372 BULLETIN OP THE BUREAU OE FISHERIES. 



This fundamental error of destroying the adult lobster was first clearly pointed out 

 in 1902 by Dr. George W. Field, chairman of the Commissioners on Fisheries and Game 

 in Massachusetts, who in various reports since has ably advocated a sounder policy, 

 based both on science and common sense, as will appear later in this chapter. 



At first sight this question seems to be about as broad as long and suggests the 

 problem of how to eat your bread and butter and save enough for another meal when 

 the demands of hunger are strong. While we are dependent on the adult lobsters to 

 yield a continuous supply of eggs, and let us say we will reserve them for that purpose, 

 we also depend upon a continuous supply of the young to yield the adults; moreover, 

 the young at 6 inches long are many thousand fold more useful to the fishery than 

 the eggs. 



In dealing with such questions comparisons are often made with the flocks or herds 

 of domesticated animals, and are almost certain to be misleading. The shepherd 

 knows his flock and its resources; every member of it is numbered and under his control, 

 and he is able to select the young or the old for slaughter, as his interest or that of his 

 flock may demand. Among wild animals the conditions are entirely changed, and 

 especially in those that are aquatic like the lobster, which lives at the bottom of the 

 sea and is seldom seen, except when caught and brought up in a trap. We can select 

 or reject among the captured only and have no definite knowledge of the proportion 

 of young to the adults, of the various sizes, or of their distribution at any given time. 

 If the wild flock could be brought under our knowledge and control, the comparison 

 sought would be of real value. 



We might form a comparison, however, which would be parallel in every respect 

 by assuming that the animals of a domestic herd became more valuable for breeding 

 purposes with each added year of life. If instead of producing i young at each repro- 

 ductive period, they were to give birth to 2 in the second year, 4 in the third, 8 in the 

 fourth, and so on for a considerable time, would the ranchman sacrifice his old or his 

 young breeders for the market ? 



In dealing with the problem we are reminded of the proceedings of a fisheries com- 

 mittee in Great Britain, quoted by Mr. Allen (2), and the answers of a stubborn witness 

 on the proper legal size limit of crabs: "If they do not breed till they are much larger 

 than 4X inches, do you not by killing all the crabs that are under the breeding size, stop 

 the supply of crabs from those fish?" This fisherman thought not. "Then," said his 

 questioner, "how is the supply to be kept up if you kill the crab before sufiicient time 

 is allowed for it to spawn once?" The witness was obdurate, and answered that they 

 did not kill them all. "Then," said another member, "suppose all girls are killed when 

 they are twelve years of age; there would be no young women or children. I think 

 you understand that, and if young crabs under the age at which they can spawn be 

 killed, it follows that there can be no crabs from them." "But crabs," replied the 

 fisherman, "breed a deal different from what girls do; crabs when they spawn, spawn 

 many thousand at a time. " 



While it is essential to recognize that the older the female lobster the more useful 

 as an egg producer she becomes, we must also remember that nature kiUs far more of 



