82 MARINE FISHERIES OF NORTH CAROLINA 



fish than it now does? Statistics of commercial production are not a reliable 

 indicator of abundance, since fishermen catch only the kinds and amounts 

 of fish that they can dispose of to best advantage and the number of fishermen 

 is also determined by the total magnitude of the economic opportunity. In the 

 statistics of North Carolina (if menhaden is excluded) there appears to be 

 no drift upward or downward in the total quantity or real value of food fish 

 or in the number of fishermen engaged in catching them. If there is any 

 tendency toward smaller individual sizes of finfish (an indicator of heavy 

 drain on the supply), no one seems to have observed it. No systematic studies 

 have been made on the catch per unit of effort, but there is no talk here, 

 either, of any change, and none has occurred, so far as we know.^ The only 

 measure we have of the amount of effort is in the statistics of production 

 units (numbers of boats, nets and other gear) reported in the Government 

 canvasses. 



While most of the potential increases of the State depend on the spontane- 

 ous bounty of nature, the oyster can be increased in abundance at will by 

 the now well developed art of cultivation, since the State has an abundance 

 of natural bottom in water of suitable quality and condition. Perhaps the 

 clam and scallop, two of the State's choice species, may also be artificially 

 cultivated or assisted. 



If we can reason from analogy with the other fishing regions of the country, 

 North Carolina could well produce much more fish generally than it now does 

 if the market demanded it, if the fishermen should take full advantage of 

 their opportunities, and if legislation were designed to encourage them to 

 do so. The New England, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast, and Alaska regions 

 have all fished more aggressively and produced more total fish as the human 

 population has increased, and as improved technical processes and better 

 marketing have stimulated demand. The Middle Atlantic and Chesapeake 

 regions failed to increase their yields of food fish over the years because of 

 special conditions (shad and oysters) and only the Great Lakes seem to have 

 reached the limit of their productivity (Part III, Appendix, Tables 48, 49, 

 and 50). The percentage composition of the total by species has continually 

 changed in all the regions as it has in North Carolina. There are no obvious 

 signs of shortage in the known fisheries of North Carohna, and there are large 

 expanses of offshore waters not yet explored. 



Up to now, the quantitative science of fisheries production has concerned 

 itself almost wholly with particular species separately, and has tacitly as- 

 sumed that the whole is the sum of the parts in the sense that if each species 

 of a regional fishery could be "managed," conserved, or increased, one by 



I. As Dr. Roelofs points out in his Summary and Recommendations concerning the finfishes, 

 the North Carolina fishermen believe that the last few years have witnessed a decrease ia the 

 abundance of finfish, but we have no quantitative data as a support for this belief at this time. 



