possible in a few minutes to treat the subject fully or thoroughly. I shall not attempt to go into minute details, but confine myself to the general principles which, in my opinion, govern successful oyster culture.
At the last census, the oyster industry of the United States employed nearly 53,000 persons and over $10,500,000 of capital. Its production amounted to more than 22,000,000 bushels of oysters, valued at about $13,000,000. While these figures are not of astonishing magnitude when compared with those of many of the industries of the country, they indicate, nevertheless, a gratifying volume of business, and when compared with the returns from the other fisheries they show the oyster industry to be of more importance than any.
I learn from Professor Goode's paper read at one of the conferences held in connection with the late London Exhibition, that the entire fishing interest of the country employs 131,426 person and nearly $38,000,000 of capital and produces $43,000,000 of products. Thus it is seen that the oyster industry employs nearly one-third of the persons, more than one-fourth of the capital, and produces over one-third of the income. Its product is about six times as great as that of the whale, seal, or menhaden fisheries, and considerably more than one-half of the product of all the other fisheries put together. Surely such an industry is well worth care and preservation. The question is, what degree of care does it receive; is its preservation in any way endangered?
The question is of considerable moment, but that I need not impress upon you. Its full discussion would occupy more time than either you or I have just now to spare for it. I shall, therefore, only touch upon a few of the more important points and salient features.
Oysters are found along the whole coast of the United States from Maine to the Rio Grande, and a species also exists on the northwest coast. But notwithstanding this wide distribution, pointing out the possibilities of the future, the great part of the fishery and business is confined to the Chesapeake region; that is, to the States of Maryland and Virginia.
Of the 53,000 persons employed, nearly 40,000 belong to those States; and of the $10,500,000 of capital, over $7,000,000 is credited to them, while of the 22,000,000 bushels of oysters, more than 17,000,000 come from Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
That is four-fifths of the laborers, seven-tenths of the capital, and considerably more than three-fourths of the product should properly be assigned to the Chesapeake region. Evidently, then, any consideration of the oyster industry must be to a great extent a consideration of the industry as it exists in the bay. Whatever other localities may produce, however valuable systems and methods in use in other States may be, whatever superiority of means or intelligence other fishermen may possess, they have not yet succeeded in wresting the trade from the Maryland and Virginia people. Superiority in intelligence, means, systems and crops, are but as so many drops in the bucket when compared with the natural advantages offered by th Chesapeake and enjoyed by those who fish in her waters.
The present condition of the Chesapeake fishery is then, practically, the condition of the whole industry, and the future prospects of the whole may be largely predicated upon the prospect in Maryland and Virginia. What is that condition? What are those prospects? Generally speaking, the condition is bad; the prospect worse. It is stated by many persons of good judgment and sufficient knowledge to enable them to speak with authority, that not only has the number of oysters on the great natural beds diminished very much of late, especially during the last five years, but it is stated by one of the most eminent and experienced observers and students of this question, Dr. William K. Brooks, of the Johns Hopkins University, chairman of the Maryland Oyster Commission, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, that the oyster property of the State is in imminent danger of complete destruction. From time to time during the last decade notes of warning have been sounded, but unfortunately, have not been heeded. Only within the last few years has the public awakened to the gravity of the situation and the necessity of taking steps to avert the threatened evil.
The vague feeling of alarm which seized the oystermen as they discovered that the apparently exhaustless beds were no longer yielding their former returns, became sufficiently concentrated two years ago to cause the appointment, by the State of Maryland, of a commission to investigate the condition of the whole oyster industry. The rapid deterioration, both in size and quality of the oysters offered in the Baltimore markets, together with the frequent failure of the supply altogether, roused the packers of the city to set in motion under their own auspices, an entirely separate investigation. The expansion of the guerilla-like depredations of the dredging vessels upon the beds reserved to the tongers, into first, a systematic onslaught of periodic occurrence; and second, into open, defiant and serious warfare with, not only the tongers, but also the civil, military and naval forces of Virginia and Maryland, lead to a more thorough and thoughtful discussion of the whole oyster subject, by both press and people. The results of the discussions and investigations are not necessary that I should review them in detail. It will suffice if I mention but a few of the many indications of deterioration.
