Coastal fisheries assistance program coastal zone management

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL FISHERIES ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM

JUL 1979

SH
328
C63

COASTAL FISHERIES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

D N R E C

Charles, A. Lesser, Manager of Fisheries

Theodore P. Ritchie, Fisheries Consultant

July 31, 1979

The preparation of this report was financed in part through

a Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grant from the Office

of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, under provisions of Section 305 of the Coastal

Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583), as amended.

EXECUTIVE SUMK@kRY

The Coastal Fisheries Assistance Program, conducted by
the Division.of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources

and Envi-ronmental Control, with support through a CoastalZone @Manage-

ment Program Development Grant, Office of Coastal Zone iManagement,

U.S. Department of Commerce, and in cooperation with the Delaware

Office of Management, Budget and Planning has completed its first

year's objectives by reviewing, identifying and ranking the problems,

issues and opportunities relate.d to marine fisheries in Delaware.

A thorough review of the literature and interviews with both
commercial and recreational fishermen resulted in hist*orical reviews

of fourteen species of finfish and shellfish which have had a

si nificant impact on the socio-economic aspects of the fishing
9 1>

industry in Delaware. These species afforded the most opportunity

for commercial and/or recreational interests and consequently the

most management problems. The present condition of each fishery is

discussed with the overall socio-economic impact of Delaware's

fisheries shifting to recreational fisheries. However, the recent

enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
0

will definitely provide new issues and opportunities for the

commercial fishery industry.

In reviewing the histories of indivi.dual fish species,

noticeable shifts in their catches are attributable to management,

but not in all cases. The oyster industry has dwindled to a remnant

of a once dominant shell fishery as a result of improper management.

The blue crab fishing industry fluctuates as a result of environ-

mental stress. Weakfish are currently the state's most valued

recreational and commercial finfish iqhile the much prized striped

bass has declined in numbers at an alarming rate.

Onshore seafood processing has decreased from a time when
the menhaden processing plant in Lewes provided Delaware with a
C,

4.6 million dollar industry to virtually a no-value fishery in
Delaware when the plant closed in 1968. Surf clam and oysters are
the only seafoods presently being processed in commercial quantities

in Delaware.

An issue identified with high priority and in need of immedi-

ate attention is for the State of Delaware to initiate a coordinated

effort to encouraae fishery ports and other related industries to

locate in Lewes, Delaware. Coincidental to this issue is the need

.Lor appropriate legislation to provide the DNREC with regulatina

authority to manage the taking and landing of marine fisheries

within its jurisdiction. Fisheries management must be based on

the best available data which many times becomes available at times

.when decisions for managing a fishery cannot wait for appropriate

legislative action. Flexibility must be part of -the regulatory

process to take advantage of opportunities within various fisheries.

Fishery management of marine species is relatively new and

the public must be kept informed and allowed to participate in these

management procedures. Public participation through hearings

following preparation of reports on proposed fishery managment

plans, legislation, and regulations should be strongly encouraged.

Legislators; governmental officials, and consumer interest groups
C,
should be routinely informed of fishery issues through a specific

information and educational program for marine fisheries management.
At present, no such program exists and the establishment of one could

only be benficial to fisheries management.
Since marine fisheries should be managed and appropriate and

equitable allocations of different fish stocks might have to be

made to both recreational and-commercial fishermen, catch and effort

data on different fisheries will be required. These data will

enable a baseline of information to be formulated upon which
fishery pana@aement decisions will be recommended. Presently there

are insufficient data to deal with the problem of marine fisheries

management in managing different stocks for separate fishery inte-

rests. This is a regional problem and could best be approached by

the adoption of appropriate legislation to permit the state to

require catch and effort data reporting from fishermen.

While addressing the problem of a data base on marine

'Eisheries, a determination must be made as to what characteristics

separate a commercial fishermen from a recreational fishermen.

Until this is accomplished, managing the two fisheries will remain

an arbitrary and very controversial procedure.

A concurrent problem with the need for a data base on each

fishery, are fish stocks assessments. In order to equitable

allocate fish stocks between commercial and recreational interests,

fish species in question must be adequately understood in terms

of th,;@ir basic biology, population structure and maximum sustain-

able yield. Again, this is a regional fishery problem and it could-

best be approached via state and federal cooperative effort.

Another major issue, but not of the least importance, is

the need for an enforcement program closely integrated with the

above mentioned information and education program regarding new

concepts and regulations that will affect the public as a result

of marine fisheries management. Integrated is a key word since

many of the present enforcement personnel are more than adequately
trained in boating safety and first aid but inadequately trained
in fishery management issues when public sentiment is aroused.

All of the above issues, problems and opportunities will

iequire adequately funding. The issues of catch and effort data,

collecting, stock assessments, information educational programs

and enforcement of marine fisheries mana0gement relations could

possibly become self-sustaining with appropriate licensing

of both recreational and commercial fishermen. These licensing

issues should be thoroughly evaluated both on a state basis and/or

regional basis in order to complete a totally integrated and

efficient marine fisheries program.
0

9/25/79

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary
Introduction
I. Historical Significance of Fisheries in Delaware ......... 1
Current Status and Recent History
American Oyster ........................................ 11
Hard Clam ............................. ' ................. 23
Blue Crab .............................................. 44
American Lobster ....................................... 54
Weakfish ................................................ 57
Bluefish ............................................... 62
Summer Flounder ........................................ 6S
Black Sea Bass ......................................... 69
Atlantic Croaker ........................................ 72
Striped Bass ........................................... 76
White Perch ............................................ 83
American Shad .......................................... 87
American Eel ........................................... 92
Atlantic 'Menhaden ...................................... 98

Fisheries Habitat Assessment in Delaware Coastal Waters..104

Socio-Economic Value of Fisheries & Community
Involvement ............................................ 107

Identification of Fisheries Problems, Issues, and
Opportunities .......................................... 117

II. Ranking of Problems, Issues, and Opportunities ........... 122

III. Development of Problems, Issues, and Opportunities
Critical Problems and Issues ............................. 126

IV. Resolving Critical Problems and Issues ................... 133

LIST OF TA-BLES

1. Commercial Oyster Landings in Delaware

2* Bushels of Oyster-- Planted and Harvested in Delaware

3. Reported Commercial Hard Clam Landings in Delaware

4. Licensed Clam Harvesters in Delaware

5. Relative Clam Meat Values

6. Commercial Blue Crab Landings in Delaware

7. Delaware Commercial Blue Crab Catch by Gear

8. Per Pound Landed Value of Blue Crabs

10. Commercial Lobster Landings in Delaware

11. Commercial Weakfish Landings in Delaware

12. Commercial Bluefish Landings in Delaware

13. Commercial Slimmer Flounder Landings in Delaware

14. Commercial Sea Bass Landings in Delaware

15. Commercial Croaker Landings in Delaware

16. Commercial Striped Bass Landings in Delaware

17. Commercial @,,[hite Perch Landin-s in Delaware

18. CQ=ercial Shad Landings in Delaware

19. Commercial Eel Landings in Delaware

20. Commercial Menhaden Landings in Delaware

21. Recent Total Pinfish Landings and Value

22. Employment in Commercial Fishery in Delaware

INTRODUCTION

Theyrimary purpose of this yearts Coastal Fisheries Assistance
Program (CFAP) was to identify problems, issues and opportunities

associated with Delaware's coastal fishery resources. This report

includes a compilation of information on 14 species of marine fish
and shellfish that are valuable to commercial and/or recreational

interests in Delaware. Most of these species are, or have been,

relatively abundant in Delaware waters, and consequently most

resource management problems are likely to be associated with these

species. Analyses were made of commercial and recreational fisheries

conflicts and socio-economic value of various fisheries. Support

for this effort has been provided by the U. S. Department of Commerce,

Office of Coastal Zone Management in cooperation with the Delaware
Office of 1,11anagement, Budget and Planni na (OMBP).
CD

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FI=RIES IN DELAWARE

The identification of Delaware's fishery problems, issues,

and opportunities must first deal with the historical significance

of both commercial and recreational fisheries in Delawar e. Archeological

evidence indicates that American Indians inhabited the shores of

Delaware rivers and bays long before the arrival of the first white

settlers. The fish and shellfish resources of the Delaware area

could have been abundant beyond belief. The migrant Indians learned

to catch and also preserve the flesh of fish and shellfish. Indians

made ornaments, jewelry, utensils and wampum from fish teeth, bones,

molluscan and crustacean shells. The Indians were also among the

first of the Dela@vvare settlers to use fish for fertilizer. Commercial

utilization of Delaware's natural fishery resources beran, when
C5

Delaware Indians began to trade dried oyster meats, dried and smoked

fish, and fish bone and shell ornaments to inland Indian tribes
(Horn, 1957).

Nearly all the early written historical accounts of the Delaware

region make some mention of the abundance of fish and shellfish. In

1631, Henry Hudson found "numerous islands abounding in good oysters"
in what is now known as Broad-kill River (Miller, 1962). Many

historical references of the 1660's mention the abundance of shad

along with William Penn's preference for "smoked shad from the Delaware".

It was also reported that during colonial days in Delaware, fish

were so plentiful that travelers stepped upon herring and sheepshead

splashing in fords and streams, and shad were speared with pointed
sticks and sturceon were lassoed (Ho rn, 1957).

Delaware's oldest -ILin f4Lshery was based on the commercial

ha-rvestins of the American shad. Shad were commercially landed
CD

initially by Indians and later by early colonists. Extensive

commercial shad fishinc- in the Delaware region began during the early
CD tD

1800's. Shad were abundant and an inexpensive source of protein

for the inhabitants of developing towns and cities. Initially,

shad were sold for only a few cents each, and the fish rapidly became

a staple item in the diet of coastal town and city dwellers. The

demand for shad increased as more new towns and cities developed.

Shad were sold in hundreds of fish markets and shops and also by the

many fish peddlers who sold fish from door to door.

Sturgeon were also fished commercially and extensively along

the Delaware Coast and in*the Delaware Bay and River from 1850 until

the late 1930's. Sturgeon were considered a nuisance by the shad

fishermen in 1875, who often killed and cast adrift Sturgeon that
,became entangled in their shad nets (Horn, 1957). Eventually, Delaware

commercial fishermen began to realize the value of sturgeon meat,

and more importantly, -%-,he value of caviar obtained from the roe of

the female sturgeon.

Commercial fishermen used large mesh nets to catch sturgeon,

and it was not uncommon for a two-man sturo-eon boat to fish for

several hours and return with 20 or more sturgeon weighing from

150-400 pounds each. Sturgeon were sold for fifty cents or one dollar

each, and a 160 pound keg of caviar sold for six to eight dollars.

In 1936, sturgeon were selling for $300 each, and caviar was sold

k 3.

for $300 a kec,. Bowers Beach was the site of the first Delaware

factory built to butcher sturgeon and process (sieve) the fish roe

into caviar. Later, the center of the fishery shifted to Delaware

City, and it is believed that during various years several hundred

persons were reg-ularly involved in sturgeon fishing in Delaware.
Delaware has had no significant sturgeon landings since the
late'1930's, and there has been no commercial fishing effort for

many years. At the present time, there are probably more sturgeon

in the Delaware River and Bay than at any time since the late 1930's.

The menhaden fishery was unquestionably the largest and one

of the relatively more recent fin fisheries to develop in Delaware.

Menhaden are used primarily for industrial purposes in the United

States, and one of the first large menhaden processing plants was

built in Lewes, Delaware in 1912. In 1938, the Consolidated Fisheries

processing plant in Lewes was the largest menhaden processing facility

in the United States. The plant owners had two dozen menhaden

steamers and employed more than 600 men. In 1946, Mr. Otis Smith

purchased another existing menhaden plant in Lewes, and in 1954

Mr. Smith purchased the Consolidated Fisheries processing facility.

Lewes became the largest fish landing port in the United States in

1953 when 390 million pounds of fish were landed. Twenty-five large

company-owned menhaden steamers provided fish for the twin processing

plants, and the crew members alone amounted to 650 men. Several

hundred additional workers were employed in the factories and as

support personnel. Menhaden landinrs in Lewes and all along the

Atlantic Coast began to decline in 1962. in 1963, one of the menhaden

processing blants iii Lewes was closed, and in 1966 both plants were

permanently closed because the local menhaden stocks had been

seriously depleted.

Delaware's oldest shellfish fishery was, and still is, based

on the commercial harvesting of wild oysters. Indians were known

to barter with oysters, and early historical records are full of
accounts which mention the abundance of oysters in Delaware (Hora,
1957). Oysters were initially plentiful and like shad, cheap

enough to be utilized as a sta-ple food item by the early colonists.

In 1799, oysters sold for two shillings per bushel, the same price

quoted by William Penn in the 1680's.

The Delaware oyster industry expanded after World I.-lar II,

and the landed value of oysters in Delaaare amounted to 2.7 million

dollars in 1954. The entire Delawaxe oyster industry was destroyed

in 19158 by a raicroscoDic oyster disease organism that became known

as MSX*

The oyster industry in Delaware was reasonably large until

the time when MSX destroyed it. There were several oyster shucking

houses, oyster landing facilities, and a fleet of about 15 large

oyster dredge boats that were used to plant and harvest oysters.

During the 20 years that have elapsed since MSX destroyed the

industry , most of the industry support facilities have been abandoned.

There are only seven or eight boats remaining in Delaware and

approximately the sam e number of Dersons still active in the business.

All three of Delaware's large commercial fin fisheries are

now history, and it is unlikely that shad, sturgeon, or even

menhaden might be the object of intensive commercial fisheries in

Delaware in the future. The oyster industry has been partially

subsidized by the state government, and the industry will most

likely continue to survive. However, the oyster industry that

now exists in Delaware is not likely to again become a prominent

commercial fishery.

The decline in all four of Delaware's histo-ric commercial

fisheries is in Dart related to a general decline in fishery

resources and the various leaislative statutes that have been
C@

enacted to either encourage or discourage the commercial utilization

of the fishery resources. The Delaware legislature at various

times passed la:ws that defined net mesh sizes, fish size limits,

seasons, etc. Various finfish laws were drafted in attempts to

regulate and manage various fish species, but a large portion of

the finf-ish laws were special interest legislative acts that

benefited local or politically oriented individuals within the

state. The state legislature clearly omitted designating any

state agency as a regulatory authority or an enforcing agency for

marine finfish laws. Consequently, commercial finfish laws in

Delaware have become confusing, conflicting, and generally ignored.

The history of the early oyster laws and the later shellfish

laws were often more specifically special interest legislation.

However, in 1943, the Delaware legislature did establish the

Delaware Commission of Shellfisher-Jes, the third such commission

to be established. -This shellfish commission was given 'Lull

control and direction of the state shellfish industry which was

primarily oysters at that time. The commission was designated to

be responsible for the protection of all shellfish within the state.

The shellfish commission consisted of an executive secretary

and four other commissioners, all appointed by the governor in

office. Two of the five commissioners*were required to be directly

engaged in the shellfish business in Delaware. While it may have

been desirable to have persons on the shellfish commission who

knew about shellfish, the commissioners were placed in the position

of'managing state shellfish resources on which their own private

businesses were based. Consequently, Delaware shellfish regulations

have historically favored intensive and almost exclusive commercial

utilization of the state shellfish resource, often at the expense

of this resource.

The Delaware Commission of Shelifisheries was dissolved in

1970, and its responsibilities were transferred to the Division of

Fish and Wildlife in the De-oartment of Natural Resources and Environ-

mental Control. Now, the DNRIEC clearly has the legislative authority

to regulate and manage the shellfish resources of the state. The

Department has gained considerable experience in effective management
of the shellfish 'resources and has learned.to compromise with the

political involvement that previously dominated management of the

shellfish resources. However, the Department still does not have

the legislative authority to manage marine and anadromous finfish

within Delaware waters, and the state legislature has hist
I,- orically

demonstrated a pronounced reluctance to designate a marine fin

fisheries regulatory authority.

Status of Fish and Shellfish Stocks in Delaware

Fourteen species of fish and shellfish have been identified

as currently or historically important to the commercial and/or

recreational marine fisheries of Delaware. The recreational fishery

for tuna and billfish that occurs from 30 to 100 miles off the

Delaware Coast is an important recreational fishery in Delaware,

but the status of these sDecies has not been assessed because

management or utilization of these stocks is entirely outside the

jurisdiction of the state's territorial sea. .

Nearly all Delaware's commercial and recreational fin

fisheries are now based on the seasonal migration of fish into

Delaware waters duri.-ng the spring and summer months, and the

migration of these fish out of Delaware waters during the fall and

early winter months. Throughout the history of all the fin fisheries

in Delaware, there have been extreme fluctuations in the species

composition of the commercial and recreational catches. At various
times, winter flounder, scup (porgies), northern kingfish (king
whiting), blowfish, cod, and Atlantic croaker have been important

in commercial and recreational fishery landings in Delaware. In

recent years, nearly all these fish have virtually disappeared

from Delaware waters with the notable exce-otion of the croakers

that have just recently returned after being essentially absent

for a period of nearly 15 years.

The marine finf'ish resources in Delaware have never been

properly managed due to the lack of designated regulatory authority.

Commercial fishing licenses have never been required except for

the 1974 requirement of a $100 license fee for menhaden steamers

fishing in Delaware waters and the 1978 requirement of commercial

eel fishing licenses. Delaware watermen have submitted commercial
fishery larding data to the fisheries statistics br anch of the

National Marine Fisheries Service on a voluntary basis. While

the accuracy of the voluntarily reported commercial fish catch

might be questioned, this landing data at least gives some

indication of the relative abundance or lack of fish during each

year.

Prior to the early 1950's, there were only a few persons in

Delawa.re who ovined boats of any description. There were practically

no privately o-vrned power boats, and only a small*number of party

and charter boats were actively enc-a-ed in marine s-oortfishi=

activity. Most marine spor-'@-,fishing was conducted from shores and

piers, and more dedicated marine anglers rented rowboats from

boat liveries and rowed to fishing grounds near Port Penn, Woodland,

Bowers, Slaughter, Broadkill, Lewes, Rehoboth and.Bethany Beaches.

Outboard motors were rare, undependable and of low horsepower ratings.

In Delaware, the initial surge in increased marine recreational
C)

fishing pressure began in the mid 1950's when outboard motor manu-

facturers began to produce reliable outboard motor-- that develoDed

25, 30 and even 40 horsepower. Boat manufacturers began to produce

relatively ine--@pensive fiber.-.1as and aluminun boats. A large portion

of the new boat owners in Delawa-re apparently purchased boats in order

to c-ain access to the more Droductive fishinn, areas in Delawa--e 4-Bay
C)

and the Atlantic Ocean. The numbers of small and large privately

owned fishing boats, party and charter boats increased steadily

from the ffiid 1950's through 1968. Recreational boat fishing pressure
nearly doubled during the period from 1968 to 1973 (Miller, 1977).

