Printer Friendly

A guide for enhancing estuarine molluscan shellfisheries.

Part 1: Enhancing Estuarine

Molluscan Shellflsheries

Introduction In the eastern United States as well as in many countries where most shellfish originate in public beds, shellfishermen, local communities, distributors, and consumers have been dependent on wild stocks for shellfish supplies. Abundance of shellfish is usually much lower than the carrying capacity of the beds and can fluctuate widely among seasons. Thus shellfisheries are built uPOn a relatively weak foundation: Uncertin supplies, abundance of which is governed by several natural factors. In the eastern United States, the most important estuarine shellfishes are the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica; hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria; soft clam, Mya arenaria; and bay scallop, Argopecten irradians. Beds of the hard clam, soft clam, and bay scallop remain uncultivated.

Consequently, Production has usually not been high enough to make shellfisheries very ProsPerous, and the market demand for shellfish cannot be met when supplies are scarce. Whenever supplies are limited, employment for fishermen and packing plant workers is low, supplies are small and prices are high in the marketplace. Somewhat of an exception is the oyster fishery, where oyster abundance has been increased and partially stabilized through shell plantings in several states, such as Maryland, and through predator control in Long Island Sound.

Many acres of productive shellfish beds along the eastern United States have been closed because they have become polluted or degraded by filling or dredging of navigation channels. As a result, fishermen have often lost considerable fishing areas, which in turn has led to a considerable loss of employment and wealth. In the future, communities or states should be able tO compensate their shellfisheries for these losses by supporting programs to increase shellfish abundance on the remaining beds by improving habitat quality. This would ensure that the shellfisheries would remain intact, stable, and without substantial losses.

The need to increase yields from shellfish beds has often been recognized (Belding, 1912; Walford, 1945; Galtsoff, 1964). Some development has occurred in oyster beds and many hatcheries for rearing oyster and hard clam spat now exist in eastern United States. Recently, manuals have been published for producing seed in hatcheries (Breese and Malouf, 1975; Dupuy et al., 1977; Castagna and Kraeuter, 1981; Jones and Jones, 1983) that demonstrate it is a viable technology.

Can the abundances of hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops be increased by culturing beds? Possible methods include improving the bottom for settling larvae and controlling predators Of juveniles. Can oyster beds be improved further? Any person who attempts such shellfish husbandry will find little literature available for guidance. Published shellfish papers list only some of the predators and other factors which limit the abundance of various shellfish species. Little detail about these factors in specific beds is provided; even less exists about efforts to control them or about the other steps which could be taken to increase shellfish abundance. Enhancing shellfish beds also involves interacting with fishermen, local citizens, politicians, fishery administrators, and managers of private beds. Such interactions are more comprehensive and require far more guidance and understanding than the management and control of limiting factors in shellfish beds. The person who tackles a job of shellfishery enhancement faces a myriad of problems in shellfish ecology, technology, and social phenomena for which little training or guidance exists. This guide was prepared as a manual for management biologists (hereafter denoted as shellfish production specialists), marine extension agents, and administrators to use for increasing the abundance and production of most shellfish in public and private beds in estuaries and bays of the eastern United States. The emphasis is on increasing abundance by improving shellfish bed environments and developing communication between participants in the shellfishery. The intent is to be supportive of fishermen, rather than confrontational.

This guide describes what aspects to study in shellfish beds and what steps to take to determine and then cOntrOl the limiting factors of shellfish abundance and production. in addition, it discusses how a specialist should interact with fishermen, lay people, fishery administrators, and politicians in a shellfishing community. This guide does not contain all the answers, since nearly every situation demands a uniquely tailored approach and solution. Nevertheless, the ideas presented should help to enhance shellfisheries.

Part II of this guide provides reference material including: 1) A discussion of shellfish distributions and yields, 2) a statistical summary of the shellfishing industry, 3) a discussion of the life cycle and ecology of shellfish, and 4) a description of the characteristics of shellfisheries and shellfishermen of the eastern United States. Developing Enhancement Programs:

The Agricultural Experience

An enhancement program for shellfisheries would be closely related in concept to agricultural development programs. Thus many of the same difficulties that existed in developing such programs are relevant to the development of shellfishery enhancement programs.

New agricultural programs are always beset by a wide range of problems as the following quote demonstrates: "My mission was not much of a success. This was not because the government was not anxious to go ahead with the program, but helping really poor people is never easy and the difficulties of a new program often turn enthusiasm into procrastination" (Garst, 1963).

Likewise, there are often statements about development of the wrong things or products: "Despite a great amount of hard work and money spent, development fails to happen. The fault lies not with the humans nor with lack of money. The fault lies deep within the development projects themselves. Even before the first shovel is turned, even before the appropriated money reaches the palm trees or the arid lands, the wrong decisions have been made, the decisions to develop the wrong things" (Paddock and Paddock, 1964).

Often programs are poorly implemented: "Too many poorly thought through government policies and programs or ineffectively implemented programs can be in some cases even more stifling to agricultural growth than a lack of needed programs" (Stevens, 1977).

Concerns about the orgin of programs are often included: "The key to agricultural development efforts is that they start where the people are. They are not schemes worked out in a government office where physical targets are the main objectives and the people must fit in." (Stamp, 1977).

In recent years, substantial advances have been made in developing the capacity of agricultural research systems to deliver technologies, programs, and products that meet the needs of farmers. For several early decades, most agricultural research was conducted at research stations under conditions not representative of farmers' fields, and it had little or no farmer involvement. Recently, however, new, on-farm research is conducted in farmers' fields with farmer participation. On-site experimentation ensures that technologies are formulated under field" conditions and leads to estimates of yield and cost changes that better reflect what farmers can expect from using a variety of alternatives. The final phases of the on-farm research have assessed farmers' experiences with the recommendations as well as promoting recommendations to other farmers. When farmers rejected or substantially modified recommendations, learning why has led to appropriate changes in the recommendations.

Increasing Shellfish Abundance

Low and variable shellfish abundance in public and private beds causes severe negative economic and supply repercussions (Fig. 1). We must acknowledge that the problem exists, and we should not believe that permanent increases in shellfish abundance will be achieved accidentally. Only changes made by humans can increase shellfish abundance permanently.

My colleagues and I have examined many shellfish beds with scuba gear in a number of states. We have observed that most beds contained or lacked various biological and physical factors which substantially limited shellfish abundance. The productivity of oyster beds was commonly limited by silt deposits (Fig. 2), fouling organisms on shells, and a scarcity of shells as cultch for larvae. Predators were abundant on high salinity beds and often destroyed most seed oysters. While clam and bay scallop beds have not been viewed as frequently, some hard clam beds had many predators (crustacean and gastropod) present, and bay scallop beds often had eelgrass concentrations which were too dense for the scallops. The Basis for increasing Shellfish Abundance

The approach to increasing shellfish abundance by removing limiting factors (or adding supporting factors) is analogous to increasing agricultural crops and wildlife on land. Techniques would be applied to foster the production of target crops or species. The principal supporting features for shellfish, i.e., the bottom, the water, and the food, are already provided; humans would intervene to modify or husband the wild environment slightly "to help mother nature along' " As mentioned, oyster abundance has been increased in most coastal states by spreading shells on the bottom to increase the area of suitable setting surfaces for ready-to-set larvae. Controlling predators and reducing suffocation in silt-laden habitats have also been found effective in increasing survival of seed oysters in Long Island Sound. Spreading shells on clam beds may provide cover from crustaceans. Cutting paths through eelgrass stands, if they are too dense, or planting eelgrass where it is absent, and perhaps removing fish from bay scallop beds may help. Transplanting dense populations of seed shellfish to beds having good environments but relatively sparse populations or modifying the sizes of openings and channels in bays and estuaries will also provide for increased recruitment and growth. Other limiting factors may be reduced as they are identified. Technologies exist or could be designed or modified from existing ones, for washing silt off shells with a board, spreading shells and transplanting seed, removing crabs from the bottom with a predator board-net (MacKenzie, 1979), adding cover to clam beds (Castagna, 19170; Castagna and Kraeuter, 1977), controlling predators with quicklime (MacKenzie, 1970), and cutting or planting eelgrass. Environmental Side Effects of Improving Beds for Shellflsh

Economic enhancement of a shellfishery and the modifications of shellfish beds must not be permitted to flourish at the expense of the total habitat. It is assumed that the beds would return to their earlier condition if culture were to cease. This section discusses the side effects of some of the major actions which might be taken to improve shellfish habitats.

Silt removal from seed beds can result in some additional silt deposition on nearby bottoms. The quantity of silt would be no larger, however, than that ordinarily raised from the bottom and redeposited as a consequence of high winds or washed into the water by rain from land; thus, effects on water turbidity or benthic organisms would be no larger than from natural events.

Any mechanical methods for removing predators would be used mostly during summer and fall and then only for brief periods. The new ratio of predator to prey would be similar to one that occasionally occurs in beds when predators become scarce from natural causes and shellfish populations respond by becoming unusually abundant. Predator reduction in beds may be followed by increase in numbers of associated invertebrates.

The use of quicklime as a control method would be at most only temporarily harmful to marine life. Scuba observations of several oyster seed beds immediately before, during, and after quicklime treatments to control starfish (MacKenzie, 1977a) have shown that quicklime, by contact, kills algae, such as diatoms, and animals, including starfish, bryozoa, and sponges. It does not harm tissues that it does not contact or cover, such as bryozoa or sponges on the underside of oysters, or oysters, clams, crabs, and finfish.

Previous Human-induced Shellfish Increases Oyster

The principal oyster producing states (see Part 111) sponsor programs to maintain oyster beds as public grounds. Collectively, the programs first involve the mining and spreading of several million bushels of shells and later the transplantation of seed oysters.

The programs have resulted in large cost-benefit ratios. For example, Whitfield (1973) stated that human-established oyster beds in Florida which produce for 20 years, as some already have, result in a cost-benefit ratio at the fisherman's level of at least 1:100. He stated further that oyster bed rehabilitation in Louisiana had resulted in cost-benefit ratios as high as 1:20.

I have been involved in three oyster rehabilitation programs. The first was in Long Island Sound during 1966-72 and involved mostly a private oyster fishery. When the work was begun, the industry was depressed; only two oyster companies of substantial size remained in Connecticut. Only small quantities of oysters remained on the beds, and production was extremely small. In the 1930's, at least 30 companies, including relatively small ones, were operating, but nearly all had since gone out of business. The basic need of the remaining companies was to increase oyster abundance.

I conducted a 5-year study of the industry with an emphasis on determining the factors which limited production. Much of the work involved scuba observations of setting beds and beds of growing seed, using company boats with the manager of the company nearly always present. I found that less than 1 percent of the bottom area off the Connecticut coast was suitable for receiving oyster sets; thus, nearly all oyster larvae had no place to set and died. On many beds I made counts to determine the relative quantities of oysters killed by each predator species and other factors and the months during which mortalities occurred. I found that predation by starfish, Astepias forbesi, and oyster drills, Urosalpinx cinerea and Eupleura caudata, during the warmer months and smothering by silt in early April caused most mortality. In addition, mortalities were highest during the first and second years of the oyster's life. Table I lists some characteristics of predators learned through scuba observations during that study.

I worked with company managers to develop the means to improve the condition of setting beds and control mortalities (Table 2). We discussed possible improvements during many one-on-one meetings on their boats and during telephone conversations.

I informed the companies that only a small number of their setting beds were in condition to receive sets of oysters. During 1966-72 they improved their setting beds somewhat by spreading more clean shells on them.

One of the companies had been controlling starfish by spreading quicklime over its beds, while the other was using only ineffective mops for this purpose. After the latter was informed about the effectiveness of quicklime and its efficiency was demonstrated on its beds, it began to use quicklime on a substantial scale.

Another method to control oyster drills was developed by the Milford Laboratory of the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center. This was the spreading of Polystream (a mixture of chlorinated benzenes) over oyster beds. I demonstrated its effectiveness to companies on their beds and they used it thereafter. After a few years, Polystream was banned, but while using it, the fishermen had recognized the enormous mortalities that oyster drills had inflicted on oysters. Therefore, after it was banned, suction dredges were used to control oyster drills.

I also showed these companies that silt smothering mortalities could be reduced by rescheduling the transplanting of their oysters from late April-May to late March-early April. The total result of all these improvements in oyster culture was that oyster abundance increased several times over and oyster production increased enough to be considered as a "yield take-off' (Fig. 3).

The second oyster rehabilitation program I worked with was in Prince Edward Island, Canada, during 1972-73 (Table 3). It involved a public fishery, and when the work was begun, the industry was depressed. Oyster production had been declining for about 25 years and many fishermen had left the fishery; those remaining had critically low incomes. The fishermen had always gathered oysters from natural beds which had never been enhanced. The Provincial Department of Fisheries provided a full-time associate, a native of the area, to work with me. Using scuba and other means, we found by extensive surveying of the oyster estuaries that: 1) Oysters were scarce or absent on several former oyster beds, 2) little predation of oysters occurred on the beds, 3) relatively large stocks of unfished oysters occurred on an extensive flat in one bay and in a 10-12 m (36-foot) channel in a river, and 4) huge quantities of fossil oyster shells were present in several estuaries. Fishermen and other local residents were interviewed extensively, one-to-one, in their homes, on their boats, and by telephone. We also issued newsletters and held a few public meetings. The fishermen's basic need was for a larger oyster supply.

We recommended that the Province construct an oyster boat to transplant oysters and shells to the barren beds (Table 4). An efficient catamaran using two lobster boats as hulls was built. A captain and two deckhands were the only crew; they could load it to a capacity of 250 bushels of oysters in about 2.5 hours. Leading fishermen were asked to point out beds on which to spread the oysters and shells. From 1972 through 1986, oysters were transplanted to good quality barren grounds in some years, and fossil shells were transplanted to those grounds in most years. As a result of the program, oyster production more than tripled (Fig. 4).

A third oyster rehabilitation program was initiated in Mississippi and involved the recovery of three types of reefs (Tables 4, 5). The program lasted only a few weeks and was too short to yield substantial results. Hard Clam

Some attempts have been made to increase hard clam abundance by controlling predators in local, limited areas using poisons, stone aggregate, and screens. The poison experiments involved two experimental plots on Long Island, N.Y., during the early 1960's; the beds were 6 and 8 acres in size. Both were treated with Polystream to control oyster drills which had been destroying most oysters planted on them. The treatments also killed mud crabs Xandiidae) and perhaps other predators of juvenile hard clams. About 2 years after treatment, the hard clams were 7 and 8 times as dense (43.5 vs. 6.5 clams/m.sup.2, and 75.0 vs. 9.5 clams/m.sup.2) as in untreated areas around the beds MacKenzie, 1977c). This approach was discontinued after the use of Polystream was banned.

The stone aggregate experiments were conducted in a few states. Small hard clam seed reared in a hatchery were spread over a shallow bottom which was covered with aggregate and protected by screens; the beds were less than an acre in size. In Virginia, survival of the hard clams Was about 75 percent after a few months, whereas the hard claims which were unprotected did not survive. Nearly all mortality was caused by crab predation (Castagna and Kraeuter 1977). Soft Clam

Soft clam abundances have been substantially increased in experimental and small commercial beds in Maine and Massachusetts by using fences to exclude green crabs, Carcinus maenas. Soft clam densities became many times higher inside than outside fenced areas during summer (Turner, 1950; Smith and Chin, 1953; Glude, 1955; Smith et al., 1955; Hanks, 1963). Bay Scallop

Only one known attempt has been made to increase the abundance of the bay scallop through environmental improvement, and it occurred in Anthier's Pond, Martha's Vineyard, Mass., in the early 1970's. Bay scallops were relatively scarce over a section of the pond because the water was too shallow. The town dug a channel through the scallop bed 2 m deep. In subsequent years, the bay scallops were relatively abundant in the channel as compared with the remainder of the bed. Although other options were available, the town chose the scallop bed as the site to take the sand for beach enlargement in an attempt to increase bay scallop production.

The Need for Shellflsh

Production Specialists

Coastal states, counties, local communities and shellfishing companies need the services of an expert in shellfish management to help enhance their shellfisheries. This shellfish production specialist would make in-depth studies of the practical problems of shellfisheries and, with the involvement of local fishermen, lay people, fishery administrators, and politicians, develop solutions for them. The emphasis would be on increasing shellfish abundance and yields for both fishermen and consumers.

Edwards (1981) has discussed the need for managers, in addition to the scientists who already exist, in the fisheries field, and there are no gender limitations; in this guide, "he" or "they" refers to either sex in this regard. Shellfish production specialists would be hired by coastal states, counties, or towns to enhance their shellfisheries. This guide will also be usable by marine extension agents in the Sea Grant Extension Service (NOAA Sea Grant Program). Required Experience

A good background for shellfish production specialists would be a coastal upbringing. They would know how the fishermen and local people think and feel about their working life, and they would speak their language." Moreover, they would have a strong incentive to enhance shellfisheries, and they would not have any bias against applied research and development or shellfish that have economic importance. Also, they would be adept at solving practical problems, working on commercial shellfish beds, and cooperating with fishermen. They would have a feel for working with nature, i.e., being able to predict the consequences of an environmental change on shellfish abundance. Someone with a background in sociology and shellfish biology would also be effective. A specialist should be a professional who can make mature recommendations for increasing shellfish abundance and the earnings of fishermen. He must be capable of identifying limiting factors in beds, conducting field experiments, and developing technologies that work and are profitable for the community to apply.

Ideally, a specialist should have some academic coursework or training, or at least have done extensive reading, in wildlife or agricultural management. In wildlife courses, the student learns how to manage wild animals by manipulating environments. For species after species, the student learns: 1) Environmental requirements, 2) ideal habitats, and 3) examples of how manipulated environments have affected abundances of wild animals. He can easily apply these principles to shellfish management. He also becomes aware of the social and economic factors which influence programs. Anthropology courses, which examine fishermen's behavior and describe interviewing techniques, and a course in invertebrate zoology are recommended.

A specialist must have confidence in himself to be able to impart new knowledge and useful suggestions to fishermen and, after making his surveys, to recommend and implement technologies on beds. It requires experience, however, to make recommendations which can be implemented and work successfully. A specialist will be more likely to succeed if he has had or shared with another preson, the experience of: 1) Having an idea for development, 2) selling it to others to gain support, 3) developing it into something tangible, 4) implementing it in practice, and 5) dealing with it after it becomes established. A specialist with little experience would be at a disadvantage. To carry out the work, he would have to proceed with caution. Required Attitudes

Most of the problems that a specialist will encounter deal with human affairs. His work, if successful, will affect people positively. Lilienthal (1967) wrote that the role of the manager has been neglected. He said that while industries and government agencies develop the technical means to meet the world's needs, the function of the managers who would translate these means into use is not well understood. The problems which managers face are largely human, rather than technical. Since managers are usually trained in only the technical aspects, they usually fail to achieve tangible improvements in people's lives. To succeed, managers must also have the capacity to understand individuals, learning their motivations, fears, hopes, and what they love and hate, and make use of this understanding when trying to apply technical knowledge. Personal Characteristics Required

Here is a list of suggestions written for agricultural consultants and extension agents by Sayville (1965), which I believe useful, as modified, for guiding a shellfish production specialist:

1) The secret of success in aU advisory work lies in the method of approach to the problems of the fishermen, his family, and the community. A specialist must have those characteristics and aptitudes which will win respect and friendship of the people with whom he works.

2) A specialist must be approachable. He must also know how to approach people and be willing to be approached at any time of the day or night. An effective specialist does not know the meaning of office" hours; much of his effectiveness is achieved after the normal day's work, and fishermen and their wives feel free to discuss personal and community problems.

3) A specialist should have patience. He must be tireless in explaining actions to improve the beds and other aspects of the fishery. During interviews, he makes suggestions instead of issuing instructions. He cultivates people's minds, implants ideas, and helps these develop into decisions. He should be aware that real progress always seems slow, tedious, and difficult. For example, slow progress was made in the development of methods to increase abundance of world food crops before World War 11, despite considerable effort. Thus the specialist must never lose patience or try to implement ideas before necessary preparations are made; hasty actions may lead to catastrophe. Timmer (1982) has stated: "Reform programs that lack patience and are based upon superficial imitations will lead to nothing more but the disruption of rural life."

4) A specialist should know his job. He has to be an accomplished shellfish ecologist and technologist, who gets to know the fishery- at least as well as the fishermen. In a new geographic region, he can work for a few hours at some of the fishermen's activities, such as tonging and culling, to gain an appreciation of what fishermen face. A specialist without sound practical knowledge of fishing gear and fishermen's lives is a hazard to fishermen, the local community, and the department for which he is working. He cannot afford to make many technical mistakes and, therefore, he must be careful to learn all he can, quick to learn what is correct, and confident in his ability to say and do what he knows to be reliable.

5) Good communication skills are recommended. Much of what a specialist needs to learn to be successful will be obtained from interviews, listening earnestly to what others have to say.

Schofield (1979) lists some behaviors which extension agents should avoid:

1) Local values and norms are often ignored by outsiders coming into a community, who egotistically assume that their aims and means are convergent with those of the society which they are attempting to improve; they fail, therefore, to understand the cultural system upon which they are imposing. In particular, local beliefs are often dismissed as irrational superstitions.

2) If a specialist behaves outside of community norms. he will either be humorous to local people or cause them to worry and will certainly constrain the acceptance of programs based on community cooperation.

3) A specialist should conform to community values and not run programs mainly for the benefit of the fishery agency or use projects and funds for his own ends.

4) The behavior of a specialist should not be patronizing of people in the community. Cooperation is not fostered by such an attitude.

I would also add that every act of a specialist, indeed every word uttered, has the potential to enhance or impede the work, or to confuse the people to be affected. Thus everything a specialist does and says should be considered ahead of time. Roles of a Shellfish Production Specialist

In developing a shellfish enhancement program for a community or agency, a specialist will have five roles: Practical ecologist, educator, developer of tactics and technologies, coordinator, and mediator. Practical Ecologist

Dasmann's (1981) description of the role of a wildlife manager well describes a specialist's role as a practical ecologist. The reader should substitute the word "specialist" for "manager" and shellfish" for wildlife". He states: "The manager ... must search through the range of limiting factors, seeking that which can be most practically and economically remedied. Habitat research and management have sometimes been defined as attempts to discover limiting factors and then to remove each in turn until the maximum feasible production of wildlife is obtained."

To accomplish the above, a specialist may have to examine the shellfish habitats with scuba. A remote TV/video camera and monitor and a submersible vehicle might be substituted for scuba in relatively clear water. Environmental deficiencies and potentials for increasing shellfish abundance in beds would be determined only with difficulty and great uncertainty without such visual observations.

