156 FISH-CULTURAL ASSOCIATION. 
from $100,000 to $300,000 per annum. Evidently the expendi- 
ture of such sums for the benefit of a portion of the population 
is out of the question, even was it necessary. But it is not nec- 
essary. Oyster-cultivation can be carried on by individuals just 
as well as the cultivation of potatoes or rearing of live stock. 
That this is not understood is the principal difficulty met by 
those who desire the advancement of the fishery, and the first 
condition I would make with a fish-culturist in discussing this 
question, is that he should dismiss from his mind all impres- 
sions he may have which are based upon the supposed analogy 
between oyster and fish-culture. It is true that we can impreg- 
nate the eggs of an oyster in virtually the same way we impreg- 
nate the eggs of a fish. It istrue we can keep the young oysters 
alive for some time in practically the same manner it is accom- 
plished with a fish. But there the similarity ends. 
Whoever may hatch the fish egg, the general public only can 
reap the benefit. Fish are migratory. Fisheries cannot be pre- 
served. But the oyster is not migratory. It is an animal of 
domestic instincts and strong local attachments. Where it is 
placed it stays. Consequently, its cultivation is eminently a 
proper field for the employment of individual exertion. I 
would not be understood to mean by the term “cultivation” in 
this relation, the artificial impregnation of the eggs. That has 
not yet been made of practicalimportance. I refer, principally, 
to the cultivation of oyster ground rather than oysters. To the 
improvement of areas and beds rather than of stock. To in- 
creasing the facilities for natural expansion, rather than the ex- 
ercise of natural function. 
It is quite possible to take a totally barren tract of bottom 
and seed it with mature oysters, fertilize it with shells, and ina 
few years reap from itan abundant crop. But evidently no one 
will undertake this trouble or expense unless he is reasonably 
certain of gathering the harvest. Equally evident is it that the 
State cannot sow the ground for the fishermen. Naturally, but 
one conclusion can be reached. The harvest must be made sure 
to the individual, and it can only be made sure by the possession 
of indefeasible proprietary rights. How soon the industry re- 
vives under such conditions is proved by the history of every 