The commercial landings of several coastal fish species has

continued to decline as recreational fishing pressure on the species

has increased. In recent years, the annual recreational or sport

fishino- catch of some coastal fish sDecies is estimated to exceed

annual commercial landings by six to twelve times.

Delaware's four major marine shellfish resources include two

s-oecies of molluscs and two species o.L crustaceans. The oyster and

hard clam resources are not migratory, and these resources occur

entirely within state waters. The major crustacean resource is

the blue crab which does migrate, but nearly all the migration

occurs in or near Dela,.,.,are .;aters.

Commercial harvesting licenses are required for harvesters

of each major shellfish sDecies, and the reporting of catch and

effort data has become mandatory. Here again, shellfish landing
CD

data have not always been accurate. On more than one occasion,

the buyers of hard clams were found guilty of grossly under-reporting

hard clam harvestino- because a state landina tax of '@.15 per thousand
- tD 0 Q

clams was assessed the clam buyers and not the clam harvester.

In recent years, the recreational fishing effort. on hard clams and

blue crabs has increecsed, and effective management of these resources

will reauire additional catch and effort data from recreational

shellf-ishermen.

10.

The major shellfish resources in Delaware have been regulated

by and for commercial shellfishing interests for such a long period

of time that many commercial shellfishermen feel they have.exclusive

rights to harvest state shellfish resources. Howeve2@, these state

shellfish resources may have been over-exploited at the expense of

the resources.

Reviews of the 14 selected fisheries species will begin with

the marine shellfish resources, primarily because they have been

more or less regulated for many years, and consequently there is

much more local documentary evidence concerning these resident

marine resources.

AMERICA2N OYSTE."R (C-assos-lu-rea virginica) RESOURCE IN DELAWARE

Archaeological evidence indicates that oysters have existed in

Delaware for many millions of years. The fossilized shells of

-he banks of the Chesapeake
extinct oysters commonly found along 4.

and Delaware Canal are estimated to be about 80 million years old.

More recent fossil oyster shells suggest that the American Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) began to evolve around 50 thousand years

ago. The oysters that inhabit Delaware waters at the present

time appear to be the same type of oyste-r that has been naturally

abundant in local bays and rivers for the past several hundred years.

Algonquin Indians from west of the Mississippi migrated east

into Pennsylvania, Dela,,%rare, Maryland and New Jersey. The numbrous

Indian shell mounds and kitchen middens indicate that oysters were

abundant and used for food extensively by the Indians. Indians

also dried oyster meats and sometimes stored live oysters in earthen

pits similar to outdoor root cellars. Oyster shells were also

used to temper pottery. Nearly all early historical records and

maps of Delaware refer to islands and extensive banks of oysters

throughout Delaware. Oysters were undoubtedly abundant,.easily

obtained, and cheap enough to be utilized as a staple food item by

early colonists.

The oyster dredge was introduced into Delaware Bay around 1800

by New Englanders seeking seed and market oysters to plant on their

private oyster beds. On Pebruary 12, 1812 Delaware enacted its

first shellfish law in an attempt to restrict oystering to vessels

owned within the state. Virginia had prohibited dredging in 1811,

and Maryland restricted dredging activity in 1820.
C;> CD

12.

Delaware's first shellfish law and subsequent legislative

acts restricting the industry were seldom observed because of

lack of enforcement. Throughout the history of the fishery,

legislative attempts to manage the resource have been thwarted

by special interest groups who have managed to obtain exemptions

in local areas and sometimes com-olete repeal of restrictive

laws. During the period from 1830 to 1835, acts were passed to

prohibit the dumping of refuse in Kispillion Creek, set fines

for breaking oyster laws and resisting arrest, harvesting more
0 C:>

than five bushels of oysters at certain locations and establishing

a closed oyster season in the creeks J"'rom May 16 to August 15. In

legislative action passed in 1851, oyster dredging was prohibited.

In 1871, the Delaware legislature passed a comprehensive series of

oyster laws dealing with leasing, dredging, tonging, licensing
1..) 0 C) I I
taxation, etc. These new laws established a provision for oyster

plantations of 15 acres each. Annual plantation rents were ';>"25,

and the vessel workin- the -Qlantation was assessed $3 De.- ton.
CD

Provisions were also made for azi oyster watch boat to patrol the

waters night and day from March 1 to September 1 in order to

protect the oyster plantations. The east line dividing public

oyster grounds and the southern leasable plantation grounds was

also established. State revenues from oysters amounted to @4,900

in 1872.

Toward the end of the 1870's, seed oysters from Maryland and

.Virginia were extensively planted in Delaware Bay. During the

1879-80 planting season, 700,000 bushels of Chesapeake seed oysters

were planted on Delaware oyster plantations. In 1878 eighty sloops

1'3.

and schooners were registered to work in Delaware, and in 18-0,

this number had dropped to 68. In 1891, the na tural oyster beds

in the creeks were reserved mainly for oyster tongers. In 1905,

an act was passed which permitted only sailing vessels to take

oysters from the natural oyster beds.,-In 1909, a commission

was created to look after oyster interests. The oyster commission

of 1909 was responsible for obtaining the first accurate survey

of natural oyster beds in Delaware which was performed by H. F. Moore

in 1910. The planted oyster grounds were surveyed by Captain

Charles C. Yates who reported that 6,593 acres of Delaware Bay
bottom were leased to oyster planters. The Moore survey indicated

that the natural oyster beds in Delaware had been exploited and
much of the culch (shell) material had been removed by oyster

harvesters. Moore recommended the planting of oyster shells and

the enforcement of rough cull harvesting laws.

The Delaware oyster industry of the late 1800's @-.,as owned

and operated main ly by Philadelphians who owned or leased oyster

grounds in Delaware and New Jersey. Most of the oysters that

were harvested were sold out of state, either in Philadelphia or

Baltimore, and later through Maurice River Cove in New Jersey.

Many Delaware oyster planters formed partnerships with New Jersey

oyster dealers. Prior to 1922, most oysters were shipped to markets

in the shell or in hermetically sealed cans. The practice of shucking

oysters and shioping fresh shucked oyster meats began in New Jersey

and later shifted to Maryland.

The typhoid epidemic in Chicago in 1925 was attributed to
consumption of polluted oysters that had been harvested from Chesapeake

14.

Bay. Adverse publicity linking typhoid with polluted oysters

destroyed consumer confidence in all oysters. Oyster consumption

dropped to nearly zero, and it was almost impossible to sell

oysters for several years..

A cooperative shellfish sanitation program consisting of

the U. S. Public He.alth Service, state and local health agencies,

and the commercial oyster harvesters and processors-was developed

in 1927. This program established strict sanitary standards for

shellfish growing waters, shellstock shipping and approved shellfish

processing methods. The shellfish sanitation program is still in

existence, and through the years, the program has done much to

restore consumer confidence in purchasing molluscan shellfish. The

per capita oyster consumption data available suggest that the oyster

industry never fully recovered the extensive oyster market that

was lost because of the typhoid epidemic.

in 1930, Governor Buck appointed another oyster commission

to study "the statutes and the general condition of the industry".

This commission also reported that the natural oyster rocks had been

depleted, the best leased oyster grounds were owned and operated

by non-residents, and that nearly all Delaware oysters were being

sold outside the state. During the depression years, oyster

production in Delaware was low because of the lack of sufficient

quantities of seed oysters on natural beds and also because of a

lack of money to purchase seed oysters from Maryland or'Virginia.

In 1939, Galtsoff reported 44 oystermen operating ten or eleven

oyster schooners in the Delaware oyster industry. In 1939, state

revenue from oyster industry in Dela%.,,a--e amounted to $4,450.

15.

In 1942, Delaware oyster planters requested that the

U. S. Biological Survey investigate high mortalities in adult

seed oyster populations on the natural oyster beds. Oystermen

suspected that channel dredging activities were responsible for

the unexplained oyster mortalities. In 1943, the legislature

established the Delaware Commission of Shellfisheries. In natural

oyster bed investigations conducted in 1943, Prey reported that the

rough cull law was still not being enforced. Prey also noted that

due to the war and the manpower shortage, power dredging had been

allowed on the natural oyster beds, and Frey suspected that power

dredging was contributing to the depletion of the natural oyster

beds. Prey also noted that most of Dela,..iare'3 seed oysters were

sold to New Jersey.

In 1947, oyster growers in Rehoboth Bay requested the
U. S. Bioloo-ical Survey to investigate exces*sive oyster mortalities

in Rehoboth Bay. From 1943 to 1949, the number of oyster shucking

houses in Delaware increased from one to six. Extensive oyster

mortalities occurred i-n the natural oyster beds again in.1950,

but oyster planters were still able to harvest 425,000 bushels of

seed oysters. The natural bed seed oyster catch declined to

100,000 bushels in 1951 and then dropped to 1,500 bushels in 1956

forcing closure of the beds. From 1951 through 1956, Delaware

oyster planters made extensive plantings of seed oysters obtained

from Virginia. In 1956, the Delaware oyster industry was valued
at five million dollars (Miller, 1962). Actually, the highest

reported Delaware landings occurred in 1954, when 4.3 million pounds

16.

of oyster mi@ats valued at 2.7 million dollars were recorded.

The second highest Delaware landings occurred in 1957 when 4.2

million pounds of oyster meats valued at 2.2 million dollars

were recorded. The MSX disease destroyed the industry in Delaware
in 1958. In 1959, Delaware in conjun ction with New Jersey imposed

an embargo an the importation of out-of-state seed-oysters. Reported

landings of Delaware oysters from 1947 to 1978 are shown in Table 1.

In 1961, seed oysters in the natural oyster beds began to

show some signs of resistance to MSX. Succeeding year classes of

natural bed seed oysters became more, but not entirely, resistant
to MSX. In 1963, the state spent $150,000 for planting and cleaning
C>

shells on the natural beds. In 1965, the natural beds were opened

to seed harvesting for a short period, but the seed oysters that

were planted did not survive well. In 1968, a moderate spatfall

occurred in the natuzal beds, and a short seed oyster harvesting

season was allowed in 1970. In 1970, a large spatfall occurred

throughout most of the natural beds in Delaware Bay. The rec.ent

history of seed oyster harvesting and market oyster harvesting in

the Delaware Bay is shown in Table 2.

The Delaware Commission of Shellfisheries was disbanded in

1970, and the responsibilities of the Commission were transferred

to the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

The Division of Fish and 'Wildlife has monitored s-oatfall in the

natural beds since 1970. State shellfisheries biologists have

recently announced that spatfall in the natural beds during the summer

of 1978 was abundant enough to revitalize the Delaware oyster industry

17.

TABLE 1

COT,2,IERCIAL OYSTER LAIIMINGS IN DELAWARE

Year Lbs. of O@
Tster @Teats Dockside $ Value

1947 4plO5,900 lt418P132
1948 2t850POOO 1P077t4OO
1949 211909000 8659250
1950 2114ltOOO 911,800
1951 21266,000 1@047t660
1952 21252,300 1,150,925
1953 31141P300 1,564,642
1954 4t340,000 2P725,520
1955 39290,400 lt603P700
1956 1,893,600 782@850
1957 4,194,200 29226,720
1958 2t410,100 1,717t262
1959 295,000 158t785
1960 176,200 119p683
1961 32,900 189791
1962 809600 60,488
1963 40t4OO 25,086
'1964 44P700 26t984
1965 34,100 28,000
1966 45POOO 379000
1967 61,000 40pOOO
1968 43t2OO 41t376
1969 50,700 38,014
1970 216,000 1329844
1971 3159000 202,500
1972 508t8OO 413,367
1973 392,800 342,923
1974 175,900 160,725
1975 195,000 2269751
1976 262,300 38Ot7OO
1977 127t5OO 196,190
1978 68p257 97,510

18.

TABLE 2

BUSHELS OF OYSTERS PLATE= AND HARVESTED IN DELAWARE

Bushels of Value of Harvested
Bushels of Seed Market Oysters Oyster Meats
Year Oysters Planted Harvested Per Pound

1947 650,000 586t557 $ .35
1948 7009000 475,000 .38
1949 8359000 365,000 .40
1950 600,000 356,833 .42
1951 190,000 '377,667 46
1952 155tOOO 300,307 .51
1953 490,000 392,662 .50
1954 520,000 5429500 .63
1955 468tOOO 4lls3OO .49
1956 3069000 2369700 .41
1957 676,484 .53
1958 4779248 .71
1959 45,385 .54
1960 26,697 .70
1961 49301 .57
1962 12,257 .75
1963 6p196 62
1964 6,877 .6o
1965 5,052 .82
1966 6t923 .82
1967 8P764 .66
1968 6,636 .96
1969. 72800 .75
1970 189600 339231 .62
1971 43POOO 45vOOO .64
1972 77t975 72,000 .81
1973 41,095 56t114 .87
1974 52,060 32,157 .91
1975 l6p625 27PS57 1.16
1976 24,425 37P471 1.45
1977 21,725 18,214 1.54
1978 14p280 9v751 1.43

19.

in 1980. 14hether or not the Delaware oyster industry will ever

regain a portion of its former prominence is questionable for

the following reasons. More than 20 years have passed since MSX

destroyed the Delaware oyster industry in 1958. Since that time,

nearly all the oyster industry support facilities in the state

have been abandoned or allowed to disintegrate. New oyster shucking

houses would have to be constructed in order to meet upgraded state

and federal public health requirements. Waste water and wash

water would require extensive and expensive treatment. The part-time
seasonal labor (shuckers, casual labor, boat crews, etc.) is no

longer available. Oyster boat crew members cannot be obtained

in Delaware. During the past nine years, it has been necessary to

recruit and hire boat crews from without the state for seed and

market oyster harvesting activities in Delaware.

The Delaware oyster fleet of the 1950's was characterized by

old, but serviceable, boats. Since that time, many of the oyster

boats have been sold or abandoned. Formerly, oyster boat owners

could use their boats to harvest oysters for several months during

the year. Then, if they were so inclined, they could dredge for

clams or crabs for several more months. Since these shellfish

have been in short supply recently, dredging activity for these

alternative species is not likely to increase in the near future.
Recent seed oyster harvesting seasons have been short (15 - 20 days),

and the time required to harvest planted oysters has also been
short (15 20 days). Large portions of. the formerly leased oyster

20.

grounds have been-abandoned and have reverted to state ownership.

The number of persons actively engaged in the oyster industry has

dwindled to approximately 12 persons who are generally operating
father/son.type businesses.

During the past nine years, oyster production in Delaware

has more or less consisted of a relaying operation. Marketable

and near-marketable size oysters have been dredged from natural

beds and Dlanted on leased beds for periods of three to five months.

During the fall, and depending upon the condition of the oysters
C3 - I
and the oyster market, the planted seed oysters are dredge harvested

and marketed to oyster shucking houses.

There is ample documentary evidence that a good portion of

the previously existing natural seed oyster beds in Delaware have
0

been carried away by indiscriminate seed and market oyster harvesters.

The Delaware oyster industry has always required large volumes of

seed oysters annually, and the records show that natural oyster

beds were inca-oable of continuously providing enough seed oysters

to satisfy the industry even during the days of sail dlredging,

During times when Delaware seed oysters were scarce, Delaware

planters often obtained inexpensive out-of-state seed oysters that
cost them less than $1/bushel planted in Delaware. Now, it is

doubtful that a bushel of oyster shells could be purchased out of

Delaware or even purchased within the state and planted in Delaware
Bay for less than Sl/bushel.

21.

Production of oysters on natural oyster beds is sporadic,

and the fact,that Delaware natural beds have been able to survive

more than 70 years of sail dredging pressure is indeed noteworthy.

The ability of any natural oyster bed to survive continuous and

effective power dredging pressure is questionable. More than 2.75

million bushels of oysters and shells were removed from Delaware

natural oyster beds during the period from 1946 to 1950. In 1953,

the seed oyster harvest had dropped to only 20,000 bushels, and

the natural beds contained no significant amounts of oysters until

the spatfall of 1970, a period of more than 25 years. The 1970

set was commercially significant, but no appreciable spatfall

occurred again until 1978. Consequently, seed oysters were once

again in short supply in 1977 and 1978. If the 1978 set had not

occurred, the future for the Delaware oyster industry would be

grim. Of paramount immortance to the industry and to the resource

managers is the two-year survival rate of the spat that set, in 1978.

'The State of Delaware has more or less subsidized the

Delaware oyster industry since the early commercial development of

the industry in 1871. Early state regulations favored industrial

utilization of oysters, and although the natural oyster resources

are technically owned by the state, the oyster industry has traditionally
held control of the resource. More recent oyster regulations (1976)

which aaain were written with the consent of the industry, now

stipulate that, "All oysters removed from natural oyster beds in

Delaware must be deposited in Delaware on shellfish grounds leased

from the DeDartment or on public tongina- areas.". With the exception

22.

of the one public tonging area (non functional for several years),

Delaware oysters can now be marketed only from Drivately leased

oyster grounds.-

The state legislature has always been interested in the

oyster industry and has attempted to maintain and improve the

industry through various legislative acts including the appointment

of various commissions, subsidies and special appropriations. It

appears that various persons in.the Delaware oyster industry have

always had powerful support in the state legislature, and the

passage of recent legislation gives some indication of the industry's

continuing political clout.

Effective management control of the oyster resource will be

difficult because the industry has exercised control of the

resource for such a long period of time. However, recent biological

evidence and updated surveys by professional shellfish biologists

should provide the needed safeguards to conserve these resources.

23.

HARD CLAM (Mercenaria mercenaria) RESOURCE IN DELAWARE

Lower Bays - 1.1ehoboth and Indian River Days

Indian River Bay is a typical drowned rive r estuary, while-
Rehoboth Bay is classified as a typical bar-built embayment (Karpas,
1978). Prior to the 19201s, the waters of the Indian River and Bay

system flowed through the barrier beach to the Atlantic Ocean

through several alternative and naturally eroded channels. Severe

storms would temporarily close the natural inlet cuts while subsequent

storms and increased rainfall in the river drainage system caused the

river and bay waters to break through the barrier beach at alternate

locations.

The Assawoman Canal, connecting Indian River Bay and Assawoman

Bay, was dug in 1889. The purpose of this canal was not for trans-

portation but primarily to drain the wetlands of Baltimore Hundred.