Probably, oyster production would not have declined nearly as much in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century had scuba then been available to shellfish biologists, and if it had been used more frequently when it became available later. Biologists would have observed how the oyster's environment was degrading and may have taken the steps necessary to maintain or improve its quality. Instead, the environment steadily degraded in ways that were then not realized. Moreover, the means could have been found to improve the environments of hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops, thus enhancing their abundances as well. Educator Education of fishermen, "local" citizens, fishery administrators, and politicians is an essential aspect of an assignment. A specialist provides local people with a vision of the shellfishery at an elevated state and with a clear understanding of the process for reaching it. Education must be conveyed verbally and through progress reports. Developer of Tactics and Technologies

As the limiting factors of shellfish abundance are identified, a specialist would try to devise technologies to control at least one or two of the major factors. He can search through the literature for technologies which do a similar job, and, if found, judge whether they would work, perhaps with modification, on the local beds. If not, the technologies would have to be developed.

Some traditional methods of handling shellfish by fishermen might not be adequate if production from the beds increases. Thus while new methods are being developed to increase shellfish abundance on the beds, new methods may be needed for increasing the efficiency of gathering, handling and marketing shellfish. Coordinator

A specialist has to understand the "big picture" of the shellfishing industry, which ranges from identification of limiting factors in the beds to marketing. In other words, he has to know the factors needed to bring about an increase in production and expansion of markets. In his role as a coordinator, he sees to it that all connections are made in the right place and at the right time, makes sure that afl needed materials are available when required, and becomes involved in market promotion. Mediator A specialist will have the role as mediator between fishermen and fishery administrators as well as among fishermen. Communication between the fishermen and public officials is commonly poor. Before any formal meetings concerning shellfishery matters are to take place, the specialist should discuss one or two of the central issues with the administrators to determine what they want and believe they can accomplish. He then advises the fishermen about what he heard from the administrators and tries to get a consensus of views from them about the issues. Afterwards, he should discuss the fishermen's views with the administrators. Before a meeting, he advises both groups about what to say to the other during the meeting. The result might be that effective decisions could be made on the important issues, resulting in productive action. Often, fishermen have good ideas about how the management of public beds could be improved. However, they have difficulty talking these over amongst themselves, agreeing on one or two workable ideas, and then presenting them properly to administrators. This can be one of the most productive aspects of a specialist's work. He visits nearly all fishermen on an individual basis, discussing with each a new management idea and how they believe it can be developed and implemented to benefit all parties. He focuses the thoughts of the fishermen and keeps the proposal simple. He can anticipate that most fishermen will contribute ideas to the proposal, making it more effective and workable. Some fishermen will have to be visited more than once to discuss any changes since a previous visit. When the proposal generally satisfies the fishermen, it is presented to the administrators for their review.

The ideal is to have the specialist, fishermen, and administrators work together in developing a better management policy. Since the administrators are usually busy with other matters, however, it is best to have the specialist and fishermen develop a proposal and then take it to the administrators as outlined above. The first concern of an administrator about any new proposal is likely to be the fishermen's opinion. The success of the specialist in this role as mediator, as in his other roles, will depend on his ability to maintain a bond of trust with fishermen and administrators (Parker and King, 1987).

The Identity and Roles

of Other Participants A number of people would be involved in a shellfishery development program for public beds in addition to the shellfish production specialist. They include a fishery administrator, the specialist's associate(s), fishermen and other "local" people, public health officials, and the boat captains and crews. The only people to work full time in the program are the specialist and associate(s); after the program is implemented, the boat captains and crews would become involved. The remaining participants will be working at other positions and can devote only a small amount of time to the program. This section describes the role of each of these participants. Fishery Administrator

An administrator of shellfish programs is an important element in the chain to ensure successful implementation and culmination of shellfish enhancement projects. He is required to provide the following:

1) Support to the shellfish production specialist. The administrator has to plan ahead and secure the funding to provide for the operation, infrastructure, and other costs associated with the program. These may be borne by the government or industry or both.

2) completion of paperwork to access funding. In any government operation there is a requirement for paperwork, often in large quantities. This load cannot be transferred to the specialist whose time has to be spent in the field. This does not mean that the specialist completes no paperwork, but it should be only the necessary forms which do not interfere with field operations.

3) Provision of rationale and justification for programs. The administrator provides the government with the justification for the work, with relevant projections based on past programs or anticipated results. The justifications should allow for a continuance of the programs to their completion.

4) Building flexibility into programs to allow the specialist maximum maneuverability in executing them. The programs need an element of flexibility built into them. Without this, the program will not be able to respond to various localized differences during its implementation and execution.

5) "Running interference" for programs. In any program which disturbs the "status quo," there is bound to be a certain amount of complaining, criticism Oust or unjust), and doubt. (Both the specialist and administrator have to handle this role.) The administrator's role is particularly important so the program will not be modified to a level where it is unproductive; the administrator has to have a firm commitment to the effort.

6) Providing future projections, on a 5- to 20-year basis, in cooperation with the specialist (depending on the scope of the program). The administrator must make clear that shellfishery enhancement must, by its very nature, be conducted over a 5- to 20-year cycle. The first 5 years will be a period of change, adaptation, and acceptance by the industry. The second 5 years provides a period where monitoring and some increases in production will take place, with the remaining years looked upon as an expansion to reach the desired level of production. In small communities without such an administrator, politicians will act in this role.

In most instances, the fishery administrator will be the person who hires the specialist. Wise administrators will hire an accomplished, experienced specialist and then advise him that shellfish production has fallen sharply and that they have hired him to show the community how to return it to or above previous levels of production. They will also provide him with a modest amount of capital for making tests and developing technologies.

The position of shellfish production specialist outlined in this guide is a very responsible one. Thus the salary should be relatively high. It should also be high enough that the specialist is not always looking for another job. The specialist should report to the fishery administrator or other manager, rather than to a scientist, because managers want production to increase. The specialist should be given some independence and some authority so his work will get credit for production increases. Associate Production Specialist(s)

These are associates to a specialist in all roles, including being a safety buddydiver. Ideally, they should be from the local community so they can inform the specialist about local affairs. They should learn enough from the specialist to be able to run the program and develop it further if the specialist should depart. The rules and guidelines presented above for the specialist also apply to associate production specialists. Fishermen, Processors, and Local" People

These people have the responsibility of supplying information to a specialist about fishery operations, fishery history, bed locations, and changes in the estuaries, as well as ideas for development. The information is passed along during informal conversations. Ultimately, they also have to judge whether a program should be implemented on their shellfish beds. Public Health Officials

The responsibility to ensure that shellfish purchased by consumers is not polluted, i.e., (is safe to eat) is vested in public health officials. They must advise the shellfish production specialist about the location of the polluted beds. Boat Captains and Crews

This is the group which actually improves the beds. Collectively, they bring their knowledge of boat handling and gear to the job. A first-class captain can at least double the output of a mediocre captain.

The Power, Incentives and

Risks of the Participants

In a public fishery, the power, incentives, and risks among the various people involved are different than they are in a private company. First, a definition of power": It is the ability to make decisions, to take risks, to lead, to get things done. Without such power, nothing happens; there is stagnation. In a private oyster company, management is interested in profits, and it can direct specific actions for personnel under its employ to be followed to ensure that profits are made. The workers in a company are under pressure from management to complete specific jobs. Management has total power to direct actions and it, alone, takes risks. If management uses advice from a shellfish production specialist, it will anticipate an increase in company profits. In most cases, a manager will profit financially and thus will have great incentive to increase shellfish production.

Where does power lie, what are the incentives, and what are the risks to the participants involved in a program to develop shellfish culture in public beds? In public shellfisheries, the people to receive tangible profits from an increased shellfish supply in the beds are: 1) The fishermen and, somewhat less, the local people, and 2) the wholesale, retail, and distribution people, as well as the consumers of shellfish who will have more (and perhaps less expensive) shellfish available to purchase. Of this group, only the fishermen will be considered in this section. The power, incentives, and risks that each of the participants is likely to have are described below. Specialist and Associate(s) Power

In some circumstances, the person with knowledge is the one having some power. The specialist will determine the limiting factors of shellfish abundance in the beds. He will try to learn how to control at least one or two factors via cost-effective means. When such knowledge is attained, it might appear that he would have some power. Often, however, he does not have the power to make decisions about funding and implementing the program; politicians, fishery administrators, fishermen, and local people usually have that power. A specialist can tell these people what the problem is, what caused it, how it was caused, and how to solve it. But the others decide where, when, and usually whether to solve it. Incentives If a program succeeds, a specialist will not gain monetarily; he does gain in self-esteem, however, from achievement in a difficult task, and he will feel that he has contributed to the betterment of a societal group. Moreover, he may gain a measure of recognition and prestige locally. Risk A major problem facing a specialist will be that his knowledge and experience may not always be adequate and thus some uncertainty about the success of a project will exist. The development process is often only partially subject to human control; variable extremes of weather and other conditions may prevent a shellfish set or kill seed. When implementing a program, a specialist risks his reputation and esteem. His reputation is in jeopardy if the program is a future because he may lose the trust of the community regarding his ability and judgment thereafter. The situation is analogous to a medical doctor who examines a patient and reports him in good health; if the patient thes soon afterward, the doctor's reputation may then be severely damaged. In addition, a specialist could "lose face " be embarrassed, and appear diminished to people of the community. Fishery Administrator and Politicians Power A program can be implemented and function only if officials legislate it and supply the money for it. Moreover, the key to successful continuance of a program is the degree to which the administrative and political leadership is willing to cooperate and is ready to use the instruments of government to attain its goal. Incentive Administrators and politicians would have a strong incentive to back a program which promised to improve the conditions of people's lives by raising employment and prosperity within their community. They do not gain monetarily in a direct way. A successful program provides administrators and politicians with a sense of accomplishment, and it might help politicians become reelected. Risk Usually, politicians require that programs which they sponsor have popular appeal. Otherwise, they fear a backlash from the voters. The implementation of a program which results in substantial damage to the fishery or leads to reduced employment and income presents a risk for politicians because it threatens their image, effectiveness, and job security. Fishermen, Processors, and "Local" People Power Because the beds belong to these people, they have the power to control the direction of projects within a program and, if they wish, stop implementation. Usually a relatively large group, fishermen and local people have had substantial influence on political decisions; politicians will never allow implementation of a program if mass opposition to it exists. Incentive Fishermen, processors, and local people have great incentive to support a sound program because they will profit substantially from it in the future. Risk

When a specialist enters the scene, a shellfishery may be extremely depressed financially. If a program is to be developed and implemented, the fishermen and local people will be facing several risks. One is that operations on the beds may kill some shellfish or damage their habitat; if so, the shellfish abundance may decrease and incomes of the fishermen and processors will fall further. A second risk, often greater, is the possible loss of money invested in construction of equipment and hiring boats, captains, and crews. There is also the risk that increased supply will exceed market demand and the price will drop. Thus net income from the enhancement may not change much. Public Health Officials Power Public health officials have the power to modify a program substantially if an aspect of it involves polluted shellfish; they will not allow polluted shellfish on the market. Incentive From the standpoint of their position, public health officials would have an incentive to back a program which produced more shellfish on unpolluted beds, because the fishermen would then have less incentive to poach shellfish on polluted beds, thus making the public health officials' job easier. Risk Public health officials are under a large risk if the program is to involve the handling and transport of polluted shellfish. They would expect that the program would guarantee that no polluted shellfish finds its way to the market. If the officials could not protect the public from eating polluted shellfish, they could lose their jobs or prestige. Boat Captains and Crews Power

This group has limited power to modify a program, although as former or experienced fishermen, they have local knowledge and thus some power if consulted. Incentive In most instances, boat captains will be former fishermen who lived through periods of low shellfish supply; they would view their job as an opportunity to increase shellfish abundance on the local beds. Thus, at least initially, they would have high incentive to do a good job and work hard. On the other hand, a captain would be under much less pressure to produce under lax supervision of a local official than he would under a company manager. With some individuals, the incentive may gradually wear off when 1) they discover that their pay is level (i.e., their pay is the same whether or not they work hard) and 2) their efforts are criticized by some fishermen. No program will be perfect, and thus the usual critics will "sound off' when small errors are made. The boat captains and crews may be the ones to hear most of the criticism, and they will have to defend the program. Risk

Boat captains and crews risk their reputations and those of the local government and the specialist if they do a poor job of executing the program; they could also lose their contract to work in the program, and their vessel(s) could be damaged.

In summary, it can be seen that: 1) A specialist, administrators, and politicians, as well as fishermen and local people have certain powers to implement or block a shellfish enhancement program: 2) a specialist, administrators, and politicians have much weaker incentives to implement a program than does the manager of a private company. If it succeeds, their self esteem and pride in their job increases, but they may not gain monetarily; and 3) the fishermen and local people risk financial loses, and a specialist, administrators, politicians, and the boat captains and crews risk tarnishing their reputations if the program proves to be unsound or if it were conducted poorly and resulted in reduced shellfish abundance. A person does not want to risk tarnishing his reputation by lending his name in support of a project or program which, later on, other people say was a waste of money and time.

A shellfishery enhancement program is most likely to succeed if specialists, administrators, politicians, and boat captains and crews are experienced professionals, have sufficient incentives, a willingness to make sacrifices for the cause, and they work well together. If participants do not all work toward the goal of enhancing the shellfishery, a program is not likely to be successful.

Some Important

Aspects of a Shellfish Production Specialist's Assignment

Economic development is difficult. It is no easy task to improve the economy of a shellfishing community-to create more jobs and produce higher wages and produce more shellfish for consumers. Because the role of a shellfish production specialist will be new in most localities, there will be no systems in place to accomplish the required tasks. To an extent, the specialist may have to depend on some of the people doing things "out of the goodness of their hearts' " Moreover, the interactions which he will have with other people will all be new; people win not be used to dealing with someone in his role. Thus, all tasks may seem to be uphill and require more work than might have been anticipated. The goal of increasing and stabilizing the shellfish yield is maintained during all the work. A specialist must not leave the track leading to that goal no matter how strong the temptations.

A specialist should be aware that the community will hold many beliefs, customs, and expectations, some of which will be unique to it. It will have had a long history of interrelationships based on the ups and downs of its shellfishery. He should also be aware that his work will impinge upon a complex network of subtle human relationships. The prestige and influence of various people in the community and fishery vary considerably. A specialist has to learn about the intricacies of community life and individual personalities if he is to succeed; statements and actions which are at cross purposes to beliefs, customs, and expectations of the community or its leading citizens or fishermen, or which are disrespectful of local taboos can severely taint local attitudes towards a specialist and his proposals. The specialist should learn the names of local people, places, fishing grounds, and gear, and pronounce them properly. He should be aware that people with strong egos will try to influence his work, and he has to be prepared to deal with them.

A specialist should also be aware that he will be trying to aid a shellfishery which may have been functioning for many years. From humble beginnings, it has become a locally important business. The fishermen have developed boats, gear, and methods, and they have acquired knowledge to gather shellfish in quantities which are sufficiently large to make it profitable to do so. Processing (packing) plants may have been developed to handle quantities of shellfish at a profit. Refrigerator trucks have been purchased to preserve the quality of shellfish and distribute them reasonably promptly at a profit. Associated wholesalers and retailers may have developed methods for handling a certain volume and quality of shellfish and selling it at a profit. Consumers accept certain shellfish products as part of their diet. Everyone connected with the shellfishery has tried to increase the efficiency of operations to increase profits. It has been a business of tight economics and small profit margins within each component. Thus, a specialist is not likely to be able to find large deficiencies which he can improve in the shellfish production and marketing system. Probably, an increase in efficiency would require the introduction of better gathering gear, shucking machines, and perhaps new packaging. Equipment should be improved only after abundance is increased and a careful analysis of the shellfishery is made to be sure that improvements are needed and will not have a negative effect.

The state or local community legally owns the shellfish beds, but a specialist should instead view the situation in terms of the fishermen and local community owning them. Moreover, the fishermen and community should be considered as analogous to a farmer who owns his land, and they should be treated as the farmer would want to be. Thus, the fishermen should be shown a new approach and then be asked whether it should be implemented.

Improvements and new concepts and technologies will generally come from above, but they should take much of their direction from below. Thus, the work of a specialist should begin at the roots and go upward. The fundamental basis lies in 1) the condition of the beds which must allow efficient settlement of larvae and good survival of seed shellfish and 2) the working life of the fishermen. A specialist should not approach his assignment with a preconceived notion of what he and the administrators believe is good for the shellfishery, introduce methods and ideas from somewhere else, and then try to force them into practice. If a specialist ignores the roots, little chance will exist that success will be achieved. Moreover, technologies and programs should be designed or modified to comply with fishermen's desires. Most strategies proposed in the literature have represented a "top to bottom" approach and have not been implemented. In developing a new technology and program for people to use, many planners are guided by the 5:95 rule." Its definition is as follows: The physical aspects of designing and testing prototypes and constructing a workable technology will consume only about 5 percent of the effort, while the aspects of dealing with the related human factors will take 95 percent; thus the designing and construction of a potentially beneficial technology are relatively easy when compared with the human factors related to its application. The rule also applies when designing a better management plan for public beds. The environments of beds of particular shellfish species can vary somewhat from one another. Thus, a specialist win have to increase shellfish abundance on a bed-by-bed basis; each bed will have to be examined separately, its deficiencies diagnosed, and then, possibly, a unique remedy developed to correct them.

A specialist will soon discover that many preconceived ideas exist for developing the shellfishery. They will come from fishermen, processors, "local" people, local scientists, and administrators. Moreover, new ideas and old ones will keep coming to the forefront in quantity. The specialist will have to select those ideas useful for the enhancement of the shellfishery and maintain control over them. He will have to explain to others that he believes it important to do so and, eventually, through constant endorsement sell the concepts to the locals. A development program has to be long term. A one-season miracle" cure will not work.

The Conduct of

a Shellfish Production

Specialist on an Assignment

This section lists the initial steps which a shellfish production specialist can take in a shellfishery enhancement assignment. The broad-based approach which a specialist may follow is described next. The remainder of the section consists of a list of guidelines for conducting the assignment.

Initial Steps The first step which a specialist takes is to gain an understanding of the objectives of the assignment from his superiors and to tentatively agree on what they believe will be attainable goals. The need to identify objectives cannot be overstressed. At the beginning, however, most problems are likely to be ill-defined, and also it is likely that no one will know precisely how development will proceed. A specialist should periodically discuss progress in the program with the fishery administrators and politicians. These authorities need to know the projected costs of a program on public beds, and a specialist needs to know how much money is available to spend. The authorities will also want to know how popular the program will prove to be in the community. The second step is to spend the necessary time examining selected shellfish beds with scuba gear. A specialist and his associate(s) can thus get a general idea of how the beds appear and perhaps can get some good clues about limiting factors which exist.

The specialist then meets with leaders in the fishery (i.e., the leading fishermen and packing house processors) to present an overview of what he will attempt to accomplish. Likely, they will want to know the answers to a number of questions: 1) Can the beds be cultured to yield more shellfish? 2) If so, how much more? 3) How can it be accomplished? 4) How long will it take? And, 5) will the beds be safeguarded from damage?

Undoubtedly, a specialist will be under pressure to improve the shellfishery quickly. He should try to give some indication of when and how much shellfish production will increase, not promising more than can be delivered. In a short-term assignment, a specialist should have knowledge available or, alternatively, a technology which he can try to accommodate to local use to increase shellfish abundance or to help fishermen become more productive. An article or news release should be prepared for the local newspaper to announce that a shellfish development program is underway; this will alert them that a specialist has been hired and will raise the mood of the fishermen and community.

A specialist garners all the information about the industry which fishermen have, adds it to his own, and with the observations about limiting factors which he has made in surveys of the beds, begins to apply the collective knowledge. Then, to control the limiting factors, he devises technologies whose use is compatible with the community and inexpensive enough for communities to afford. A shellfishery development program is then drawn up and implemented; eventual feedback enables evaluation of its success and application to future projects.

A specialist should be aware that no progress will be made unless he supplies the correct information and technologies. He will not succeed if he only urges fishermen to develop better technologies, advises them to cultivate rather than mine" the beds, or advises the local administrators or politicians to develop a shellfishery program by themselves. Use the Broad-based Approach

The broad-based approach assumes that: 1) Fishermen and local people have the right to be involved in decisions made about managing public beds; 2) these people have a great deal of knowledge and good ideas, and thus the development of a technology and program to enhance the shellfishery will be much better designed when these people contribute ideas to it (a workable program could not be formulated otherwise); 3) support for a program will be much stronger; and 4) the connections between various people, events, and actions will line up properly, and thus the development program will more likely be successful.

The approach involves discussing every reasonable idea for technologies to be used on the beds or management with anyone in the community who might have information or an intelligent opinion about them. The various people with whom knowledge is shared include especially the fishermen, but also those involved with processing, wholesaling, lawmaking and enforcement, and public health. Knowledgeable persons also include fishery administrators and politicians, the blacksmith who will construct any new gear, boat captains and their crews, and interested lay people. A specialist should ask opinions of friends, neutrals, and enemies. When using this approach, those typically uninvolved become involved, issues otherwise ignored are identified and assessed, and involvement becomes focused and issue centered (Preister, 198'7). A specialist must take the time to listen to a large cross section of fishermen and others so as to gain a clear understanding of what they know, what they need, and what improvements they may suggest. He must also try to increase the knowledge of fishermen and local people, especially about limiting factors in the beds, as he gathers data during his field and laboratory studies. Interviewing and sharing ideas with these people increases their interest and gives them a feeling of involvement in development of their industry. A specialist will also have to learn people's strengths and weaknesses and what their thinking patterns are like. Critical factors, such as personal needs, motivations, and limitations, often defy logic and have to be studied and understood, sometimes intuitively. A specialist should welcome constructive criticism and advice.

A specialist should work one-on-one with individual fishermen and processors to find out what they know, want, and feel. If fishermen are approached properly with a sincere, interested, respectful attitude by the specialist who uses a flexible, open-ended mode of questioning, they will open up and offer information that goes beyond specific questions being asked, as recommended for obtaining information from rural people by Green (1987). Usually, fishermen do not resist answering questions, because they enjoy talking about shellfishing.

A bonus from such meetings is that loose ends within the fishery can be tied together for increasing efficiency where lines of communication are normally absent. For example, a specialist can survey the best equipment and techniques employed by various processors, and then, if it can be done without creating conflicts, make them known to afl groups. The tying together of loose ends and making the best equipment universally known are inexpensive ways to upgrade a shellfishery.

During the early interviews, it will become apparent that people have divergent views about what ails the shellfishery and how to improve it. Logical sounding views need to be recorded for possible later use.

