li'4 'r/iirli/sl.rlli Am, mil Mrcthif/ 



tliaii a tremendous decline in the actual reproduction of the loh- 

 ster. In other words, bv destroying the largest lobsters, we have 

 reduced the productive capacity of the rest to that extent, viz: 

 in the ratio of 52 to 32. 



Xow, in a similar way. — and 1 do not care to |)nt too mueb. 

 stress upon this aspect of it, although 1 cannot put too much on 

 the actual decline which I have indicated, as to the ratio between 

 the egg-bearing lobsters and the non-egg-bearing lobsters — thi- 

 catch per pot in 1890 was 82, wdiereas in 190(i. it had shrunk to 

 28 on the average. Now, of course, it might be said that more 

 pots would naturally mean a decrease in the number, so that 

 there might possibly be some misconception in regard lo that : 

 but it is an actual condition that in order to maintain the cateli. 

 you have got to put out more pots. 



Xow, our fishing area in Massachusetts is somewhat limite<l. 

 We have not a great range of seacoast, nor the peculiarly favor- 

 al)le conditions that maintain in Xova Scotia. On the other 

 hand, the fishing is peculiar in the fact that on the Massachu- 

 setts coast, we get a definite migration. They come into the har- 

 l)ors in July in very large numbers to shed. On tlie 13th day of 

 July, there was a very marked immigration in the Boston har- 

 bor, particularly of lobsters, apparently coming in there for the 

 purpose of shedding; they lie up there in the soft mud. 



Xow, the most important question, it seems to me. is, what 

 is the cause of tliis decline? I have a little diagram here, un- 

 fortunately scarcely large enough to be seen all over the room — 

 based upon oui' observations during the past two years, upon 

 approximately (i,000 egg-bearing lobsters to a pot, and care- 

 fully measured — 59,933 is the exact number. On this end of 

 the line, we have the number of lobsters which were found with 

 eo-o-s. The smallest one we found was seven and three-quarters 