The Lewes-Rehoboth Canal, connecting Rehoboth Bay and Indian River

Bay with Delaware Bay, was completed in 1913. This canal was

constructed primarily for transportation. The construction of

both these canals has been blamed for the permanent closing of the

Indian River Inlet during the 19201s. During the period when the

Indian River Inlet was closed, most of the oysters and clams in

the lower bays died, and lower bay waters became fresh enough for
the survival of fresh water fish (Horn, 1957).

The present day location of the Indian River Inlet was opened

by a violent storm in 1938 and stabilized with bulkheading in 1939.

Stabilization of the inlet increased the salinity in the lower bays

with a resulting increase in natural populatioms of oysters, hard

clams and soft-shell clams. The soft-shell clams were among the

24.

first marine bivalves to colonize the more saline lower bayse

Initially, recolonization of bay bottoms by hard clams occurred in

the vicinity of the newly created Indian River Inlet. Subseq uently,

hard clams became distributed throughout the saline portions of the

lower bays while soft-shell clam populations decreased and all but

disappeared. No significant soft-shell clam populations have been

found during the past 20 years,

The commercial hard clam fishery in the lower bays began around

the late 1940's and was subject to the regulatory authority of the

Delaware Commission of Shellfisheries. Initially, commercial and

recreational clp-mimers were legally allowed to harvest clams from areas

that were not leased as oyster bottom. Hand harvesting methods of

signing, treading, wading, hand raking, bullraking and hand tonging
tD C) C. CD

were, and still are, the only legal methods of commercially harvesting
clams in the lower bays. Early illegal use of Shinnacocking (raking CD
C)
clams with a po,.-ier bcat) led to a specific law (1941) prohibiting the

harvesting of lower bay clams by any harvesting method involving

mechanical power. Co=ercial clam tongers were permitted to hand tong

clams on leased oyster ground only if they obtained permission from

the leaseholder.

The Shellfish Commission issued commercial tonging licenses to

Delaware residents, only, for a fee of @5 annually, This tonging

license enabled the harvester to tong oysters on public beds in

creeks and rivers and also tong or rake up to 1,000 clams daily in

the lower bays. The licensed tonger could harvest clams during the
entire year in the lower bays, but harvesting activities were restricted

to daylight hours and prohibited on Sunday.
J 0@

25.

Hard clams were not abundant throuahout the lower bays.

until five or ten years after the stabilization of the present

Indian River Inlet in 1939. In 1947, the marketability of large

hard clams increased, but at that time, there was -no strong market

demand for small clams. Th e Shellfish Commission was oyster

production oriented, and hard clams were considered to be a nuisance

on the oyster grounds in the lower bays. As a consequence, there

has never been a management plan for the hard clam resource in the

lower bays until just recently.

In the ha-rd clam survey of the lower bays performed by
-the Unive--sity of Delaware in 1967 (Humphries and Daiber, 1968),

the potential clam producing area surveyed in Rehoboth Bay is

reported as 9,31.2 acres and that of Indian River Bay as 9,064 acres.

In 1948, no areas in either bay were closed to shellfish harvesting

because of, or as a result of, bacteriolo-ic pollution.

Large sections of Rehobot-h and Indian River Bay were leased

to individuals for oyster production during the mid 1940's. In

1948, Shellfish Commission records show that 3,164 acres, or

approximately 34qo" of Rehoboth Bay, had been leased for oyster
production. At the same time, approximately 1,143 acres, or 12070
of Indian River Bay, had been leased for oyster production (Miller,
1962). Nearly all the leased oyster grounds were in the deeper
offshore portions (6 - 7 feet) of the lower bays.
Recreational clamming has always been permitted in the lower
bays. Delaware residents were legally allowed to harvest 100 clams

26.

a day, including Sundays, for personal consumption. It appears

that the first commercial clammers worked only part-time. As

the marketability of all sizes of clams increase d, more of the

part-time clammers began to harvest clams continuously throughout

the warmer months of the year. As oyster production declined,

former oyster producers and some of the more industrious commercial

clammers became clam buyers. Clams in the lower bays were, and

continue to be sold by 'he number of clams and not by the bushel

measure as is prevalent in some other clam producing states. Generally,

clam harvesters sold their entire catch, regardless of size, to clam

buyers for a specified price per thousand. Early prices ranged

from $10 to $)14 per thousand and did not surpciss 'i'520 Der thousand

until after 10,60.

Serious problems with oyster production in the lower bays

bec-an in the 19501s, and mass oyster mortalities due to MSX began

in 1956. No significant oyster production has occurred in the

lower bays since 1959. Subsequently, all the leased oyster rrolznd

in Rehoboth Bay and nearly all the leased oyster ground in Indian
River Bay reverted back to state/public ownership. In the mid 19501s,

hundreds of local Delaware residents were supplementing their incomes
C>

by wading and raking clams in the more shallow portions of the

lower bays, Harvesting pressure from full and part-time commercial

and recreational clammers reduced near shore populations of clams.

Reported commercial clam landings declined to only 77,000 pounds in

1962. The March 1962 storm did have some influence on the reduced

27.

landings. Fortunately, in 1961 and 1962, a substantial set of
CD

juvenile clams occurred throughout the lower bays. No significant

clam set has been reported in the lower bays during the last 16 years,
and the importance of the 1961-62 clam set will be seen repeatedly

in the mid 1960's landings and also in the size distribution of
clams collected in 1.0167 (Humphries and Daiber, 1968) and also in
1976 (Cole, 1976 a,).

In 1965, bull rakes were first used for harvestin's clams in

the lower bays. Bull rakes enabled commercial clpmmers to harvest

larger areas in the deeper waters, and the reported 1965 clam
. 01

landings reflect the increased effectiveness of this harvesting
0 CD

method. Since 1965, there has been a fluctuating overall decline

in the reported landings of clams from the lower bays. In 1978,

reported clam landings amounted to only 46,200 pounds of meats

valued at @0'5,142.

The National 1,,'Iarine Fisheries Service publishes annual fishe@ries

landing statistics. Their information is obtained through the

cooperation of state agencies and personal contact with fishermen

and fish buyers throughout the United States. Table 3 presents the

most accurate r.ecord of hard clam landings that has been reported

in Delaware during the past 32 years.

Reliable data pertaining to the catch of commercially haxvest,,ble

-o obtain. Watermen are naturally
natural resources is difficult t

reluctant to furnish information to state and/or federal

officials who might one day use this information to restrict

28.

TABLE 3

REPORTED ':L,U, I--'IT,,VI LCNIDINIGS iN DELAT'I@LRE
(Quantity: Pounds of Meat Weight)
Value: Dollars Paid Harvesters

Hand Harvested Dredge Harvested
Rehoboth Bay & Public & Private Total
Year Indian River Ba,7 Dela,,vare S-Iv-ate Landings

2uantity Value Ouanti Value Quantit,,,r Value

1947 9,000 3POOO - 92000 3,000
1948 112t6CO 44,820 45,000 18tOOO 157,600 62,820
1949 59,800 18,268 189,000 579750 248t8oo 76PO18
1950 142,300 419550 666toOO 162,300 808,300 203,850
1951 135,200 38,430 777,000 273,600 912p200 312tO3O
1952 140,400 419700 360,100 lOOtO37 500,500 141,737
1953 405,000 227,710 459000 25,290 450POOO 253tOOO
1954 429t3OO 214p650 5190"00 2598QO 48Op9OO 240,450
1955 112tOOO 42@000 232,000 111,000 444,000 153,000
1956 584t7OO 190toig 219,000 66v7OO 803,700 2559719
1957 318,200 .101,370 197,000 55,352 515t2OO 156,722
1958 2179500 74,350 104,900 29,425 322t4OO 103,775
1959 214,700 80,520 128,500 45,786 343,200 126,306
1960 173,800 75t955 310,500 116,424 484,300 192,370,
1961 214,500 93t870 367,700 137,880 582,200 2319750
1962 77tOOO 33t197 301@100 112,905 378,100 146,102
19-163 81,600 33,122 180,500 73,333 262,100 106,455
1964 164,200 81,675 253,800 103,119 418,000 184t794
1965. 326,500 169t385 369900 l5tO12 3632400 184,39/7
1966 264tlOO 140,280 - - 264tlOO 140t280
1967 257,500 137,508 40,900 16,624 298,400 1549132
1968 181t500 99,025 57P300 23,293 238@800 122,318
1969 96,900 53,928 38t6OO 15,994 135p5OO 69,922
.1970 88,700 55,810 - 88t700 55,810
1971 112p9OO 75t4OO - - 112t9OO 75,400
1972 89,700 689987 - - 89,700 68,987
1973 63,400 539805 - - 63P400 53,805
1974- 1019000 949710 - - 101tooo 94t710
1975 34p4OO 32,000 - - 349400 32tOOO
1976 51,600 539,617 - - 51,600 53,617
1977 379900 579131 - - 379900 577131
1978 46,200 65,147 - - 46,200 65,147
TOTAL 5t297p9OO 2t5279'792 49602v4OO 195859-024 9,900,300 4tll3t4l6

*Data not avalilable/-no landings reported

29.

the activities of the waterm-an or increase the levy.the waterma-n might

pay for the privilege of utilizing a natural resource. Part-time

earnings by many individuals axe often considered to-be supplemental

income, and as such, are not always reported for state and federal

tax purposes.

In Delaware, when the lower bay hard clam resource was

regulated by the Shellfish Commission, commercial clammers were

not required to record or report their clam catches. Clam buyers
were required to pay a shell tax of .15/thousand clams bought.

Generally, Delaware clam buyers under-reported the volume of

clams actually bought in order to avoid payment of the state

shell tax. Since 1970, the hard clam resource has been regulated

by the Division of Fish and Wildlife of the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DIMC), and since

1977, licensed commercial clammers have been required to submit a

record of their annual clam catch. In 1977, the fee for a commercial

clam license was increased to $50 annually, and the daily commercial

clam harvest limit was increased from 1,COO to 2,500 clams per day.

A $5 non-commercial clam permit enabling clammers to harvest, but

not sell, 500 clams per day was made available at the same time.

The increase in the commercial clam license fee and the commercial

clam harvesting limit was requested by the full time commercial clammers

who were attempting to reduce the activi-'U--y of part-time commercial

clammers.

It is readily apparent that no one will ever Imow the true

volume of hard clams that have been removed from the lower bays.

30.

Some appreciation of the number of persons involved in commercial

harvesting cw@ be obtained from Table 4, where U. S. and state

records of lower bay clam harvesters are depicted. Table 3. data shows

that reported clam landings from the lower bays reached a high of

584,700 pounds in 1956 and then declined to landim-s of only 77,000

pounds in 1962 and 81,600 pounds in 1963. Data from Table 4 shows

that according to U. S. Fishery Statistics, the number of regular,

casual and total clam harvesters also declined during that period.

The total number of clam harvesters, regular and casual, increased

significantly in 1965, the year bull rakes were first intro duced,

and coincidently, the year when the 1961- 62 year class of clams

had attained a minimal marketable size. The 1961-6.2 class of

clams was responsible for landing increases that began in 1965 and

continued to 1971. The relative abundance of the 1961-62 year
class was also responsible for the prec ipitous increase (951/16) in the

number of casual clam harvesters.

The general tonging licenses issued by the Delaware Commission

of Shellfisheries could be used for oystering or clamming. Early

fluctuations on the sale of tonain-- licenses reflect the opening
C) CD C>

and closing of natural oyster beds in tidal rivers. The clam

tonging licenses issued by DITREC since 1975 were strictly for hand
CD CD
methods of harvesting clams. The slight decline in '10'50 clam

licenses in 1978 is not significant but does indicate that sales

31.

TABLE 4

LICENSED CLAI',I HARVESTERS IN DELAdARE

Lower Bay Clam Harvesters Lower Bay Co=ercial Clam Licenses
(U.S. Fishery Statistics) Issued by- State Regulatory Authorit-,,r

Year Reg-ular Casual Total $5 License $50 License 85 Permit

1947 - 11 11 132
1948 25 35 60 209
1949 30 17 47 154
1950 36 45 81 114
1951 35 75 110 96
1952 10 27 37 ill - -
1953 23 37 60 187 - -
1954 20 45 65 191 - -
1955 21 6 27 191 - -
1956 51 87 138 61 - -
1957 78 172 250 97 - -
1958 74 186 260 250 - -
1959 107 237 344 127 - -
1960 62 206 268 180 - -
1961 60 213 273 - - -
1962 40 103 203 - - -
190`3 40 104 144 - - -
1964 40 125 165 -
1965 95 180 275 -
1966 95 193 288 -
1967 123 301 424 -
1968 110 281 391 -
1969 102 340 442 -
1970 88 393 481 -
1971 100 376 476 -
1972 84 282 366 -
1973 54 142 201 -
1974 53 148 201 -
1975 165 397
1976 - 370 - -
1977 - 69 143
1978 66 83

*Data not available

32.

of commercial clPnminE, licenses will probably continue to decrease

in 1-979. More significant, and more indicative of the decline in the

lower bay hard clam population is the 58% decrease in sales of the

$5 clam harvesting permit. Apparently, many of the permit holders
were unable*to harvest much more than 100 clams per day in 1977.

Recreational harvesting of hard clams in the lower bays

began in the mid 1940's when hard clams became abundant. Recreational

harvesting pre ssure has increased with recreational development in

the area. Recreational clam harvesting limits of 100 clams per

day per person were not cousidered restrictive when clams were

abundant. Since the recreational limit also applied to children,

entire families went on clam-ning excursions, often catching 1,000 or

more clams without requiring a license. The recreational clammers

have never been required or requested to submit catch records to

state officials much to the chagrin of the commercial clammers who

are now reauired to furnish this information.

The volume of clams harvested recreationally is not knovrn.

There seems to be little doubt that substantial numbers of Delaware

residents and visitors DarticiDate in rec--eational clamming. In
a survey of marine recreational fishing in Delaware per@ormed in
1976 (Miller, 1977), 78,407 man days of recreational clamming was

repo rted for the lower bays during t-he period April 1 through

October 31, 1976. Recreational clamming presziare may have slightly

decreased recently along with the decreasingavailability of near

shore and smaller size clams.

33.

There has been a surprisingly large number of scientific
studies performed in the lower bays. Some of the earlier biological
studies were revi ewed in 1969 by Daiber. More recently, Jensen (1976)

reviewed the scientific data that had been Dublished and prepared

an annotated bibliography of the scientific literature available

at that time. Only two scientific surveys of the hard clam population

in the lower bays have been performed.

The first shellfish survey of the lower bays was performed

by the University of Delaware during the summer of 1967 and reported
in 1968 (Humphries and Daiber, 10,68). The sampling stations were

established in Indian River Bay and Rehoboth Bay along a true

north-south, 500-yard grid system. Standard oyster tongs were used

to make two grabs of the bay bottom covering an area of five square
C)

feet at 393 stations throughout the bays. The Humphries and Da-iber

samDlin,- method consistinc, of standard oyster tongs was not efficient
C3 C)

in collecting clams that were buried deeper than three o_- four inches

in the bay bottom, and oyster tongs were not effective in catchino-
clams smaller than 1-i inches. Analysis of Humphries' data shows
that 320 clams, three scallops, no oysters (not surprising), and

one surf clam were collected from a total of 393 stations of five

square feet each. Humphries did not collect any clams at 238 stations.

All the clams collected in the Humphries survey were measured and

assigned to one of the eight commercial size categories. Humphries

found that clams in the'commercial size of eights and thousands, ranging
in size from 22' to 3@2- inches (6.4 to 8.9 cm.), were most abundant

34.

and accounted for azDroximately 6577-6' of the estimated standin,--

d-rop. HumDhries r--ave standing crop estimates of approximaLlely
116,80.4 bushels (935,152 pounds) for Indian River Bay and 103,827
bushels (519,135 pounds) for Rehoboth Bay.

During the period from August 1975 to August 1976, a similar
survey was performed (Cole, 1976 P_.) by DNREC. Cole sampled the

lower bays on a magnetic north-south, 500-yard grid system. Involving

338 stations, Cole used divers equipped with a hand-held Venturi

suction. dredge. The divers used the suction dredge to remove all

the clams and sediment inside a one square meter frame to a depth
of one foot. Sediments and all clams larger than 3/8 inch were

retained for analysis. The diver-Venturi dredge bottom sampling

method is considered to be the most accurate method available for

sampling in-faunal benthic organisms. Analysis of Cole's date
C)

indicates that 947 clams were collected from the total 338 sampling'

J_
sUations, of one square meter each. Cole did -not collect any clams

at 92 sampling stations. Cole's square meter sampling areas were
CD

more than twice the size of the five square foot areas sampled by

Humphries and Daiber. Considering the thoroughness of Cole's

collectin;:,- method, Cole should have been able to collect considerably

more clams than Humphries and Daiber if the abundance of clams had

remained relatively stable.

Cole also measured all clams for length frequency distribution,
and he found that approximately 65'/'0 of the clams he collected ranged
in size from about 3- 1/8 inches to 4-5/16 inches (8 - 11 cm.). Lacking,
local clam growth daia, Cole utilized o-rowth data from Massachusetts

35.

and surmised that the predominant size (6-4 8.9 cm.) clams

collected in the 1967 survey by Humphries and Daiber had increased
in size (8 - 11 cm.) by 1975-76 but were still the most abundant

size clams from which the bulk of the entire clam population was

composed. There appears to be little doubt that the dominant size

clams collected by Humphries and Daiber in 1967 and the dominant

but slightly larger size clam collected by Cole in 1975-76 were
survivors of the massive natursal clam set that occurred in 1961-62.

Cole found few clams less than 2 cm. in size. Clams that set

naturally in the lower bays appear to require a minimum of three

growing years before attaining the minimal legal harvesting size
of lJ inches (3.8 cm.). The lack of significant numbers of sub-legal

clams as evidenced by Cole's survey, clearly indicates that clam

populations will continue to decrease through 1979 and most likely

well into the 19801S.

Nearly all the ten states that harvest hard clams along

the Atlantic Coast of the United States report low level recruit-

ment of juvenile clams in areas that are harvested regularly.

High level recruitment appears to occur only occasionally and is
sometimes sufficient to's ustain-a sizeable commercial and recreational
clam fishery for a number of years (Ritchie, 1976).

In the lower bays, low level recruitment should not be

attributed to lack of adequate brood stocks. Sizeable brood

stocks exist in areas-that are closed to harvesting for public health
reasons. Even in areas that are harvested regularoly, harvesting

36.

Dressure is selective in that both commercial and recreational..

harvesters seek clams of the more desirable smaller size.

Recreational clnT-,-,,.e--s can only ut4Llize a small numbe.- of the large

chowder size clams, and many are not interested in harvesting any

of the larger size clams. Commercial clam harvesters also try

to avoid harvesting the larger size clams because clam buyers

do not ordinarily like to buy large clams. Clam buyers are now
paying clam catchers around @.11.each for small clams (cherrystones
and little necks) and only 3.05 each -for chowder size clams.