In a public shellfishery, the fishermen can be interviewed on the water, at the docks, in their homes, or at meetings. Processors can be interviewed in their offices. Personal visits afford opportunities for: 1) Gaining insight into the lives, outlook, and culture of the fishing community, and 2) discovering the local leaders of public opinion and the fishermen who are progressive in outlook, besides learning a considerable amount about shellfishing. During interviews a specialist should develop a climate of trust with the local people ("if you do not trick me, I will not trick you"), and establish that his objective is service to the local community, not his personal gain.

Initiating discussions with some of the fishermen may be difficult. They may be skeptical of a specialist's worth, perhaps having already heard promises by biologists which were unmet. A specialist should be aware that fishermen are rather cautious and defensive because they can afford little risk. Some may speak with anger and passion, leaving no doubt that shellfish abundance is a matter having great importance.

An effect procedure for opening discussions with fishermen is to ask a series of questions such as:

What are the needs of the shellfishery?

What do you believe should be done to improve it?

We are thinking about doing... (give examples). How do you think they would work?

What do you suppose would happen if we did (give example)?

Do you believe that gear having this design (show a drawing) would work?

Would you benefit if shellfish abundance were increased?

Who would purchase the shellfish which you gathered?

Usually, fishermen will give expansive answers to these questions. A specialist will obtain a substantial amount of information from interviews of 10-15 fishermen. Interviewing only a couple of fishermen will not be effective.

Fishermen's wives should also be interviewed, if possible, because they will provide some new, practical, and useful perspectives about the industry. Women will also support management proposals which promise more employment and higher wages. Moreover, their influence on community public opinion can be high.

By involving the community in the planning process, there will be a continuing exercise of grassroots power, and most administrators will be pleased to follow the guidelines of the community (Turner, 1987). "Sensitivity to local interests and a professional means to accomplish (goals) can save money, improve project design, and lead to greater long-term stability" (Preister, 1987). Guidelines

A number of guidelines are given here to help a specialist conduct his assignment. Good Relations

A specialist has to maintain good relations with the community, fishermen and other biologists. The six points listed below will provide guidance in this regard.

1) At all times, an effective specialist should try to keep the shellfishery's problems and development ideas in the forefront, and keep himself in the background; he keeps a low profile. Doing so will help in maintaining good relations with other biologists or managers; their egos may be "bruised" if a specialist is successful in enhancing the shellfishery. The abrasions will be much smaller if the shellfishery is kept in the foreground. 2) It is essential to make people, especially the fishermen, feel important. A specialist can help to accomplish this by listening to their ideas. If local people are made to feel important, they are more likely to support a sound developmental program. On the other hand, if they are ignored, especially when they feel strongly about the industry, they may become an enemy of the program. A specialist should consider himself an associate of the fishermen and avoid a tone of knowing superiority. 3) The fishermen should be given some information in trade for their time when they provide assistance or information. For example, a specialist can describe the observations which he makes while diving on the beds. 4) When samples of shellfish are taken ashore for examination, they should be returned to the beds afterwards; no such shellfish in quantity should be allowed to die. A specialist might also remove some predators, such as starfish, which he sees on the beds while making surveys. 5) When encountering resistance from an individual or a small group regarding a proposed action, a specialist should first find out why and then respond tactfully using the manner in which an expert politician responds. A politician side-steps sensitive issues or faces them obliquely, in an attempt to diffuse them. He hopes that if they are ever raised again, the opposition will have lost interest in them or the overall situation may have changed and the issues will seem unimportant. If the issue is faced head-on, however, the opposition will likely become stronger and a battle of wills between a specialist and the opposition will follow. The result may be that the action will have to be permanently shelved and a specialist may have wasted too much time and energy in the battle, besides reinforcing animosity towards him. 6) Sometimes, fishermen criticize the local fisheries agency or laboratory for a lack of tangible results. A specialist can defend these entities without antagonizing the fishermen. Nearly always, fishermen have misunderstood the objectives of the agency or laboratory and these can be explained with patience. On the other hand, fishermen should never be abused for criticizing a public agency or laboratory or for not using a recommended method. Develop Credibility Credibdity of a specialist's word must be developed. Ultimately, the fishermen may have to depend on the specialist's word for certain critical knowledge. Thus during interviews and in reports, a specialist relates only facts; if guesses or estimates have to be made, they should be clearly identified as such. Periodically, the fishermen may test a specialist's knowledge to determine his reliability. If any substantial weaknesses are detected, the fishermen will not have confidence in a specialist to follow his advice. Work Performance A specialist and his associate(s) do the brunt of the work. Everyone else involved in the program will be only peripherally involved and will not have time to do much work on it. Thus the fishermen and local people cannot be expected to become involved in testing technologies or gathering data from test plots. The administrators and politicians should not have to spend time resolving conflicts between groups. A program will not be developed if a specialist tries to assign such work to others. When various groups are asked to support the implementation of a technology or program, they only should have to review the data which a specialist has gathered. The relationship between these groups and the specialist in this regard should be as follows:

1) Fishermen and local people: They supply background information; a specialist finds and supplies answers to their questions.

2) Fishery administrators and politicians: They support program development and allocate funds, but a specialist fills in the unknowns and handles conflicts himself.

3) Blacksmith: He brings his knowledge of construction to the job, whereas a specialist gives him the design of equipment to be built. 4) Boat captains and crews: They bring their knowledge of operating boats and using gear to the job, but a specialist may have train them or work with them to operate any new equipment. Objectivity A specialist begins with an objective view of the shellfishery, i.e., without any preconceived notions. At the beginning, he makes his own observations and then follows the directions which he believes are best. He does not initiate the assignment by gathering together all available verbal and written information and then following the suggestions which they recommend. Probably, he will be asked to develop a shellfishery in which other biologists and managers have already made studies and suggested improvements. The fact that he was hired probably means that any earlier suggestions did not improve the fishery substantially. For at least a few months, a specialist should not interview other shellfish biologists in the area, because they might lead him astray. Such interviews should be held eventually, however, because it is likely that much useful information will be obtained; during these interviews, a specialist can sort out the useful from the nonuseful information. Responsibility to the People After his responsibilities to the agency which has hired him, the fundamental responsibility of a specialist is to the people: Fishermen, local people in communities and consumers; moreover, the centerpiece of concern is the fishermen. It follows that the local community will benefit economically and consumers will have larger, less expensive shellfish supplies, if the incomes and employment security of individual fishermen can be raised through an increase in shellfish abundance and production. A specialist should be aware that the key to winning local support is to develop a program which promises increased local earnings. Thus he should give highest priority to projects whose payoff will raise or stabilize incomes. Identify Community Values

The needs and social values of the community have to be identified through penetrative probing. A specialist has to be sure that the results of his work will meet needs and comply with values. He should not assume that he knows what the needs are ahead of time. A specialist selects beds and projects which people care most about. Usually, these will be the best from an efficiency or cost-effectiveness viewpoint but not necessarily.

Projects should begin where the needs are: The most productive approach is to develop methods which meet the immediate needs of the fishermen, i.e., improve their material welfare. If presented with a choice of two good methods, a specialist selects the one which people most desire. In order that the various components within the shellfishery might use his recommendations, a specialist should be guided by the fundamental principal of marketing goods: Find out what people need and want and then try to give it to them. Identify Local Problems

Somewhat related to the previous guideline, a specialist makes sure that he correctly identifies the problems which the local people have. He does not want to waste effort trying to solve a problem whose solution has no value. Solving problems whose solutions have no use or value is a common human endeavor.

Some communities may have limits on how much an aquatic environment can be modified to increase the abundance of shellfish. Certainly, communities which are partially supported by a fishery for the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, will not allow it to be killed, and there are state regulations to be taken into account.

Get Involved Locally

A specialist must spend most of his time living with the problems. He should remain close to the shellfish beds and the fishermen and processors, to gain an appreciation of their working situation. He tries to immerse himself in the local setting, engages in local routines and attempts to experience events as a fisherman would. The information obtained from fishermen about shellfish distribution and factors that limit abundance is used to make any surveys more efficiently.

Any time that is available between making observations and interviews can be used to gather data for developing a statistical profile of the shellfishery. The available time can also be used to test or check the value of any new methods that were recommended to the fishery during the previous 10 years or so before a specialist arrived on the scene. Such tests spare the fishermen the time and cost of doing it. Examine Limiting Factors

A specialist should devote the effort which he spends on the beds to examining factors which limit shellfish abundance, and developing methods to increase it. He should not waste time studying the fecundity, longevity, anatomy, and physiology of shellfish. In addition, he should spend only a relatively small amount of time making surveys or censuses of shellfish supplies on beds. The information is needed, but the main part of the work should not be devoted to it.

Verify Results

As a general rule, the results of early tests involving the use of a technology to improve the beds should be carried to finality for statistical verification. If time is lacking, however, the results can be inspected visually and be confirmed later when tests are repeated on increasingly larger plots. As the work proceeds, however, thoroughness and attention to details are essential. No loose details about critical aspects are left to guesswork; all details are nailed down with documented studies. Achieving Results

A specialist uses the most expedient means possible to achieve the desired result. The objective is to achieve goals with a minimum of cost, i.e., by the simpliest, cheapest means possible. He should not fall into the trap of designing something new or extra-complicated to impress colleagues. Compromise

A specialist should be prepared to make compromises. He might have to go along with a project which an administrator wants, to obtain his support for conducting the projects which he wants. He should also conduct some small projects which the fishermen want, so they will support his larger project(s). Hopefully, after a while, the fishermen will see that his large project(s) are the best ones. Keep Records

A specialist should maintain records of what he does. Later reviews of the records will help him to determine why some things went right and why others went wrong. Monitoring Beds

A specialist could probably keep track of 30-60 shellfish beds. The number of beds which he could evaluate would depend on how rapidly they are changing and their size. The evaluations would require scuba or video camera examinations of each. Keep Costs Low

The cost of the program which a specialist establishes should be low in relation to benefits. Moreover, an enhancement program should produce shellfish cheaply, because the shellfish produced will compete for the consumer's money with other foods. The producers of other foods are consistently trying to cut production costs to increase sales. If shellfish production costs are high, sales volumes will be relatively low. Ethics

The question of ethics is involved when a specialist works with private companies. A specialist should be aware that he works in the public interest, which is best served by working with progressive people. A progressive oyster company, however, works with a specialist out of enlightened self-interest. The company and general public benefit if a specialist helps the company produce more shellfish, stabilize production, or produce them at lower cost. A specialist should make any designs of improved technologies or procedures which he has helped develop in cooperating with a company immediately available to all other companies and to fishermen on public beds.

Producing an Information Base

Two types of surveys-a reconnaissance survey, which provides background information, and an intensive survey, which provides specific information about the factors which govern shellfish abundance on various beds and information about the shellfishery need to be conducted by a specialist to provide an information base. Moreover, the capacity of the local fisheries agency or its counterpart to fund a program needs to be determined. Timmer (1982) stated that a crop specialist has to know his area and know his people, asking "how can he improve something if he does not know it?" The Reconnaissance Survey

This survey is conducted largely by interviewing local people. Descriptions of land topography and rivers, contours and depths of the bays and estuaries, and locations of shellfish beds are obtained from charts and fishermen interviews. Long-time residents can supply information about shellfishing history and changes that have taken place. Interviews of local people will provide information on the public's attitude about current shellfishing conditions, the effects of regulations, and the need for changes in regulations.

Additional information to gather includes: Statistics on historical landings, early status of the fishery when production was at its peak, and apparent reasons for declines in sizes of shellfish populations.

Early conditions of the oyster fishery are partially described in articles and books by Ingersoll (1881, 1887), Hall (1894), Stevenson (1894), Moore (1897), Zacharie (1897), Collins (1889), Belding (1912), Churchill (1920), Sweet (1941), Gunter (1952, 1953, 1975), and Rolfs 19171). Some historical information on hard clams is available in some of the sources that describe oysters and in Belding (1912). Some historical information on soft clams is available in Belding (1930), Ingersoll (1887), Turner (1949), Turner et al. (1949), Dow and Wallace (1950), Glude (1955), Landers (1954), Manning (1957), Manning and Pfitzemneyer (1958) and Hanks (1963). Some observations on the bay scallop at the turn of the century are available in Belding (1910).

The apparent reasons for declines in sizes of shellfish populations may be difficult to ascertain, especially if they were gradual over several decades. If so, no published source or interviewee is likely to have a good perspective. Nonetheless, if the reasons can be obtained, they can be a great help in characterizing the environmental factor(s) responsible for low shellfish abundance on the beds. The best procedures to follow are: 1) Interview a number of long-time residents; usually, when several people give a similar statement, it is probably credible; 2) compare written descriptions of earlier periods with any that are available about the present period, and 3) examine with scuba where shellfish grew in the early periods and where they now grow abundantly. The Intensive Survey

This survey is conducted largely by making studies on beds and also by interviewing. Data collection is a critical part of the work. The kinds of data collected, the way they are collected, and their timeliness may well affect the ultimate success of the work; data used to validate the program will have great impact on implementation, because validation is a measure of confidence in the results (Reisman and deKluyver, 1975). Under this survey, pilot tests are conducted to determine how much production could be increased. Physical Conditions in Bays and Estuaries

Much of the information is probably available in the literature and on charts, which would include bottom depths. Bottom firmness, important in oyster work, can be measured by: 1) examining the bottom visually, 2) probing with a pole from a boat, or 3) spreading small quantities of oysters on test areas to determine whether they remain on the surface. The distribution of salinity, which plays a critical role in governing the growth and distributions of shellfish, diseases and predators, should be rechecked where projects are anticipated because it may have changed from earlier periods. The salinity should be measured at a series of bottom points across existing and former shellfish beds at high and low tide. The salinity will vary by season as well as by the amount of runoff, and thus these aspects will have to be considered when measuring it. Water temperatures and current strengths do not have to be measured. Abundance, Length-frequency, and Distribution of Shellfish Stocks

Shellfish abundances can be determined by subsampling populations. A good estimate of population size can be determined by counting all shellfish within a ring which encircles about 0.25 m2 (3 square feet), at about ten random sites in each hectare (2.5 acres) of bed. Such determinations have to be made using scuba or large grab. The counts and measurements of shellfish can be made afterwards in a boat or ashore.

Oysters and bay scallops can be collected by hand while using scuba. Abundances of hard clams can be determined by using a hydraulic suction sampler and a ring; the clams are collected in a finemesh bag that retains all sizes. Soft clam abundances in intertidal zones can be determined at low tide by shovelling clams within the ring into a box that has a fine screen bottom and then sieving out the clams for counting. Length frequency distributions of shellfish can be determined by measuring about 100 specimens from a random collection. Potential Setting Density of Shellfish in Each Bed

It is desirable to know the frequency with which the potential for commercial-level setting occurs on various beds. The knowledge will determine the risk factor, which will serve as the basis to judge whether a bed should be rehabilitated by improving the bottom for setting larvae and reducing predators or other mortality causes. If the fishermen find seed of mixed sizes in the beds, probably good setting is almost on an annual basis.

Relative setting densities of the clams and bay scallop among years can also be determined by doing extensive surveying and counting. The clam beds could be sampled frequently during the summer with a hydraulic suction sampler or a benthic grab to count the seed. The technique would work well with the soft clam which grows rapidly and can be easily separated from the sand in which it lives using a sieve with a mesh size of about 2 mm. Intertidal soft clam juveniles can be sampled by shoveling sediment into a screen.

Hard clams set at a size of only about 0.2 mm, however, and grow slowly. Thus they may remain at about the size of sand grains in which they grow for a month or more. Consequently, a sieve with a mesh size of perhaps 0.25 nun has to be used. The clams can be separated from the sand grains by elutriation (separating the clams from the sand by repeated rinsings); it takes about 2 hours to elutriate each sample and one to two hours to count the clams in it using a dissecting microscope. Scallop seed may have to be sampled among eelgrass blades. Sizes of annual scallop sets can be roughly estimated by finding out from fishermen and wardens what the landings from various beds were over a period of years. Each year's landings of scallops is comprised of one year-class. Important Considerations in Diagnosing Limiting Factors

Studies should center on determining the condition of beds as environments for 1) setting larvae and 2) seed. Thus, the most important study period is during the summer when larvae are setting and seed are especially susceptible to predation and in the autumn when predation on seed continues.

Studies should be made on a broad, rather than a limited front, i.e., examining several, rather than only one, possible limiting factors. The advantage of doing this is that some factors may be impractical to control, whereas one or more of the others may be controlled easily and at a low cost. Moreover, the possibility increases that more than one limiting factor may be successfully relieved simultaneously; if so, an "abundance takeoff' of the shellfish as was achieved with oysters in Long Island Sound might take place.

Studies of liniiting factors should be conducted on an immediate, rather than a long-term, basis. Only studies involving factors to which methods can be applied immediately, or can be developed quickly, to improve the environment should be made. Long-term studies would include life histories of predators and diseases, looking for possible weak places in their life cycles which can be attacked. The information is mostly available already from studies in other areas.

Emphasis is placed on those limiting factors which can be practically altered. For instance, temperature and salinity, which may limit shellfish productivity but are usually not controllable, are not examined in detail.

The limiting factors of shellfish setting and survival can be identified and evaluated by using the procedures described below. As noted, several scuba swims over shellfish beds during the summer and autumn might provide adequate answers. A helpful procedure is to compare the appearances of beds where shellfish are abundant and where they are scarce. For example, a specialist might be able to observe that where oysters are abundant, the beds which they occupy are covered with shells, little silt is present on the shells, and few predators are present on beds, and where oyster abundance is low, shells are scarce and silt or predators might be abundant.

Determining Substrate Condition

for Setting Larvae

After making a good estimate about the factors that reduce setting densities of seed from scuba observations, identity of the factors can be confirmed by establishing several plots, each about 1 M .sup 2, yard.sup.2), on the beds immediately before the setting season of the larvae (Fig. 5). The plots should contain a range of good environments. Then, the plots and surrounding areas are examined carefully using scuba on a regular basis, to look for factors likely to reduce setting densities. After the setting season, seed densities and survival in the plots and surrounding areas are compared. The plots can also be established to contain a single limiting factor, such as bay anemones (MacKenzie, 1977d) or silt, to determine its significance. Determining Causes and Extent of Seed Shellfish Mortality A study of factors that cause seed shellfish mortality should start at the beginning of the setting season and, in the U.S. northeast, continue until perhaps mid-December when low temperatures slow down mortality rates substantially. Scuba swims over the beds can help to identify predators. While examining some oyster seed beds with scuba and then examining the spat on the deck of the boat in Delaware Bay, N.J., in 1986, 1 was able to determine that oyster drills and mud crabs killed most of the oyster spat. Other predators were scarce. If potential predators are present in numbers on beds but their effects on shellfish are uncertain, two further steps can be taken. The first is to obtain a few thousand shellfish seed, perhaps 5-10 mm long, from a hatchery, spread them over small plots, perhaps 4 m2 4 yards2) and observe them perhaps once a week. Take samples from these plots about once every 2-3 weeks, look for the predators in the samples and try to confirm their identity from characteristic markings on the shells of dead shellfish. The second step is to bring predators and seed into a laboratory and put them together in running water trays, to determine whether the predators feed on the shellfish. Fish stomachs can also be examined, if fish are suspected of being predators of clams or bay scallops. A more thorough investigation of mortalities would involve shellfish collections from the beds for examination at a frequency of about once every 2 weeks during the warmer months. The shellfish and predators can be collected within a ring which encircles about a 0.3 m2 (3 feet.sup.2 ) at about ten typical sites per bed. The mortality causes are identified by examining the shells of killed shellfish and from knowledge of the presence of specific mortality factors. Continuous records are kept of the numbers of live and dead shellfish to determine the increases in percentages dead shells of shellfish. Such counts one of the most important aspects of study, because they tell the importance of predators and they will be a main feature of reports to the public. Feeding studies in running-water trays in a laboratory can provide some additional information. The numbers of individual shellfish consumed by each predator species per unit of time, such as per day or week, and the size ranges of seed that predators of certain sizes consume, can be determined. Similarly, he effects of reduced salinity and low and high temperature extremes on predators can be determined. In some estuaries along the Atlantic coast, disease can be a major cause of mortality in oysters. Oysters can be examined for the presence of diseases if some the from otherwise unexplained causes. The possible presence of diseases in shellfish can be determined by sending samples to a biological laboratory which specializes in such stuthes. Locations of Buried Oyster Shells Fossil oyster shells under old oyster beds might be available as cultch for oyster larvae. These shells can be surveyed. Locations of buried shells can be determined from fishermen interviews and surveys from a boat or through the ice in winter. A hollow aluminum pole with which the surveyor can feel and hear the shells is an excellent tool for finding and measuring depths of the shells. A 19 nun (3/4-inch) diameter rigid, threaded pipe in 3 m 10-foot) lengths which can be coupled together is recommended. Follow-up checks to examine the surfaces of these deposits for depths of silt deposits and other features can be made using scuba. Determination of Beds Closed by Pollution This information should be available from the local health department. When data from surveys are available, a specialist can prepare charts which would show the topography of the estuary, the bottom types and the distributions of shellfish beds, salinity, and pollution. The charts of the shellfish beds would show areas having high setting densities and what limiting factors are important on each. Shellfishery Operations and Statistical Profile The information is gathered by direct observations and interviewing of fishermen, processors, and government personnel. A specialist needs to learn all the details of each operation of the shellfishery, emphasizing the design and use of each type of gear. In addition, he can gather data to form a statistical profile of the industry, because such profiles help to describe the fishery. Statistics are gathered on: 1) The number of boats and fishermen and 2) average shellfish catches per haul of gear and per boat per hour, day, and week, and the number of hours per day and days per week that fishermen gather shellfish. The gross and net earnings of a cross-section of perhaps ten fishermen and three or four processors and wholesalers, and a breakdown of overhead expenses are compiled if the data are available. Identity of Key Groups Associated with Shellfishery Development The groups of people to be involved with and affected by the program have to be identified. In addition, the power, incentives, and risks of each need to be determined and kept in mind when developing and thinking about implementing a program. These aspects can be determined by interviewing various people. Conducting Pilot Studies The state or local government would want to know what the payback would be for financial investments in its beds. Small-scale pilot projects would have to be conducted to provide this information.

It is essential that sufficient information be gathered in reconnaissance and intensive surveys to build a solid program. Consultations with other biologists and specialists should be made if any doubts exist about problems that are beyond a specialist's knowledge range. Too many times in the past, recommendations for shellfish development have been made from an inadequate information base, which is one of the reasons they were not implemented.

Educating the Public

For a technology or program to b implemented in a public shellfishery, the evidence for probable benefits has to be substantial and it has to be presented to the public properly. A shellfish production specialist has to inform the fishermen and local community about his findings through verbal, written, and, if possible, visual reports. Written reports should contain accurate data and be issued through an established, reliable source, and they should have sufficient quality to serve as permanent records. A sloppy report will irritate people and they will consider it to be unimportant, the product of a disinterested bureaucracy. In recent years, scuba divers have available video cameras which can record scenes of shellfish bottoms and gear. The tapes can be shown to audiences on TV monitors. Educational Topics

Educational material can be presented as it is gathered on the following topics:

1) Setting potential of shellfish seed as compared with actual abundance on beds. The factors that limit setting densities are described.

