NATIONAL FISHERY CONGRESS. 
281 
become strong enough to withstand the mechanical effect of capture and culling, a 
distinct advance would be made in the administration of our natural reefs. The pro- 
longation of the close season for a period of six weeks or two months would, in a 
region of rapid growth, permit the shells to attain a strength sufficient to prevent 
crushing, and a size that would allow some of them to be culled from the marketable 
stock. Economic objections may be well offered to this proposition, for in many cases 
it would cut off the fisheries at a time when the financial inducements are large. It 
is a matter, however, worthy of consideration by those engaged in framing oyster 
laws; and I believe that in some localities a close season beginning, say, two months 
after the commencement of spawning and extending two mouths beyond its cessation 
will have a better result than an equal period adjusted to the spawning season only. 
Another plan would close the beds, each in rotation, for a term of years sufficient 
to allow them to recuperate from the effects of the fisheries. Doubtless this would be 
the most efficient type of close season, but it presents alternative difficulties in admin- 
istration. If the areas closed be large, those deriving their living therefrom must 
either travel long distances to prosecute their calling or temporarily abandon it; if, on 
the contrary, the areas be small and correspondingly numerous, the regulations would 
require a large oyster police for their enforcement. Another plan, on our extensive 
oyster-grounds still more impracticable than the preceding, is to limit absolutely the 
number of oysters to be taken from the beds. This has been the only regulation able 
to protect the oysters in certain parts of France and Gfermany; but it involves elabo- 
rate governmental machinery, officers for administration, guards for protection, and 
scientific men for determining the condition of the beds and estimating the number of 
oysters which may safely be removed. Such elaborate measures are possible where 
the beds are few in number and limited in extent, but are entirely inapplicable to the 
conditions prevailing in our waters. 
Another almost universal feature of oyster regulation — and, in my opinion, a more 
important one than the close season — is the requirement of culling upon the beds 
from which the oysters are taken. Most States have in this respect good laws, but 
unfortunately they are often neither enforced nor voluntarily observed. It is not diffi- 
cult to prevent young oysters from being put upon the market, and there is but little 
temptation to so dispose of them if the limit be fixed, as is common, at 2£ inches; but 
as seed such oysters may be sold without the limits of their native region, and to its 
great detriment. Then also, when the beds are distant from the places of sale, there 
is always a strong temptation for the oysterman to save time by culling them on the 
way to market. In some cases this may produce no harm, and may even result in the 
establishment of new beds, but in general the practice is to be deprecated from the 
probability that young oysters thus culled would fall upon soft or shifting bottoms, or 
be otherwise placed under adverse conditions. 
It is self-evident that if the young oysters and the objects to which they may 
become attached are systematically and persistently removed, there must follow a 
scarcity of adults, and in time economic if not biological extinction of the beds will 
result. In due course such beds may, and often do, become restored and regenerated, 
but the process is usually slow as compared with the demands of our markets. I 
regard it as a misfortune in some respects that the vast spawning capacity of the 
oyster is so generally understood. The knowledge that the female emits annually 
millions of eggs has begotten an impression that the beds need no protection, and 