Poor recruitment is generally attributed to environmental

conditions that adversely affect the successful spawning and

subsequent survival and growth of larval and juvenile clams.
Recent hydrographic data (Karpas, 1978) and flushing rates for

Indian River Bay and Rehoboth Bay indicate that planktonic clam

larva should have amDle time to set in the lower bays before being

lost through Indian River Inlet.

Low level clam recruitment is not likely to be due to

increased Dredation because the DoDulation size of several known

hard clam Dredators has been reduced. Blowfish, or puffer fish,
(SDhero-ides macalatus), known predators of small hard clams,

have been absent from the lower bays since 1973. Whelks, or conchs
(Dusycon s-o.), are now caught commercially by traps and dredges
outside the Inlet. Blue crabs (Callinect--s sanidu-.) are recreationally

caught in co=ercial type crab pots throughout the lower ba s to a
CD y

degree that approaches directed commercial effort. Even the lowly
horseshoe crab (L-imulus sp.), a suspected juvenile hard clam

37.

predator, is now collected (females only) for baiting eel pots

throughout the lower bays and tributary cree'6-s and rivers.

Hatchery techniques for the production of large volumes of
juvenile hard clams are well established (Loosanoff and Davis, 1963),

but juvenile clams must be protected from predation and dislocation

for one or more years. Economically feasible methods of protecting
juvenile hard clams have been reported (Castagna, 1970), and

juvenile clam planting experiments have been conducted in Rehoboth
Bay. The first seed clam planting experiments were conducted by
the University of Delaware in 1972-73 (I@eck, 1973). Keck used
crushed sea clam shell as aggregate to protect small (1 - 3 mm.)

seed clams and obtained a survival rate of 47% during the first

year. However, in subsequent planting experiments of more than

1,000,000 small clams, survival ranged from one to fifteen percent.

The most recent clam planting experiments were also
conducted in Rehoboth Bay in 1976 by DNTREC (Cole, 1976 b.). Cole

conducted planting experiments in sub-tidal water similar to the

experiments conducted by the University of Delaware. Cole reported

a one year survival rate'of less than one percent. Cole was unable

to continuously monitor the experiment due to the water depth.

Although clam mariculture attempts have been unsuccessful

thus far, these clam planting experiments should be repeated in

severall intertidal are-as. Although ideally suited intertidal

areas are not abundant in the lower bays, there are a number of

areas where clam planting experiments could and should be conducted.

38.

In summary, there appear3 to be substantial evidence that
the hard clam populat-ion in the lower bays (Indian River Bay and
Rehoboth Bay) has been reduced significantly. Evidence is seen

in reduction of reported commercial clam meat landings and also in

the number of harvesters involved in the commercial clam harvest.

Perhaps, one of the better indicators of clam stock depletion is

the increased price that clam harvesters are receiving for their

clams. There are only a few shallow water areas in the lower bays

where clam mariculture efforts might be successful.

Natural resource management requires the following five

basic types of information:

1. Reliable information rega--ding*the relative
abundance of the resource.

2. The rate of resource renewal by growth.

3. The rate of resource renewal by reproduction.

4. The rate of resource removal by natural causes.

5. The rate of resource removal by commercial and
recreational harvestin-.

It can be seen that most of the basic information is not available

at the D-"esent time, and some of the information on harvesting

might never be obtained. The commendable hard clam survey that

was conducted in 1975-76 clearly should have been repeated annually

in order to obtain continuinc- reliable data reo-ardino, resource
0 M 01

availability. The relative abundance of clams in wild populations

fluctuates'naturally, and although the causes for population

fluctuations are unknown, it is unlikely that the causes can be

39.
controlled even thoua-h' they might be suspected (McHugh and
MacMillan, 1976). The clam populations in the lower bays are

approaching what might be the lowest re:=ded level of abundance.

Increased harvesting pressure, or any improvement in harvesting

efficiency or effectiveness can only cause a more rapid decrease

in the resource.

The regulatory agency must assume a stronger role in effective

management of the resou-rce, initially by obtaining more factual
CD

information about the resource and also by the continuation and

expansion of experimental clam maricultare. Utilization of hard

clam resources has been controlled mainiy by hard clam buyers and

harvesters who have used their influence to pass legislation

pertaining to hard clam harvesting. Existing clam regulations

should be re-evaluatled for the benefit of the resource.

In evaluatin- the validity of the 'Lew remaining leased oyster
CD C)

grounds in Indian River Bay, resource management officials should

seriously consider the -Cact that the lower bays have produced only

a few insignificant volumes of oysters during the past 20 years,

and it is highly unlikely that any production of oysters will occur

in the foreseeable future. Seed oysters will continue to be scarce
and/or too ex-pensive to plant in large quantities in areas where

recreational boating pressure is increasin g and the bacteriological

content of the water is likely to increase.

Although the near shore clam populations have been decreased

by commercial and recreational harvesting, the deeper portions of

both bays still contain reasonably heavy concentrations of large

chowder size clams and commercial quantities of small clams in a

few areas.

40.

Hard Clams in Delaware Bay

During pre-colonial times, American Indians harvested

hard clams along the shores of Delaware Bay. T he clam meats were

utilized as food, and the clam shells were used to make jewelry and
wampum. Early Delaware colonists (Miller, 1962) also gathered clams

f.rom the more shallow portions of Delaware Bay. More recently,

inter-tidal populations of hard clams existing at the mouth of the
M.ispillion and the Murderkill Rivers were reported (Horn, 1957).

In 1959, schematic maps of subtidal commercial hard clam grounds

in Delaware Bay and sh ort discussion of the commercial clam fishery
were published (Shuster, 1959).

A survey of the hard clam resource in Delaware Bay was conducted
by the University of Delaware in 1971-1972 (Keck, 1974), and the

decline and virtual cessation of the Delaware Bay commercial clam
fishery was reported by Cole (Cole, 1976 c.).

Poultry and meat shortages during and immediately after @,,'orld

War II led to the increased development and unprecenden-IL-.ed production

of clam products. Initially, the clam meat processors preferred to

utilize the meats of the larger chowder size clams. A record total

United States landing of 21.5 million pounds of hard clam meats

occurred in 1947. Total U. S. hard clam meat landings gradually

declined to around 15 million Dounds in 1954, and total hard clam

meat landings have averaged around 15 million pounds for the past
24 years (Ritchie, 197.6). Large scale utilization of hard clams

from Delaware Bay began in the late 1940's when the marketability

of larc-e volumes of clam meats occurred. Recent increases in the

landed value o f hard clams may enable the lower bays to support a

limited commercial fishery for several more years.

41.

Prior to World War II, the Delaware oyster dredge fleet was

composed of sail-powered vessels. During and after the war, the

sail-Dowered vessels were converted to gas and diesel-powered dredge

boats. Apparently, in the late 1940's, hard clams were relatively

abundant in natural clam beds as well as on leased and vacant oyster

grounds throughout Delaware Bay.

Oyster dredge boat captains developed a heavier type oyster

dredge with longer teeth for harvesting hard clams in the bay. The
size of the clams that were harvested was generally large, and

nearly all the commercial clam catch was sold to the Campbell Soup

Company.

The highest recorded Delaware Bay hard clam harvest occurred

in 1951 when 777,000 Dounds of clam meats with a dockside value

of $273,0600 were landed. If the standard conversion factor of

eight pounds of clam meats per U. S. Standard Bushel is used, the
C,

volume of' the record 1951 dredge catch would have amounted to 97,125
C:@
Standard U. S. bushels of clams valued at approximately $2.82/bu.

In 1-0,53, clam meat landings had declined to 330,000 pounds, and in

1967 Delaware Day landings amounted to only 40,900 pounds.

The commercial hard clam dredae fishery ceased to operate

around 19066-67, when existing wild clam stocks became depleted.

Ironically, Delaware Bay dredge clammers were only receiving about
$3/bu. when Campbell Soup Company (the only buyer) began using surf

clam meats for chowder processing. Hard clams that are harvested

from Delaware Day are not usually as valuable as the clams harvested

from the lower bays,as shown in Table 5.

42.

TABLE 5

COILPARATIVE -PER POTNTD, VALUE OF C-LAM ?@CHATS

Rehoboth Bay & Public & Private
Year Indian River-Bay Delaware Bay

1947 $ .33 -
1948 .40 .40
1949 .31 .30
1950 .29 .24
1951 .28 .35
1952 .30 .28
1953 .56 .56
1954 .50 .50
1955 .37 .48
.30
1956 .32
1957 .32 .28
1958 .34 .28
1959 .37 .36
1960 .44 .37
1961 .44- .37
19062 .43 .37
1903 .41 .41
1904 .50 .41
1965 .52 .41
19066 .53 -
1907 .53 .41
10,68 .54 .41
1969 .56 .41
1970 .63 -
1971 .67 -
1972 .77 -
1973 .85 -
1974 .94 -
1975 .93 -
1976 1.04 -
1977 1.51 -
1978 1.41 -

43.

Keck (1974) reported the collection of only 1,270 hard clams

with a total of 336 clam collectin@- dredo-e tows. Keck did not
C> CD

collect any clams in 216 of the 336 dredge tows. Furthermore,
375 Petersen Grab samples (0.1 meter area) yielded only ten

juvenile clams. Keck did report, commercial quantities of hard

clams azound Old Bear Shoal and Joe Flogger Shoal. Some Delaware

watermen s-Deculate that Keck's survey did not locate several areas

of high clam concentration throughout the bay. If significant

hard clam DoDulations had existed in Delaware Bay, the boats that

regularly dredge for oystoersq crabs, conchs, mussels, or clams

would most likely have found larger numbers of hard clams.

In summary, it appears that the waters, and quite possibly

the bottom of Delaware Bay, axe not suited for appreciable natural

production of hard clams at the present time. Years ago, environ-

mental conditions might have been more conducive to the survival

and growth of hard clams in Delaware Bay. The clams that were

harvested from 1949 through 1964 were basically old clams and

long-time survivors of year classes that could have occurred 15

or even 30 years ago.

44.

BLUE CRAB (Callinectes sazidus) R.ESOURCE IN DELAWAaE

Blue crabs evolved in shallow and temperat e estuarine areas

along the eastern and Gulf Coast of the United States. Blue crabs
.developed during the lower laocene Deriod (more than ten million
years ago). Even today, significant populations of blue crabs

exist only in areas from which they appear to have evolved.

The geographic range of the blue crab is along the East Coast

of the United States from Cape Cod to Mexico. Blue crabs have been

found as far north as Nova Scotia and as far south as Uraguay. They

have been introduced into European waters where they have survived,

but. they have not been found to be abundant exce-ot within their

historically geographic range in the waters of the United States.
Apparently, blue crabs are able to tolerate only the -temperature

extremes that occur within their normal geographic range. Mature

hibernating blue crabs in Delaware Bay are. often killed when bottom

temDeratures reach critical levels associated with ice coverac@e

during severe winters, but mature and juvenile crabs in shallow

bays and rivers are seldom killed by winter ice cover. In a similar

manner, blue crabs are sometimes killed by prolonged exposure to

critically warm water. Delaaare and New Jersey are the northernmost

states in which blue crabs occur in commercial auantities. Self-

sustaining blue crab populations do not occur in cold waters north

of New Jersey or in warm waters south of Texas.

The blue crab fishery is the largest crab fishery in the

.United States. In terms of both commercial and recreational value,

45.

blue crabs are one of Delaware's most valuable shellfish resources,

In 1976, commercial crabbers in Delaware landed 3,650,300 pounds of
crabs, valued at $1,155,013. In 1977, the commercial crab catch

amounted to.only 880,400 pounds, a reduction of more than 75% of the

previous year's total. The commercial volume and value of Delaware

blue crab landings are shown in Table 6. Recreational crab catch

data is difficult to obtain in Delaware as well as many other states.

The volume of crabs caught commercially or recreationally

during any year is dependent upon the relative abundance of crabs.

The lack of crabs has been the subject of much speculation and

many scientific investigations. Blue crab scientists-agree that

the relative survival of a year class of progeny is the most important
'factor contributing to the abundance of crabs one year later. There

are many compley. environmental factors and some harvesting factors

that c,,:-,,i exert a Drofound influence on the survival of various year

classes of crabs.

The recreational catch of crabs at Woodland Beach and other

locations along the shores of Delaware rivers and bays indicates

that blue crabs were quite abundant in the state prior to the expansion

of the commercial fishery in 1947. Early commercial harvesting methods

consisted almost entirely of baited trotlines and dip nets. During

World War II, the sail-po;-.,ered oyster dredge boats were allowed to

install motors for power dredging. In 1947, many of these vessels

began to dredge for crabs during the winter months. The crab pots

or traDs that now const.itute the only warm water method of crab

46.

TABLE 6

COM14ERCIAL BLUE GRAB LANDINGS IN DELAWARE

Hard Crabs Soft Crabs & Peelers Total

Year Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

1947 1,248,300 150tOOO 3,000 1,000 1,251,300 151,000
1948 lt459tOOO 152,950 8,700 2t7OO 1,467,700 155,650
1949 2,233,000 207,350 57,600 18,912 2t2010,0600 226,262
1950 4t4ll,600 215,240 9,500 3 , 025 41421,100 218@265
1951 4,646,000 328,710 6,500 2,008 41652,500 330,718
1952 11250tOOO 142,350 4,400 1,100 1,254,400 143t450
1953 lt728,000 223tOOO 2,000. 2,000 1,7309000 225,000
1954 2,912,000 253,000 3,000 2,000 219159000 255,000
1955 2,811,000 249,000 8tOOO 41000 2,819,000 253tOOO
1956 3,578,000 422,000 2,000 2tOOO 3,580,000 424,000
1957 4,922pOOO 416,000 1,000 1 000 41923,000 417@000
1958 21454,000 186@000 19000 @1) 2,455,000 1869000
1959 lt6509000 156tOOO -0- -0- lt650tOOO 1569000
1960 2,109pOOO 220tOOO 40,000 11@000 2,149@000 2319000
1961 759,000 522000 54,000 159000 813,000 67,000
1962 1,884,000 119tOOO 26,000 9,000 1,910,0CO 128,000
1963 522,000 34,000 39000 1,000 525,000 35,000
1964 313,000 32,000 2,000 11000 315,000 339000
1965 546tOOO 43,000 12 000 4 000 558,000 47,000
1966 571@000 49pOOO @1) @1) 5719000 49,000
1967 288,000 34,000 -0- -0- 288,000 34,000
1968 223,400 39,745 -0- -0- 223,400 39,745
1969 509,700 62,072 2,0600 lp651 512t3OO 63,723
1970 608@200 106,802 11800 ltl02 610,000 107t9O5
1971 ltO13,800 202t890 99200 5,292 1,023,000 208,182
1972 2,552,000 671,700 10,500 7,560 2,562,500 679,260
1973 2,373,400 653,550 17,700 12,690 2,391,100 6606,240
1974 29247,700 401,541 72,600 52,245 2@32OP300 453,786
1975 3t550,800 782tQ88 33,800 240367 3,584,600 807,355
1976 3t565,100 .1,075,093 85,200 79,920 3,650,300 1,155tO13
1977 862t2OO 3019700 189200 38,500 880,400 3409200
1978 333t5O4 145PO42 12,144 309388 345,048 175,430

47.

harvesting in Delaware Bay were introduced in 1948. In Delaware
waters, cra@ pots soon proved to be fa-- superior to the older

trotline harvesting methods, and by 1960 trotline methods of

harvesting were obsolete. The relative proportion of crabs

commercially harvested by various harvesting methods is shown in

Table 7.

Throughout the years, commercial crabbers in Delaware have

landed significant quantities of crabs, but the dockside value of

Delaware crabs has been low until just recently. There have been

various explanations for the previous and generally consistent low

dollar value for crabs harvested in Delaware. The principal

argument has been that Maryland and Virginia dominate the regional

crab market and that crab processing firms within these states

purchase Delaware crabs only when their own local supplies are

scarce. It is true that Delaware does not have, and apparently

has never had, any processors of blue crabs.

Crabs caught by the winter dredge fishery consist almost

entirely of female crabs, and nearly all of these crabs used to

be sold to crab processors in other states. Traditionally, the

potted crab catch has been purchased by small, independent buyers

who in turn sell the Delaaare crabs to Philadelphia and New York

markets, as well as to restaurants and bars that specialize in

serving steamed crabs. Recently, there has been a marked and

unprecendented increa.se in the number of establishments that

specialize in serving steamed crabs both seasonally and throughout

the year. The recent increase in the landed per-pound value of

Delaware blue crabs is shown in Table 8.

48.

TABLE 7

DELAWARE CONICERCIAL BLUE CRAB CATCH BY GEAR
(POUNDS)

Soft & Peeler Hard Crab Winter
Year Trot 'Lines Pots & Nets Pots Dredged

1947 4209000 31000 - 828,300
1948 397,000 81700 1629000 9001000
1949 195839000 57,600 5049000 147,000
1950 2239000 99500 536,900 39651,700
1951 150t600 6t5OO 642t3OO 3,853,100
1952 4,400 9509000 3009000
1953 21600 lt300,000 427P500
195@- 39400 2,572,500 338,400
195@ 60t2OO 109500 29148,600 6009000
1956 35,700 2t3OO 21221,200 1,320,800
1957 46,000 1,500 3,164,500 lt7ll,100
1958 17,600 500 lv260,000 1,176,000
1959 3,700 - 1,113,700 532,600
1960 5@600 402000 1,561,400 542,200
1961 - 53,700 628,500 130,900
1962 - 25t9OO 11675,400 209vlOO
1963 - 3,400 256,100 266t2OO
1964 - 2t3OO 273tOOO 40,300
1065 - 129000 545,600 -
1966 - - 388t6OO 182,400
1967 - 2539600 34?300
1968 223,400 -
1969 - 2p6OO 462,000 479700
1970 - 19800 6087200 -
1971 - 9,200 19013,800 -
1972 - 10,500 29504,000 48,000
1973 - 17,700 2,334,000 39,400
1974 - 72,600 lp906,900 340,800
1975 - 33P800 -
1976 - 850200
1977 - 18,200 -
1978 - l2t144 333,504

49.

TABLE 8

LANDED PER POUND VALUE OF DELAWARE BLUE CRABS

Year Price/lb. Year Price/Lb. Year Price/Lb.

