42 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
in this way the full result of no man’s labor in planting was ever realized. Others 
who did not make clam-digging a regular business, but only dug occasionally, are 
said to have had no respect for the rights of those who had leased property. It was 
said that at times when vessel builders and the shoe factory released employees, many 
of them, for lack of other occupation, turned their attention to clam digging, with the 
result that too many clams were at the time taken from the Hats. 
Another reason for the failure of the Essex experiment is that a number of short- 
sighted clammers began to fear, after the clams had been planted, that the production 
might suddenly become so great as to glut their market and, as a consequence, force 
prices down. Some few individuals, inspired by this fear, are reported to have said 
and to have done everything in their power to prevent the success of the experiment. 
In all cases, it is said, the selectmen of the town, who issued the leases, refused their 
aid in the prosecution of trespassers. 
In spite of the fact, which had been demonstrated in the experiment, that when 
properly planted the clams grew much more rapidly and became much larger than on 
the natural beds, no applications for a renewal of the leases were made when the first 
ones expired. No change in the condition at Essex may be hoped for until there is 
some evidence that a law protecting the planter will be strictly enforced. With proper 
protection a great industry might, and probably would, be quickly established, not 
only in Essex, but in any region where clam flats are now unproductive because of 
excessive digging. 
It would be comparatively easy to formulate plans which, if carried out in this 
region, should reclaim the Essex Hats. No single method would, however, be accept- 
able to all who are interested in the clam industry, and we have reason for believing 
that the few dissatisfied might easily defeat the efforts of the majority. The whole 
problem, as shown in the history of the oyster industry in this country also, narrows 
itself down to the simple question of protection. The leasing of lands to individuals 
is the necessary first step, and when the town or State authorities are willing to 
protect the lessee, the problem will be solved. This plan of leasing to individuals 
would seem to be the best one. Much may be said positively in its favor. A strong 
negative argument we have also, when we consider that any other scheme must 
depend for its success upon the cooperation of all concerned for the common good. 
We might know that this would hardly be possible, even if we had not the history 
of past events on these flats to guide us. 
Mentioning a few of those plans which do not consider the lease, the first is a closed 
season. If all digging could be prohibited for one or two years, many clams would 
come to maturity, the young would establish themselves, and the beds would once 
more become productive. Undoubtedly this recovery would be rapid. But it must 
be remembered that in this process the clams would probably crowd each other closely, 
as they have done on the few natural beds existing to-day, and a season or two of 
thorough digging and thinning out would be necessary before many clams reached a 
large size. This thinning process would not be immediately advantageous, on account 
of the small size of the clams, and hence would probably not be done at all. 
Another plan, proposed by some of the clammers, is that every man who makes a 
business of digging clams be required by law to deliver and plant on barren flats, set 
aside for the purpose, a certain number of small clams in the months of April or 
May — this planted area to be protected for a season, and eventually extended until 