2) The extent of shellfish mortality from small seed to the legal gathering length, probably on a monthly basis. Identity of the mortality causes and their relative importance are also described.

3) How use of a low-cost technology would increase shellfish abundance without risk to existing stocks or the environment.

4) The results from test plots that show larger densities of shellfish where a method was used to improve the shellfish's environment as compared with control plots.

5) Any pertinent information from the literature. Distributing Reports

Educational material should be sent to all recipients simultaneously. Most shellfishing communities have a few unofficial leaders of points-of-view who may wish to remain as such. Thus, they may try to direct any new management proposals to their way of thinking. If they were to receive educational material from a specialist first, they may try to twist and downgrade their meanings in order that they can remain as the leaders of public opinion. When the other people finally receive the reports, their views towards a specialist's management direction will then be shaded. On the other hand, if everyone receives reports simultaneously, the unofficial leaders will have difficulty changing people's minds. The goals and direction of shellfishery management, which a specialist has developed in concert with the leading fishermen and members of the community and administrator, have to prevail.

In Long Island Sound, we sent a detailed report to each company after an examination of its beds. Examinations were made once every 2 weeks during the warmer months and once a month during the colder months. We were making a study over a 5-year period to identify and characterize the factors that limited oyster abundance. Most reports were analogous to a report card. They contained data which described the number of live and dead oysters on beds, the mortality causes and the presence of predators or silt on the beds, and the percentages of oysters that died within 2-week or monthly intervals. About 100 such reports were distributed. The concept of the percentage of shellfish dead was easily understood by the oyster growers. The possible methods for reducing mortalities were discussed verbally with the oystermen, who contributed ideas. Once or twice a year, observations were summarized in a bulletin which was sent to all companies. One bulletin described the means of improving the conditions of oyster setting beds, and another dealt with the identification of and suggestions for reducing oyster mortalities. Afterward, oyster growers did improve the condition of their setting beds and they reduced mortalities from predation and smothering in silt; thus, quantities of their oysters rose substantially. On Prince Edward Island, we issued five detailed reports to fishermen and two newspaper articles were released. In Mississippi, the time was not available for individual reports; nevertheless, two newspaper articles and a radio and television story were released which described the oyster resource rehabilitation program to the fishermen and public.

If a number of reports which contain information about high potentials for development are circulated and conversations have reinforced them, thinking patterns within the shellfishery concerning possible ways to increase shellfish abundance on the beds will likely be transformed from passive to active, with fishermen beginning to contribute more ideas.

A report describing an enhancement program which is to be implemented should be issued well in advance of any action, so people have time to think about it. If they are not given such consideration, they may obstruct the action even though they would have approved of it later. The fishermen and local people should not be railroaded into adopting an action.

Ideally, a specialist should try to present his findings in such a way that the community eventually pushes him towards developing and applying a program. He should not have to prod them into allowing the work to be done on the beds; rather, they prod him to do it. On Prince Edward Island, where the work involved transplanting oysters from poor to excellent bottoms which were otherwise barren of oysters, the fishermen were prodding me as an oyster production specialist to get on with it: "When are you going to get started;' they needled. We did it by working closely for several months with the fishermen and local community and coming to the mutual conclusion that a large amount of benefit and no harm would result from such transplanting.

It is important that the educational process be continued after field projects are underway for two reasons. First, a time lapse might exist between the implementation of a program on the beds and when the first generation of seed attains market size. Money would continue to be spent on the program, but shellfish yields would not increase for a while. The only evident result would be much larger quantities of seed in the beds. Nevertheless, a specialist should show seed samples to other local people and describe them verbally and in reports. The second reason is that after the program has been underway for a number of years and, it is hoped, fishermen's yields, incomes, and employment are substantially higher, the administrators, politicians, and local people may come to believe that shellfish abundance will remain high without the program. To maintain the public's positive attitude toward the program, a specialist would need to present the necessary evidence.

Shellfish production specialists would dispense the results of their work to other specialists and administrators by means of personal contacts, published papers in management journals, and viewings of video tapes.

Developing a Shellfishery

Enhancement Program

The work which a shellfish production specialist does should be in the form of a program. The program should be outlined as it is developed, and eventually be written up as a formal report. Objectives

A shellfishery enhancement program should provide economic and social benefits. Thus the objectives should be to increase or stabilize: 1) Economic security and productivity of the people working within the shellfishery, 2) employment opportunities and money supplies for the local community, and 3) shellfish supplies at reasonable prices for consumers. Maintaining Productive Public Beds

The most good would emanate from a program in which shellfish production from the public beds was increased. An expansion of the public fishery would increase employment security and individual incomes, create more jobs and improve the economic life in the local community. In addition, in the case of oysters, more seed would be available for private beds. In a word, it would provide a wide sharing of the increased resource.

in developing a program, a specialist should ensure that the public fishery remains intact; he should try to develop technologies which will strengthen it. Such technologies may be more difficult to develop, but it does little good to develop any new ones unless they meet the needs of the public shellfishery. A specialist should not try to develop technologies for increasing shellfish production and then try to restructure the shellfishery to accommodate them. Leasing Some Bottoms

An extensive leasing system currently exists in the eastern United States. Leases are mostly for oysters, but also for hard clams. Oysters are transplanted from public seed beds, which are sometimes in polluted water, to leased growing beds from which they are marketed. Hard clams are =Planted from public, polluted beds to leased growing beds from which they are marketed after a depuration period. In addition, hatcheries usually require leases to function. Guidance from Local People

As mentioned earlier, success in developing a sound program can be achieved only by a group effort. Thus constructive advice from the fishermen, local people, other biologists, and fishery administrators is always sought and welcomed during the developmental process. Regular discussions are held with these people, especially the fishermen. Fishermen's minds are extremely alert to immediate problems, and thus they are excellent critics and can quickly point out the strengths and weaknesses of a technology and program. Discussions are also held with semi-interested local people to obtain perspectives on the merits of the proposed program. A specialist obtains answers to questions such as those listed below to determine the specific actions to be conducted.

For public beds:

1) What does the administrator want accomplished?

2) What does the local community want accomplished?

3) What do the fishermen, processors and wholesalers want and need?

4) What kind of projects do the fishermen want most to be implemented?

5) Is it feasible to make modifications for remedying deficiencies on each bed in question?

6) What is required to increase shellfish abundance in the beds?

7) What are the costs and benefits of a modification such as a reduction in predator numbers?

8) What resources (money, vessels, equipment and manpower) are available for making modifications?

9) What has to be constructed?

10) What stumbling blocks are present?

11) What laws and regulations that apply to the fishery have to be considered?

12) Do any risks to various associated people exist?

13) Will low-cost loans be available to the fishery if needed?

14) Will market promotion be needed?

For shellfish companies:

1) What do the shellfish companies, processors and wholesalers want and need?

2) What projects do the companies want most to be implemented? The remaining questions are the same as 5-14 for public beds. Formulate a Program

The formulation of a management plan is done in steps:

1) Data on shellfish productivity, and positive and negative physical and biological features of the beds, are listed. Charts are examined that show bottom types and depths, distributions of shell deposits, predators, silt, pollution, and bottoms available for expanding beds.

2) The technologies needed to increase shellfish abundance are listed.

3) The rehabilitative measures which the fishermen desire and will accept on the beds are listed.

4) A program is designed which contains the best solutions with available resources for increasing shellfish abundance, and which states the objectives to accomplish within a certain time period.

Various combinations of available information and methods are fitted together to try to form a workable, productive program. A specialist lays out a tentative plan, refits certain aspects, and adds new ideas and information to try to devise workable measures. It may not be possible to list a precise and definitive set of recommendations, and so a set of alternatives with an analysis of the consequences of each is then the best approach. A few recyclings of the plan will bring it into sharper focus, teach people more about it, and provide for much better critiques, while enhancing communication. Keep Ideas and Gear Simple

The program has to be simple in concept so it can be easily understood by fishermen and local people. Moreover, the simpler the program structure (the fewer components it has), the better it will be conducted. An effective program might consist of only one type of action on the beds, accomplished by towing a simple type of gear over the bottom. Statements to the public about the program should be simple and clear. The simpler a statement is, the more powerful it can be.

Most advances in shellfisheries have stemmed from simple ideas. As examples, in the 1940's, the State of Maryland said that the oyster supply must be increased, and it could be done by spreading shells over barren bottoms. Huge quantities of shells were available in upper Chesapeake Bay. All the state had to do was to have the shells mined and spread over good setting beds; afterward, the seed oysters were transplanted to market beds. On Prince Edward Island, the oyster supply also had to be increased. In one area, quantities of oysters were available in a river channel; in another, they were available on an intertidal flat. In each case, all the Province had to do was to transplant them from those areas and later transplant quantities of fossil shells from other areas to suitable beds nearby.

I have been told that increasing shellfish abundance by means of environmental improvement on public beds cannot be achieved easily because it is too difficult to sell to the local people, i.e., it is too complicated to explain briefly. People do not want to get involved in complicated explanations and if they do not understand a program, they are not likely to support it, because they fear and resist what they do not understand. The public, which would be only semiinterested, usually wants to grasp an idea in only one or two simple mental images. Thus a specialist will have to develop simple statements to explain a program. A good rule is: Develop a program concept which takes no longer than 10 seconds or perhaps two sentences to explain. Some suggested examples are:

"We are going to wash the silt off the oyster seed beds; when we do it, seed abundance will increase substantially."

"We are going to control the predators because they consume at least 95 percent of the clams; when we do it, clam abundance will increase substantially."

"We are going to thin the eelgrass stands in the bay scallop beds; when we do it, scallop abundance will increase substantially."

The gear used to improve the beds should also be as simple as possible. Simple equipment is easier and cheaper to construct and is easier to operate; breakdowns absorb less time to repair. Develop Technologies

New technologies may be needed to accomplish objectives such as: 1) Preparing oyster seed beds which have been in poor condition for receiving oyster sets, 2) controlling predators such as oyster drills and crustaceans on shellfish beds, and 3) modifying eelgrass stands on bay scallop beds. They would be used to prepare many acres of beds. In addition, technologies may be needed to help fishermen handle larger quantities of shellfish.

Only a small amount of engineering development work has been done in any aspect of shellfisheries, including equipment development for improving the condition of beds and the gathering and processing phases, by public or private agencies. Nearly all the gear now used has been developed by fishermen and blacksmiths who have had little time or money for experimentation with different designs.

The objective is to produce a technology that is appropriate or tailor-made to meet a specific need. By definition, if the technology is appropriate;' it will be adopted. Mahler (1980) discussed appropriate technology as follows: "The principle of appropriate technology... calls for sound materials and methods that are socially acceptable in a particular context, directed against relevant problems and effectively delivered, by affordable systems, where they are most needed. The generation of appropriate technology is not easy; often it calls for the highest scientific sophistication and perceptiveness ... Appropriate technology is often simple technology, but it is not simple-minded."

A shellfish production specialist needs a correct attitude to develop the gear and implement the program. First, he should carefully define the objective which he is attempting to reach. Second, he should conceive a solution and then go right to work experimenting with prototypes. Third, he should test them and then fix the weak points to get them to work. He should not say: "It has never been done before, so let's not do it." The guiding principal is to "get the biggest bang for the buck," i.e., to produce a technology which yields the largest return possible in relation to its cost. A technology should not be more sophisticated and expensive than is necessary for the purpose.

A specialist has to take the entire responsibility for details about the design of a technology, or else be sure that such details can be mapped out by the blacksmith or workers in a shipyard. Otherwise, they might not construct anything unless the design is complete, including such details as the sizes of bolts and the bevel angle on the lip of a door hatch of a dredge. The reason is that they will not take the risk of being blamed if the technology does not work; they might not be paid for the work or they might lose future contracts.

When I was on Prince Edward Island, we gave a blacksmith the job of constructing two oyster dredges and a shipyard the job of constructing and rigging a catamaran which was built around the hulls of two lobster boats; they were to be used for transplanting oysters. Neither had constructed them before and they did not know how to do it. The construction started off slowly and stopped more than once in each case. At first, it seemed as though the workers were merely slow and indolent. On closer inspection, we found, however, that they stopped at points where further construction details were not supplied.

We did not know the details of the dredge's design and had to ask an oyster grower in New York State to send photographs of a dredge. Upon seeing them, the blacksmith, with my nod, went ahead and quickly completed the dredges, which later worked very well. I remained with the workers in the shipyard for about a week until the catamaran was completed, mug responsibility for all estimates we had to make about the design; the workers completed all construction quickly when they were directed what to do.

Technologies which have the possibility of increasing shellfish abundances have been developed only rarely. It is likely when one is developed by the specialist and his associates that other people will be eager to test it. However, they are not likely to have the knowledge about how to use it correctly. Neither are they likely to have much patience when testing it, since they did not develop it. If their tests are unsuccessful, the technology may be discredited. Thus, a specialist should personally field test a technology which he believes will work. It is recommended that he should not mention the technology outside of his immediate working group, if he and the group cannot design and test it, for the same reason.

If a technology is being developed for fishermen, it is important to involve two or three fishermen in its development. This reduces the problems of technology transfer to other fishermen. Judging Whether a

Technology Will Be Successful Assuming that an increase in shellfish abundance would meet the principal need of the fishery, a strategy is designed in which technologies are developed to control major limiting factors. The following aspects should be considered when designing such a technology or a program, to judge whether it will be successful.

1) Relative advantage. The fishermen and other associated key groups of people have to be shown that adoption will be beneficial: A substantial increase in employment and wages of the fishermen, at least as much as 50 percent. The fishermen and associated people in the program should afl have incentive to have the technology developed.

2) Compatibility. The technology or programs must be compatible from three aspects: a) It must be practicable and mean no more than minor changes in any established fishing practices; b) it cannot harm other fisheries, and c) it must be acceptable socially (it cannot be a taboo symbol, which people might reject as unacceptable or improper to their value standards).

3) Simplicity. If people do not understand the goal and how it is to be reached, they will reject the idea.

4) Divisibility. It should be possible to test a technology on small plots which will not affect the principal beds.

5) Reversibility. The withdrawal from the use of a technology or program should be easy and without any lingering consequences if its use does not work. A permanent building or boat that cannot be used for any other purpose should not be constructed.

6) Relative expense. The new technology or program should absorb only a small amount of the local community's resources, including time, money and manpower.

7) Failure consequences. The use of a technology should not injure the shellfish or the beds in any substantive way or result in the loss of substantive time or money. The risks to the fishermen and the positions of associated key people in the program should be minimal. Selecting Beds

Careful selection of beds to cultivate is important because returns will diminish rapidly if attempts are made to cultivate beds with major environmental deficiencies for the target shellfish; the costs of creating a favorable environment for shellfish may be too high on poor beds. Beds that contain many predators, whose numbers are expensive to reduce, should be avoided.

It is more efficient to make improvements on beds that already support commercial shellfishing, because: 1) They receive substantial shellfish sets almost annually, 2) most environmental factors for shellfish are nearly optimum, and 3) they usually have only one or two major limiting factors for shellfish. Management of a bed will involve searching out a fruitful middle ground between doing nothing and a complete overhaul of the bed's environment. It will require the specialist's best judgement to determine how much of a positive result an improvement will produce. Using Hatchery Seed

The possibility of using hatchery reared seed to increase shellfish supplies on the beds should be considered. The planting of hatchery seed would likely require less manipulation of the environments of beds, at least any bottom preparation to collect natural sets. Thus a community would be spared from doing this. After the seed is obtained, it would have to be spread on the beds and then be given some protection from predators. Before investing in hatchery seed, however, a community should estimate the number of these seed that will grow to market size and be gathered by the fishermen. Possibly, the quantity of natural seed already on the beds is many times larger than that of the hatchery seed to be added, and thus the gain in abundance of market size shellfish might not be worth the seed cost.

The existence of hatcheries makes it possible to increase the size of shellfish spawning stocks if these become too small to seed the beds. In addition, a specialist can obtain seed from hatcheries to make various kinds of tests on beds if natural seed is difficult to obtain. Keep Risks Low A specialist must try to lighten any risks which are present. Otherwise, the people who have put their economic future and their reputations and positions on the line for the program may become fearful that the risks are too large and withdraw support for the program, thus preventing implementation. Set the Program on a Large Scale Whenever Possible

After pilot studies confirm its feasibility and establish its profitability, the program should be conducted on a relatively large scale to result in substantial increases in shellfish abundance and production. A specialist should design a program for public or private beds that will at least double or treble shellfish abundance if possible. If increases are smaller, local people might believe that they are from natural variations in abundance. Thus, many acres of beds should be improved. Keep the Program Flexible

The design of a program should be flexible, because the community might change its thinking, conditions on beds might change, technologies might improve, or new information might become available about the beds. A specialist may have to steer around and between many fixed points to achieve success. If a particular course of action does not seem to be promising, the specialist must stop and ask himself what course will work. Be Cautious About Introducing Technologies and Programs

A strong warning is made here against hasty, reckless implementations of new technologies on beds and new management program. A specialist should keep in mind the words of the philosopher, Goethe, who wrote: "There is nothing more frightful in human affairs than ignorance in action." Nothing should ever be implemented that obviously threatens the earnings and security of fishermen; those should be guaranteed. A specialist should be guided by the physician's maxim: "First, do no harm."

The line between benefit and harm can be narrow. Even with the best of intentions and at the cost of infinite patience and care in planning, it is still possible for a boat, towing gear under the guidance of a specialist, to damage the shellfish and the beds. If the damage to the beds is extensive, shellfish abundance could be reduced for a considerable time. A safe way to introduce a method is to proceed slowly, making tests in small areas, then testing on increasingly larger areas, improving methods as tests proceed. Another conservative measure is to limit the number of trials in any one year; do not take on more than can be comfortably managed and observed.

In addition, serious consideration should be given to the character of a program, the number of methods implemented, and the amount of development desired in a shellfishery. Development can extend too far with harmful social cost. Overdevelopment might lead to the loss and spoiling of positive human values related to fishing.

A specialist should interview a large cross-section of fishermen and local people about the value of a technology or program, keeping an ear open to opposition to their use. The attitude of these people has to be used as the final judge of whether to implement the improvement. A specialist should back off and reexamine a proposal if many of the level-headed, responsible fishermen oppose it, although he can ignore opposition from the usual group of complainers. A good guideline is: If most fishermen are negative, the technology or program should not be implemented; on the other hand, if the fishermen are positive and urge a specialist to implement them, they should be implemented and it is likely they will be beneficial. Consider Extension of Credit

A specialist may have to help some sector of the fishery obtain a loan, if the program has indeed produced an increase in shellfish abundance. For example, the private fishermen, buyers, and wholesalers may not have enough money for purchasing new equipment or the buyers and wholesalers enough money for sharp increases in shellfish supplies. This circumstance could markedly slow and inhibit development in the shellfishery. Money is available from banks but often only at exorbitant interest rates. The local government, as its part in the program to rehabilitate the shellfishery, might be able to offer low cost loans to fishermen and buyers or loan guarantees. Consider Market Promotion

A specialist may have to become involved in market promotion if the program is to succeed, because the market may not purchase a sudden increase in the shellfish supply. If market demand for the shellfish is weak, increases in production will be minimal at first, even though supplies are increased. Besides, most markets will not absorb an ever increasing supply of a food crop, including shellfish, without resistance in the form of falling prices. If prices fall substantially, the fishery may reach a point where it is handling relatively large quantities of shellfish at low prices, a condition which translates into increased work and use of equipment while not yielding higher incomes. Thus the enhanced production must fit into the supply and demand characteristics of the region, and if supply exceeds demand, the consumers, not the fishermen, benefit.

Promotion of shellfish in distant markets is far beyond the scope of the public fishermen and small companies to conduct, although local seafood festivals can contribute to market development.

Market promotion can be as simple as the alerting of wholesalers that supplies will become larger in the near future and sending shellfish samples to wholesalers to let them see the quality of the product. Promotion can also involve advertising by a public agency. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Marketing Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Mass., promoted oysters at the request of the Oyster Institute of North America, to help relieve an over-supply caused by the irruption in oyster abundance in Long Island Sound. The promotion involved placement of oyster recipes in newspapers and national magazines and preparing a recipe for a cooking program on national public television. No analysis was made concerning the effectiveness of the promotion, but the Long Island Sound oyster companies related that the market demand for oysters did improve. Write a Planning Document

It is desirable that the details of every technology to be used and all phases of a program be described in a report. Such a report is essential if in an unfortunate circumstance the specialist does not happen to be present to supervise and handle all phases of the implementation of a program. The beds are not likely to be rehabilitated if the details of the program are incompletely known, because the next person to be in charge, perhaps a person who had been an associate specialist, would not like to guess about conducting any phases of a new program. He would fear that he will make mistakes and be held accountable for them. In a circumstance in which every phase is clearly described, he could blame the program or its authors if the result is negative. Another reason for a detailed report relates to the fishery administrators and politicians. If they do not understand all aspects of a program and cannot be convinced that they will be successful, they will likely postpone authorizing its implementation. They, too, may fear that it is unsound and will weaken the shellfishery and thus threaten their positions.

A well conceived program will likely change the mood of the fishermen from conservative and negative to optimistic and positive. The effect will stimulate further actions to control secondary predators and to develop other areas which currently limit the shellfishery, On the other hand, a poorly conceived program will contribute to general malaise and disillusionment within the fishery and local community about the capability of government bodies to act constructively.

Putting a Technology

Into Use or

Implementing a Program

An anonymous author once wrote: "The great end of knowledge is virtuous action." Transferring knowledge and ideas into human affairs, however, is usually extremely difficult. In recorded history, only an infinitesimally small proportion of ideas proposed for development in any realm of human affairs has ever been implemented; moreover, a high percentage of implemented ideas has not endured. Heretofore, no list of rules or suggestions for implementing shellfish technologies and programs has existed, and thus a discussion of implementation and such a list will be presented here. Some Guidance From the Agricultural Literature

Since its inception, the formal field of scientific agriculture has had a great deal of experience in trying to transfer its findings to commercial farming practice. Nevertheless, only in the past 30 years or so has the field developed some useful literature on the subject. Nearly all writers emphasize that the span from proposal to implementation is usually long and precarious. They also emphasize that the rate at which an innovation is adopted depends on its profitability. The following comments and rules about implementing from the agricultural literature are instructive.