1947 .12 1958 .08 1968 $ .18

1948 .11 1959 .09 1969 .12

1949 .10 1960 .11 1970 .18

1950 .05 1961 .08 1971 .20

1951 .07 1962 .07 1@972 .26

1952 .11 1963 .07 1973 .28

1953 .13 1964 .10 1974 .20

1954 .09 1965 .08 1975 .22

1955 .09 1966 09 1976 .32

1956 .12 1967 .12 1977 .39

1978 .51

The number of persons actively en.,aged in the Commercial

crab fishery varies directly in relation to the abundance of crabs,

and more recently in relation to the value of cra bs. At the present

time, and for a number of years now, the blue crab has been the

state's most valuable shellfish resource. Since 1971, commercial

crab landings have been much more valuable than the landings of

oysters, hard clams, or lobsters. The blue crab fishery employs more
Delaware residents by far than 'any-other commercial fishery. Delawareans

are involved in a number of commercial crabbing activities including,

but not'limited to, boat captains, crew members, boat hull and motor

maintenance, crab pot building, bait catching and crab shedding

activities.

More recently, the increased value of Delaware crabs has

resulted in a significant increase in the number of fulltime and

part-1-lime commercial crabbers. The number of licenses issued for

potting and dredging crabs is sho@,rn below in Table 9.
C>

TABLE 9

CRAB POT AN@ CRAB DIREDGE LICENSES IN DELA'J@_IRE

Date Crab Pot Crab Dredge

1970 28 -
1971 25 -
1972 43 -
1973 66 -
1974 77 -
1975 94 17
1976 106 33
1977 79 26
1978 40 -

51.

The 1976 commercial blue crab catch of 3.65 million pounds

was the fourth largest volume reported, and the.1-15 million

dollar value of the catch was by far the highest value ever

reported for crabs landed in Delaware. More units were involved

in harvesting crabs in 1976 than in any other year of record. There

has been speculation that the bl.ue crab resource is being over

harvested. The winter of 1976-77 was severe, and cold water

temperatures could have killed a large portion of the over-wintering

population of female crabs. Crabs were predictably scarce in 1977

and in 1978. The winters of 1977-78 and 1978-79 were also severe,

and consequently many over-wintering female crabs could again have

been killed by critically cold temperatuxes.

Surprisingly, blue crab populations that inhabit the lower
bays (Indian River and Rehoboth Bay) do not appear to have been

damaged during the record cold winters. rLnhe lower bays and all

tidal rivers have been reserved for recreational crabbing, and

commercial crabbing within these waters is prohibited. Recreational

crabbers still crab with hand lines, but many have switched over

to the utilization of the more effective crab pots. No one is

allowed to use more than two commercial crab pots in order to

catch crabs for personal consumption, and they are restricted to

haxvesting no more than one bushel per day.

Crab Pot Fishery

At the present time, blue crab populations can be harvested

with legally sanctioned harvesting methods during eleven and a half

52.

months of the year. Crab potting is an effective m ethod of catching

crabs in Delaware Bay, and the crab potting season extends from

March 1 through November 30. Landing records show crab pots to

be effective in catching "sooks", "peelersti, and "jimmies". The

crab dredging season extends from December 15 through March 31 of

each year. The winter dredge fishery has proved effective in
catchi.n- "sooks" (mostly fertilized females), and some male crabs.

There is some auestion as to whether a winter crab dredge fishery

is desirable or advisable, and there are those who think that

expansion of the crab pot fishery should be curtailed. There are

questions pertaining to harvesting methods and their impact on

the resource.

Winter Dredge Fishery

The winter crab dredge fishery was started by oyster dredge

boats that were rigged for dredging. During winters when crabs
C:) tD

were abundant, private fishing boats installed temporary dredging

equipment and entered the crab dredge fishery. Today, the oyster

dredge fleet has been reduced to only a few dredge boats that

still form, the nucleus of the crab dredging fleet. Several

winter crab dredge fishermen are also actively involved in the

crab Dot fishery during the warmer months of the year.

It has been reported that the winter dredge fishery is

justifiable because a certain portion of the bedded female crabs

is not likely to emerge-from semi-hibernation. It has been argued

that a large portion of the bred female crabs will be caught in

53.

the spring by the crab pot fishery. Biologically, it would be

almost impossible'to prove or disprove that the winter dredge

fishery is especially damaging to the resource.

Economically, the crab pot fishery is much more valuable

to the state than the winter dredge fishery. More persons are

involved in the crab pot fishery, and the per-pound value of

potted crabs is higher than the value of crabs dredged during the

winter. The Delaware Bay blue crab population has been reduced,

possibly by over harvesting and definitely by the damaging effect

that three successive severe winters have had on the over-wintering

female crab population. In view of the current economic value of

the blue crab resource, the winter crab dredge fishery, since it
-benefits only a few fishermen, should be reevaluated.

During the past ten years, recreational crabbers have

increasingly used commercial type crab Dots. The number of recreational

pots fished in the lower bays might approach the number used in

commercial crabbinc- locations. This type of recreational crab

fishing should also be evaluated to insure that crab populations

in the lower bays are not over-harvested.

54.

AMERICAN LOBSTER (Homarus WARE
americanus) RESOURCE IN DELA'

The geographic range of the American lobster extends from

southern Labrador to CaDe Hatteras. Within the geographic range,

the lobster-resource is divided into the northern inshore population

and the Mid Atlantic offshore population. American lobsters are also

commonly called Maine or northern lobsters The genus, Homarus,

evolved to inhabit cool boreal waters of high salinity and rough

or rocky sea floors that offer food and protection.

The Delaware Coast generally lacks rocky habitat that

lobsters require, and inshore lobster populations exist in Delaware

only within the confines of man-made habitats such as stone

.breakwaters and remains of shipwrecks. Apparently, lobsters were

attracted to the breakwater in Lewes soon after it was constructed

in the late 1800's. An account of the oyster industry in 1902

states that with the formation of the brealvaater, lobsters and

black fish (tautog) came there in quantity. Early landing information

sucrcrests that the lobster Do-julations inhabitin- the breakwaters
CDC) C)

in Lewes have fluctuated. The commercial catches that have been

reported have ranged from a high of 39,000 pounds to less than

1,000 pounds. The commercial lobster fishery in Lewes was closed

from the early 1950's until the late 1960's, when it wa3 reopened.

Recent commercial lobster landinas are shown -in.Table 10. In 1976,

lobster fishin- regulations were revised, and a $50 fee for a lobster

fishing license is now required.

55.

TABLE 10

COMIMERCIA-L LOBSTER LANDINGS FOR DEMAWARE

Year. Pounds Dollars,

1969
1970 -
1971 30tOOO $41,250
1972 22oOOO 36,500
1973 29t5OO 51v400
1974 26P300 54,675
1975 27,300 48,800
1076 26,200 55t310
1977 18,200 38,500
1978 30v8OO 70,340

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Inshore Landings Offshore Landings

Year Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

1971 309000 $41p250
197-9 22,000 369500 - -
1973 28pooo 49POOO 1@500 $ 2@400
1974 15,000 33P750 119300 209925
1975 - - -
1976
1977 -
1978 5tOOO 25,800

56.

Although suitable natural lobster habitat does not exist

along the nearshore Delaware coastline, such habitat does exist

.g the Canyon edges in water depths ranging
in offshore waters alor

from 50 to 100 fathoms. A few lobsters have always been taken

incidentally in the commercial potting of sea bass within the

20 fathom line. In 1973, one Delaware boat entered the offshore

lobster fishery. In 1978, two boats were potting lobsters

offshore and landing their catches at Indian River. During 1978,

the inshore Delaware lobster fishery consisted of five licensed

fishermen who fished out of Lewes, Delaware. Total reported

inshore catch was estimated to weigh approximately 5,000 pounds.

Lobstering inshore in Delaware is basically limited to the

outer breakwaters at Lewes. Fishing effort will most likely

continue to increase and decrease in direct relation to the catchability

of the lobsters within this relatively small area. Lobster fishery

init4
regulations Lated in 1976 are basically sound and should be

continued. The size of the inshore resource is ouite small, and the

U Existing
small commercial fishery is part-time and almost casual.

regulations provide for a two-pot-per-person recreational fishery

which has not yet been utilized to any great extent. The offshore

fishery is conducted from 20 to 70 miles offshore and entirely

ouUside Delaware's current jurisdiction. The offshore resource is

probably being over fished at the present time.

57.

WEAKFISH (Cynoscion regails) RESOURCE IN DELAWARE

Weakfish in Delaware are more commonly called trout or sea

trout. These fish are normally inhabitants of Delaware's bays and
coastal waters only 'during the warmer months of the year (April to
October). Weakfish inhabit Atlantic coastal waters from Massachusetts

to southern Florida, but the major population center extends from

Rhode Island to North Carolina. Delaware Bay might be one of the

major weakfish spawning areas along the Mid Atlantic Coast. Weakfish

have been the predominant fish caught by Delaware Bay recreational

fishermen for a number of years (Lesser, 1968; Martin, 1973). In

a 1976 survey of marine recreational fishing in Delaware, weakfish

accounted for 40 percent of the entire sportfish catch, and weakfish

were ranked as the state's most important marine recreational fish

(Miller, 1977).

Weakfish may well be the most valuable state marine resource

at the present time. In the 1975 national survey of hunting and

fishing, it was estimated that marine anglers in Delaware spent

approximately 25 million dollars annually. It is conservatively

estimated that approximately 50 percent of the total recreational

marine fishing activity in Delaware is directed toward weakfish.

Therefore, recreational fishing for weakfish in Delaware could

have a value in excess of 12 million dollars at the present time.

Weakfish have not always been abundant in Delaware waters,

and the exceptionally large fish that, have been caught in and

58.

near Delaware Bay during the past seven years are definitely larger
and much mor,6 abundant than any previous records indicate. During

the mid 1940's and until 1972, the trout Do-oulation in Delaware

Bay and surrounding waters was composed mainly of young fish

ranging in age from one to four years and generally ranging in

size from one-half to two and one-half pounds. Three-pound fish

were rarely caught by commercial or recreational fishermen. In

1969, the minimum qualifying weight for weakfish in Delaware's

sportfishing tournament was three pounds, and only one trout

qualified that year.

Extensive commercial trout landings were made by haul seines,

fyke nets a-rid gill net fishermen immediately after World War II.
0

The small fleet of trawlers that o-oerated within Delaware Bay from

1942 to 1966 relied heavily on trout landings, and the trawlers

were largely --responsible -for record commercial trout landings
that occurred in 1949 and 1955 through 1957 (Table 11). As Delaware

Bay trout became relalt,-ively less abundant during "'he period 19360 to

1971, haul seines and fyke nets became obsolete, and commercial

trout fishermen began to rely almost entirely on staked or drifted

gill nets. Commercial netting of trout in Delaware usually occurs

in early spring before trout can be caught by hook and line fishermen.

The comin-ercial value of trout usually droDs soon after recreational

fishermen begin to catch large quantit-ies of trout. Commercial net

fishermen claim that recreational fishermen depress commercial fish

values when they sell.recreationally caught surplus fish to

restaurants and fish buyers.

59.

TA3LE 11

COMIIERCIAL WEAZFISH LANDINGS IN DELAWARE

Averag
Year Pounds 8 Value Price ound

1947 582,100 35t549 o6
1948 639,300 51,168 .08
1949 1,038tOOO 29p835 .03
1950 573v4OO 589100 .10
1951 666,200 71@839 .11
1952 281,100 20,388 .07
1953 732tOOO 50tOOO .07
1954 369,000 629000 .17
1955 lt579,000 123YO00 .08
1956 958,000 57tOOO o6
1957 11282,000 719000 o6
1958 325,000 339000 .10
1959 182,000 21,000 .12
1960 8,000 itooo .13
1961 134YOOO 24,000 .18
1962 143,000 16yOOO .11
1963 148,000 17,000 .11
1964 127@000 14tOOO .11
1965 221,000 219000 .10
1966 90,000 91000 .10
1967 8,000 ipooo .13
1968 4t5OO 517 .11
1969 21,300 3,102 .15
1970 147,100 30 1980 .21
1971 212v900 41tl2l '19
1972 406,300 42,766 .11
1973 334tOOO 841070 .25
1974 280,900 649049 .23
1975 289,800 66t367 .23
1976 2469000 63oO53 .26
1977 332vOOO 709332 .21
1978 2999400 67,694 .23

6o.

Prior to 1972, the so-called tide runners.that were
occasionally caught by recreational fishermen at nicht seldom

weighed more than four pounds. This size trout was also occasionally

caught in commercial nets.

Trout populations in Delaware remained at relatively low

levels during most of the 1960's and did not show any significant

increase in numbers until 1971. The first indication of' a dramatic

increase in the number of large trout returning to Delaware Bay
01

occurred in 19-12, when four and five-pound trout suddenly began to
CD

appear in gill nets. Recreational fishermen were able to catch

these laraer trout on artificial luxes several weeks earlier than

they normally catch the smaller size trout. In 1972, the state

C.) ore pounds.
awarded 971 citations for trout weighing three or ir - I

Apparently, several successful trout spai-rning years occurred during

the late 1960's and early 1970's because many of the trout returning

to Delatiare Bay after 1972 returned as much larger fish. The nu,.-Iber
C)

and s.i--e of lar--e -aeakffish in Delaware increased after 1972 to such

an extent that it became necessary to increase the minimum citation

qualifying weight to 3.5 pounds in 1973, seven pounds in 1974, and

ten pounds in 1976.

Trout that are spawned in Delaware Bay during the late spring

spend their larval and juvenile lives in upper Delaware Bay and

lower Delaware River. Large numbers of these tiny trout are

sometimes trapped on screens covering cooling water intakes for

refineries and power plants. In investigations performed by the

61.

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, it was found that thousands

of trout, spot, menhaden and perch juveniles were trapped daily on

cooling water screens at the Getty Refinery near Delaware City.

Similar investigations of the cooling waters at the Salem Nuclear

Power Plant disclosed that 0.5 million juvenile weakfish were

entrapped daily during most of July 1978 (Public Service Electric

and Gas Company, 1978).

Trout juveniles and also adult trout leave Delaware estuaries

during the late fall and migrate south and offshore to over-winter

somewhere off the Carolina Coast. The nine or ten-inch trout that

return to Delaware are sexually mature and about one year old. The

reproductive capacity of weakfish appears to increase significantly

when fish attain weights of four or more pounds. The 1978 year

class of weakfish spawned in Delaware Bay might be the largest

reproductive year class that has ever been recorded.

Existing, but currently unenforced, weakfish regulations

require that haul seine meshes not be less than two inches and

gill net meshes not less than two and three-quarter inches. The

minimal legal weakfish size in Delaware is ten inches total length.

Present day gill net fishermen have expressed a desire to be licensed

and a willingness to identify their fishing gear. They also have

expressed a strong desire to prohibit recreational fishermen from

selling their surplus catches.

In the summer of 1976, large schools of trout were found in the

Atlantic Ocean outside Delaware Bay and from five to eleven miles off

the Delaware Coast. Increasing numbers of party, charter and private

recreational fishing boats fished for these large trout outside

Delaware's three-mile territorial sea.

BLUEFISH (Pomatomus saltatrix) RESOURCE IN DELAWARE

The bluefish is an inhabitant of inshore and offshore

waters along the Atlantic Coast from Nova Scotia to Uruguay. Blue-
fish have been unusually abundant in the mid Atlantic region for a
long time, and the average size of the fish within the population

also appears to have increased. Mature fish spawn at the surface

of offshore waters during April and IMay in the area from North Caro-

lina to Florida. In the mid Atlantic region, from Cape Hatteras to

Cape Code, spawning occurs from June through August (Wilk, 1977).

In the spring, large bluefish schools migrate northward

into Delaware Bay and nearby Atlantic Ocean waters during the month
of May. The fish remain in or near Delaware.waters until late
fall when they migrate southwaTd to offshore over-wintering areas

somewhere off the coast of Florida. There are no directed commercial

net or commercial handline fisheries for bluefish in Delaware,

although such fisheries do exist in the coastal states from North

Carolinato New York. The landed value of bluefish in Delaware

has'averaaed around ten cents per pound, and the sale of recreation-

ally caught bluefish throughout the summer months keeps prices down

and gluts the market. The reported commercial bluefish landings in

Table 12 are actually incidental fish that are landed by commercial

net fishermen attempting to catch more valuable fish such as trout

or striped bass.

The size of the bluefish stocks along the mid Atlantic

coast of the United States has fluctuated widely throughout the

history of the fishery. Historical records indicate that bluefish

63.

TABLE 12

C01,11,1ERCIAL BLUEFISH LA.'LTDINGS IN DELAWARE

Year Pounds Value Avg. Price/Lb.

1968 400 72 .18

1969 -0- -0- -0-

1970 -0- -0- -0-

1971 -0- -0- -0-

1972 600 90 .15

1973 2,700 410 .15

1974 5,900 990 .17

1975 15,000 21202 .15

1976 llt700 1,920 16

1977 329100 31231 .10

1978 40p400 5t552 .14

64.

populations tend to gradually increase over a period of years

and rapidly decrease to lower levels for a number of years. The

present day bluefish stocks appear to be larger, and the size of

some of the fish within the population is definitely larger than

has ever been recorded in the past. Persons who have seen the

bluefish come and go state that bluefish have remained abundant

for a longer period of time than ever before. Although bluefish

do not now have, and apparently have neirer had, a particularly

high market value to the commercial fishery, more recreational

fishermen actively fish for bluefish than for any other fish along
CD

the mid Atlantic coast. More boats are chartered for bluefishin-

and more private boats, surf and jetty fishermen regularly fish

more often for bluefish than for any other fish.

In lower Delaware, and especially Indian River Inlet, bluefish

have been the most reliable fish during the past ten years for

charter boats. Bluefish can usually be caught when other fish

refuse to bite. In sha--p contrast to the low commercial value
of bluefish (around $.10/lb.) recreational fishermen hold bluefish

in high esteem, and it is estimated that the recreational value

of bluefish in Delaware is more than $1/lb.

6.5.

SIPMHER FLOUNDER (@-@'aralicth-@-s dentlatus) RESOURCE IN-DELAWkRE

The normal range of the summer flounder, or fluke, extends

from New England to northern Florida. Summer flounder reside in

shallow coastal and high salinity estuarine waters during the warm
months of the year, and most fish migrate to offshore water depths

of'20 to 100 fathoms durin- the colder winter months. Spawning

occurs during the fall and winter as the coastal fish populations
are movini- to offshore over-wintering grounds (Bigelow and Schroeder,
C)
1953; Poole, 1966). Summer flounder in Delaware normally begin to

enter high salinity bays and rivers during the early spring
(April - May).

