earlier and therefore lasted longer in New York, probably 

 because the industry was already established. Landings 

 in both states dropped substantially in 1958. This was 

 caused by a decline in abundance of the living resource, 

 but catches rose again as the strongly dominant year 

 class of menhaden hatched in 1958 (Henry 1971) reached 

 an age at which it was most available to the fishery in the 

 New York Bight area. The two peaks and the low point of 

 landings in this period of greatest prosperity of the men- 

 haden industry came in the same years, the peaks in 

 1956-57 and 1962 and the low in 1958, but maximum land- 

 ings in New Jersey were recorded in 1956 and in New 

 York in 1962. 



The decline of the menhaden fishery in the New York 

 Bight area (McHugh 1972a) was caused principally by 

 intensive fishing in Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia purse- 

 seine fishery, which once took mostly 2- and 3-yr-olds, by 

 the late 1960s was taking mostly fish 1 and 2 yr of age, 

 and few survived to migrate north at greater ages as 

 many menhaden formerly did. The recent increase in 

 menhaden catches north of Chesapeake Bay is reflected 

 in New Jersey landings (Fig. 3), which have increased 

 more than fourfold from the low point in 1970. The last 

 menhaden factory in New York has not operated since 

 1969, and recent large catches in Long Island Sound were 

 delivered to the single remaining New Jersey factory at 

 Port Monmouth, or to New England, for processing. 



At one time it was believed that the stocks of men- 

 haden in the New York Bight area were distinct from 

 those exploited in Chespeake Bay (June 1958; Suther- 

 land 1963). If this is so, then the recent sharp increase in 

 landings in the New York Bight area might have been 

 made possible by release of energy formerly utilized by 

 the southern stock when it was less heavily exploited and 

 thus could migrate into the Bight in substantial num- 

 bers. Recently, however, it has been concluded that At- 

 lantic menhaden from Florida to New England belong to 

 a single population (Dryfoos et al. 1973). This means that 

 the recent local increase in abundance must have been 

 related to the strong 1969 year class. Fishing effort drop- 

 ped by 54^^ during the period of declining abundance of 

 menhaden (Schaaf 1975), and this probably allowed in- 

 creasing numbers of fish to survive to reach northern 

 waters. The temporary increase in abundance, however, 

 stimulated more intensive fishing. The prospect for the 

 menhaden fishery is not bright, although Boone (1976) 

 has reported that abundance of young menhaden in 

 Maryland waters in 1975 was the second highest on 

 record. 



No significant harvest of menhaden has been reported 

 by other nations fishing in the area. Grosslein et al. 

 (1973)' have pointed out that the only serious possibility 

 of major foreign catches would be in winter when the 

 resource is concentrated off the Carolinas. They recom- 



mended that the area be closed to foreign fishing at that 

 time. 



Industrial Trawl Fishery 



In New York the rapid decline of menhaden catches 

 after 1962 stimulated a search for alternate resources, 

 and for a few years (1962-66) a substantial industrial 

 trawl fishery developed (McHugh 1972a). At its peak in 

 1964 this fishery produced about 53,500 metric tons of 

 unsorted and unidentified industrial fishes, which was 

 almost as large as the greatest annual postwar landing of 

 menhaden in New York, recorded in 1962. This catch un- 

 doubtedly included substantial quantities of food fishes, 

 although red hake, llrophycis chuss (Walbaum), 

 probably was the major species by weight (Edwards and 

 Lux 1958). 



In New Jersey a similar industrial trawl fishery 

 developed (Fig. 4), beginning in 1964 and ending in 1968, 

 but landings were relatively small. The maximum 

 reported catch was about 6,613 metric tons in 1966. The 

 species composition of these landings has not been 

 reported in detail (LoVerde 1969), but the greatest part 

 of the industrial trawl catch (Table 2)' was searobins, 

 Prionotus carolinus (Linnaeus) and P. evolans (Lin- 

 naeus). These landings were not identified by species. 

 Only 86 metric tons of searobins were reported as such in 

 1966 (Table 2). 



Horseshoe Crab 



The horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus (Linnaeus), 

 industry at its recorded peak in 1929 produced about 

 2,600 metric tons of industrial raw material. Ljindings of 

 horseshoe crab (or king crab, as it was called in early 

 statistical publications) in New York were very small 

 and infrequent, and minor catches were recorded only for 

 1887, 1888, and 1921. With this exception, horseshoe crab 

 has been a unique commercial fishery resource of New 

 Jersey and Delaware. The geographic range of the species 

 is from Maine to Yucatan. 



In New Jersey considerable quantities of horseshoe 

 crab once were landed (Fig. 4). Cook (1857— in Shuster 

 1957) reported "immense numbers" taken in Delaware 

 Bay for fertilizer. Shuster (1957) concluded that exten- 

 sive use for fertilizer had much reduced the abundance of 

 these animals. Maximum landings reported in the State 

 of Delaware were 476 metric tons in 1892. Substantial 

 landings were reported in New Jersey until the early 

 1940s. The subsequent decline of the fishery was caused 

 mainly by forced closure of processing plants through 

 public reactions to offensive odors (Eugene LoVerde 

 pers. commun.). Shuster (1960) said that meal produced 

 from horseshoe crabs has a protein content of 46%. 

 Limulus also has been used as bait for eels and as food for 

 poultry and hogs. The horseshoe crab is an estuarine 



Grosslein. M. D.. E. G. Heyerdahl. and H. Stern. Jr. 1973. .Status of 

 the international fisheries off the middle Atlantic coast. Northeast 

 Fish. Cent.. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Lab. Ref. No. 7.'i-4. 117 p. |A 

 technical reference document prepared for the bilateral negotiations of 

 USA with USSR and Poland.] 



"In this, and most other tables, foreign catches are given only for those 

 ICNAF statistical areas in which fishing might be expected to affect the 

 domestic coastal fisheries of New York Bight (Fig. U. 