Gable and Springer 19r76): "The process of innovation is much more complicated in agriculture than industry, where a vast technology exists and is often transferable without modification. In agriculture what is known is not always easily transferred or adapted. Farming is only partly subject to human control; climate, soil, water, wind and so on are difficult to manipulate. To the extent that the human factor is influential, there are millions of individuals who have to be informed and motivated to change-and the advantages of new processes have to be clearly demonstrated. Where risks are high, the persons who are wholly dependent on their own production for survival may be the least willing to innovate. The task of government-to achieve agricultural development in the least-developed countries-is monumental"

Chambers and Wickremanayake (1977): "Technology presented to farmers should be worth adopting, as all too often it is not. Where innovations are highly beneficial, they will be adopted rapidly, extension or no; and conversely, no amount of excellent communication can spread a poor innovation."

Chambers and Maxwell (1981): "Implementation ... is the crux. Good ideas which are not implementable are bad ideas, at least for the time being. The best way forward may be to develop a repertoire of interventions which are simple, manageable, replicatable and effective, and which involve rural people as partners. Analysis is the easier part; the greater challenge is action. Ways forward may be sought through combinations of analysis, action programs, evaluation and then training and replication. Such measures might ... increase agricultural production and benefit those who are poorer and weaker".

Paddock and Paddock (1964): Farmers, like everyone else, cannot afford to try out the new until convinced it will pay a higher profit than the present. Telling them is not enough. They must see the results demonstrated before their eyes in their own valley".

Wortman and Cummings (1978): Regarding the success of the wheat program in Mexico in which new varieties were adopted rapidly by farmers, they say, "Research and extension were combined. As the researchers solved the problems limiting production, they demonstrated repeatedly-at field days, on private farms, to national leaders and to farm groups-how higher yields could be obtained. Instead of separating research and extension there was one program that began on the research station and ended with use of the varieties and practices by the farmers." Some Guidance From the Industrial Literature

Reisman and dekluyver (1975) list some useful points about program development in an industrial setting which also apply to programs for enhancing shellfisheries. Most of these points about implementing have been mentioned already, but since effective implementation has been so rare it is worth restating them in this slightly different context.

1) The researcher should secure active participation of management (in shellfisheries, the fishery administrator and politician) and the ultimate user (in shellfisheries, the fishermen, processors, and marketers) throughout the study, particularly in the initial phases when the program is planned, the problems defined and the methodology selected. Moreover, the users should become involved enough in the study to accept it as at least partially theirs. A study done in isolation of management and th users will meet with a great amount resistance in the implementation phase. Unless the users are intimately familiar with the study, a) the researcher may have the wrong perception of the users' needs and solve, albeit correctly, the wrong problem and b) the users win feel uneasy about the researcher's presence. Users are the key to success; they must be involved from the outset-the deeper the better.

2) Select projects which have a high probability of success. That is, projects that take a relatively short time to complete, are relatively simple in the technical sense, and have high potential. The objective is to impress people with results that are immediate and highly visible. There should also be long-term objectives that involve basic studies and projects that have higher risks involved.

3) Before the decision to implement is made, potential results should be carefully examined. This confirmation process can take many forms. Experience shows that simulation (results on test plots of shellfish) can be a powerful tool in this process. With this technique, it is possible to show management, using the same data set, how the present system (the uncultivated beds) operates, how management thought the present system was operating, and how the new system (new shellfish management program) might operate if the new decision rules are used. It implicitly demonstrates the results of the study and generally makes a strong impression on management. This kind of reporting is easily understood by and communicated to management and thus favors the chances for implementation.

4) Continuous reporting of data and continuous planning for implementation during afl phases of the study are emphasized as other important determinants of success. A postaudit after the implementation and elimination of initial bugs in the new system is advisable. Some Additional Rules A technology should be completely developed and proven effective before being shown or demonstrated to fishermen. The purpose is to maintain the shellfish production specialist's credibility: He demonstrates only finished technologies that work.

The purposes of increasing the mechanization of gathering shellfish by fishermen are to increase the productivity or output of fishermen and vessels or reduce the fishermen's work load. Development of a new technology for gathering shellfish is difficult and exacting, because it has to: 1) Fit easily into the existing cultivation system, 2) have reasonable cost, 3) provide for a short-term (1-4 weeks or, at most, a season) recovery of the money which it costs the fishermen, and 4) provide a gain that is guaranteed, save for unplanned events such as poor weather. A fishermen or company will use a new technology only if it meets a need or otherwise represents a better alternative to one which they already use.

Increased mechanization of harvesting gear in the public shellfishery has to be planned carefully. If unwisely used, it could reduce employment. For example, if fishermen were allowed to use a more efficient type of equipment, such as larger dredge for oysters, each fisherman would take more oysters per day, assuming that no daily limit on the catch existed. The result might be a larger than usual supply in the market, causing a drop in price, and a more rapid than usual depletion of oysters from the beds, causing some unemployment. Increased mechanization for increasing gathering rates should be considered only when a program that increases shellfish supplies on beds and promotion of oyster sales is underway. A problem with implementing an improved technology in a private fishery is: Which company will construct it first? In practice, a progressive company will usually try it and then the others will copy it if it works. The progressive company is disadvantaged because it has to work out any procedures for using it. Moreover, the remaining companies will probably improve the design of the technology, leaving the progressive company with the least efficient, most expensive model. The progressive company can be "reimbursed" by receiving more assistance from a specialist than the others. Progressive companies will usually try out new methods, at least on a small, inexpensive scale, to encourage continued developmental activity by public agencies.

A shellfish production specialist has the responsibility for personally implementing and initially overseeing the conduct of the program. A specialist should not give the responsibility for implementing a program on a commercial scale to someone else and then leave the community. If he does, no further actions are likely to take place and thus the assignment will not be successful. If the person left in charge tries to implement the program and cannot do it properly, the assignment of a specialist will still be unsuccessful, even though the specialist may say: "The program worked well in the pilot tests; thus the fault lies not with the program, but with poor implementation." The program could probably be implemented by the associate specialist if he has a detailed report to use as a guide. A separate problem with the specialist's leaving is that other people may have different plans. If so, when he leaves, these people win encourage use of their own plan, while discouraging the use of his.

A specialist can follow the steps listed below to initiate implementation:

1) Design the introduction. Look for channels, allies; consider timing and climate (Is this a good time?).

2) Ask for a final review and approval by the fishermen and local people. The tone of presentation should be supportive and adaptive, rather than revolutionary with recommendations to displace traditional elements.

A specialist has to have some control over resources and people during the implementation phase. Initially, he should define the jobs that are necessary to implement the strategy and then find people with the necessary skills and desire to carry it out. He should supervise the construction of any technologies and have responsibility for using them on the beds, and he has supervisory responsibility over the boat captains and crews.

An enhancement program will work only if it is well conducted, no matter how well it was designed. Every operation must be executed well to achieve the desired result. Operations should be designed with some built-in safety margins.

When vessel operations begin with a technology being towed, the beds involved should be inspected regularly, two or three times a week at first with scuba, if possible, to determine whether adjustments should be made. Sometimes, only a slight adjustment in procedure by the boat crew can substantially increase the quantity or quality of shellfish produced. If any major mistakes are made, the fishermen may discover them later, and, most likely, they will criticize the program. If the criticism is severe, the administrator or politicians might have to discontinue the program.

If a specialist is willing to direct the implementation and oversee early operations, it proves that he believes in the program. Thus the fishermen and local people will have much more confidence than if the program is not supervised in the beginning or if he leaves the scene and asks someone else to oversee it.

Coordinating and

Guiding a Program Coordinating Production Routes

The potential actions of each component directly and indirectly related to shellfish production ought to be coordinated by a shellfish production specialist to bring about an actual increase and stabilization in production and supplies to the market. If more shellfish become available on the beds, the fishermen will gather more for sale and more will be available for the remaining components to purchase. Each has to be prepared to handle the shellfish and each will anticipate a larger profit from handling them. Consumers will have to be convinced that the shellfish is a better choice than the other food they usually buy. Coordination might involve helping to attract new buyers to the shellfishing business, arranging low cost loans for buyers and wholesalers, modifying truck routes, and arranging for market promotion. Annual Consultations

After the establishment of a program to increase shellfish abundance in a locality, it is necessary for a specialist to consult, at least several days a year, with operating personnel on the beds and local fishermen, administrators, and politicians. Such consultations would include examinations of each bed and discussions about: 1) What actions to take to maintain high shellfish abundance, 2) how to keep the program on track, and 3) how to improve efficiency of operations. A program may gradually fail to function if not stimulated by such consulting. The presence of a specialist is also needed to maintain a program in a private shellfishery. Handling Opponents of a Program

It is likely that fishermen and the local people will support a sound program which produces substantial increases in shellfish abundance and earnings without damaging the beds. Nevertheless, a tiny minority of fishermen may oppose the program. These will usually be fishermen who have low status and who habitually oppose new ideas. They may consistently look for weaknesses in the program and then spread negative rumors to sabotage it. Their activities have some benefit because they keep the specialist alert about all factors regarding the program. The negative rumors can be quelled through conversations, issuing of reports and showing samples of shellfish from beds. The program is also maintained on course by:

1) Anticipating questions or arguments in advance and having well-prepared answers for them. The most common question will be: what is the program going to do for me?

2) Avoiding statements that are not factual; thorough knowledge of all aspects is required to do this.

3) Being aware of negative rumors; if they do arise, nipping them in the bud.

4) Having a consistently positive attitude; confidence that operations on beds win be successful is required.

5) Not making mistakes when conducting field operations; thorough knowledge and constant supervision at the beginning are required.

Some Remarks About

an Assignment Handling Unanticipated Crises

Possibly, the shellfish beds of a community will be threatened by some kind of external development. The development might include: 1) Channel dredging through the beds, 2) filling of beds or a nearby marsh with sediment, 3) construction of a marina or housing on the shore, 4) mining of sand and gravel, 5) diversions of fresh water, or 6) the spreading of pollution from a sewage plant, industry, or nonpoint source. Some of these proposed environmental developments may have little to do with shellfish production. The community may consider that the shellfish production specialist is their biological and environmental expert and thus may expect him to predict the effects which the developments will have on aquatic habitats and shellfish. Thus they may ask him to represent the community's interests in public hearings on these matters. Another type of crisis is of a personal nature. A fisherman might have some misfortune such as an illness in his family and turn to the specialist for spiritual comfort. A specialist has the responsibility to handle such crises to the best of his ability. Initiating an Assignment

Most likely, an administrator of a town, county, or state government, or manager of a shellfish company, would seek out a shellfish production specialist to develop a shellfishery enhancement program for itself. However, such authorities may not be aware that any potential exists for increasing the productivity of its shellfishery. A way in which a specialist can initiate an assignment is to ask these authorities if he could make studies of the condition of its beds for settlement of larval shellfish and mortalities of seed. After a few months, the specialist would then present his data to the authorities and describe to them how the control of factors limiting shellfish abundance would enhance their shellfishery. He would then try to convince them to support him in an enhancement program. When Should an Assignment Begin?

In an assignment in which the objective is to increase the shellfish supply, the most important activities on the beds will be to identify the factors that limit it. Thus, an assignment should start near the beginning of the setting period. My assignments in Prince Edward Island and Mississippi, which began in early August and about the first of July, respectively, were during oyster setting seasons. I was able to evaluate the conditions of the major setting beds. How Long Should an Assignment Last?

This depends partly on the experience of the specialist. I believe that a year is the minimum time for a specialist to evaluate conditions, develop appropriate technologies, set up a sound program, convince people that it is sound, and train an associate specialist and the boat captains and crews to run a program so it can continue if he should leave. My assignment in Mississippi lasted only 5 weeks, the month of July 1975 and I week in November 19175. As mentioned above, I was able to determine that the oyster reefs were in relatively poor condition for receiving an oyster set, to test a technology for removing mud from one of the reefs, and to set up a vessel owned by the state for transplanting oysters. In addition, I was able to write a report of recommendations to improve the oyster fishery. However, the time was not available to develop a better program or more technologies, to train personnel on vessels to operate the technologies, or to allow time for fishery administrators in the Mississippi Conservation Commission to become familiar enough with the program to see that it continued. The program endured for only a few weeks after I left, with little result. Who Deserves Credit for Success?

A successful shellfish enhancement program will have many contributors. Each person involved will probably feel that he or she contributed more than he actually did; it is human nature. A specialist should use the pronoun "we" rather than I" when discussing credit for a successful program.

Some Final Thoughts

In the past, field work" in shellfisheries management usually has been given to the least trained personnel on the staff of a fisheries agency. As biologists gained in experience, they were given increasingly less field duty and increasingly more administrative duties and were replaced in the field by people with less experience than themselves. In many instances, the experienced biologists became full-time administrators. Developmental work involving the identification and control of limiting factors of shellfish in commercial beds and interactions with fishermen, local people, and administrators and politicians, however, requires the first-hand involvement of highly capable and experienced people to be effective. Thus, perhaps we should follow the policy of the public health field in which the most highly trained and capable people, i.e., the medical doctors, are the people who deal with patients and have the most experienced, highly paid people doing the field work.

The tone of this paper may sound too optmistic to some readers. It is not easy to manipulate some underwater shellfish environments. For instance, control of oyster drills and crabs has not, as yet, been achieved in most places, though it has been attempted sporadically for many years.

This guide for the enhancement of shellfisheries in estuaries and bays might also be applied to shellfisheries on the continental shelf off the eastern United States. Commercial fisheries for the surf clam, Spisula solidissima; ocean qua-hog, Arctica islandica; sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus; and calico scallop, Argopecten gibbus, exist on the continental shelf. The surf clam and probably the other three species have predators which take nearly all of their juveniles MacKenzie et. al., 1985). It may be possible to adapt this enhancement guide to increase abundances of these shellfish.


The shellfish resources on public beds within estuaries and bays of eastern United States are the common property of local citizens. Abundances and yields of shellfish can likely be increased substantially in many localities. The increases will be for the benefit of us all and will fulfill the aspirations which local people have had for prosperous shellfisheries. The prevailing uncertainty of fishermen about the future will be replaced with a reasonable degree of stability, predictability, and prosperity. Fishermen will gain larger earnings and perhaps longer working lives and can remain in their communities working in a preferred occupation. Improvement in the economy of the entire shellfishery and local communities will follow and a more controlled, larger supply of moderately priced shellfish will be available for our citizens. A shellfish production specialist and administrators will likely achieve such a result if they enjoy their work, have the fishermen's best interests at heart, treat people as individuals, and are truthful and honest.

Part 11: Reference Material

Part H of this guide provides shellfish production specialists with background information about the shellfishing industries in eastern United States. It is composed of four sections. Section I describes the distributions and yields of oysters, hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops. Section R is a statistical summary of the shellfishing industries. Section III describes the life cycle of shellfish, factors governing their abundance, natural fluctuations in abundance, and the condition of beds. Section IV describes characteristics of shellfisheries and shellfishermen of eastern United States; it is rather extensive because such a description has not been made before.

Section 1. Shellfish

Distributions and Yields

The broad, mostly level-bottom estuaries and bays of eastern United States contain many shellfish beds whose areas range in size from a small fraction of a hectare, or less than an acre, to at least a hundred hectares (250 acres). Typical water depths over the beds are 1-5 m (3-16 feet), but the beds may extend to the intertidal zone (oysters and soft clams) and to at least 15 m (50 feet) (oysters and hard clams). Within the beds, shellfish have a random distribution and are commonly in large patches or ridges. Usually, the oyster and soft clam occupy the brackish areas, whereas the hard clam and bay scallop occupy zones where salinities exceed 150100.

Shellfish beds have a broad spectrum of biota. Besides the commercial shellfish, an array of gastropods, crustaceans, polychaetes, algae, and many others also inhabit the beds. The total biomass on oyster beds is much larger than it is on nearby bottoms (Arve, 1960; MacKenzie, 1981). Distributions of Shellfish

The American oyster ranges from Maine to Texas (Fig. 6, 7). The hard clam ranges from Maine to Florida (Fig. 8). The soft clam ranges from Maine to North Carolina (Fig. 9). The bay scallop ranges from Massachusetts to Florida (Fig. 10).

A substantial portion of market oysters have been harvested in private beds, but most had set and grown for a while in public seed beds and were later transplanted to private beds for additional growth or sometimes for the cleansing of bacteria before harvesting. In 1979 oyster production along the Atlantic Coast was 4.3 million bushels and their landed value was $36.4 million. Most of the seed oysters came from public beds, while Maryland and Virginia were the two states leading in production (Fig. 6). Oyster production from the Gulf Coast was about 2.6 million bushels and their landed value was $17.5 million. Most of the seed came from public beds. The two leading production states were Louisiana and Florida (Fig. 7).

Hard clam production along the Atlantic Coast was about 1.1 million bushels and their landed value was $33.3 million. Most of the hard clams were produced from public beds. The leading production state was New York (Fig. 8).

Soft clam production from Maine to Virginia was 630,000 bushels and their landed value was $13.3 million. All soft clams were produced from public beds. The states leading in production were Maine and Maryland (Fig. 9).

Bay scallop production from Massachusetts to North Carolina was 190,000 bushels and their landed value was $3.9 million. All bay scallops were produced from public beds. The states leading in production were New York and Massachusetts (Fig. 10). Comparative Yields of Shellfish and Agricultural Crops

Much more can be grown underwater per unit of area than on land. The values presented in Table 6 for shellfish are for beds that are productive; they are conservative and typical, but do not include beds where shellfish are relatively scarce and support only marginal fishing. In nearly every case, the value of crops produced per acre is much higher for shellfish than for grains. The relative value of shellfish from beds explains why fishermen tenaciously protect the beds.

Section II. Statistical

Summary of the

Shellfishing Industries

The statistical base for shellfisheries is rather weak. Statistics on monthly and annual landings and value of shellfish from most states and a few state counties are compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. They are available to the public. Companies are not required to report their landings to a public agency if less than three companies sell shellfish from any jurisdiction even if it is as large as a state. The reason is to ensure that companies can keep their volume of sales and related business matters private. In some instances, local towns publish shellfish statistics in their annual reports and these are available in local libraries.

No published statistics are available on: 1) Landings from Connecticut and Delaware; 2) most smaller units than states, such as towns and state counties and also bays and estuaries (Delaware Bay, N.J., is one exception), and 3) working and earnings profiles of fishermen and workers in processing plants. The lack of statistics on small units means that the large fluctuations in their shellfish production among years is not apparent; when all units of a state are totalled together, their sum may show little variation among years. Thus it is not apparent from the statistics that productive employment of fishermen and workers in processing plants in local areas often varies considerably among years.

This section includes: 1) A listing of statistics for 20 years of landings and prices of shellfish from Maine to eastern Florida and from western Florida to Texas, 1960-79, 2) annual shellfish production from small units, 3) seasonal landings, and 4) the determinants of landed prices of shellfish. Trends in Landings and Prices, 1960-79 Oyster

Between 1960 and 1962, annual landings of oysters from Maine to eastern Florida fell sharply to 6 million bushels in 1962 from about 7.5 million in 1960; except for a drop to 4.5 million bushels in 1977, landings remained about level from 1962-79 (Fig. 11). Between 1960 and 1979, real (inflation-adjusted) prices for oysters declined about 20 percent to about $2.50/bushel from $3.00-3.50/ bushel in 1960-61. The inflated price was $5.25/bushel in 1979.

Between 1960 and 1979, annual landings of the oyster from western Florida to Texas fluctuated from 3.3 to 6.1 million bushels; the trend was about level (Fig. 11). Between 1960 and 1979, real prices for oysters about doubled to $2.25/bushel from about $1.10/bushel in 1960. The inflated price was 4.60/bushel in 1979. The price of these oysters, which had been only about 33 percent as high as Atlantic Coast oysters in 1960, rose to within 90 percent as high in 1979. Hard Clam

Between 1960 and 1979, annual landings of hard clams (all size categories combined) vaned somewhat, but showed a downward trend after 19176; landings ranged from about 1.1 to nearly 1.5 million bushels/year (Fig. 12). In 1979 hard clam landings were about 1.1 million bushels. From 1960 to 1979, real prices for little necks nearly doubled, rising to $25/bushel in 1979 from about $13-14/ bushel in 1960; the inflated price was $60/bushel in 1979. Real prices for cherrystones increased by about 20 percent, rising to $9/bushel in 1979 from about 7.50/bushel in 1960. Real prices for chowders increased by about 22 percent, rising to $5.50/bushel in 1960; the inflated price was $12.50/bushel in 1979 (Fig. 12). Soft Clam

Production of soft clams rose to 1 million bushels in 1969 from 670,000 bushels in 1960; afterwards, annual landings fell to between 600,000 and 700,000 bushels from 1972 to 1979 (Fig. 13). Prices of the soft clam are considered for only the two leading producers, Maine and Maryland (Fig. 13). The prices of Maine clams ranged from about $6.00 to $7.00/bushel through the 1960's. Real prices were higher during most of the 19170's and were $9.00/bushel in 1979; the inflated price was $21.50 in 1979. The prices of Maryland clams ranged from about $2.50 to $4.75/bushel through the 1960's. Real prices fluctuated between $4.25 and 10.35/bushel in the 1970's; the inflated price was $22.50 in 1979. Bay Scallop

Between 1960 and 1976, annual landings of bay scallops ranged between about 185,000 and 525,000 bushels, but the trend was about level; in 1977-79 production was lower and ranged between 110,000 and 180,000 bushels/year (Fig. 14). Prices of the bay scallop were considered for the two leading producers, New York and North Carolina (Fig. 14). Prices are given as the values of shucked meats because that is the form in which scallops are usually sold. Real prices of New York scallops were variable between 1960 and 1979, but the trend was upward. The price rose to $1.50/pound in 1979 from $0.80/pound in 1960. The inflated price was $3.60/pound in 1979. Real prices of North Carolina scallops were about level from 1960 to 19176 at $0.38-0.90/pound; afterwards, they rose to $1.11/pound in 1979. The inflated price was $2.66/pound in 1979.