Summer flounder were caught in commercial quant-ities bT
the small fleet of trawlers that CD fished within Delaware Bay from

the early 1940's until the mid 1960's. Substantial commercial

landings we re made during some years as shown in Table 13. Almost
C:@

all the sir-,nificant commercial flounder landings were made.by the
CD

trawling fleet wh,ich ceased after 1966. More recently, in the

spring and sometimes in the fall, a few summer flounder are caught

incidentally in gill nets that have been set for shad, weakfish,

croaker or striDed bass. Summer flounder were not abundant in

Delaware Bay during the late 1960's and early 1970's, but incidental

commercial landings began to increase in 1975 when the recreational

slimmer flounder catch also began to improve.

Nearly all the mid Atlantic commercial flounder catch is

landed by coastal trawl fishing vessels that fish for flounder that

606

TABLE 13

COMMERCIAL I.ALNDINGS OF SUMMER FLOUNDER IN DELAWARE

Year Pounds Value

1947 46,300 7p935
1948 l5vOOO 3,000
1949 8v3OO 11245
1950 24,600 3t485
1951 19,800 3,120
1952 69t2OO lOv73O
1953 53tOOO litooo
1954 219000 3,000
1955 26,000 31000
1956 60,000 gtooo
1957 48,000 79000
1958 209,000 28,000
1959 95,000 13@000
1960 44,000 59000
1961 76,000 .11,000
1962 24,000 4@000
1963 l7vOOO 3,000
1964 16@000 4,000
1965 25,000 6pooo
1966 13POOO 3@000
1967 -0- -0-
1968 -0- -0-
1969 -0- -0-
1970 -0- -0-
1971 -0- -0-'
1972 -0- -0-
1973 100 18
1974 -0- -0-
1975 4,700 1,320
1976 3,300 990
1977 4P500 2tlll
1978 500 205

67.

are over-winterinc, in deeD water offshore. The coastal trawlers
0 - I

follow the flounder that migrate to inshore areas during the

the late fall. The
warmer months and ac-ain offshore during

inshore and shallow coastal bay recreational flounder fishery is

no less intensive, and in 1974, summer flounder were ranked as

the third most frequently caught marine fish in the mid Atlantic
area (McHugh and Ginter, 1978).

The value of the mid Atlantic coastal stock of summer flounder

has long been recognized by state and federal resource managers.
C3

Summer flounder are now bein- studied under a state/federal program
0

in order to develop a resource management plan that can be implemented
CD
by the states in their territorial seas. The state/federal program

will have to develop some method of controlling offshore flounder

trawling in order to enable effective management of the entire

Atlantic summer flounder stock.

The summer flounder resource in Delaware is now utilized

almost entirely by recreational hook and line fishermen because

trawl fishing is not allowed in Delaware Bay or within three miles

of the Delaware Coast. The summer flounder that mill-ate back into

Delaware waters during the early spring are caught incidentally
C3

by gill net fishermen. The recreational catch of summer flounder

in Delaware Bay has been increasing during the past several years.
In a marine recreational fish survey conducted in 1976 (IMiller, 1977),

summer flounder accounted for almost eleven percent of the recreational
fish catch. Summer flounder 'were ranked third after weak-fish (4056)

6 a.

and croaker (20%) in the recreational fish catch. Summer flounder

that are caua-ht in Delaware Bay are usually caught incidentally by
0

fishermen who are using squid strip bait, or lures to catch weakfish,

but direct flounder fishing effort might increase in the future.

In Delaware and southward along the Delmarva Peninsula,

summer flounder are caught more frequently in the vicinity of ocean
inlets and within shallow coastal bays. Live top minnows (killifish)
or fresh frozen shiners (Menidia) are the most popular and often the

most successful baits used to catch summer flounder in shallow water.

A sizeable recreational.flounder fishery exists in Indian River Bay

and'near the Indian River Inlet.

69.

BLACK SEA BASS (Centro-oristis stri ata) PLEESCURCE IN DELA'7111,LiE

The range of the black sea bass extends along the Atlantic
Coast from Florida to the Gul."L' of Maine (Miller, 1959). The species

appears to be most abundant during the summer in nearshore rough
bottom areas between New York and North Carolina (Hildebrand and

Schroeder, 1928). U
During the warmer months of 'he year (March to
November), sea-bass inhabit rough bottom areas, wrecks and rock
CD

jetties in the Atlantic Ocean and also in the lower portions of

Delaware Bay. In lower Delaware Bay and in the Atlantic Ocean off

the Delaware Coast, sea bass are highly sought after by party and

charter boats. Sea bass are one of the few marine fish that can

be caught by hook and line fishermen throuc-hout- most of the
0 CD
fishing season (April - October). Sea bass are also caught

commercially in bass zots which are set offshore along -the coast

of Delaware in water depths of around 80 feet. A small, but effective,

commercial bass pot fishery is opera-ted by one sea bass boat out of

Indian River.

In autumn, sea bass migrate offshore in a southerly direction
to water depths of around 73 to 165 meters (Musick and Mercer, 1977)

where they over-winter. Adults and young migrate inshore and northward

in the spring where they seek out rough bottom areas for food and

protection. Spawning occurs from May through October, presumably

in high salinity waters since no eggs or larva have been collected

in estuarine waters.

70.

Party and charter fishing boats that fish out of Indian

River Inlet rely heavily on sea bass fishing parties for a la--ge

portion of their business. During the post World War II years until
1969, lar-e catches of sea bass (300 - 500 fish) could be made on

the old bass grounds. The bass grounds are a large rough bottom area

located off Indian River Inlet where water depths range from 60 to 90

feet. Party and charter boats usually drifted over the rough bottom

and were able to make good catches of sea bass, along with fair
catches of red hake (Urophycis chuss) which is locally called ling

or ling cod.

Around 1969, hook and line catches of sea bass and ling

began to decline on the bass grounds. Many of the more experienced

fishing boat captains resorted to fishing for sea bass around wrecks

and snags. Some of the more ex-perienced boat captains speculated
that the large bluefish had eat'en or chased the sea bass and ling
away. Delaware party and charter boat catches of sea bass probably

reached one of the lowest levels during the summer of 1978 when sea

bass were extremely difficult to find. In the spring of 1979, water

temperatures stayed cool for a longer period than usual, and the size

and numbers of the sea bass catch showed some imDrovement, but only

for a short period of time.

Sea bass are caught commercially in bass pots from New York

to Virginia. Bass pots.are usually set around underwater obstructions

or on rough and uneven bottom in water depths ranging from 30 to 100

feet. Sea ba--s show a definite affinity for inhabiting underwater

71.

obstructions. Bass pots are not baited, and the sea bass presumably

enter bass pots while searching for protective habitat. Normally,

20 large bass pots are attached to one pot buoy which carries a flag

and often a'number. Pots are periodically hauled at weekly intervals,

emptied of their contents, and set again throughout the warmer

mont hs of the year.

Since sea bass can only be caught in commercial quantities

by the pot fishery, the value of sea bass has been high and will

most likely continue to be high. The landed value of sea bass is

now around one dollar Der pound. At the present time, Delaware has

only one bass pot fishing boat, but New Jersey and Maryland bass

-boats have been potting sea bass off the Delaware Coast for many

years. Recent commercial sea bass landings in Delaware are shown

in Table 14.

TABLE 14

C0101ERCIAL SEA BAS)S LANDIMIS !N DELAWARE

Year Pounds Value Price/Lb.

1971 30POOO 9,300 .31
1972 40vOOO 13,200 33
1973 80,000 18$080 :23
1974 80,000 22,880 .29
1975 1809000 46,800 .26
1976 150,000 45,000 .30
1977 220,000 52,800 .24
1978 160,000 649000 .40

72.

ATLANTIC CROAKER (MLicro'gogon un-dulatus) RESOURCE IN DELAWARE,

Atlantic croakers range from 'Massachusetts to Argentina
(Dahlbura, 1975). Si)awning occurs in the Atlantic Ocean from

October through February, and larvae and young fish enter estuarine

areas during late fall and winter. Severe winters supposedly kill

youna fish that are over-win-tering in the tidal rivers of Virginia
(McHugh and Ginter, 10,78). In the mid Atlantic region, adult

croakers over-winter south of CaDe Hatteras and migrate northward

along the shore during the early spring. During the past several

years, adult size croakers did not arrive in Delaware waters until

midsummer, although a few large fish were taken in nets throughout

the early spring and summer. In late fall, croakers congregate
co C.)

along ocean beaches and begin a southward migration generally

following the shoreline.

During World 'dar II, significant populations of Atlantic

croakers inhabited Delaware waters durina the warmer months of the

year. Large fish, weighing up to five pounds, were caught off

Rehoboth Beach, Delaware and.along most of Delxaare's Atlantic

coastline. Smaller fish of one or more pounds were caught throughout

most of the lower-portions of Delaware Bay. In Delaware,, croaker

landings by commercial and recreational fishermen rapidly declined

during the postwar years until 1958 when croakers mysteriously

,disappeared from Delaware waters for approximately 15 years.

No one knows why the croakers left Delaware waters or why

these fish started to return to Delaware in 197"-..:. During 11-he late

1940's and early 1950's, croakers accounted for a significant portion

73.

of the total recreational fish catch in Delaware. The highest

commercial landings of croakers occuzred in 1955 when 667,000
pounds were reported. 'Croakers are not even mentioned in recreational
fishing surveys reported by Lesser (1968) and 11artin (1973). Croakers

were rarely seen in exploratory fish surveys performed by the

University of Delaware Marine Laboratories from 1961 until after
1974. Croaker and nearly all the coastal migratory finfish are
subject to periods of cyclic abundance. The abundance, or lack

of abundance of most fish and shellfish is closely related to the

relative survival of each year class of progeny. Croaker may be

even more susceptible to extreme estuarine ehvironmental factors

because the young-of-the-year croaker over-winter in estuarine

areas. The progeny of other coastal migratory fish including

weakfish, bluefish, shad, and others utilize estuarine areas as

nursery grounds durin- the summer, but nearly all juvenile and

adult fish leave the estuaries durino- the fall.

In 1974, a few small croakers began to appear in recreational

fish catches within Delaware Bay and in the nearby Atlantic Ocean.

In 1975, the recreational croaker catch increased, and there was
even a small commercial landing of croakers (Table 15). Suddenly,

in 1976, croakers accounted for 20 percent of the recreational fish
catch. The 1976 marine recreational fishing survey (Miller, 1977)

showed that weakfish-accounted for approximately 40 percent of

the Delaware marine recreational fish catch, but croalkers were

ranked as the second most frequently caught recreational fish. The

74.

TABLE 15

C0101ERCIAL CROAKER LIMINGS IN DELAWARE

Year Pounds Value

1947 7p2OO, 840
1948 329300 3t230
1949 88,000 119400
1950 61100 lt04O
1951 4t9OO 783
1952 8t300 19238
1953 43,000 59000
1954 60,000 49000
1955 667,000 44,000
1956 27,000 29000
1957 167,000 19 000
1958 32000 @1)
1959 91000 1 000
1960 (1)
11:1)61 -0-
1962 -0-
1963 -0- -0-
1964 -0- -0-
1965 -0- -0-
1966 -0- -0-
1967 -0- -0-
1968 -0- -0-
1969 -0- -0-
1970 -0- -0-
1971 -0- -0-
1972 -0- -0-
1973 -0- -0-
1974 -0- -0-
1975 lp300 317
1976 21600 832
1977 82900 1@841
10/78 79300 19934

750

recreational croaker catch was again high in 1-977, alono- with

commercial croaker landings, but both recreational and commercial

landings showed a significant decrease in 1978. All the substantial

commercial croaker landings in Delaware occurred before 1957, when

trawl nets and haul seines were still being used in Delaware waters.

All the commercial landings after 1975 were made by gill net

fishermen.

76.

STRIPED BASS (1'.1orone saxatilis) REESOURCE IN DELAWARE

Striped. bass normally inhabit marine and estuarine coastal

waters from the St. Lawrence River in Canada to the St. Johns River

in northern Florida. The range of the striped bass also extends
alonc- the Gulf Coast from western Florida to Louisiana (Raney, 1952).
CD

Striped bass were successfully shipped by rail and introduced into

California dur.ing the late 1800!s, and now the striped bass range

extends along the West Coast from southern California to the Columbia

River. Striped bass have become landlocked in fresh water impoundments,

and striped bass have been successfully introduced into some fresh

water lakes and ponds. Along t"he Atlantic Coast, striped bass have

been most abundant from CaDe Cod to North Carolina.' The tributaries

of the Chesapeake Bay have long been recognized as the major spawning

grounds for the species and I.-he major population center. From

Delaware sou'Vh,.-.,ard, striped bass are commonly called "rock" or

"rockfish".

Some male striped bass become sexually mature when they are

two years old, and nearly all male fish are sexually mature at the

age of three. Female striped bass start to become sexually mature

at the age of four, and nearly all female fish are sexually mature

when they are six years old. Spawning occurs in fresh and oligohaline

(less than 3.0 Ppt salinity) water during late April and early May
when temperatures reach 150C. Eggs hatch in 36 to 48 hours at
15 - 170C. (Mansueti, 1958), and larva and young fish utilize

shallow waters as nursery areas. Young and adult fish over-winter

in the deeper portions of the larger estuaries.

77*

Since 1947, striped bass have been sporadically abundant in

Delaware, but-they have always been highly valued by commercial

-e. The annual commercial
and recreational fishermen within the stat

landings of striped bass (Table 16) give a reasonably good indication

of their relative abundance in Delaware. Significant portions of the

commercial landings from 1947 until 1966 were made by the fleet of

small trawlers. that.operated within Delaware Bay. Trawl fishing

within Delaware Bay and within three miles of the ocean coast became

illegal in 1967. The landing data show that commercial striped bass

landings in Delaware have seldom been substantial except for the

immediate post World War II years and 'Uhe.1972 - 1975 period.
Recreational striped bass fishing in Delaware has not been

good for a number of years, and now fair recreational catches occur

only during the occasional years when commercial net landings have

also been significant. During recent years, nearly all striped

bass landings in Delaware appear to result from fish migrating into

Dela,,-,,are %-;aters. At the -oresent. time, there do not appear to be

any large resident populations of striped bass in Delaware waters,
although years ago (de Sylva, 1962) it was reported that the Delaware

River supported a racially distinct population of striped bass.

Many years ago, the Delaware River was one of the major spawning

rivers for striped bass. Water Dollution and low dissolved oxygen

levels prevented striped bass from utilizing traditional spawning
CD 01 1

areas in the Delaware River, and the major spaal@-ming area shifted to

76.

TABLE 16
COMMci'AL STRIPED BASS LMINGS IN DEL.AALWAIRE

Year Pounds Value Average PriceZLb.

1947 109,000 28,000 .26
1948 361,000 gotooo .25
1949 255,000 68,000 .27
1950 271,000 65tOOO .24
1951 215tOGO 53POOO .25
1952 120,000 32,000 .27
1953 106,000 34POOO 032
1954 146tODO 25,000 917
1955 88tooo 24,000 *27
1956 28,000 71000 .25
1957 16,000 4,000 .25
1958 22tOOO 5,000 .23
1959 12,000 3,000 025
1960 251,000 5@000 .20
1961 66,000 12tOOO .18
1962 108tooo litooo .10
1963 48POOO 9@000 .19
1964 31POOO 6tOOO 19
1965 32sOOO 41,000 :13
1966 64,000 13.000 .20
1967 66,000 12,000 *18
1968 48?700 10,000 21
1910-9 41,700 8,042 :20
1970 54tlOQ 11,778 .22
1971 38,800 8,978
1972 248,300 67,457 .27
1973 580,100 166t249 .27
1974- 212o400 6 5 9 130" 31
1975 1069000 43,213 :41
1976 80t6oo 56,069 .70
1977 57@100 41s,412 .73
1978 37tGOO 379457 1.00

79.

the ChesaDeake and Delaware Canal. The C. & D. Canal is now

considered to be one of the major spaeming areas for striped

bass. Net flow in the C. & D. Canal is toward the Delaware

River, and consequently the lower Delaware aiver and Bay should

be an important nursery ground for striped bass. However, juvenile

striped bass have not been particularly abundant in Delaware

waters since the early 1970's.

All striped bass populations experience substantial fluctuations

in year class strength. Successful spawning and reasonably good
(D CD

survival of a year class of fish can influence commercial and

recreational landings for a number of years. The most recent

dominant year class of striped bass was produced in 1970. These

fish attained a minimal harvestable size in 1972. Increased

commercial landings from 1972 through 1975 were due to the relative

abundance of fish that were spawned in 1970. Unfortunately, there

have been no dominant year classes of stri-oed bass Droduced in

the Chesapeake area since 1970, and resident striped bass populations

-have fallen to critically low levels. The reproductive potential
of the major striped bass poi@ulation center located within the

Ghesapeake Bay has been seriously reduced by continuous commercial

and recreational fishing pressure in combination with the lack of
C>

significant reproductive su9ceS3 sinae 1970.

The relatively low population levels of striped bass in the

Chesapeake system and the enactment of emergency commercial harvesting
CD

restrictions in Chesapeake Bay has caused the landed value of striped

bass to climb to unDrecendented levels. In early 1979, commercial

fishermen were receivincr as much as @2-50 Der nound for striped bass.

The landed value of striped bass in Delaware is currently higher

than the landed value of any finfish that is commercially harvested.

Some indication of the current scarcity of striped bass can be

seen in Table 16, where the landed value of striped bass has

signigicantly increased while landing volumes decreased.

Years ago, striped bass appeared to reside in the Delaware

River, Delaware Bay and many of Delaware's tidal rivers, including

the Indian River-Rehoboth Bay system and the Nanticoke River

system which drains into Chesapeake Bay. In the early spring

(March-April) large schools of two and three-year old fish would

sometimes migrate northward along the Atlantic Coast and into

Delaware bays and rivers. Some of the migrating fish might

have spawned in Delaware waters, but most of the fish appeared to

stay in Delaware only gor a short time before continuing a northward

migration up the New Jersey Coast to New York and beyond. In the

fall, a similar southward migration occurred when striped bass

again briefly returned to Delaware waters. The Delaware netting

season for striped bass extends from November through April 30,

and the minimum gill net mesh size is two and three-quarters inches

while the minimum haul seine mesh size is two inches. The minimum

legal fish size is twelve inches, fork length, and the maximum

size is 20 pounds in Delaware Bay, only, which supposedly protects

females. This maximum size does not apply to fish caught in the

Atlantic Ocean, seaside bays, or the Nanticoke River and tributaries.

The recreational (sportfishing) catch of striped bass in

Delaware has fluctuated widely along with commercial landings.

81.

Recreational fishermen can catch "rock" with bait, and lures along

the ocean beaches, Indian River Inlet, lower Delaware Bay, lower

Delaware River and along the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Striped

bass have been caught only occasionally by recreational fishermen in

the central portion of Delaware Bay. Throughout the state in recent

years, rock fishing is only good when migrating striped bass are

entering Delaware waters during the early spring or late fall.

