BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 423 



migrations from tliem. This division into distinct schools, and defined 

 geograx^hical regions, while an arbitrary one, not strictly existing in 

 nature, serves to simplify tlie argument which we desire to make, and 

 which is to tliis eflect : That continued overfishing in any one region 

 will tend to eventually reduce the stock of lobsters in that region, with- 

 out the hope of its being replenished by early accessions from neighbor- 

 ing regions, and that the almost total depletion of that region is, there- 

 fore, quite within the bounds of possibility. This is not the case with 

 such truly migratory fishes as the mackerel, menhaden, and herring, 

 and the laws which govern the movements of the latter cannot be applied 

 to the lobster. In support of this proposition there are several well- 

 aulhenticated instances of the almost entire extinction of lobsters in 

 what were formerly regarded as exceedingly rich regions, and since 

 lobster fishing has been more or less abandoned in those regions, the 

 abundance of lobsters has never perceptibly increased. 



Another strong jiroof of the continued decrease in abundance of lob- 

 sters has been the gradual decrease in the average size of those brought 

 to market. It is not rational to suppose that lobsters grow less rapidly 

 now than in former years, or have in any way become dwarfed in size. 

 On the contrary, it has been overfishing, restricted by legislation which 

 protects the young, and influenced by the higher prices paid for the 

 larger individuals in the fish markets which has caused the greater dim- 

 inution in the supply of large lobsters. A strict observance of existing 

 laws may prevent the total extinction of the species, but it cannot main- 

 tain the average size of those taken for market much, if any, above the 

 limit prescribed by those laws. This limit in nearly every instance is, 

 moreover, about the size of the young female just beginning to spawn, 

 and, therefore, with absolutely no protection for the spawning female, 

 excepting in the close season, during which there is but little spawning, 

 it is doubtful whether existing legislation is of much avail. A careful 

 consideration of all the facts available certainly indicates that a marked 

 decrease in the size of lobsters is proof of an equally great, if not a 

 greater, diminution in the supjily. 



It is not possible within the scope of this short paper to strengthen 

 our conclusions with a long array of facts, but the brief statement of 

 some of our evidence must here suffice. 



One of the best illustrations of the great decrease in the abundance 

 of lobsters is furnished by the once famous fishing grounds of Cape 

 Cod. The lobster fishery was first started in this region about the year 

 1800, by Connecticut lobstvrmen, who carried nearly their entire catch 

 to Ase^ York city. As early as 1812, the citizens of Proviucetown began 

 to entertain fears that unless some restrictions were placed upon the 

 fishery, the extermination of the species would be speedily effected. 

 Protective laws were at once passed by the legislature of Massachusetts, 

 and from that time to the present they have been continued in one form 

 or another, but all without avail unless it may have been to somewhat 