The rises in prices of littleneck hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops show that their demand was rising in the market. If market conditions remain the same, production of these shellfish could be increased without a drop in prices; perhaps only minimal promotion would be needed to maintain prices. Probably, an increase in the production of oysters, however, would require market promotion to prevent further price declines. Trends in Landings from Small Units

Annual landings statistics for hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops from four counties (8 years) and a town (20 years) in Massachusetts show the considerable variation in landings among years that exists in local areas (Fig. 15, 16). The landings totals reflect the variations among years in employment and earnings that occur in shellfisheries from small units. They do not precisely show the availability of shellfish in beds, because landings are a product of availability and effort. Shellfishing effort varies somewhat with employment opportunities ashore. Seasonal Landings

Landings of the four shellfish species are seasonal. The oyster and bay scallop are landed mostly in the autumn and early winter; the hard clam and soft clam mostly in the spring and summer (Fig. 17). The seasonal patterns generally relate to shellfish biology, market preferences, and the presence of ice in the bays and estuaries in winter. The oyster has thin meats in summer and when shucked then yield poorly. Oyster meats are fattest in late autumn and winter; thus, yields per bushel are highest and it pays fishermen to sell them then. Bay scallops grow rapidly during summer and autumn, attaining their full size in the late autumn; it pays fishermen to sen them when they have attained their full size. The hard clam and soft clam also grow most rapidly during the summer, but consumers prefer them when they are about 5-6 cm (2.02.5 inches) long rather than when they are larger. Moreover, they are popular in restaurants and snack bars in summer. Finally, many coves and bays where the two types of clams grow become covered with ice during the winter, making fishing for them on a commercial scale difficult. Determinants of Landed Prices

The landed prices of shellfish are governed by two opposing forces: 1) The requirement of fishermen to earn an adequate daily wage and desire for higher prices and 2) the requirement of retail stores to maintain prices reasonably close to those of finfish and meats. The prices which fishermen receive allow them to work about an 8-hour day while earning about the same as if they were working ashore. The fishermen could not afford to gather the shellfish if landed prices were any lower. Retail prices for shellfish, on the basis of cost per pound, have been higher than those of fish, beef, pork, and poultry. Thus strong pressure exists in retail markets to reduce shellfish prices.

Another factor which suppresses the landed prices of shellfish involves sales to processing plants. Usually, fishermen have to sell their catch every day regardless of demand. Processing plants have to purchase the shellfish from them, even though their profit margins when selling them may be negligible. If the plant refuses to buy from the fishermen, it may lose them permanently as suppliers and thus have an inadequate supply to process or pack in forthcoming seasons.

Section III. Life

Cycle, Factors Governing

Abundance, and Abundance

Fluctuations of Shellfish The Life Cycle of Shellfish

The life cycle of shellfish involves a pelagic larval phase and a sedentary phase which assumes the adult shape. Shellfish spawn during the warmer months. Fertilization of eggs by sperm occurs externally. The larval period of shellfish varies by species. When salinities, temperatures, food, and other factors are close to ideal, oyster larvae develop to the settling stage in as little as 8 days, hard clam larvae in 6-8 days, soft clam larvae in 10 days and bay scallop larvae in 14 days (Loosanoff and Davis, 1963).

Oyster larvae have some control over their distribution in that the older larval stages can move up in the water during flood currents and down near the bottom during ebb currents, a feature which enables them to remain near oyster beds in estuaries (Nelson, 1912; Carriker, 1951; Kunkle, 1957; Haskin, 1964; Wood and Hargis, 1971). It has not been determined what features, if any, control the distributions of hard clam, soft clam, and bay scallop larvae.

Larvae attach to available substrates, become seed, and grow. Normally, the substrates used by oysters are a live oyster, shell, or stone; hard clams and soft clams use sand grains, and scallops use blades of algae or grass, stones, or adult scallops. The bay scallop is the only one of the group which can "swim" as an adult. During the warmer months, its activity alternates between relatively long rests on the bottom and short swims"; during winter, scallops are dormant and do not swim." A new bed of shellfish can begin if larvae set beyond the existing beds and can survive and grow. Factors Governing Shellflsh Abundance

The factors that govern shellfish abundance are: 1) The biotic potential and environmental requirements of the shellfish as they interact with the condition of the water for supporting their larvae and the bottom for allowing settlement of the larvae and supporting the see and 2) fishing effort on the shellfish stocks. Shellfish have a biotic potential sufficiently large to stock beds to excess, because each mature female produces millions of eggs, shellfish have high physiological survival, and as seed they grow rapidly. When conditions in the water are suitable, large numbers of larvae develop to the setting stage and, where the bottom is suitable for receiving them, they set densely but randomly on the beds.

Biologists do not know the minimum size of spawning stock needed to produce a commercial set of shellfish. One reason for this is that shellfish have never died out in any estuary which remained intact. Thus biologists have never had a chance to experiment with small quantities of adults to determine the number of seed which they could produce. It seems that: 1) The numbers of seed can vary considerably from one year to the next even when the numbers of adults are about constant (apparently, shellfish have evolved to produce irregular annual quantities of seed; this feature allows more seed to survive, because seed abundances are out of synchronization with predator abundances), 2) relatively large quantities of seed can result when the numbers of adults are relatively low, and 3) inversely, sparse sets can result when adults are abundant. In other words, the size of the spawning stock above some undetermined minimum seems to have much less importance than conditions in the water for survival of the larvae and seed production.

Loosanoff (1966) has reported that little relationship exists between the number of oyster seed produced and the size of the spawning stock in Connecticut. In 1958, for example, the oyster beds of Connecticut had a heavy oyster set when spawning stocks were at one of their lowest recorded sizes. I have had the rare opportunity to witness recruitment of soft clams in an area previously devoid of that species and thus it is worth describing in detail. The area was Edgartown Great Pond on Martha's Vineyard, Mass. The pond has an irregular, somewhat circular shape and has about 24 km (15 miles) of shoreline. It is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a barrier beach about 2.4 km (1.5 miles) long and 90 m (100 yards) wide. In 1950 the pond had been closed to the ocean for a number of years and had become fresh. It did not contain any soft clams. In the spring of 1951, the town of Edgartown opened the pond to the ocean by digging a ditch through the beach. The purpose was to make the pond salty enough to support commercial stocks of soft clams. The town opened the pond every spring thereafter; it remained open for about 2 weeks each time. In May of 1951, fishermen transplanted about 10 bushels of adult clams to the pond and spread them out in several locations, hoping that these would be sufficient to seed the pond. Within 2 years (i.e., by the fall of 1952) the fishermen found quantities of clam seed in most sections of the pond. The seed were sufficiently abundant to support commercial fishing when they later attained market size. Presumably, the 10 bushels of clams produced many seed the first year, and, by the second year, these clams, which by then were mature, along with the older clams were sufficiently numerous to seed the entire pond. Apparently, wind-driven water currents distributed the clam larvae around the pond.

I have observed that the numbers of bay scallops produced is independent of the size of the spawning stock. In Edgartown, Mass., scallops in commercial quantities occur in five areas (three saltwater ponds, one bay, and an inner harbor). Four of the areas are well separated from one another, and it is unlikely that scallop larvae from one area seed any of the others. Scallop abundance fluctuates widely among the areas in any year. For instance, scallops may be abundant in one pond and scarce in the other areas in one year, and then scarce in the first pond and in scarce, moderate, or abundant supply in the others in the next year. Obviously, the quantity of seed and adult scallops produced has only a small dependence on the numbers of adults.

Because only relatively small stocks of adults seem to be needed to produce quantities of seed, it is logical that the most efficient way to produce more shellfish is by improving envirornments for ready-to-set larvae and shellfish seed. Increasing the size of the spawning stock without improving environments may have little effect. Moreover, when the seed are a year or two from reaching commercial size, they produce gametes; thus the more seed that are produced by means of environmental improvement, the larger is the spawning stock.

Mortality of larvae and seed is much larger than in adults. The cause of larval mortalities are incompletely known, but it has been shown that predators cause most mortalities of seed. (See species profiles on the oyster by Stanley and Sellers, 1986; hard clam by Stanley, 1985; and soft clam by Abraham and Dillon, 1986). Mortalities of seed are high because a new generation of predators appears each summer simultaneously with each new generation of shellfish, both of which are then at peak abundance Turner, 1953). Abundances of juvenile predators vary substantially among years. Juvenile gastropods, rock crabs, and starfish can feed on shellfish seed. In addition, adult predators select small seed over large seed when both are available and they consume them much faster than the larger ones. As they grow, the shellfish survivors become increasingly invulnerable to predation because the predators are not then sufficiently large to bore, crack, open, or swallow them. Table 2 lists some characteristics of common shellfish predators.

Much remains to be understood about the factors that limit setting and survival of larval and seed hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops. Currently, little is known about: 1) The predators of larvae, 2) the effect that biota growing on and among sediments have in controlling the setting density of seed, 3) the magnitude of typical setting densities of clam and scallop seed, and 4) the predators of seed during the first several months after they set. Only speculative estimates have been made of the percentages of hard clam, soft clam, and scallop seed that attain commercial sizes. A study in Demnark showed that densities of bivalve seed ranged as high as 8,500/m, but mortalities from predation were nearly 100 percent in the first few months after they had set; presumably, some individuals of each species escaped predation, matured, spawned, and perpetuated the species (Muus, 1973). Perhaps, a similar pattern of relatively dense setting and heavy mortality from predation occurs in many hard clam, soft clam, and bay scallop beds in the eastern United States.

Heavy fishing on shellfish stocks can remove most legal-sized shellfish from beds, but I believe that it rarely reduces the size of the spawning stock to a point that too few seed are produced to perpetuate commercial-sized stocks. In marine finfisheries, which are all public, heavy fishing on stocks has occasionally led to their depletion. One reason for the depletion is that many immature fish are killed when caught inadvertently in trawls with marketable fish; heavy fishing often cuts deeply into the potential spawning stock and thus too few eggs are produced. Hardin (1968) has labelled such a depletion of fish a "tragedy of the commons."' Only recently have restrictions on the quantities taken or the numbers of fishing boats in a fleet been made.

In the hard clam, soft clam and bay scallop fisheries, however, fishermen leave seed in the beds and they kill few seed. Moreover, limits are placed on the sizes and types of gear and the catches that can be taken to prevent depletion of adults. Finally, an adult female shellfish produces a great many more eggs than a female finfish. In the oyster fishery in some rivers, seed is taken from designated beds but enough remains for spawning. In some states, such as New Jersey, the quantities of oysters on beds are surveyed before a season opens and only a limited quantity can be removed by the fishermen. On market beds, all oysters less than 3 inches long have to be returned to the beds. The laws, passed during the early part of the century, are usually well enforced. These laws and the programs of spreading shells on oyster beds by states have usually prevented shellfish depletion by overgathering by fishermen. Natural Fluctuations in Shellfish Abundance Environmental changes are followed by changes in shellfish abundances. This section lists some examples. Oyster Abundance of the oyster has fluctuated widely in various estuaries in response to changes in envirornmental conditions. For instance, in Long Island Sound, storms and an irruption in the starfish population have substantially reduced oyster abundances. The largest storms were in the 1938 hurricane and a major easterly in November 1950. The starfish irrupted in 1957, remained abundant afterwards and destroyed nearly aH seed oysters, crippling the industry. The industry did not recover until 1966 when starfish, oyster drills, and other causes of mortality were controlled by oyster companies (MacKenzie, 1981). In the James River, Va., large quantities of oysters, up to 90 percent on some beds, were killed in 1958 by freshwater flooding (Andrews et al., 1959). In Mississippi Sound, Hurricane Camille in 1969 damaged several oyster reefs, substantially reducing oyster production from them; one formerly productive reef of 400 hectares (1,000 acres) was covered by a mud deposit, about 5 cm (2 inches) deep, which left it barren of oysters (MacKenzie, 1977b).

A disease termed MSX (Minchinia nelsoni) developed in oysters in Delaware Bay and Virginia in the 1950's and crippled the oyster industries there. Oyster mortalities exceeded 95 percent annually in some blighted beds for several years (Haskin et al., 1966; Sindermann and Rosenfield, 1967; Andrews and Wood, 1967; Sindermann, 1968, 1976).

In the early 1970's, oyster abundance increased substantially in upper Delaware bay as a result of reduced salinities coupled with effective management by the Oyster Research Laboratory of Rutgers University, Port Norris, N.J. Fresh water killed the organisms that fouled oysters and shells, and thus oyster larvae could set in quantity on the shells. The laboratory recommended much reduced fishing on the beds to maintain the quantity of oysters and shells present. Hard Clam

Two examples, one from Katama Bay, Martha's Vineyard, Mass., and one from Great South Bay, Long Island, N.Y., will be used as illustrations of natural fluctuations in the abundance of hard clams.

Katama Bay supported quantities of hard clams in the early 1900's (Belding, 1912) and through the mid 1930's. The Bay is open to Vineyard Sound at its northern end and was separated from the ocean by a 4 lan (2.5-mile) sandbar at its southern end. The 1938 hurricane, however, broke an opening in the barrier beach between the Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Afterward, water currents were much stronger in the Bay and probably swept most hard clam larvae out to sea. Moreover, the currents washed sand over the beds and changed the bottom for hard clams from a favorable mud-sand to a less favorable coarse sand. The opening remained for a period of years. Hard clam abundance increased after the opening became narrow and decreased when it opened widely.

Production of hard clams in Great South Bay was low until the late 1930's (Wallace, 1971; McHugh, 1972). The Bay had a small opening which permitted little exchange of water with the ocean. A much larger opening broke through the barrier beach between the Bay and Atlantic Ocean during the 1938 hurricane; it remained and led to an increased exchange of water with the ocean. The result was a substantial improvement in the environment for hard clams, the opposite of the effect in Katama Bay. As a consequence, hard clams became abundant. Hard clam production rose sharply and was substantial through 1976; in fact, the Bay has produced about 45 percent of the hard clams landed in the United States in some years (Flagg and Malouf, 1983). Apparently, most larvae have been retained in the Bay since 1938. Soft Clam

Soft clam abundance has fluctuated widely. In Maryland, when salinities are relatively low and summers are exceptionally hot, quantities of clams have been killed (Shaw and Hammons, 19r74).

Green crabs can destroy nearly all soft clam seed in beds in some areas. Responding to trends in temperature of several years duration, the green crabs in New England fluctuate widely in abundance; when temperatures become warmer, the crabs become more abundant; when temperatures become cooler, the crabs become scarcer; when the crabs are scarce, the soft clams become abundant and vice versa (Glude, 1955; Welch, 1969). During the 1940's, soft clam production declined sharply and became low in Maine and Massachusetts; production remained low through the mid-1950's. The decline was caused by a sharp increase in numbers of the green crab, which destroyed virtually all soft clam seed (Glude, 1955). During the late 1950's, soft clam production rose again and remained sizeable at least through the late 1960's, because the green crab had become scarce (Welch, 1969). Bay Scallop

The abundance of bay scallops is influenced by the presence of eelgrass in most localities. Scallops are much more abundant in relatively large bays if eelgrass beds are present. On the other hand, in small bays and ponds, the presence of dense eelgrass beds seems to substantially reduce scallop abundance, perhaps because water circulation is sharply curbed. The scallop distribution was different around Martha's Vineyard prior to the mid 1930's than it has been since. Before the eelgrass dieoff in the mid 1930's along the Atlantic coast, the plant was distributed on shallow bottoms a kilometer (about a mile) beyond the entrances of salt water ponds. Scallops grew there also, and were most abundant in hogbeds" (small open areas within dense stands). After the eelgrass died, scallops disappeared from areas outside ponds.

In the relatively large bays of North Carolina, bay scallops are much more abundant where eelgrass is present than where it is scarce; the environment where eelgrass is absent will not support many scallops Kirby-Smith, 1970). Thayer and Stuart (1974) found that where scallop fishermen had uprooted and removed most eelgrass, it did not regrow and was sparse during the next bay scallop setting season; consequently, scallops were scarce in the dredged areas a year or more after the dredging.

In the Niantic River, a relatively small estuary in Connecticut, the bay scallop population was sparse when eelgrass was abundant before the 1930's. When the eelgrass disappeared in the early 1930's the scallops became abundant (Marshall, 1947, 1960). Eelgrass reappeared, covered large areas and became dense during the 1960's. It slowed water currents and made the bottom muddy. Consequently, the environment worsened for scallops and they became scarce again.

Section IV. Characteristics of

Shellfisheries and Shellfishermen

of Eastern North America

This description of shellfisheries is based on my observations in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, Mississippi, and Prince Edward Island. It may not apply to every locality in the eastern United States because shellfisheries vary in size and species among states, counties, towns, and also rivers, ponds, coves, and beds within a county or town. Each locality also has a unique economic and cultural situation, and local attitudes towards shellfish management differ.

A number of myths and rnisunderstandings have accumulated about fishermen which mask and distort the real problems and tend to mislead policymakers. Traditional shellfisheries are not wholly static. It is untrue that public beds yield far less than private beds acre for acre. The sometimes criticized fisherman is actually an honorable man who works hard to produce shellfish for people to consume. The fisherman is extremely pragmatic and commercial in outlook. He is efficient in using the gear which he has at his disposal. A fisherman has a perfectly plausible justification for whatever he does and he also has the facts and figures of his operation at his fingertips. He is strongly conservation-minded toward shellfish. He is also responsive to better gear and methods and will adopt them if he can.

Usually, shellfisheries exist in a small town or rural area, which is characterized by stability and simple virtues, such as hard work and thrift. In most localities, any local or state resident can purchase a license to gather shellfish commercially from public beds. In some localities, state and local regulations allow gathering only during specified seasons, and they may limit the daily catch. The purpose of the regulations is to conserve shellfish stocks, ensure future yields, and to spread out and maximize employment and earnings. Often the towns in Massachusetts adjust any opening and closing dates of seasons, such as for the bay scallop in the fall, to conicide with the time when other seasonal employment ashore slackens. Communities often provide free dock space for the fishermen's boats.

People in local communities have positive attitudes towards shellfisheries. The attitudes stem mostly from the economic wealth which the beds provide, but also from basic instincts of wanting to have living wild resources maintained, and because shellfish are a food. Local people know the fishermen and the names of the important beds and are usually aware of the current supplies of shellfish on the beds. Many people are curious about the yields of shellfish landed and the money earned by fishermen. Shellfish are a tourist attraction for local restaurants.

The daily activities of shellfishermen are scarcely known to the local community, except through social contact with fishermen ashore. This is because: 1) Fishermen usually leave the shore at first daylight and return with their shellfish in mid-aftemoon, a time when most people would not see them, and 2) the beds may not be visible from shore roads.

Shellfish beds are owned by the state or, in some instances, the local town. These entities manage the public beds by allowing fishermen access to them during certain seasons and regulating the quantities of shellfish which can be taken. Nearly all beds that are leased to private individuals are also owned by the state or town. Leased beds can be used only for raising shellfish, i.e., the leaseholder can neither mine sand, gravel, or other material, nor add fill to the beds. Some of the descriptive material presented in the following section also applies to leaseholders and private companies. Description of Public Shellfisheries

The working life of a shellfisherman is characterized by seasonal gathering of bivalves in the beds, with alternate employment ashore, or fishing for other species such as crabs, lobsters, or finfish. In a sense, shellfishermen are similar to family farmers: Fishermen work on the beds for several months a year gathering shellfish as farmers are in the fields planting, cultivating, and harvesting field crops. Similarly, fishermen have an autonomous and free working style within the limits of legal regulations.

The condition of low and uncertain abundance often dominates the working atmosphere of the hard clam, soft clam, and bay scallop fisheries. The clams may be scarce for years, whereas bay scallop abundance varies widely among years. When shellfish are scarce, conditions of life are usually hard for fishermen and their families. Depression, fostered by the poor economic situation, is rampant. On the other hand, relatively high shellfish abundance on beds translates into nearly full employment and brisk economic activity. When times are good, people are optimistic and happy and they have more economic freedom. Some economic levelling occurs because usually when shellfish are scarce, prices are up, whereas when they are abundant, prices are down.

Conversations among fishermen reflect their concerns about low or declining shellfish abundance and incomes. The topics may include: 1) Where shellfish are most abundant, 2) the quantity, quality, and value of one another's take, 3) how much shellfish seed they see, 4) costs of gear, 5) the current shellfish price, 6) effectiveness of a new variation in gear, and 7) how any recent change in the environment will affect shellfish abundance.

The system of public shellfisheries features the greatest good for the greatest number of people. As an entity, the system has several positive features and a few negative features.

The advantages of the system for communities are:

1) The system features relatively large employment for fishermen on the beds.

2) It features about equal incomes among fishermen.

3) It is a safeguard against unemployment assistance payments by providing jobs when no others are available.

4) It supports local businesses such as shellfish processing plants, shipyards, blacksmiths, hardware stores, and fuel suppliers.

The advantages of the system for fishermen are:

1) It allows the fishermen to earn a living while working for themselves.

2) It allows the fishermen to get paid commensurately with what they produce, which means that they have maximum incentive to work hard.

A disadvantage of the system is that there is easy entry into the fishery. The consequences are: 1) More competition than usual for the shellfish, 2) smaller than usual landings and earnings for each fisherman, and 3) earlier than usual depletion of the shellfish. The regular fishermen usually resent the irregular fishermen, whom they call flyby-nighters" or moonlighters," because the cream" of the shellfish is removed earlier in the season.

Another disadvantage is that it may be difficult to obtain a consensus of opinion about cultivating the shellfish beds or making a change to a slightly different management system from the fishermen and the people of a community. Almost everyone is afraid that someone else is going to get ahead of them in the new system, so they are hesitant to approve it. In addition, the community has to pay for any shellfish cultivation projects; if the beds were privately owned, companies would pay for the projects.

In places where the public shellfishery is relatively large, the local community gains considerable economic benefit from it. The value of a shellfishery is much higher than the direct employment which it provides on the beds because fishermens' earnings are multiplied through the economy; the total value of the shellfish in the various localities where they are landed and consumed is two to four times the landed value (Callaghan and Comerford, 1978; Coastal Zone Resources Corporation Wong ). Currently, the only overhead cost of a shellfishery to the local community is the salaries of wardens, and these are mostly paid for by the license fees from the fishermen. The shellfish reproduce and grow naturally at no cost, except in the oyster fishery in some localities where shells are spread and seed is transplanted by public agencies on public beds.

Communities may suffer during periods when shellfish are unusually scarce on their beds:

1) Employment is low and uncertain among fishermen and workers in processing plants; economic activity in shellfishing communities is much reduced. The fishermen feel demoralized.

2) Boats, processing plants, and trucks operate well below capacity. Because costs of labor, fuel, and other overhead remain about the same regardless of shellfish production, the profit from each unit quantity of shellfish is much reduced.

3) In retail stores and restaurants, shellfish are less available and prices are higher. It takes years for shellfish to become established at a certain price in the market. When shellfish become scarce, consumers will substitute other foods for shellfish. When the shellfish again become abundant, the market must be redeveloped.

4) Some public fishermen may poach shellfish from private leases, resulting in confrontation between the fishermen and leaseholders.

5) Some public fishermen may try to poach shellfish from polluted beds which have been legally closed. The activity results in public health problems, confrontation with the police, and caution by the consumer in eating shellfish.

6) The regular fishermen feel more resentment than usual toward newcomers to the fleet, such as college students earning money by clamming during summer vacations.

7) The older fishermen feel that they are aging faster than normally when shellfish catches are declining.