The report of the commission created by Maryland and Virginia in 1858 shows that the production of the Chesapeake was, in that year, 21,500,000 bushels. Possibly, says a writer in Lippincott's Magazine, it went as high as 25,000,000,000 bushels. If these figures are trustworthy, in spite of the improvements in implements, boats and general apparatus of the fishery, the production has fallen off rather than increased during the last fifteen years. Indeed, the testimony of all the oystermen is to the same effect. According to them, from three to seven times as many oysters could have been taken twenty years ago as at present, and a larger number actually were taken, some five years back. I am inclined to doubt the accuracy of the figures quote for 1868. I am rather of the impression that the yield at that time was considerably less than it is now. Possibly not half so great. But there are very safe indications of a decrease within the last few years, even if the yield was an absolutely essential factor in determining the condition of the beds. But it is not essential by any means. An abnormally large production is quite as alarming, if not more so, than an abnormally small one, paradoxical as the statement may seem.
According to Mr. Edmunds, the gentleman who investigated the condition of the Chesapeake beds for the census, not only has the trade in raw oysters been greatly hampered, but, during the year of 1882, the packers were frequently compelled to quit steaming oysters on account of a deficiency in the supply. My own investigation in 1883 confirm this statement. One of the most prominent and well-known Baltimore packers stated to me that he was compelled to take stock at 25 cents per bushel which three years back he could have purchased at 5 or 10 cents per bushel, and five years back would not have had at any price at all.
I might continue quoting opinions indefinitely with the same result, but the decision of the matter is based upon sounder postulates than opinions.
In 1878-79 I made an examination of certain beds of the Chesapeake and found them to be in a much impaired condition. Comparing my results with the results obtained by himself in 1883, Dr. Brooks states that the beds have decreased in value more than 39 per cent. This statement is based upon the following data: My examination in 1878-9 showed that in Tangier Sound there was about one oyster to every 2.3 square yards. Dr. Brooks, after examining the whole of the Maryland beds, states that in 1883 there was only one oyster to each 4.2 square yards. That is, the deterioration equalled nearly 40 per cent.
In 1876 Mr. Otto Lugger visited most of the Chesapeake beds and measured the quantity of shells and oysters obtained by dredging. He found 3.7 bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells.
In 1879 I made an examination of seventeen beds and found 1.9 bushels of oysters for each bushel of shells. A decrease of 1.8 bushels in three years.
In 1882 Dr. Brooks found 1.3 bushels to each bushel of shells, a decrease of 0.5 bushels in three years, showing that the deterioration was continuous. It is quite evident that an increase in the number of shells and a decrease in the number of oysters obtained at each haul of the dredge, is an indication of impairment, and combining that indication with the decrease in the number to the square yard, as shown by my own and Dr. Brooks's measurements, the impoverishment of the beds is apparent to the most superficial observer. But other evidence is not wanting. The principal test of the decrease of a commodity is the increase in its price; and it is well known among all oyster dealers of this region that oysters have been not only much more difficult to obtain, but much more expensive than they were a few years back. Fully twice and three times as much are now paid per bushel as was customary ten and fifteen years ago.
In 1861, oysters in the Chesapeake were worth, according to the writer in Lippincott's whom I have already quoted, 15 and 20 cents per bushel. In 1868, they had advanced to 25 and 30 cents. In 1879, the average price of the crop of 17,000,000 from Maryland and Virginia was over 40 cents per bushel; and at the present time it is nearer 50 cents than 40, and occasionally is much higher. And this increase in price is not wholly due to increase in demand. There has been an actual diminution in the number of oysters produced. The number of oysters passing through the Chesapeake and Delaware canal, the connecting link between Chesapeake and Delaware bays, is a pretty fair indication of the production of the Chesapeake beds. In 1879, in round numbers, 940,000 bushels passed through. In 1883, only 550,000. That is, the reduction was about forty per cent. of the amount in 1879. And it is worthy of notice how close this result agrees with Dr. Brooks's statement that the oyster beds had fallen off thirty-nine per cent. in value, since the examination made by himself in 1879.
The facts I have recited certainly should be sufficient to convince any one that the oyster industry in the Chesapeake is in a very bad way; and, as I have explained, the condition of the Chesapeake fishery is virtually the condition of the whole. In other words, the present offers but little encouragement. Does the future offer more?
A correct answer to the question necessitates the examination of the several causes which may have operated in bringing about the present state of things. We must decide upon the agency which has been at work, and having discovered it, consider how it can be precluded from further operation. It may be confidently asserted that no natural cause has had any considerable deleterious influence.
The natural influences and conditions to which the oysters were exposed in the past and under which they increased and multiplied so greatly, have in no way changed. Temperature and density of the water have been no more various than in the past. Channels and bottoms have remained stable. Factories and mills with the polluting excrement have not been erected. Organic life of any kind has neither increased nor diminished to any noticeable extent. In fact, the environment has remained exactly as it has always been -- with one exception. Continuous and exhaustive fishery has sprung up with all its attendant evils. To that and to that alone is the condition of the beds due. The prophecy so often made is at last coming true. The demand has outgrown the supply, and in the effort toward equalization the beds, the source of wealth, are fast becoming a total sacrifice.
