288 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
of the largest raw-shucking firms in Baltimore, this probably being an average for all 
the dealers in that city : 
1 
Season. 
Proportion 
of extra 
selects to 
total 
quantity. 
1 
[ 
Season. 
Proportion 
of extra 
selects to 
total | 
quantity. 
1883-84 
1888-89 
& 
1884-85 
1889-90 
1 
1885-86 
1890 91 .. 
33 
1886-87 
55 
bV 
1891-92 
50 
1887-88 
53 
BO 
No statistics are available with which to exhibit the comparative sizes of the 
oysters caught prior to 1883 ; but if the very general complaints prevalent throughout 
the Chesapeake during the last decade in reference to the decreased size of the 
oysters are well grounded, it is evident that the decrease since 1870 has been very 
great. This decrease in the size of the oysters is of more consequence than its effect 
on the markets or on Maryland’s prestige as a producer of superior-grade oysters. 
It is a principle in the economy of nature that a species should be reproduced by the 
best developed and hardiest of its kind. On this principle the progeny of a colony 
of oysters not yet attained mature development can scarcely be expected to be so 
vigorous and capable of combating the many adverse agencies to which these mol- 
lusks are subjected as those of a well-stocked reef of large brood-oysters. The condi- 
tion of the industry, as indicated by this decreasing abundance and reduced size of 
the mollusks, the decreasing incomes of the fishermen and increasing prices of the 
oysters, demands the serious consideration of every well-minded citizen of Maryland, 
whether he be actively engaged therein or not. Already the price of the Chesapeake 
oysters is so high and the size so small that a number of Baltimore marketmen are 
required to purchase largely from other coastal regions, one firm alone in one year 
purchasing $70,000 worth of large oysters in Northern States. 
The general assembly of Maryland has not permitted this condition to come about 
without endeavoring to prevent it; and the opinion, existing to some extent, that this 
State has exercised no care toward conserving and preserving her natural oyster beds, 
is without foundation in fact, for she has expended more effort than any other Amer- 
ican State toward protecting and preserving the public reefs, to which may be due the 
fact that they are now in better condition than those in most other States. I believe 
that there has not been a single protective or restorative measure, giving assurance 
of benefit to the free or common fishery, adopted by any government in America or 
Europe, that has not at some time been operative in whole or in part of Maryland. 
From 1820, when “well-grounded apprehensions were entertained of the utter extinc- 
tion of oysters in the State,” up to the present time, by means of close seasons, inter- 
diction of supposed injurious modes of fishery, and other restrictive measures, the 
State has constantly endeavored to conserve and protect the common fishery. 
The stationary life of oysters, tending to facilitate their removal from the beds, 
is resulting in a depreciation of the free fishery in all civilized countries, notwith- 
standing severe protective laws, no community having yet learned the secret of preserv- 
ing undiminished the prosperity of the public beds. It is to be regretted that no data 
are available by which to compare the extent of the common and private oyster fish- 