When shellfish become less available, communities hope that public agencies will be able to bring about an increase in shellfish abundance and production and also reduce pollution. They hope that public shellfisheries will grow. For example, a man about 70 years old in Prince Edward Island told me that before he died he wanted to see oysters come back in Malpeque Bay, where they had flourished a number of years previously but had since been killed by a disease.

Additional features of public shellfisheries are listed below. Shellfish Production System

Shellfish production systems comprise a number of components. The largest is the group of fishermen who gather shellfish from the beds. Next is the processing packing) houses where shellfish are shucked (oyster, bay scallop, and sometimes the soft clam), steamed open (oyster), or packed whole (oyster, hard clam, and soft clam) for sale to wholesalers. Wholesale houses distribute them to retail stores and restaurants for sale to consumers. Another component is the trucks which transport shellfish from the packing houses to wholesale houses, stores, and restaurants. Usually, within any component, individuals have knowledge of the immediate people and functions with which they deal, but little knowledge of other sectors. The public fishermen know the processors, but not the wholesalers, retailers, and customers; processors know the fishermen and wholesalers but not the retailers and customers; wholesalers know the processors and retailers but not the fishermen and customers; retailers know the wholesalers and customers but not anyone else; and customers interact only with retailers. Shellfishing Equipment

Fishermen use tongs, rakes, dredges, hydraulic escalators, and nets from their boats, and hoes or rakes on tidal flats, to gather shellfish. Some fishermen have one or more mates (crewmen) on their boats. Usually the best fishermen have the best boats, equipment, and mates. The oyster is gathered with tongs and dredges; the hard clam mostly with rakes, but also with tongs and the escalator harvester. The soft clam is gathered from flats with a hoe or by wading in shallow water with a combination of churning hoe and rake, by hydraulic jet used with a rake, and by the hydraulic escalator harvester. The bay scallop is gathered primarily with dredges (usually caned drags in New England) but also with dip nets. Some of the basic equipment designs were brought over from Europe by immigrants during colonial times. Shellfishing Fleet and Crews

A fleet is composed of boats operated by men who range widely in age. Some men spend nearly their entire working lives as fishermen, starting their careers as teenagers, then becoming regular or mainline fishermen, and finally oldtimers." Some men started in shellfishing because it was the highest paying job available; others were attracted by the independence associated with it. The best fishermen gather the most shellfish per day as a function of strength, skill, and incentive, or they have a shorter day on the water if a catch limit exists. The least experienced fishermen take fewer shellfish because there is a learning curve on gear use and efficient techniques for particular beds.

Some fishermen in a fleet exhibit competitive behavior. An informal ranking of fishermen may be present based on: 1) Size and quality of boat, 2) daily shellfish take, 3) ability to gather shellfish in quantity when others cannot, i.e., when shellfish become scarce or during adverse weather, and 4) whether a fisherman is a finder or a follower. Status, which is commonly known in the local community, is based on the ranking and can be a main source of fisherman and family pride. A fisherman may not be able to raise his rank without an immediate response to increase landings from those above him. Often, competition is on a daily basis.

Fishermen often have group loyalty. They wonder how good a recruit to the fishery will become and they hope that an old-timer can remain fishing.

Fishermen are independent, nevertheless, and do not easily form into special interest groups even for their mutual benefit. When government bodies have tried to form fishermen's associations, usually they have had difficulty. Normally, association meetings are poorly attended. At public meetings held to discuss matters relating to shellfisheries, fishermen voice disparate, rather than joint, opinions. Poaching

Some fleets have a small number of poachers who will illegally take: 1) More shellfish from beds than regulations allow, 2) shellfish from leased beds or oysters from beds with dredges when only tonging is allowed, and 3) shellfish from polluted beds which are legally closed. Most poaching is done at night. Poachers rationalize that their actions are not crimes because shellfish occur naturally or that polluted shellfish are not actually polluted. Poaching is considered as a much smaller crime than stealing goods ashore. Law-abiding fishermen rarely reveal the actions of a poacher to wardens, but they strongly resent them. Shellfishing Season

When a new season begins, the fleet fans out over the beds to sample them for shellfish abundance and quality, usually with some prior knowledge from the previous season. They begin gathering on the beds which have the most abundant supplies. Each day thereafter, fishermen head for the best beds or "spots" and, as a season progresses, the shellfish supply diminishes. Usually, shellfish seasons last 2-6 months, and they vary in terms of available shellfish quantities and prices. A boom, or bonanza, season is characterized by a large supply coupled with good prices.

A fisherman's judgment about the quantities of shellfish available in a season can be strongly colored by the relative number of competitive fishermen in the fleet and his individual catch rate. Thus in a season of low supply and few fishermen, a fisherman may believe that the supply was average because the shellfish quantities available to him were average. In a similar season, had the number of fishermen been larger, the fishermen would believe that the shellfish were scarce. Typical Shellfishing Day

Most of the day is spent making dips with gear gathering shellfish. An oyster tonger usually makes a few score dips a day and an oyster dredger tows his dredges over a bed and hauls them in many times during a day. Sometimes, fishermen spend 6-7 hours on the water and a few extra hours getting the catch to buyers or repairing equipment for the next day. Hard clammers, soft clammers, and bay scallopers often work shorter days on the water. A day's activity constitutes a race with time to gather enough shellfish to earn a day's pay. No guarantee exists that the shellfisherman will be successful, e.g., the spot may have a few shellfish remaining and time is lost while finding another good spot; the weather may be bad; or the gear may break down forcing the fishermen to return to shore for repairs which may take a day or more. When a day's take is large, the day seems short and fishermen feel satisfied; if small, the day is discouraging, monotonous, and long. When fishermen return to shore with their catch, they sell it to a processor who pays each day or week. Often, bay scallopers shuck their own scallops before selling them. The fishermen who have to gather shellfish during periods of low tide, i.e., some oyster, hard clam, and soft clam fishermen, have irregular working hours, because the tide advances approximately one hour later each day. Thus, they may work in the morning one week, in the afternoon the following week. Late in the second week, the tide might be low enough to enable them to work only early in the morning and late in the afternoon.

Relative Earnings

As noted, earnings are roughly equal among fishermen on the beds; they are not as polarized as they are in many occupations ashore. Normally, however, the better fishermen tend to gather the highest quality of shellfish and will earn the most money, while the poorer fishermen gather the most abundant shellfish which may be the least valuable and thus earn less money.

The poorest fishermen are sometimes accused of being indolent, finding excuses for missing a day of work, keeping their equipment in poor condition, gathering the most abundant but often least valuable shellfish to finish sooner, and spending money on alcoholic drinks rather than food. The criticisms have some validity, but an examination of each situation usually reveals that the fishermen may be getting the most from their circumstances, which all too often is characterized by low personal strength and vigor and poor skills, along with scarce shellfish supplies on beds. The poorest fishermen quickly reach a point of diminishing returns if they try to keep pace with the better fishermen.

Fishermen's earnings are limited because: 1) Shellfish supplies may be inadequate for the number of fishermen; 2) much time is lost due to bad weather, broken gear, and closed seasons, and 3) expenses take a substantial portion of gross incomes. For example, in Prince Edward Island, expenses for gear alone for oyster fishermen totalled about 20 percent of weekly earnings; total expenses of fishermen who lived away from home in trailers during the week totalled about 35 percent of weekly earnings (MacKenzie, 1975). A number of fishermen have told me: "The secret of staying in this business is to keep your expenses down". Economic Status of Fishermen

Public fishermen have about equal economic status with most craftsmen working ashore. They lose some self esteem whenever shellfish become scarce and they have to search for jobs ashore. Most fishermen always consider themselves as fishermen; any other jobs are part-time jobs. Security of Fishermen

As noted, most fishermen depend entirely upon the "mercy of nature" to provide shellfish in the beds. Fishermen are commonly haunted by insecurity, because they fear that shellfish supplies will soon be depleted. Insecurity seems to be most serious among the hard clam fishermen because they rarely see the small clam seed in the beds. Thus they often fear that few exist. Fishermen also live with the pessimism that shellfish may never spawn again. Lack of an Employment Ladder

A structured way of advancing in a career barely exists in shellfisheries. The mate on a boat may be able to obtain his own boat, but rarely does a boat owner become a packer (processor). Nearly all fishermen who obtain their own boats by their 20's remain at the same position throughout their working years. They learn how to gather shellfish efficiently from each bed within 2-3 years and learn how to save steps over the years. They lose strength and taper off in the amount they can gather and earn as they age. Little Alternative Employment Many fishermen tend to remain on the beds trying to make a living during lean economic periods, and lay people wonder why they persist. The answer is that any work available ashore is perceived to be a worse alternative. The fishermen remain on the beds because: 1) They are physically and mentally adjusted to fishing (they are used to irregular hours); 2) if they had been brought into shellfishing by a favorite relative, such as their father, they feel bound to do the, things he had taught them; 3) they do not want to sell the boat they may have worked to obtain or acquired from a relative; 4) if they took a job ashore, they would lose their autonomy and independence (a psychologically stressful solution); 5) they know the shellfishing business, but they do not know other jobs well and therefore feel uneasy in them; 6) shellfishing has little or no paperwork, and most fishermen resent paperwork in another job; and 7) fishermen simply enjoy the solitude on the water. I asked a soft clam fisherman in Maryland if he would rather work on the beds or work ashore (as a carpenter's helper). He said: "I would much rather fish for clams. I don't like being hollered at when I work ashore."

When people have to move to another job with lower position and pay or to unemployment, the following conditions usually result: Psychological depression, reduced medical care, reduced nutrition, and possibly an increase in the consumption of alcohol. It produces strains on people's families: Wives find that they have to manage with less and may have to find a job to help support the family. Such events are common among shellfishing families during periods of shellfish scarcity. Many young fishermen have been forced to leave their communities to find work in cities during those periods. Freedom of Fishermen Each fisherfman has the autonomy and independence of someone owning his own business. He owns his boat and equipment, he controls his time, he gathers on the beds which he chooses, and makes numerous daily choices within the limits imposed by nature, legal regulations, and the market. Satisfactions of Fishermen

When their earnings are adequate, fishermen are among the most satisfied workers, because they have a high level of personal control over their work and close ties with their product. Fishermen enjoy the peacefulness and beauty of the water and shorelines. Working in harmony with nature to supply food for humans fosters positive human emotions. The old-timers benefit from fishing by satisfying the need to be engaged in constructive physical activity. Fishermen's Attitudes Toward Shellfish Resources

Of any concerned group, the fishermen have the largest stake in the welfare of the beds and conservation of the shellfish. Thus, contrary to some beliefs, fishermen have a strongly protective attitude towards the beds and shellfish. Whenever possible, fishermen return oyster shells (even when not required by law), destroy the predators which they have gathered, and will leave beds alone where seed is abundant so as not to damage them.

Fishermen have been accused of "not caring about tomorrow," because they sometimes take too many shellfish from a bed, especially if a new stock is discovered. The accusation is nearly always unfair. The fisherman took them because he feared the shellfish would be gone if he left them. He has no way to reserve the shellfish for himself. Attachment of Fishermen to the Beds

Fishermen develop a psychological attachment to the shellfish beds, similar to that of farmers with their land, because the beds are the primary source of their livelihood. Usually, fishermen have pride in their local beds, believing them to be especially productive and believing the local shellfish to be a unique and superior "strain" or having a superior quality. Efficiency of Fishermen Fishermen possess the same characteristics that Schultz (1976) has described for farmers: They 1) allocate their resources efficiently, 2) have strong incentives to hit margins, 3) respond to incentives, and 4) do the best possible with the resources at hand. Fishermen make efficient use of their boats, equipment, fuel, time, money, and strength in gathering shellfish. In analyzing the operations of fishermen in several localities, I have not seen where efficiency could have been substantially increased. The equipment and methods for gathering shellfish, which were developed by trial and error, have been refined and sharpened by many years of experience; each generation has had its experimenters, who added a bit here and improved a practice there. In most locations, the equipment is restricted by law. Fishermen's actions are not always wholly governed by an orthodox, profit-maximizing rationality. Sometimes, private lives are given consideration over work and fishermen may prefer to use a slightly less efficient method passed on by a favorite relative or other teacher. Knowledge of Fishermen

Fishermen have much more knowledge about factors relating to shellfishing than most people suspect. They have a broad knowledge of vessel and equipment operations and repair, the location of beds, efficient gathering techniques for each bed, laws relating to shellfish gathering, economics within the fishery, weather forecasting, and the life cycle of shellfish. Fishermen learn much of this as children and teenagers and during their first few months on the beds. They do most of their own mechanic and repair work on their gear and boats. They have some knowledge of how the effects of weather, an opening between a bay and the ocean, freshwater flooding, and similar phenomena affect shellfish abundance. What Fishermen Do Not Know

Fishermen have little knowledge about some of the critical factors that limit shellfish abundance, because they cannot see the bottom. Oyster fishermen do not know the condition of the bottom for receiving sets of seed and much shellfish mortality is never seen because principally small seed are consumed by predators. The fishermen do not know the density of the initial set of seed shellfish, especially in the hard clam and bay scallop, nor do they know what kills the seed, what percentage of the initial set is lost before they gather the adults, or what opportunities may exist for reducing mortality. Myth of the Intractable Fishermen

Fishermen have been considered pillars of tradition: Men tied closely to history and unwilling to improve their gear or procedures. However, the belief is largely a myth. In actuality, fishermen have almost always looked for ways to improve their efficiency in gathering shellfish. Fishermen will use better methods that one of them or someone else develops if they can. As we have seen, fishermen try to obtain as much as possible each day, consistently striving to turn an extra dollar and, over the long haul, to gain more money and security. Thus the more progressive fishermen do try to devise new methods to increase their catches and efficiency.

When a fisherman tries a new method, the others watch, and they will adopt and try to improve upon it if it is better than the one they had been using. It is ironic that the original inventor often has the least efficient model of his new method after the remainder of the fleet has copied and improved it. When interviewing fishermen, I have received the impression that they are eager to test any method which has the slightest chance of helping them. I believe that fishermen are no more intractable than people in other occupations. The pessimism about the intractability of fishermen is unwarranted and thus the myth needs to be set aside.

Fishermen cling to traditional methods because they provide the safest assurance of a livelihood. The economics of shellfishing allows little margin for risk and thus fishermen are extremely hesitant to assume the risk of innovations, especially if their advantages over traditional methods are uncertain. When fishermen reject innovations, they rationally weigh the likely changes in incomes and risks associated with the innovations and decide for them that the innovations do not pay.

A glance at agricultural history sheds light on the situation. For a long period, farmers did not adopt many suggestions being made to them. As a consequence, the belief arose among scientists and lay people that farmers in the United States and throughout the world were bound by long years of tradition and thus could not adopt any new methods. It was not until 1964 that an analysis of the apparent intractability of farmers was made in a book entitled "Transforming Traditional Agriculture" by T. W. Schultz (1976). He said that lay people knew surprisingly little about the economics of farming and explained that the main reason for the low rate of acceptance of new methods was that each farmer was locked into a tight, static economic and working situation, which had little margin for innovation; any risks were out of the question. A critical feature of traditional farming was that the rate of return to investment was extremely low. Another reason for the slow adoption was that much of the information which farmers had received was not applicable, at least not immediately, and thus did not represent better alternatives to existing practices. Schultz said that to transform traditional agriculture, a more profitable set of production factors more productive technologies and knowledge-had to be supplied to farmers. He argued that farmers do the best possible with the resources at hand and they respond efficiently to new production opportunities. He added that commanding farmers to increase production is doomed to failure even though they have access to knowledge.

Schultz (1976) provided a series of examples from farming communities throughout the world in which modern farming practices have developed in the place of ancient ones, thereby proving that farmers are not universally intractable. Since Schultz's book, Mellor (1966), Stevens (1977), Galbraith (1979) and others have reinforced and amplified these findings. A point which they emphasize about adoption of new methods is that yield is the bottom line for farmers: Without a guaranteed yield bonus from the use of a new method, with exceptions for bad weather, most farmers will not change traditional methods. Galbraith (1979) stated that the risk for the farmer of using something new is always higher than for the expert who recommends it.

In the past, scientists have given fishermen numerous suggestions to improve aspects of their work, but all except a few have been ignored. The scientists have concluded that fishermen will not accept sound advice.

After gaining an understanding of how the oyster fisheries functioned in Long Island Sound and Prince Edward Island, I analyzed many of the earlier recommendations that had been made to improve them. I concluded that the fishermen had been correct to ignore those that had been ignored; most would have been harmful to the company or fishermen had they tried to use them. The companies and fishermen would have been faced with: 1) High initial costs, 2) sometimes extensive development on their part before the suggested methods could be used, 3) no real benefits, and 4) sometimes harm. In reality, the scientists were aware of only some of the factors relating to the working life of the fishermen and thus were naive in believing that the suggestions were useful. In my experience with oyster companies in Long Island Sound, I followed the courses of methods which I had suggested to them and tried to analyze why some were ignored. The answer was that they would not have had any long-term benefit. Power of Fishermen Fishermen have little or no power over: 2) The costs of their equipment, fuel, and licenses, 2) the various human impacts that can degrade the shellfish environment, 3) where a pollution outlet is placed, and 4) the prices which they receive for shellfish. Fishermen have become used to changes for the worse, knowing they cannot correct them. They can modify specifics about the gathering regulations, such as the opening date of a season, by appealing to public officials. Public fishermen do not have the power to direct their fellows to cultivate the beds for the purpose of increasing shellfish abundance. The problem is that all the fishermen will not donate their effort equally to the work. The ones who would otherwise be willing to do the work are reluctant to do so when those who are not would be able to share the benefits. Fishermen have demonstrated the power to question seriously and then halt or substantially modify proposed programs to culture oyster beds for the purpose of increasing oyster abundance. if they believed that such a program might harm the beds or reduce shellfish abundance, they have voiced strong objections to it, in the meantime gaining support within the community. Politicians listen to the fishermen because if they implement an unpopular program, especially if it turns out to be unsuccessful, popular sentiment could turn against them. At times, fishermen have obtained the support of politicians and have forced fishery administrators to modify rulings. Behavior of Fishermen at Meetings In many localities, fishermen meet with fishery administrators perhaps only once a year to discuss important issues. Any contacts between the two entities in the interim are few and distant. Most of the time, much less is accomplished at these meetings than is promised because the fishermen express their views on issues haphazardly and there is little agreement among them on the important issues of the meeting. Sometimes the fishermen are loud, vehement, and even abusive to the administrators. They express their anger and frustrations about a variety of issues. Fishermen say anything they wish; because the administrators have no means to get back at them, the fishermen have little to lose. The result is that the administrators try to maintain distance from the fishermen until the next meeting, and the issues drag along without resolution. Not only is this situation counterproductive to shellfish enhancement, but it has a tendency to build barriers which impede any efforts to develop better working relationships. Needs of Fishermen Fishermen want to improve their economic situation without giving up the good aspects of their working lives. They want enhanced security, some measure of prosperity and the prospects of a better life for their children. They believe that more shellfish on the beds and good market demand and prices for their shellfish would assure this. Attitude of Fishermen and Communities Toward Various Management Proposals Relating to Public Beds

Through the years, many fishermen and local communities have heard a number of proposals from governmental agencies and scientists for managing shellfisheries. This section describes three of the most common proposals for enhancing or conserving shellfish stocks and discusses common reactions of fishermen and communities to them:

Shellfish Enhancement Programs

Programs to enhance shellfish abundance are what the fishermen and communities everywhere desire. Such programs are discussed at length in the main body of this guide. The fishermen, by themselves, cannot effectively develop methods to increase shellfish abundance in public beds, however, because: 1) They know only a little about how environmental factors limit shellfish abundance fishermen do not examine beds with scuba gear in most localities), 2) they do not have the training, 3) they have not received ideas and seen methods used in other locations since they travel little, and 4) since they are under severe economic stress to meet their financial needs, they have little spare time or money to try to increase abundance. Increased Restrictions on Gathering Rates

McHugh and MacMillan believe that hard clams and presumably other types of shellfish should be managed under the classical fishery management scheme, in which catch rates by fishermen are controlled. The fishing effort allowed is determined by the number of marketable shellfish recruited into the population: Fishermen cannot take more shellfish than are being recruited. In using the scheme, the following five basic estimates are needed: 1) The size of the standing crop, 2) the annual magnitude of recruitment, 3) the annual growth rate, 4) the annual mortality rate from natural causes, and 5) the annual catch rate by shellfishermen. With such information in hand, a manager can judge how many shellfish can be taken from the beds without substantially reducing the size of the population. The fault with the scheme is that it does not include increasing shellfish abundance by using such procedures as improving shellfish environments or transplanting shellfish from overpopulated to underpopulated beds. In situations in which populations are declining as a consequence of adverse environmental conditions, managers can only recommend that catch be reduced to try to stop further declines. The fisheries management scheme has been used in managing finfish, especially those in waters of the continental shelf, where methods have not been developed to increase the abundance of fish stocks. It has been successful to an extent in managing public oyster beds, such as those in New Jersey where oystermen are allowed to take only a specified portion of the oysters from beds; surveys of the oyster populations are made before the oyster season opens. In New Jersey, shelling of the beds to enhance the quantity of seed also takes place in some years.

A regulation to reduce catch is counterproductive to the needs of fishermen and local people, since they want to gather more shellfish to increase their incomes. Accordingly, such a regulation will generate much hostility among them, the people who formulate and apply the regulations will be judged as against the fishermen, and the fishermen will be against the regulations.

Leasing of Public

Shellfish Beds

I have interviewed numerous public fishermen and local people in communities along the Atlantic coast. They were all strongly opposed to the leasing of any productive public beds to private companies who would use them for their own interests. Public fishermen are opposed to surrendering public beds (Walford, 1945) because the shellfish which the beds yield have considerable value. The fishermen would be deprived of employment, earnings, and freedom. A statement which fishermen commonly make is: "If they lease the beds, I will have to work for someone else instead of myself." Local communities oppose the leasing of public bottoms because large numbers of jobs and considerable money would be lost. Another disadvantage is that large companies using the most efficient, labor-saving technologies available to rear and gather the shellfish would hire only a small fraction of the people who normally work in the public fishery. Next, a company would retain almost afl profits with little going to the community, especially if it were not owned locally. In sum, extensive leasing of public bottoms would translate into a force of displaced and unemployed fishermen, fishermen-laborers working for companies, strongly polarized incomes and much less wealth for the community. Although companies might be able to increase and stabilize shellfish supplies to the public, they could also raise prices when they desire.

In many localities, fishermen and local people will allow previously unproductive bottoms to be leased for the purpose of raising shellfish. Such leasing can create more employment and earnings for the community.

