176 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



Owing to its relative abundance in Texas coastal waters and its low market 

 value, the drum has not been protected by any special legislative measures. The 

 fact that sport fishermen and commercial hook-and-line fishermen seldom catch this 

 species has caused but little interest to be shown in a rational system of conservation 

 of the fishery. The legal closure in recent years of many of the smaller bays, such 

 as Oso and Nueces, in the vicinity of Corpus Christi has afforded the drum con- 

 siderable protection because the species spends a greater part of its life in the more 

 shallow, muddy bays and lagoons than elsewhere. At present, however, this 

 attempt at conservation is partly nullified by certain fishing practices that appear to 

 be unduly destructive in proportion to the actual value of the catch. 



From late January to May a fishery is operated in Corpus Christi Bay and 

 northern Laguna Madre for the nearly ripe drum that leave their favorite feeding ^ 

 grounds (such as Oso and Nueces Bay and southern Laguna Madre) for the spawn- 

 ing grounds in the Gulf of Mexico. This fishery is conducted largely by means of 

 anchored gill nets with a large mesh (4 to 5 inches square) customarily set as near 

 the entrances into Nueces and Oso Bays (in Corpus Christi Bay) and the deeper 

 channels in northern Laguna Madre as is legally possible. The larger adult drum 

 are secured in abundance, the flesh selling at wholesale at 10 cents a pound and the 

 female roes (weighing about 2 pounds apiece) being supplied to the restaurant trade 

 at 25 cents a pound. The fact that these gill nets secure the drum when they are 

 preparing to spawn and are seeking their way out of restricted areas, together with 

 the fact that most of the drum population congregate in a few small bays and lagoons 

 and are forced to leave them through narrow exits in order to spawn, brings up a 

 serious question as to the desirability in permitting this type of fishery to exist. 



On the basis of the relatively slight food value of these large adult drum and the 

 fact that such fish must be of considerable value in replenishing the drum stock, it 

 would seem that their ultimate worth as spawners far surpasses their value as food. 

 The writer, in seeking a way to increase the natural supply of black drum in Texas 

 waters, recommends that suitable protection be afforded to the larger sizes of drum 

 at all times of the year. 



The establishment of a maximum legal size limit which operates favorably in the 

 case of the redfish, would appear to be a logical way of protecting these larger drum 

 against possible depletion. Usually all drum above 20 inches in total length (50 centi- 

 meters) are released from the drag seines because of the unwillingness of the fish dealers 

 to handle the larger, less profitable sizes. The adoption of a maximum size limit at 20 

 inches (50 centimeters) would work little hardship to the fishing industry (in fact, it 

 would be a boon to many dealers now forced to accept the nigh worthless large drum) 

 and unquestionably would serve to increase the proportion of spawning adults. Of 

 course, an end would be put to the wasteful gill-net fisheries at the mouths of Oso 

 and Nueces Bays. 



While no minimum legal size limit has been set for the drum, as has been done 

 for the redfish and spotted sea trout, it would appear advisable to place some restric- 

 tion upon the smallest size that might be marketed, since it is highly probable that 

 attempts will be made to market fish of such small size as to be nearly worthless as 

 food. A minimum size limit at 8 inches (20 centimeters) should not meet with any 

 serious objection, at least from the fish dealers who have the task of selling the fish. 



