234 
BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHEBIES 
It is therefore clear that the taking of clams must be drastically reduced or the 
industry will vanish before the prohibitive cost of obtaining the few scattered 
remaining clams. If this occurs, it must be remembered that its restoration is a 
long process. The first generation would not be numerous enough to sustain a 
commercial fishery, and for all of them to spawn would require six years, although 
part of them spawn at four or five years. For the second generation to reach 
even the minimum size of 4i/o inches would require another six years. Thus no 
relief could be had before 12 years, and a material increase would of course 
require several years more. 
In the face of this situation it may prove that the present size limit is insiuffi- 
cient to maintain tlie beds. It is desirable that the clam industry be made a perma- 
nent one, and the present size limit should be given a fair trial before additional and 
more complicated regulations are imposed. Should this fail to reduce the pack to a 
level that the existing beds can support, other measures remain. The size limit 
might be increased to 5 inches. This would practically close some of the beds in 
which the average size has been greatlj'^ I'educed by intensive digging, and thus 
automatically afford protection where most needed. 
It has been claimed by some that any size limit would be unsatisfactory. First, 
the size of the clam could not be known before it is dug, and the thin shells of the 
undersized clams probably "n ould be broken by the digging operation and the clam 
eaten by gulls if left on the beach. Second, a size limit would be difficult of en- 
forcement. The writers have considered both of these arguments and fail to find 
that either is cogent. If the individual " digs " of the men are examined, it will be 
found that many consist entirely of large or at least legal-sized clams, showing that 
it is quite possible to avoid the small clams and still make good " digs," for* it will 
be found that these men usually have more clams than the average. The present 
regulation permits a small percentage of undersized clams, which would take care 
of those cases where small clams are accidently crushed in digging. Observation of 
many clams has shown that broken shells are repaired to a far greater extent than 
might be expected. From experience on every beach the writers feel sure that any 
person taking more than 1 per cent of undersized clams is either a new and totally 
inexperienced digger or does so by intention and not by accident. It requires no 
argument to show that, with the clams in the shell on the cannery floor for periods 
up to 24 hours, inspection of sizes would be easy. 
Another method would be to close certain districts for a year or a term of years. 
This would be more difficult of enforcement and might affect some canneries more 
than others, but it would be effective if the necessity arose. A closed season has been 
proposed on the assumption that it would reduce the pack. It is open to the objec- 
tion of discrimination, such a limitation of season falling more heavily upon the 
small local firms, at present operating over a long season, than upon the larger 
canneries, which now operate during a short season only. The same season, also, 
would not apply to all districts, and further investigation would be needed to regu- 
late this, which would result in confusion. It is possible that such a regulation 
would only result in more intensive fishing during a shorter season and would bring 
about no reduction in the total pack. 
