gg§ U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



The second group appears as 2-year-old fish in eastern Long 

 Island, N. Y., after having spent their yearling summer in the 

 South. Many of these fish continue to return to this locality in suc- 

 ceeding years, but it is possible that the large squeteague occurring 

 in southern New England belong to this group. This eastern Long 

 Island group differs from the New Jersey-Avestern Long Island 

 group in that it provides larger catches in the spring and early 

 summer than in autumn, while in New Jersey the reverse is the 

 case. This suggests an explanation of the invasion of New York 

 and southern New England ^ by remarkable numbers of large 

 squeteague 30 years ago., All accounts agree that these large fish 

 were not preceded by exceptional numbers of small fish, and in 

 eastern Long Island, at least, it is known that they were present only 

 in late summer and autumn, the spring catches having been actually 

 smaller than those of the years preceding and following the run of 

 large fish. Hence, it appears that this phenomenon was the result 

 of a temporary extension of the range of the New Jersey-western 

 Long Island group. 



From the foregoing it is apparent that the problem of squeteague 

 conservation presents quite different aspects according to the point 

 of view from which it is examined. From the point of view of the 

 commercial fishermen and anglers of New York and New Jersey, 

 all fishing for squeteague south of DelaAvare Bay is disadvantageous. 

 From the point of view of southern fishermen, it is probable that 

 little or nothing is to be gained by protection of yearlings after 

 they have reached marketable size. For growth is so slow in south- 

 ern waters that it is very doubtful whether the growth of those 

 yearlings which remain in the South compensates for the losses from 

 natural mortality and from emigration to northern feeding grounds. 

 If the problem be considered from a national rather than from a 

 sectional point of view, it must be admitted that insufficient data 

 are available to permit a decision as to whether sufficient benefit 

 would result from curtailment of the southern catch of yearlings to 

 compensate for the resulting losses. 



The more important items of gain and loss can be listed but their 

 magnitude cannot be estimated closely at present. The principal 

 gain would be an increase in abundance of squeteague in New Jersey 

 and New York. Since these would be medium and large squeteague 

 which bring better prices than small sizes, the gain in value would 

 be even greater than the gain in pounds. Increased abundance of 

 the larger sizes which frequent the waters of northern New Jersey 

 and New York would improve angling conditions and the important 

 business of catering to anglers would be stimulated. Against these 

 gains must be set not only the loss to the southern fishery of the 

 squeteague protected there, but the losses due to curtailment of thei 

 catch ojp other species as well, for most squeteague are taken in 

 pound nets which also take considerable quantities of other species 

 not all of which appear to need protection. 



Even if it could be shown beyond doubt that the greatest good to 

 the greatest number could be accomplished by curtailment of south- 



Bfiigelow, H. B. and W. W. Welsh. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Bulletin, U. S. 

 Bureau of Fisheries, vol. 40, pt. 1, 1924 (1925). 