All the facts, all the opinions, all the evidence, was before the legislatures of the two States, and they did nothing beyond building a few more police boats. The influence of the oyster men was too strong to be overcome. They either would not or could not submit to any restriction of their privileges, and the influence so strong in the present is not likely to be diminished in the future, unless it is shown that it is for the best interest of the fishermen that a change of policy radical and entire, is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the industry.
Look at the facts. The natural beds in the Chesapeake like the natural beds in the Northern States, are no longer capable of returning an adequate supply. What has been done to remedy the evil? An increase of the police force! In other words, a more perfect restriction of the fishery -- a more extensive diminution of the supply. Surely, that is not what we want! We do not care to have a valuable food product diminished. That is no real remedy. What should be done it to follow the course of the Northern States and endeavor, by artificial means, to cultivate the oyster and increase the productive area and supply.
I ask you but to look at the charts of the oyster beds exhibited in the fisheries section and you will see a marked differences between the region north and south of the old Mason and Dixon line. In the northern portion the preponderance of the artificial over the natural beds is as marked as the reverse in the southern portion. Years ago the natural beds of Long Island Sound returned a sufficient supply to satisfy the demands of the consumers. Gradually those demands increased and with them the disposition toward the inordinate fishing of the beds. The natural consequence followed. The beds were overworked, became depleted, were exhausted. But the demand still existed and had to be satisfied. New beds were created; new methods introduced, and to-day Rhode Island has some 10,000 and Connecticut some 100,000 acres of
oyster ground over and above the allowance originally made by nature.
If the industry in the Chesapeake is to follow the same course as in the Northern States, then the establishment of artificial beds and artificial extension of the oyster area with its consequent increase of the supply, will take place only upon the destruction of the present natural beds. Indeed, a prominent and intelligent oyster planter testified before the Virginia Legislature that he was half inclined to hope for just such a consummation, so little had he to expect from the present condition of things. But a careful study of the Northern fishery and the laws, statutory and natural, which govern it, will show quite plainly the steps necessary to be taken in order to accomplish the desired end. And if history and experience are to have any influence in forming men's opinion and guiding their actions, the measures indicated by the study should surely be adopted. So far as I am able to see, the recuperation of an oyster industry is entirely independent upon the recognition and adoption of one great principle as the foundation of the work. The principle is the right of the State to cede and the individual to hold tracts of bottom under a tenure similar to that governing uplands. In other words, the practice of holding the oyster area open to any and all as common property, necessarily prevents in practice the adoption of conservative measures, or a policy of comprehensive and systematic improvement. On the other hand, no sooner is an individual and proprietary right affected, than that powerful lever -- self interest -- is brought into play, and progress becomes assured.
Evidently cultivation of the common property will never be undertaken by the individual. Yet it must be undertaken by some one. It is impossible for the State to assume work. The Chesapeake oyster area equals some 400,000 acres. If the cost of cultivation did not exceed $10 per acre, and it is much nearer $30 than $10, the expense would be $400,000 every three years. If the State of Connecticut undertook to cultivate her artificial beds, it would cost her from one to three millions per annum. If Rhode Island entered the field it would be at an expense of from $100,000 to $300,000 per annum. Evidently the expenditure of such a sum for the benefit of a portion of the population is out of the question, even was it necessary. But it is not necessary. Oyster cultivation can be carried on by individuals just as well as the cultivation of potatoes or rearing of live stock. That this is not understood is the principal difficulty met by those who desire the advancement of the fishery, and the first condition I would make with a fishculturist in discussing this question, is that he should dismiss from his mind all impressions he may have which are based upon the supposed analogy between oyster and fishculture. It is true that we can impregnate the eggs of an oyster in virtually the same way we impregnate the eggs of a fish. It is true we can keep the young oysters alive for some time in practically the same manner it is accomplished with a fish. But there the similarity ends.
Whoever may hatch the fish egg, the general public only can reap the benefit. Fish are migratory. Fisheries cannot be preserved. But the oyster is not migratory. It is an animal of domestic instincts and strong local attachments. Where it is placed it stays. Consequently its cultivation is eminently a proper field for the employment of individual exertion. I would not be understood to mean by the term "cultivation" in this relation, the artificial impregnation of the eggs. That has not yet been made of practical importance. I refer, principally, to the cultivation of oyster ground rather than oysters. To the improvement of areas and beds rather than of stock. To increasing the facilities for natural expansion, rather than the exercise of natural function.