Description of Leaseholders and Companies

As noted, coastal communities have usually insisted that the beds which naturally produce shellfish remain public. If someone wishes to cultivate oysters, he may be able to lease bottoms that are, or nearly always have been, barren of shellfish. Private leases, common in most oyster states, allow individuals or companies to grow seed obtained from public beds to market size and sell them. On private leases from New Jersey southward, growers do not cultivate or improve the condition of the beds in any way before or after seed oysters have been planted on them. Many oyster growers do spread shells on their beds, however, to collect seed oysters. The private leases in some states provide a market for the seed oysters on public beds, which are otherwise nearly unsalable because they are too small. The private oyster beds in Long Island Sound have to be cultivated because otherwise the wild habitat would not support oysters because fouling organisms on shells and predators are too abundant in the relatively high salinity 25-27%).

On oyster leases, the return for effort is much larger than in public fisheries because companies use relatively large boats which have mechanized equipment for transplanting and harvesting. As a comparison, in a 4-hour period, a typical boat can gather from a wellstocked bed as much as 2,000 bushels of oysters, while a hand tonger can gather about 40 bushels of oysters. Annual incomes of company owners are usually much larger than for fishermen on public beds. In Long Island Sound, the costs of oyster cultivation are borne by companies and they reap the benefits. Other outlays by companies include their payroll, taxes, insurance and maintenance of vessels, buildings and wharves.

The private companies of Long Island Sound prepare seed beds by spreading shells 500-2,000 bushels/acre) to collect seed oysters. The best seed beds have a potential for receiving a set about 2 out of 5 years (MacKenzie, 1981). At first glance, the risk may seem poor, but the cost of shelling a bed is relatively low compared with the value of oyster seed. If there has been a set, the seed oysters are transplanted during the following spring to beds which are relatively safe from storms and where they will grow well. Seed oysters are spread at densities which provide the least expensive protection and occupy the optimum amount of space, usually about 750 bushels/acre. The oysters are normally transplanted once a year to break apart clusters and spread them out as they grow. Oysters are grown to specific sizes for which the demand is largest and sold when the market demand is at a peak in the fall and early winter. If prices are low, oysters can be left on the bottom at negligible cost. The private companies produce oysters on bottoms which would be otherwise unproductive and provide jobs and monetary benefits which a typical business provides for the local communities.

Where leasing is practiced, an oyster or hard clam fisherman, who relays shellfish onto his lease, becomes more of a small businessman. He can retain oysters or clams on his lease when the market is glutted or the price is down and then sell them when the price is higher.

One inherent disadvantage of shellfish leases is that unless the lease is worked" it remains unproductive. This, then, has the tendency of allowing large tracts of bottom to remain barren, thus adding fuel to the controversy between the public and private fisherman.

Shellfisheries and Scientists

Until recently, no analogue of U.S. land grant colleges and extension workers has supported and aided the public and private shellfisheries of the eastern United States. Thus, no entity existed whose mission was to develop shellfisheries and to ensure that public funds spent for shellfishery aid and development were effectively used. A mix of divergent attitudes among the 1) drafters of laws, 2) fishermen and local people, and 3) scientists has existed in shellfisheries. The people who wrote the laws which govern the commercial gathering of shellfish on public beds were primarily concerned with allowing catches to be sufficiently large that fishermen could earn a living, while also conserving shellfish resources. The fishermen and local people are also for conservation, but they want shellfish abundance to be increased, especially during periods of scarcity.

In contrast, many shellfish scientists are interested in conducting research only to obtain knowledge; their concerns about applying the results of that research to economic and social problems in shellfisheries are incidental. Moreover, any studies which they make of factors limiting shellfish production are intermittent, not continuous. Their audience is comprised largely of other scientists. They present their findings at scientific meetings and in journals and they do not interact with fishermen in the way that many agricultural scientists do with farmers. Most papers are not useful in shellfish management.

Scientists have limited knowledge about: 1) How environmental factors govern shellfish abundance, 2) details of how the industry functions and operation of commercial gear, and 3) economics in the fishery. Scientific studies concerning the factors that limit shellfish abundance in beds and development of methods to increase abundance have been largely neglected. Occasionally, communities have asked scientists for advice about management of shellfish resources, especially when abundance, incomes and employment in shellfisheries are low. The usual advice the scientists give is that fewer shellfish should be taken from the beds by fishermen, to allow the beds to become repopulated with legal size shellfish and also to increase the size of the spawning stock. But, as mentioned, that advice is the opposite of what a community wants, because it translates into even lower employment and wealth. Reducing fishing effort is not a good answer to improving shellfisheries.

In shellfishing communities, a common complaint about research is that irrelevance, i.e., shellfish scientists working on problems that have little to do with the immediate problems of low shellfish production. Local people expect a scientist to cure" their economic problems in the way that local medical doctors cure" their health problems. The most important aspect of a fisherman's life is his and his family's health. The local medical doctors are expected to take care of illnesses and they do if they can.

The second most important aspect is the economics of his working life, which is dependent upon shellfish abundance and the market. A shellfishing community anticipates that a scientist will cure" its economic problems by making shellfish more abundant and handling related production problems. Scientists are not trained to do that, however, and often are so aloof from the fishery and community that they are not cognizant of local needs and desires. When a scientist has failed to increase abundance after a few years of making scientific studies of the local shellfish, the community believes that he has failed in his assignment and "hasn't done anything."

Edwards (1981) described the situation as follows: "Every scientist wishes peer respect and each wishes to survive in his chosen field or work. For the 'strictsense' or 'hard-core' research scientist, the goal is to move the frontier of science ahead. Introducing this level of scientific interaction into the process of making social judgment frequently only seems to decrease the probability of arriving at a reasonable decision for that time and place. It generally frustrates the nonscientist and enhances the impression that scientists are arrogant and not really responsive to the needs of society. . "

Note: Nevertheless, a shellfish production specialist can profit considerably from consulting with shellfish scientists and their literature when he seeks answers to biological and ecological questions.


I am grateful to Robert N. Reid, Linda L. Stehlik, Frank W. Steimle, and Anne L. Studholme of the Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, N.J., of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Center; Bonnie J. McCay of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.; James B. Jenkins and Allan Morrison of Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for reading the manuscript and offering valuable comments; and to Michele Cox for preparing the figures.

Literature Cited Abraham, B. J., and P. L. Dillon. 1986. Species

profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements

of coastal fisheries and invertebrates

(Mid-Atlantic)-Softshell clam. Biol. Rep.

82(11.68), 18 p. Natl. Wetlands Res. Cent.,

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., 1010 Gause Boulevard,

Slidell, La. Andrews, J. D., D. S. Haven, and D. B. Quayle.

1959. Freshwater kill of oysters (Crassostrea

virginica) in James River, Virginica. 1958.

Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 49:29-49.

and J. L. Wood. 1967. Oyster mortality

studies in Virginia. VI. Histology and

distribution of Minchinia nelsoni a pathogen

of oysters, in Virginia. Chesapeake Sci. 8:1-3. Anonymous. 1946-79. Annual landings summaries

[for the years 1946-791. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA, Nad. Mar. Fish. Serv. and U.S.

Dep. Inter., Fish. Wildl. Serv. reports, var.

years and pagin. Arve, J. 1960. Preliminary report on attracting

fish by oyster-shell plantings in Chincoteague

Bay, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 1:58-65. Belding, D. L. 1910. A report upon the scallop

fishery of Massachusetts, including an account

of the natural history of the common scallop.

Commonw. Mass., Boston, 150 p.

1912. A report upon the quohog and

oyster fisheries of Massachusetts, including life

history, growth and cultivation of the quahog.

Commonw. Mass., Boston, 134 p.

1930. The soft-shelled clam fishery

of Massachusetts. Commonw. Mass., Mar.

Fish. Ser. 1, 65 p. Breese, W. P., and R. E. Malouf. 1975. Hatchery

manual for the Pacific oyster. Oreg. State Univ.

Sea Grant Coll. Program Publ. ORESU-H - 75-002, 22 Callaghan, D. W., and R. A. Comerford. 1978.

The economic impact of commercial fishing in

the state of Rhode Island-1975. Univ. R.I.

Tech. Rep. 65, May 1978. Carriker, M. R. 1951. Ecological observations

on the distribution of oyster larvae in New

Jersey estuaries. Ecol. Monogr. 21:19-38. Castagna, M. 1970. Field experiments testing the

use of aggregate covers to prom juvenile clams.

Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 60:2 Abstr.).

and J. N. Kraeuter, 1977. Mercena - ria culture using stone aggregate for predator

protection. Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 67:


and 1981. Manual for

growing the hard clam Mercenaria. VIMS

Spec. Rep. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engr. 249,

110 p. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point. Chambers, R., and B. W. E. Wickremanayake.

1977. Agricultural extension: Myth, reality and

challenge. In B. H. Farmer (editor), Green

revolution, p. 155-167. Westview Press,

Boulder, Colo.

and S. Maxwell. 1981. Practical implications.

In R. Chambers, R. Longhurst, and

A. Pacey (editors), Seasonal dimensions to rural

poverty, p. 226-240. Frances Pinter (Publ.)

Ltd., Lond. Churchill, E. P., Jr. 1920. The oyster and the oyster industry of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In Rep. U.S. Bur. Fish. Comm., Fish. 1919, 1919, App. 8 Doc 890, 51 p. Collins, JW 1899 Notes on the oyster fishery of Connecticut. Bull. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. 9:461-497. Dasmann, R. F. 1981. Wildlife biology. 2nd ed. John Wfley & Sons, Inc., N.Y., 212 p. Dow, R. L., and D. E. Wallace. 1950. The story of the Maine clam (Mya arenaria). Maine Dep. Sea Shore Fish., Augusta, 27 p. Dupuy, J. L., N. T. Windsor, and C. E. Sutton. 1977. Manual for the design and operation of an oyster seed hatchery for the Amencan oyster Crassostrea virginica. VIMS Spec. Rep. Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engr. 142, 104 p. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point. Edwards, R. L. 1981. The excluded middle-or need for a new paradigm. Fisheries 26(4): 12-16. Flagg, P. J., and R. E. Malouf. 1983. Experimental plantings of juveniles of the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne) in the waters of Long Island, New York. J. Shellfish Res. 3(l):19-27. Gable, R. W., and J. F. Springer. 1976. Administering agricultural development in Asia. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., 398 p. Galbraith, J. K. 1979. The nature of mass poverty. Harv. Univ. Press, Camb., Mass., 150 p. Gaitsoff, P. S. 1964. The American oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Fish. Bull. Fish Wildl. Serv. 64:1-480. Garst. J. 1963. No need for hunger. Random House, N.Y., 182 p. Glude, J. B. 1955. The effects of temperature and predators on the abundance of the soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria, in New England. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 84:13-26. Green, E. C. 1987. The integration of modem and traditional health sectors in Swaziland. In R. M. Wulff and S. J. Fiske (editors), Anthropological praxis translating knowledge into practice, p. 87-97. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. Gunter, G. 1952. Historical changes in the Mississippi River and the adjacent marine environment. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. (Univ. Tex.) 2(2): 119-140.

1953. The relationship of the Bonnet Carre Spillway to oyster beds in Mississippi Sound and the "Louisiana Marsh" with a report on the 1950 openings. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. (Univ. Tex.) 3(l):21-70.

1975. Mariculture in Mississippi; oyster management by the state. In B. N. Irby and D. McCaughan (editors), Guide to the marine Resources of Mississippi, p. 104-114. Fox Printing Co., Hattiesburg, Miss. Hall, A. 1894. Notes on the oyster industry of New Jersey. In Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. Pt. XVM, Wash., D.C., p. 463-528. Hanks, R. W. 1963. The soft-shell clam. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl. Serv., Bur. Commer. Fish., Circ. 162:1-6. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248. Haskin, H. H. 1964. The distribution of oyster larvae. Proc. Symp. Exper. Mar. Ecol. Occas. Publ. 2, p. 76-80. Grad. School Oceanogr., Univ. R.I.

, L. A. Stauber, and J. G. Mackin. 1966. Minchinia nelsoni n. sp. (Haplosporida, Haplosporidiidae); causative agent of the Delaware Bay oyster epizootic. Science 153:1414-6. Ingersoll, E. 1881. The oyster-industry. In G. B. Goode (editor), The history and present condition of the fishery industries, 251 p. U.S.

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

1887. The clam industry. In G. B.

Goode (editor), The fisheries and fishing industries

of the United States. Vol. 2, pt. 20,

The oyster, scallop, clam, mussel, and abalone

industries, p. 581-615. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish.,

Wash., D.C. Jones, G., and B. Jones. 1983. Methods for setting

hatchery produced oyster larvae. Minist.

Environ., Prov. B.C., Inf. Rep. 4, 94 p. Kirby-Smith, W. W. 1970. Growth of the scallops,

Argopecten irradians concentritus (Say)

and Argopecten gibbus (Linne), as influenced

by food and temperature. Ph.D. thesis, Duke

Univ., Durham, N.C., 139 p. Kunkle, D. E. 1957. The vertical distribution of

oyster larvae in Delaware Bay. Proc. Nati.

Shellfish. Assoc. 48:90-91 (Abstr.). Landers, W. S. 1954. Notes on the predation of

the hard clam, Venus mercenaria, by the mud

crab, Neopanope texana. Ecology 35(3):422. Lilienthal, D. E. 1967. Management: A humanist

art. Columbia Univ. Press, N.Y., 67 p. Loosanoff, V. L. 1966. Time and intensity of set. - ting of the oyster, Crassostrea virginica, in

Long Island Sound. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole)


and H. C. Davis. 1963. Rearing of

bivalve mollusks, Adv. Mar. Biol. Acad. Press,

Inc., Lond., 1:1-136. Lyles, C. H. 1969. Historical catch statistics (shellah). U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish. Wildl. Serv.,

Curr. Fish. Stat. 5007, 116 p. MacKenzie, C. L., Jr. 1970. Oyster culture in

Long Island Sound 1966-69. Commer. Fish.

Rev. 32(l):27-40.

1975. Development of a program to

rehabihtate the oyster industry of Prince Edward

Island. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(3):21-35.

1977a. Use of quicklime to increase

oyster seed production. Aquaculture 10:45-5 1.

1977b. Development of an aquaculture

program for rehabilitation of damaged

oyster reefs in Mississippi. Mar. Fish. Rev.


1977c. Predation on hard clam

(Mercenaria mercenaria) populations. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 106(6):530-537.

1977d. Sea anemone predation on

larval oysters in Chesapeake Bay (Maryland).

Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 67:113-117.

1979. Management for increasing

clam abundance. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41(10):10-22.

1981. Biotic potential and environmental

resistance in the American oyster (Crassostrea

virginica) in Long Island Sound. Aquaculture


, D. J. Radosh, and R. N. Reid. 1985.

Densities, growth, and mortalities of juveniles

of the surf clam (Spisula solidissima) Diuwyn)

in the New York Bight. J. Shellfish Res. 5(2):

81-84. Mahler, H. 1980. People. Sci. Am. 243(3):66-67. Manning, J. H. 1957. The soft-shell clam industry

and its effects on tidewater resources. Md.

Dep. Res. Ed., Chesapeake Biol. Lab., Re - soure. Study Rep. 11, 25 p.

and H. T. Pfitzemneyer. 1958. The

Maryland soft shell clam industry: Its potentials

and problems. Proc. Nati. Shellfish. Assoc.

48:110-114. Marshall, N. 1947. An abundance of bay scallops

in the absence of eelgrass. Ecology 28(3):


1960. Studies of the Niantic River,

Connecticut with special reference to the bay

scallop, Aequipecten irradians. Limnol. Oceanogr.

5(l):86-105. McHugh, J. L. 1972. Marine fisheries of New

York state. Fish. Bull. 70(3):585-610. Mellor, J. W. 1966. The economics of agricultural

growth. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca,

N.Y., 402 p. Moore, H. F. 1897. Oysters and methods of

oyster-culture. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish.,

p. 263-340. Muus, K. 1973. Settling, growth and mortality

of young bivalves in the Oresund. Ophelia

12:79-116. Nelson, J. 1912. Report of the Biological Department

of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment

Station for the year 191 1. Rutgers Univ. Paddock, W., and P. Piddock. 1964. Hungry nations.

Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 344 p. Parker, P. L., and T. F. King. 1987. Intercultural

mediation at Truk International Airport.

In R. M. Wulff and S. J. Fiske (editors), Anthropological

praxis translating knowledge into

practice, p. 160-173. Westview Press, Boulder,

Colo. Preister, K. 1987. Issue-centered social assessment.

In R. M. Wulff and S. J. Fiske (editors),

Anthropological praxis translating knowledge

into practice, p. 39-55. Westview Press,

Boulder, Colo. Reisman, A., and C. A. dekluyver. 1975. Strategies

for implementing systems studies. In

R. L. Schultz and D. E. Slevin (editors), Implementing

operations research/management

science, p. 291-309. Elsevier Publ. Co., Inc.

N.Y. Rolfs, D. H. 1971. Under sail, the dredgeboats

of Delaware Bay. Wheaton Hist. Assoc., Millville,

N.J., 157 p. Sayville, A. H. 1965. Extension in rural commu - nities. Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y., 148 p. Schofield, S. 1979. Development and the problems

of village nutrition. Allanheld, Osmun

Montclair. Montclair, N.J., 174 p. Schultz, T. W. 1976. Transforming traditional

agriculture. Amo Press, Inc., N.Y., 212 p.

(Reprint of 1964 ed. publ. by Yale Univ. Press.) Shaw, W. N., and F. Hammons. 1974. The present

state of the soft-shell clam in Maryland.

Proc. Natl. Shellfish. Assoc. 64:38-44. Sindermann, C. J. 1968. Oyster mortalities, with

particular reference to Chesapeake Bay and the

Atlantic coast of North America. U.S. Dep.

Inter., Fish. Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.,

Fish. 569:1-10.

1976. Oyster mortalities and their

control. Tech. Rep., FAO Tech. Conf. Aquacult.,

Kyoto, Jpn., 25 p.

and A. Rosenfield. 1967. Principal

diseases of commercially important bivalve

mollusca and crustacea. Fish. Bull. 66:335-385. Smith, 0. R., and E. Chin. 1953. The effects of

predation on soft clams, Mya arenaria. Natl.

Shellfish. Assoc., Convention Address 1951:


, J. P. Baptist, and E. Chin. 1955.

Experimental farming of the soft-shell clam,

Mya arenaria, in Massachusetts, 1949-1953.

Commer. Fish. Rev. 17(6):I-16. Stamp, E. 1977. Voluntary action. In E. Stamp

(editor), Growing out of poverty, p. 34-38. Oxford

Univ. Press, Oxford, Engl. Stanley, J. G. 1985. Species profiles: Life histories

and environmental requirements of coastal

fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic)-hard

clam. Biol. Rep. 82 11.41), 24 p. Nad. Wetlands

Res. Cent., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., 1010

Gause Boulevard, Slidell, La.

and Sellers. 1986. Species profiles:

Life histories and environmental requirements

of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlan - tic)-American oyster. Biol. Rep. 82 (11.65),

25 p. Natl. Wetlands Res. Cent., U.S. Fish

Wildl. Serv., 1010 Gause Boulevard, Slidell,

La. Stevens, R. D. 1977. Tradition and dynamics in

small-farm agriculture. Iowa State Univ. Press,

Ames, 266 p. Stevenson, C. H. 1894. The oyster industry of

Maryland. Bull. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. 12:

203-297. Sweet, G. 1941. Oyster conservation in Connecticut:

Past and present. Geogr. Rev. 21(4):

591-608. Thayer, G. W., and H. H. Stuart. 1974. The bay

scallop makes its home of seagrass. Mar. Fish.

Rev. 36(7):27-30. Timmer, T. J. 1982. The human side of agriculture.

Vantage Press, N.Y., 223 p. Turner, A. C. 1987. Activating community participation

in a southern Paiute Reservation

development program. In R. M. Wulff and S. J.

Fiske (editors), Anthropological praxis translating

knowledge into practice p. 118-132.

Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. Turner, H. J., Jr. 1949. The soft-shell clam industry

of the east coast of the United States.

Appendix I. Report of Investigations of the

propagation of the soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria.

Woods Hole Oceanogr. inst., Collect. repr.

1948. Contrib. 462, p. 11-42.

1950. Third report on investigations

of methods of improving the shellfish resources

of Massachusetts. I. Investigations on the softshell

clam, Mya arenaria. Dep. Conserv., Div.

Mar. Fish., Commonw. Mass., Boston, p.


1953. A review of the biology of

some commercial molluscs of the east coast of

North America. In Sixth report on investigations

of the shellfisheries of Massachusetts, p.

39-74. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. Mar. Fish.,

Commonw. Mass., Boston.

, J. C. Ayers, and C. L. Wheeler.

1949. The horseshoe crab and the boring snail

as factors limiting the abundance of the softshell

clam. Appendix 2. Report on investigations

of the soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria.

Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst., Collect. repr.

1948. Contrib. 462, p. 47-62. Walford, L. A. 1945. Fishery resources of the

United States. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish Wildl.

Serv., 135 p. Wallace, D. H. 1971. The biological effects of

estuaries on shellfish of the Middle Atlantic.

In P. A. Douglas and R. H. Stroud (editors),

a symposium on the biological significance of

estuaries, p. 76-85. Sport Fish Inst., Wash.,

D. C. Welch, W. R. 1969. Changes in abundance of the

green crab, Carcinus maenas (L.), in relation

to recent temperature changes. Fish. Bull.

67(2):337-345. Whitfield, W. K., Jr. 1973. Construction and

rehabilitation of commercial oyster reefs in

Florida from 1949 through 1971 with emphasis

on economic impact in Franklin County. Fla.

Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar. Resour. Lab., Spec.

Sci. Rep. 38, 42 p. Wood, L., and W. J. Hargis, Jr. 197 1. Transport

of bivalve larvae in a tidal estuary. In D. J.

Crisp (editor), Fourth European Marine Biology

Symposium, Bangor, Wales, 1969, p.

29-44. Camb. Univ. Press, U.K. Wortman, S., and R. W. Cummings, Jr. 1978.

To feed this world. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press,

Baltimore, 440 p. Zacharie, F. C. 1897. Louisiana oyster industry.

Bull. U.S. Comm. Fish Fish. 17:297-304.
COPYRIGHT 1989 U.S. Department of Commerce
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1989 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:MacKenzie, Clyde L., Jr.
Publication:Marine Fisheries Review
Date:Jun 22, 1989
Previous Article:Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environmental Management.
Next Article:Knauss confirmed as Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Related Articles
In memoriam: Melbourne Romaine Carriker 1915-2007.
Life in extreme environments: a tribute to Melbourne R. Carriker, gentleman malacologist.
Honored life member: George R. Abbe.
Ecological indicators for coastal and estuarine environmental assessment; a users guide.
History of molluscan fishery regulations and the shellfish officer service in Massachusetts.
Honored Life Member: Roger L. Mann.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters