42 



REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



The alewife catch in different waters with apparatus set especially 

 for these fishes is shown in the next table. The Potomac River is seen 

 to have the largest yield, closely followed by the Damariscotta, after 

 which come the Connecticut, Taunton, Sassafras, Delaware, Merrimac, 

 Elk, and Hudson. 



Table allowing by waters the number, weight, and value of the alewivea taken in the special 



alewife fisheries . 



Waters. 



State. 



No. 



Pounds. 



Value. 



Dennys River 



Mac bias River 



Penobscot River 



Medomak River 



St. George River 



Pemaquid River 



Damariscotta River 



Kennebec River 



Casco Bay 



Shores of Maine 



Newmarket River 



Exeter River 



Merrimac River 



Taunton River 



Ponds, small rivers, and creeks. 



Ponds and small rivers 



Connecticut River 



Shores of Long Island 



Hudson River 



Shores of New Jersey 



Delaware River 



Delaware Bay 



Indian River 



Chesapeake Bay and tributaries 



Bay shores 



Susquehanna River 



Elk River 



Chester River 



Choptank River 



Nanticoke River 



Wicomico River 



Pocomoke River 



Patuxent River 



Potomac River 



Rappahannock River 



York River and tributaries. . 

 James River and tributaries. 

 Sassafras River 



Total 



Albemarle Sound and tributaries. 

 Neuse River and tributaries 



Grand total. 



Maine 



do 



do 



do 



...do 



do 



do 



do 



....do 



do 



New Hampshire. 



do 



Massachusetts.. 



do 



do 



Rhode Island . . . 



Connecticut 



New Vork 



do 



New Jersey 



Pa. and Del 



Delaware 



do 



Maryland . . . 



do 



do 



do 



do 



....do 



do 



do 



..:.do 



Md. and Va . 



Virginia 



....do 



do 



Maryland. .. 



North Carolina. 

 ....do 



160, 500 

 91, 700 



606, 158 

 73, 800 



686, 000 



206, 000 



2, 472, 100 



90, 000 



452, 700 

 33, 000 

 46, 350 



433, 150 



945, 000 



1, 897, 478 

 4, 528, 211 

 3, 960, 920 



2, 084, 406 

 125, 070 

 770, 000 



3, 410, 640 



972, 000 



9,150 



550, 700 



1, 387, 816 

 125, 000 

 900, 000 

 185, 460 



18, 000 



112, 600 



40, 140 



7,180 



60, 500 



2, 713, 000 



33, 000 



236, 690 



217, 380 



1,221,000 



7, 257, 766 



1, 090, 000 

 8,200 



90, 280 



51, 581 



303, 079 



41, 512 



385, 804 



115,875 



1,390,612 



50, 625 



226, 575 



18, 562 



26, 088 



243, 646 



472, 500 



1, 067, 324 



2, 430, 450 



1, 584, 368 



742, 762 



50, 028 



308, 000 



1, 915, 572 



398, 500 



3,660 



220, 280 



555, 126 



50, 000 



360, 000 



74, 184 



7,200 



45, 010 



16, 056 



2, 872 



24, 200 



1,085,200 



13, 200 



94, 676 



86, 952 



488, 400 



2, 903, 106 



436, 000 

 3,280 



32, 960, 999 



15. 480, 069 



$470 



570 



2,971 



417 



3,014 



1,100 



9,811 



300 



1,220 



323 



270 



2,525 



4,200 



9,478 



21, 372 



23,611 



9,918 



1,462 



3,430 



8,170 



1,457 



35 



3,823 



4,549 



430 



1,413 



1,239 



134 



474 



182 



62 



159 



4,989 



143 



1,534 



1,036 



2,226 



18, 570 



2,994 

 68 



131, 609 



COMPARATIVE STATISTICS OF THE CATCH. 



Iii the following table the quantity and value of the alewife catch are 

 exhibited for three seasons separated by intervals of eight years. Some 

 of the States show a larger yield in 1 896 than in either 1888 or 1880, 

 and the total output in 1896 is considerably in excess of that for the 

 previous years. In the New England and Middle Atlantic States the 

 increase since 1880 was constant and marked, but in the South Atlantic 

 region there was a smaller catch in 1896 than in the earlier years. 

 Especially noteworthy changes were the increase in Maryland from 