It is quite possible to take a totally barren tract of bottom and seed it with mature oysters, fertilize it with shells, and in a few years reap from it an abundant crop. But evidently no one will undertake this trouble or expense unless he is reasonably certain of gathering the harvest. Equally evident is it that the State cannot sow the ground for the fishermen. Naturally but one conclusion can be reached. The harvest must be made sure to the individual, and it can only be made sure by the possession of indefeasible proprietary rights. How soon the industry revives under such conditions is proved by the history of every Northern fishery, but I have not time to quote them in detail. Rhode Island offers perhaps the most instructive instance. In 1865 there was only some 60 or 70 acres of bottom cultivation. The product was only some 71,000 bushels. The price was $1.75 per gallon.
In that year the law was passed which gave individual and proprietary rights to oyster ground, and an advance began which has never since been checked. In 1883 11,000 acres were under cultivation; the product was in The neighborhood of 1,000,000 bushels, and the price per gallon had fallen to less than a dollar.
The fishery in Connecticut will be, I understand, the subject of a subsequent paper by a member of the Association, and I will not therefore do more than touch upon it. It will suffice for my purpose to state that since the operation of the law giving proprietary interest in defined tracts of bottom, an enormous area of what was entirely barren ground has been turned into productive oyster beds, and the crop of native oysters increased from insignificance to millions of bushels. Indeed, so great has been the success and so encouraging the prospect, that the most prominent planter in the State has said that the Connecticut people could easily afford a subsidy of $50,000 per annum to keep in existence the present Chesapeake policy.
These facts appear so overwhelmingly conclusive that it is a matter of astonishment that the course indicated by them has not been immediately adopted. Yet, though it has been urged with great persistency for several years, advocates and adherents have gathered but very slowly. The most important work to be done is, therefore, that of proselyting. But to accomplish this, methods differing from the usual ones must be adopted.
Experience shows that the class which it is desirable to convert cannot be reached by mere arguments, not matter how sound the postulates upon which they are based may be. It is useless to apply reason to prejudice. Only actual, tangible evidence can have any effect; and such evidence can only be given by what is practically a system of "object lessons." An excellent illustration of the value of such examples is given by the success of oyster culture in France. There the individual oyster culturist has been educated by the observation of the model government parcs, until perceiving all the advantages which would accrue from systematic and intelligent effort in this field, he has engaged in the pursuit with wonderful success and credit. Some such system, it seems to me, must be made to see the folly of their ways and the wisdom of those others. And, though I am utterly opposed to the entrance of the State into the oyster business, yet if the establishment of a few model oyster farms can teach the people of Maryland and Virginia how to husband and increase the wealth nature has given them, I should regard the money expended in such establishment well spent.
But I have detained you far longer than I intended when I first thought of addressing you, and must bring this paper to a close. The range of my subject and the importance of the principle I have been most desirous of urging upon your consideration, have precluded discussion of many minor points of great interest to oyster culturists, and possibly to the general public. It has also necessitated a more general and superficial treatment of the question than I would desire. But if I have succeeded in impressing the need for some more efficacious measures than have yet been adopted my end has been accomplished. Certainly something should be done. Glance at the census tables and you will find that, with the exception of Virginia, Maryland employs ten times as many persons, and produces ten time as many oysters as any other State. The gross value of her product is two to four times as large, and her capital five times as great. She has at work two and three times as many vessels, and produces nine and ten times as many oysters. In every respect upon a superficial examination, Maryland's oyster trade appears head and shoulders above that of any other locality.
But when a comparison is made of the percentage of capital returned as income, instead of Maryland heading the list, as would be supposed, she actually brings up at the bottom, her industry returning a smaller income than any other State in the Union. Though the area of the oyster ground is about 400,000 acres, the yield per acre is only 40 bushels, while at the North it is fully three times as much. Such a condition of affairs appears bad enough; but unless some such measures as I have suggested are undertaken matters will soon be worse. If the people are left to themselves, they will, in their ignorance, give us only another instance of exhausted beds and destroyed industry.
Unless they can be convinced of the folly of their present course we will have but a repetition in the Chesapeake of the experience in Long Island Sound.
The natural oyster of marketable size will disappear and only a small "seed" oyster will be left. The goose will be killed; the golden eggs will be laid no more. And the vast fleet of pungies and canoes, and multitudes of men and women will have no employment beyond picking out the pin feathers of the inanimate carcass.
In the examination of one of the largest beds in Pocomoke sound, I found that the shells represented 97 of the product, in other words, I had to get about fifty bushels of shells before I could get one bushel of oysters.