Marine resource management officials in the mid Atlantic

region have been instrumental in establishing a state/federal program

in order to develop a management plan for striped bass resources along

the East Coast. A private citizens committee of concerned individuals

has recommended that striped bass fishermen in Delaware voluntarily

observe and adhere to the following:

"In order to conserve existing stocks of striped bass, a
species that has been on the decline for several years, the
Regional and Delaware Citizens Advisory Committees on
striped bass management request that you voluntarily limit
your catches according to the following guidelines:

Sport Fishing (Hook and Line)

Atlantic Ocean
A minimum size limit of 26 inches total length (tip of
snout to tip of tail) on all striped bass (rockfish) taken
in Atlantic Ocean waters including the Indian River Inlet.
A bag, limit of four (4) striped bass per person per day is
recomended in this same zone.

Spawning and Nursery Areas
The Delaware Rier and Delaware Bay, the C&D Canal, all
Delaware tidal tributaries, and the Nnaticoke River and
Broad Creek are considered spawning and/or nursery areas.
It is recommended that a size limit of 14 inches total length
and eight (8) striped bass per day be observed in spawning
and/or nursery areas.
Commercial Fishing (Nets, etc.)
It is recommended that a 14 " size limit be observed by
commercial fishermen. (This is roughly equivalent to the 12" fork
length current legal limit in Delaware.) Although these

do not represent any additional restrictions on Delaware
commercial fishermen, it would cause a noticeable decrease
in Che4apeake Bay commercial harvests if everyone complied.

The Citizens Advisory Committee requests that you
voluntarily comDly wiI;h the above size limits and
bag limits until the stocks of striped bass recover to
high-levels."

83.

WHITE PERCH (Morone americana) RE-SOURCE IN DELAWARE

The white perch is one of the few estuarine finfish that

inhabit Delaware waters throughout the entire year. 'White perch

inhabit estuarine waters from Nova Scotia to South Carolina, and

many landlocked populations exist in fresh water ponds and lakes
(Woolcottq 1962). In the Delaware estuary, white perch is ranked
as,one of the most abundant resident fish species (de Sylva et al,
1962; Abbe, 1967). White perch populations in Delaware exist in

nearly all tidal streams and rivers. Landlocked populations exist

in most mill ponds and lakes throughout the state. White perch
CD

appear to be considerably less abundant in the Indian River estuary,

and low level populations there are attributed to minimal amounts
of fresh water entering the estuary (Wong and Kernehan, 1979). In

other areas, as in Delaware, the white perch is often and incorrectly

called the black Derch.

Adult and juvenile white perch over-winter in the deeper

portions of tuidal rivers, Delaware River, and Delaware Bay. White

perch spamn in the early spring, generally near the headwaters of
C)

tidal creeks and rivers. Most spa%ming appears to occur in
oli-ohaline (less than 3.0 PPt) water i-.rhen water temneratures

reach 100C. Male fish arrive on the spawning ground before the

females.

V1hite perch migrate from their over-iiiintering areas to their

spawning areas shortly after the breakup of winter ice. Commercial

@and recreational net fishermen usually catc]a white perch in

the Delaware Bay during the late winter while the fish are moving

toward spawning gTounds. Spawning occurs from March through April

They can be caught by hook and line fishermen throughout most of

the warmer months of the year in tributaries of the Delaware River

and Bay. The white perch in Delaware is a near shore fish, and

consequently bank fishermen catch more white perch than boat
fishermen. In the late fall (November), white perch and most

young leave the tidal tributaries and migrate to deeper waters in

Delaware Bay for over-wintering. Migrating white perch can be

caught in nets during late fall and early winter 4.n Delaware Bay

until the formation of the first winter ice restricts gill netting

activity.

The relative abundance of white perch in Delaware waters has

apparently varied throughout the years. Commercial white perch
landings (Table 17) have also fluctuated. Otter trawls accounted

for 92 percent, or 111,800 pounds of the near record commercial

white perch landings in 1958. Otter trawls are illegal fishing

met'hods in Delaware Bay at the present time.

The 1978 average price of $.21 per pound is not considered

to be a realistic value, especially since the landed value of

nearly all other fish increased in 1978. Informed contacts with

commercial net fishermen indicate that better prices were at times

being received.

The flesh of the white perch is firm and flavorful, and the

roe of the female fish is favored by many commercial and recreational

fishermen. In fact, most commercial net fishermen in Delaware

85.

TABLE 17

COM4ERCIAL WHITE PERCH LANDINGS IN DELAWARE

Avg.
Year' Pounds Value Lrice@Lb.

1947 138,000 9,000 .07
1948 519000 6tOOC, .12
1949 47pOOO 29000 .04
1950 49vooo 6tOOO .12
1951 74,000 91000 .12
1952 129000 19000 .08
1953 9,000 itooo .11
1954 23POOO 2tOO() .09
1955 15,000 2,000 .13
1956 atooo 11000 .13
1957 11,000 17000 .09
1958 121,000 12pOOO .10
1959 42tOOO .4tOOO .10
1960 13,000 19000 .08
1961 27tOOO 2,000 .07
1962 240000 itooo .04
1963 21vOOO 2tOOO .10
1964 28pOOO 3,000 .11
1965 27,000 39000 .11
1966 -39tOOO 5,000 .13
1967 21,000 21000 .10
1968 159400 29154 .14
1969 6,600 1,290 .15
1970 16,200 2,430 .15
1971 18,300 2,945 .16
1972 18@100 3t620 .20
1973 23,000 6@842
1974 18,100 31718 .21
1975 l5t300 4t074 .27
1976 179600 4,901 .28
1977 27t5OO 89955 .33
1978 34tOOO 7@051 .21

86.

consider white perch to be the best fish to eat and far superior

in flavor to the more highly valued catches of striped bass and

flounder.

In recreational fishing surveys conducted in Delaware in
1968 (Lesser, 1968) and 1971-73 (Martin, 1973), white perch

accounted for almost 50 percent of the fish cauaht in the Delaware

River and tributaries north of Woodland Beach. Bank'fishina-
CD

effort for white perch north of Woodland Beach has seemed to

decrease in recent years.

87.

AMERICAN SHAD (Alosa sapidissima) RESOURCE IN DELAWARE

Along the Atlantic Coast, the range of the American shad

extends from the St. Johns River in Florida to the Gulf of

St. Lawrence, Canada. Shad are most abundant from North Carolina

to Connecticut. The American shad was successfully introduced to

the West Coast, and now their range extends from Mexico to Cook

Inlet in Alaska.

The American shad is the largest member of the herring

family (Clupeidae) and is an anadromaus species that lives and

grows in marine waters until sexually mature. Mature fish migrate

into estuaries and ascend coastal ricers to spawn. Eggs hatch in

six to eight days at temperatures of 17 degrees C. (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).

Larvae and young remain near the spawning areas until the fall

when they migrate downstream to the sea where the will live and

grow for two to fice years before attempting to return to their

natal streams to spawn. Male fish usually become sexually mature

one year earlier tha female shad. Southern races of shad apparently

die after spawning once, but northern races have repeat spawners

that migrate and spawn during two or more successive years. Shad

do not live for long periods of time, and the average life cycle

only extends from three to six years.

The shad fishery was one of the first commercial fishing

industries to be established in Delaware. In the 1800's, shad

were abundant in the Delaware estuary. Commercial landings along

the East Coast decreased in 1850 then increased to around 45 million

pounds annually during the 1890's. Shad landings along the East

Coast of the United States be-an a precipitous decline around 1900.

Shad landings in the Delaware estuary exceeded 14 million pounds in
0

the late 1890's and then declined to annual landing figures of
less than 100,000 Dounds in 1975 (Miller et al, 1975).

The decrease in commercial shad landings has been attributed

to gross pollution, damming of tributaries and over fishing. In

the Delaware Rivpr, pollutants have caused a significant decrease
L

in dissolved oxygen levels in a 60-mile section of the'river between
Trenton and Wilmington (Kiry, 1974). Young-of-the-year shad have

generally been unable to migrate downstream through the stretch of

deoxygenated water. Mature fish that have spawned and are in a

weakened condition are also unable to pass throu gh the deoxygenated

zone, and nearly all the repeat spawners have been lost. Relatively

recent pollution abatement laws have improved the Delaware Rive.-

water quality in recent years, and reasonably good shad runs occurred

in 1963 and again in 1976.

It is highly unlikely that the shad populations of the

Delaware estuary will ever approach the historical levels of the
late 1800's. Most of the major and minor tributaries (Brandy-wine,

Schuylkill, and Lehigh Rivers) have been dammed for a long time,

and shad have been prevented from entering large acreages of formerly

productive spawning grounds.

Shad fishing pressure was intense.during the late 1800's,

and the entire shad resource could have suffered irrepairable damage

8.9.

because of.over fishing. During the 1800's, more than 1,000 men

may have been,en-aged in commercial shad fishing along the Delaware
River (Horn, 1957). New Castle, Wilmington, Dela ware City and

Port Penn were major shad landing ports, and shad were also landed

at many other towns and river landings along the Delaware side of

Delaware River and Bay. Initially, shad were abundant and quite

inexpensive. The fish were often sold for only a few cents each,

and shad quickly became a staple,food item in the diet of town and

city residents. The shad fishermen sold their fish to fish markets

and fish peddlers who often sold fish from door to door. During

the late 1800's and continuing into the early 1000's-, the flesh of
the shad was highly regarded as excellent food; and the roe of the

female shad was an equally popular food item. As the shad resource

declined, the price of shad began to increase, but fish consumers

evidently liked shad and continued to purchase them when the price

of shad increased to $.25 per pound.

The consum-otion of shad decreased rapidly during the post

World War II period,and younger generations had little desire to

consume shad which were considered to be too boney or too oily.

Older generations still purchase a few shad each year. In fact,

shad fishermen of today have difficulty in markE@ting their limited

catches because today's consumers prefer fish with fewer bones.

-he fish roe is
The shad roe is still popular, and the value of t

usually much higher than the value of the entire fish. Female shad

are usually a little lar,-er than male shad and have always commanded

a higher price. Recent Delaware shad landings a-re shown in Table 18.

90.

TABLL 18

COHD=)CIAL SIT U,:,) LA"'TDINGS IN DELAViuE

Ye ar P o u rn d s 1 8 Value Price/-Pound

1947 6-1,600 15,974' .24
1948 52,900 17,2971 .25
1 949 5,7,500 81625 .15
1950 101,700 22,400 .22
1951 109,600 24,500 .24
1952 64,900 17,143 .26
1953 50,000 172000 .34
1954 559000 71000 013
1955 329000 7,000 .22
1956 12,000 4,000 .33.
1957 4,000 1,000 .25
1958 9vooo 6@OCO .67
1959' 26,000 4,000 .14
1960 380000 6,000 .16
1961 909000 13tOOO .14
1962 113,000 15,000 .13
1963 100,000 13s,000 .13
1964 150,000 199000 .13
1965 110,000 16pOOO .15
19066 56,000 99000 .16
1967 261,000 5tOOO .14
1968 12,000 2pOOO .17
1969 18,000 29000 .11
19,110 13,000 19000 .07
1971 8,000 59000 .63
1972 92000 '1,000 .11
1973 87000 1,000 .13
1974 8,000 1,000 .13
1975 18,700 31831 .20
1976 35v6OO 81077 .23
1977 74,.500 15t332 .21
1978 691,900 19,790 .28

A small sport fishery for shad occurs in the Brandywine River when shad occasionally enter the river seeking a place to

spawn. In the late 1960's, shad repeatedly entered the Brandywine River and attempted to ascend dams in order to spawn in the higher

reaches of the river. The State of Delaware spent almost one-half million dollars constructing fish ladders at dam sites on the

Brandywine. Unfortunately, when these fish ladders were completed, the shad stopped entering the Brandywine. It is now theorized that

shad only enter the Brandywine when they are unable to migrate up the Delaware River because of low dissolved oxygen levels.

levels.

Delaware has also been active, as well as the states of New Jersev and New York, in opposing the Tocks Island dam project

on the Delaware River. Construction of the dam would make the remaining shad spawning area in the Delaware River inaccessible.

At most of the dam sites where fish ladders have been installed, shad have avoided utilizing them. Shad have consistently refused

to enter nearly all manner of fish ascending devices.

92.

AMERICAN EEL (Lnrruilia rost-rata) RESOURCE IN DELAWAR.2-

American fresh water eels are found in nearly all marine and

fresh waters throughout Delaware. Commercial eel landings in Delaware

have increased since 1970 when the value of live eels began to

increase. The 1-0.78 eel landings of 188,100 pounds, valued at

$119,051, were by far the highest and most valuable landings of

eel ever recorded in the state. The 1978 eel landings were almost
twice those reported for 1077 (Table 19). In the spring of 1979,

eel buyers were paying eel fishermen one dollar per pound for

live eels. This is the highest value that Delaware eel fishermen

have ever received for their catches. In fact, in terms of landed

value per pound, the value of live eels is currently equal to the

per-pound value of commercially landed flounder, but the commercial

eel fishery is much more valuable to the state because of the higher

volume of eels that are regularly harvested. Live eels are now

ranked along with striped bass and summer flounder as the only three

finfish in Delaware that are commercially valued at one or more

dollars per pound. The dramatic increase in the value and marketability

of live eels in Deldware is due almost entirely to the expansion of

the live eel market in the Netherlands and Japan.

Eels have always been highly valued as excellent food throughout

Europe and the Orient. American fish consumers apparently never

developed an appr6ciable taste for eels, possibly because of the

abundance of more appetizingly aesthetic fish species. Eels were

generally considered to be a nuisance by most recreational fishermen.

93.

TABLE 19

CO'l%MRCIAL EEL LANDINGS IN DELAWARE
.Ay&un
Year Pounds 3 Value Price d

1947 13tOOO 1,300 .10
1948 18,200 1,820 .10
1949 57,400 8,780 .15
1950 34tOOO 5,405 .16
1951 51200 lt045 .20
1952 34,200 3,420 .10
1953 419000 7,000 .17
1954 36tOOO 89000 .22
1955 119000 itooo .09
1956 15tOOO 29000 .13
1957 38,000 3,000 .08
1958 26,000 39000 .12
1959 27,000 3tOOO .11
1960 7tOOO itooo .14
1961 6@000 1,000 .17
1962 109000 19000 .10
1963 12tOOO itooo .08
1964 12,000 2,000 .16
1965 34tOOO 51000 .15
1966 329000 59000 .16
1967 32,000 5,000 .16
1968 359200 4,900 .14
1969 44t2OO 5t3O4 .12
1970 58,300 11,732 .20
1971 999700 19p779 .20
1972 45,000 llt950 .25
1973 60,500 21,175 .35
1974- 67@500 23,0625 .35
1975 64p300 25,141 .39
1976 8()1900 329594 .40
1977 c.-_,goo 49t281 .51
1978 1889100 1199081 .64

94-

Originally, the commercial eel fishery in Delaware consisted

of only a handful of watermen who sporadically fished for eels. Eels

were caught in Dots and fykes and dip netted near the Doxee Clam

Plant in Lewes. A large portion of the Delaware eel catch was

salted and sold as crab bait. Salted eels were, and still are, the

preferred bait for crab trotlines. Most of the salted.eels were

sold to Maryland commercial crabbers who continued to use crab

trotlines for many years before finally switching over to crab pots.

Now, there is only a limited market for salted eel crab bait in

Maryland.

In practice, the medium and smaller size eels were salted

for crab bait. The crabbers did not want the larger size eels for

several reasons. The crabbers were primarily interested in obtaining

a large number of eels, and consequently a large number of baits

from each pound of salted eels. They disliked the u-se of large

eel baits because the larger baits were difficult to Dass over the

trotline rollers. Basically, the crabbers were not interested in
feeding crabs with the larger baits but were more int6rested in

attracting crabs to the trotlin.e with the smaller baits.

Large eels were held alive in eel live cars and eventually

sold to an eel buyer. Eel buyers paid fishermen from ten to fifteen

cents per pound for live eels. They would then load the eels into

tanIk trucks and haul them to metropolitan areas where live eels could

be marketed to certain ethnic groups. At various times, the smallest
size (pencil size) coul d also be held alive and sold to bait dealers,

who in turn would sell 5he small eels as live bait to striDed bass

fishermen. The overall decrease in the striped bass populat-ion

has somewhat curtailed the sale of live bait eels.

Commercial eel fishing pressure in Delaware began to increase

in the 1970's when live eel prices began to rise after live eels

were successfully shipped to Europe by boat. Eels can respi-re out

of water for several days providing they are kept cool and moist.

Eels from Delaware are now shipped to the Netherlands by air freight.

The eels are held in trays and kept cool and moist by melting ice

water. In ADril 1978, special interest legislation was introduced

and passed by the 129th General Assembly that required resident

commercial eel fishermen to purchase a $100 eel fishing license.

The fee for@non-resident commercial eel fishermen was established

at 31,000 per license. The new law also required that all commercial

eel pot markers had to be identified with the letter, "Ell, and also

the lic ense number of the commercial eel fisherman. The legislative

act was histor'Lc in that i-(, was the first aid only license requirement

for a commercial finfish harvested entirely within state waters.

Commercial licenses have long been required for the commercial

harvesting of clams, crabs, oyste-rs, and most recently, lobsters.
C)

The eel legislation also clearly omitted establish4-ng pot limits and

the requirement of reporting catch data. All existing commercial

shellfish licenses in Delaaare are issued contingent upon reportil-ng

catch and effort, data. The existing eel regulations should be

reviewed and possibly re,--rritten in order to preserve and protect the

eel resource in the state.

96.

The State of Delaware has historically owned the Delaware

River to the mean low water level in New Jersey. Ownership of the

river extends from Artificial Island, northward to the Pennsylvania

State Line. A 1905 compact between New Jersey and Delaware, dealing

with common fishery rights and reciprocal fishing laws, has recently

been found to be null and void. Commercial eel and crab potters

from Delaw.-LiZe now have exclusive rights to fish in waters on the

New Jersey side of the ship channel north of Artificial Island.

This might cause problems in attempts to cooperatively manage fish

resources,

During 1978, 18 commercial eel licenses were sold to Delaware

residents. As of May 17, 1979, 19'commercial eel'licenses were sold

including one out-of-state license. It appears that during the

past two years, the number of fishermen that are entering the

commercial eel fishery is almost equal to the number of eel fishermen

leaving the fishery each year.

The life history of European and American fresh water eels

was reported by Johannes Schmidt in 1922. American eels, A. rostrata

like their European counterparts, A. anguilla, are catadromous,

and sexually mature eels of both species spawn and presiinably die
in the Sargasso Sea region near Bermuda. Thus far, no sexually

mature fresh water eels have ever been found in the wild, but

spawning is presumed to occur during early spring. American eel

larva travel for one year before arriving along the Atlantic Coast

of Canada and the northern United States. American eel populations

97.

are basically found in temperate zones along the East Coast of,the

North American continont. Some eels have been rezorted as far

south as the Eauator. Fresh water eels do not oc cur along the

West Coast of North or South America. U-oon their arrival in coastal

waters, eel larva metamorphose into transparent elvers that are

cn1led "glass eels". The glass eels enter estuaries where they

attain a slightly darker color. During the late spring, swa=s of

these tiny eels can be seen at the spillway base of most mill ponds

in Delaware. The elvers continue their migration into nearly all

fresh water rivers, lakes and streams. Sex determination of eels

is quite difficult, but it is known that nearly all large eels

are females, and female eels migrate further aiid stay longer in

fresh water than the males. Male eels grow to be only about one-half

the size of females, and most male eels are found in brackish and

marine waters. In the fall, mature- eels migrate out of the rivers

to the sea presumably to spa-;rn. Eels apparently grow slowly and might

J-eauire seven to fifteen years to attain ma'uu-re size. Eels have

been reared to a marketable size in two years in aquacultural

systems.

98.

T
ATI,,UTTIC 14:5111HADEN (31revoortia- t-r--annus) R.ESOURCE IN DELAWARE

The Atlantic menhaden inhabits coastall and estuarine waters

from Nova Scotia to Florida. A similar species, the Gulf menhaden
(B. 3patronus) inhabits similar waters within the Gulf of Mexico.

Menhaden have been one of the most abundant herring species (Clu-peidae)

of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast. Nearly all the commercial catch is

Drocessed into fish meal, fish oil, and condensed solubles. Menhaden

are classified as non-food fish in the United States, and the annual

menhaden landings far exceed the annual landings of any food fish

in the United States. In 1977, menhaden accounted for 35 percent of

the total U. S. commercial fisheries landino-s.

Menhaden spawn in offshore coastal waters during spring and
fall migrations along the Middle Atlantic region (Higham and Nicholson,
1964). Eggs hatch within 40 hours, and larva move to oligohaline
and freshowater nursery areas. The young-of-the-year fish remain in
C3

the upper reaches of s-hallow estuarine tributaries until the fall

when young and older fish migrate southward to over-winter offshore

from Cape Hatteras. Menhaden axe plaxLktonic filter feeding fish that

travel in large compact surface schools.

The menhaden fishery is one of the oldest fishing industries

in the United States, and the commercial fishery ha's been j.ntensive

and extensive in nearly all areas where menhaden have been abundant.

In the New York area durin- the 1800's, small menhaden were canned

and sold as "lunch fish" for several years before canned sardines

became popular. Some menhaden have always been used as bait to

catch other fish or crustaceans, but nearly all the commercial catch

in t.he United States is processed and used as industrial ingredients
in a number of products. Menhaden are extremely oily, and the early

n tha valuable
menhaden Drocessors were nrimarily in business to obtai,

fish oil. As,fish processing factories became more mechanized,

large volumes of fish flesh and bone residues were produced, and

these residues were initially sold as relatively cheap fertilizer.

The fish residueo had a high protein content, and after World War II,

processed fish meal became much more valuable as a supplement to the

poultry and animal foods.

The menhaden fishing industry in Delaware began in the late

1800's when the major Atlantic menhaden population center shifted

from the Gulf of Maine to the mid Atlantic region. One of the

first menhaden processing factories in Delaware was built in Lewes,

Delaware in 1917. The processing plant was kno,,Irn as the Coast Oil

Company. From 1923 until 1954, the Hayes brothers.processed menhaden

in the Consolidated Fisheries Company in Lewes, Delaware. The

Hayes plant had two dozen steamers carrying menhaden and employed

more than 600*men. In 1938, Consolidated Fisheries had the largest
menhaden -,rocessing plan'. in the United States (110rn, 1-057).

Around 1946, the Smith family began to operate a menhaden

processing plant in Lewes on the site of an old processing plant

that was formerly the Atlantic Fish Company. Smith renamed his

first plant the Fish Products Company, and in 1-0,54 Smith purchased

the old Hayes plant and renamed it the Sea Coast Products Company.

In 1953, Lewes had the highest seafood landings in the United States
0 1
when 390 million pounds-of fish were larded. Twenty five large

company-o%-,rned menhaden steamers provided fish for the two Lewes

plants, and more than 0650 men were employed as c-rew members alone.

Several hundred shore-based support and 'Lactory work-ers were also

employed. Near record menhaden landings were also made in Lewes in

100.

in 1956, but Lewes landiigs began a precipitous decline in 1962.
In 1963, one of the manhaden plants in Lewes closed permanently.
In 1966, the remaining menhaden plant closed permanently, and the

plants and property have since been sold.

Some minor regulations in Delaware were established as law

in an attempt to regulate the menhaden fishery. In 1974, a $100

fishing license was established for all menhaden steamers over

65 feet in length to fish in Delaware waters. The license require-

ment did not specify an increased license fee for out-of-state

menhaden vessels, and consequently, these vessels do purchase $100

licenses that allow them to fish within Delaware waters. Menhaden

fishermen are also required to fish no closer than one-half mile

from all shores and beaches and are prohibited from fishing in

Delaware waters on weekends and holidays.

Menhaden are nearshore coastal fish, ar-d more than 95 percent

of the entire menhaden catch is made within t,,iree miles of shore.

Manhaden are caught with huge purse nets which encircle entire'

schools of fish. The menhaden fishing methods have caused many

conflicts with nearshore recreational fishermen who suspect that

the menhaden boats are also catching food fish. In fact, menhaden

fishing boats rarely catch any edible fish. Menhaden fishing boat
C>

captains and airplane school spotters are quite experienced in

recognizing menhaden schools. Menhaden fishing boats cannot make

money by catching food fish because they do not contain nearly the

amount of oil that is obtainable from menhaden. Repeated inspections

of menhaden catches have revealed very few, if any, other species

of f j s11*

101.

During the years since 1966, menhaden have been continuously

caught, although in lower commercial quan-15.it-ies, by boats originatin-
from out of state (Table 20). Since the fish are landed at out-of-state

ports, Delaware receives no credit for the millions of pounds of

menhaden that are still caught annually in Delaware waters. The

small volumes of menhaden that are recorded from 1972 were sold as

bait to crabbers.

The entire menhaden fishing industry along the Mid Atlantic

Coast ex-oanded rapidly immediately after World War II. Shore

processing facilities were mechanized and modernized along with the
C)

fish catchinin, vessels. Exceptionally large catches of menhaden

became possible when the size of the steamers was increased and nylon

nets and hydraulic power blocks were used to pull in the larger

Durse nets. Airplane spotters were used to locate schools of

menhaden and to assist the purse boats in surrounding the schools

of fish with their nets. Total East Coast menhaien landings peaLced

during the late 101150's and then steadily declined during the early

19601s.

With the cessation of intensive commercial fishing in the

Delaware region and the elimination of some of the heavy fishing

pressure, the menhaden stocks in the mid At'-antic region appear to

be buildin--. It should be noted that it has taken almost ten years

for the menhaden stocks to rebuild. In 1978, 4-1 Virginia based

menhaden steamers purchased licenses to fish in Delaware waters.

It is highly unlikely that menhaden. will ever be processed for

industrial DurDoses again in Delaware. However, menhaden might be

P f ur
Drocessed as an additive to h1=----n food somet-J--nen- in tu--h- -ut e.

102.

TAKE, 20

COM-T-,RCIAL 111ENHADEN LANDINGS IN DELAWARE

Quantit Value
Year, (P unds@ (Dollars)

1947 248t493,300 31752@249
1948 148,302,500 2tO53,152
1949 159,748plOO 19677p355
1950 151,857,500 1,5489947
1951 166,488t7OO lt9111375
1952 207,657,100 2tO181102
1953 360,544,000 3,999,000
1954 306,480,000 4t476,000
1955 307,476tOOO 4,09ltOOO
1956 352,047,000 49625,000
1957 286,2729000 3t666,000
1958 269,6679000 3,776,000
1959 281,1419000 3v1491000
1960 280,7119000 2,7519000
1961 302p7739000 3,356,000
1962 268p7O4,000 2,7839000
1963 102t824,000 19059,000
1964 32,554@000 378tDOO
1965 46p4081000 579oOOO
1966 4,231,000 53tOOO
1967 -0- -0-
1968 -0- -0-
1969 -0- -0-
1970 -0- -0-
1971 -0- -0-
1972 29,000 lpooo
1973 33,000 itooo
1974 139000 552
1975 20,000 821
1976 359300 19404
1977 24,600 984
1978 29P700 11485

103.

A state/federal fisheries management plan is being drafted for the management of the menhaden resource in Delaware.

104.

FISH HABITAT ASSESSZ11ENT IN DELAWARE COASTAL WATERS

Delaware River water quality has improved during the past

ten years. There still exists a problem with dissolved oxygen in

the river above Wilmington from I-lay through September, but the

length and duration of this oxygen depletion zone has been reduced.

Water flows at Trenton are regulated by the Delaware River Basin

Authority in an effort to insure that the saline waters of the

Delaware Bay do not encroach up the river. In many places, the

Delaware River looks cleaner than it has been in many years.

Unfort,anately, many acres of shallow water and adjoining

wetlands have been permanently lost over the past century to

industrial and highway development along and in the Delaware River.

Striped bass spawning habitat in the-Delaware River has all but

been eliminated due to low dissolved oxygen levels.

Years ago in the late 1800's, American shad made spawning

runs in nearly all the tributaries of the Delaware River. Now,

shad spawn only in the section of the rJLver above the Dela%-,rare

Water Gap. However, some of the river herring still make a spawning
C:)

run in a few of the Delaware River tributaries. The young clupeids

use the spaiming grounds as nursery areas during the spring and

summer. During the fall, the young-of-the-year fish migrate down

the river and through Delaware Bay and out to sea. Migrations

through the polluted zone are sometimes difficult, but the general

increase in rainfall during the fall season helps to dilute and

break- up the low dissolved oxygen zone.

105

The waters in the heavily industrialized portions of the

Delaware River pass through many water intake structures where

river water is used for domestic and industrial purposes. Several

fossil fuel plants and one nuclear power plant use river water to

cool their systems. It has been calculated that a volume of water

equivalent to the average flow at Trenton is removed and

replaced in the river below Trenton each day. Plankton and larv.al

and juvenile fishes are entrained and impinged at these intakes,

and the accumulative effects of all water intakes and effluents

are not documented. Fortunately, environmental regulations adopted

in recent years have eliminated many of the pollutants that once

entered the river.

For the most part, Delaware Bay is not polluted by domestic

or industrial pollutants. Heavy metal concentrations in the lower

bay are considered to be moderate but will continue to be a threat.

However, all the tidal tributaries that enter Delaware Bay are closed

to molluscan shellfishing because of high coliform bacteria counts.

Much of the pollution of these tidal tributaries is usually due to

treated and untreated sewage effluents discharged from small

municipalities. Natural oyster beds occurring near the mouths of

the lower tidal tributaries in Delaware were declared to be polluted

in the mid 1920's. At the present time, the tributaries and small

buffer areas are the only areas in Delaware Bay that are closed

for the harvesting of molluscan shellfish.

Siltation is a problem in many tributaries to the Delaware

Bay. Extensive agricultural and highwav drainac7e svstems have

lo6.

increased sediment loads entering these rivers with consequent filling and loss of spawning and nursery habitat. Vegetation has

been eliminated from many tributaries in the Delaware watershed where sediment has covered them with blankets of mud. Recent

increases in no-tilling farming methods may cause increased quantities of herbicides to be flushed into tributaries thereby

threatening production of phytoplankton.

The lower coastal bays are apparently becoming more polluted as shown by high coliform bacteria levels recently recorded. Indian

River has recently been closed to molluscan shellfishing to the west of Ellis Point. Over 20 percent of the coastal wetlands in

these lower bays have been lost to dredge and fill operations and developers of waterfront housing communities. Fortunately,

this exploitation of tidal wetlands is now under control and no longer permitted unless there are no alternatives available.

Nevertheless, these lower bays remain stressed ecosystems. Flushing of these waters is inadeqauate to compensate for an ever increasing

pollution load placed on them by nearby coastal communities and industries.

107.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUE OF FISHERIES AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Recreational sea trout fishing in Delaware Bay has been

exceptionally good since 1970. In 1975, croakers returned to

Delaware waters after a mysterious absence of approximately 15 years.

Recreational and commercial catches of summer flounder, or "fluke",

also began to improve in 1975 when the marine recreational fishing

industry was valued in excess of 25 million dollars. The increased

availability of desirable bottom fish in Delaware Bay has resulted

in a significant increase in the number of party, or head boats,

fishing in Delaware Bay and near the mouth of Delaware Bay. Head

boats are usually larger fishing boats that take a large number of

passengers fishing for a fixed fee per person or head. Party

boats usually sail every day from the same dock, departing at a

prescribed time and returning to port after a specified time

period. Trip durations vary from one-half day to a full day of

fishing, and rates range from $8 to $15 per person. In contrast

to charter boat fishing, party boat fishermen are not required to

make any previous arrangements in order to fish on a party boat.

Party boat fishermen can go to any party boat dock and pay a flat

rate to go fishing. Most party fishing boats are licensed by the

U. S. Coast Guard to carry 20 to 50 or more persons. Party boats

fish mainly for bottom species with bait or by jiqging artificial

lures to catch fish at various depths.

Party boats in Delaware generally fish for the fish stocks

that are seasonally and locally abundant. They usually fish within

108.

a 15-mile radius of their home dock. For example, party
boats from Indian River and Lewes will usually fish for Atlantic

mackerel in the Atlantic Ocean during the early spring. Party

boats based.further north in Delaware Bay at Hispillion and Bowers

Beach usually stay in Delaware Bay to fish for trout and flounder.

By the same token, party boats from Indian River will not ordinarily

fish for trout in Delaware Bay because the running time and distance

is prohibitive.

Recreational fishin- from boats is usually much more

productive than fishing from shore, and party boat captains who

fish almost every day during the summer usually know where fish

are biting and how to catch them. Party boat fishing is probably
'the least e='ensive method of fishing from a boat in Delaware, with

the oDerat-ion of pa.-ty boats more profitable than most charter boa'L-.--,'

There are approximately 20 party boats now operating in Delaware,

and all but two of these vessels are oDerating in or near Delaware

Bay.

Charter boat fishing in Delaware is always more e-%--;Densive
and is generally more productive than party boat'. fishing. In
charter boat fishing, the fishing vessel is usually rented (chartered)

for one day at a specified rate to engage in a specific type of

fishin- such as trolling or bottom fishina'. T-ro-2.1ing charters
C) CD

for offshore species such as marlin or tuna are always Paore

expensive than trolling-rates for inshore species such as bluefish

because offshore trolling expenses are greater.

109.

Many of the smaller charter boats are licensed by the

U. S. Coast Guard to carry a maximum number of six fishermen.

Charter rates include the use of bait or lures, rods and reels,

and the services of a professional "mate" to assist anglers in

landing fish. Although charter boat fishing is much more expensive
than party boat fishing, the catch rate per angler on charter

boats is usually much greater for several reasons. Charter boats

are usually smaller than party boats and always less crowded.

They can fish in tighter places and maneuver more frequently than

larger party boats that are often crowded with fishermen. Charter

boats also can engage in trolling in order to catch fish while

the boat is underway, but party boats do not troll because of the

number of fishermen involved.

Charter boats of sufficient size and seaworthyness can be

licensed to carry more than six persons if provision is made for

the installation of additional safety and lifesaving devices.

The boats that are licensed to carry more t-@an six pass-enge-rs will

sometimes carry additional passengers on a chartered fishing trip

but only at the request of the fishing party who originally chartered

the vessel. Additional passengers on charter boat trips are

required to Pay an additional flat rate per person. In this

manner, charter boats that are licensed to carry a large number

of passengers often operate in a manner similar to party or head

boats. Many party boats make two f ishing trips each day, operating

as a regular party boat on the first trip and chartering the vessel

to a smaller number of persons for the second trip of the day.

There are approximately 100 charter boats that now operate

regularly from Delaware ports. Slightly more than half (55 boats)

of the charter fleet operate out of marinas on the Indian River

Inlet. The remainder of the charter fleet operates out of the

Delaware Bay ports of Lewes, 1,1ispillion River, Cedar Creek, or

Bowers Beach.

In addition to the party boats (20) and the charter boats (100),

there are more than 18 thousand privately-owned boats that fish,

crab, and clam regularly from Delaware ports, marinas and boat

ramps du-ring I.-he warm months of the year. Finally, several

thousand additional fishermen re@@-ularly fish Delaware tidal waters

from beaches, banks, bridges and piers. In 1975, the recreational

fishinj- industry in Delaware was valued at 25 million dollars (Nauional
Analysts, 1977). A marine boat recreational survey conducted in

0 - f ishing
1976 (Miller, 1977), revealed that 599,615 man days of boat

occurred in Delwaare during 1976, and the total- man days of marine

angling amounted to 964,573. Tourism in Delaware contributes

approximately 100 million dollars to the state economy, and marine

recreational fishing generates approximately 25 percent of the

annual tourism dollars.

The marine recreational fishing industry provides direct

employment for around 125 boat captains and more than 100 mates.

Recreational fishing has a rippling effect on the local economy

because the additional fishermen require more services such as

rooms, meals, bait, ice, etc. The additional services provide

more jobs and business opporttuiities at t1le local level.

111.

The fish and shellfish resources on which the recreational

fishing industry depend are undoubtedly one of the most valuable

natural resources within the state. It is not surprising

that many of the fish species,that are so important to the

recreational fishing industry,are also just as important to the

commercial fishing industry. As the landed value of all food fish

continues to increase, a corresponding increase in conflict between

recreational and commercial fishermen will definitely occur.

One of the major problems encountered in attempting to

manage natural marine resources occurs when regulatory agencies

try to define, or draw the line, between what constitutes commercial

or recreational fishing. Commercial trawlers and net fishing boats

are obviously commercial fishing vessels. Commerciality is defined

as having financial profit as a primary aim. Commercial fishing

vessels are obviously in business to fish commercially, but the

party and charter boats have definitely commercialized recreational

fishing. Many of the larger private fishing boats are owned by

corporations or by persons who are engaged in their own business.

Part of the cost of buying, maintaining, and operating a large

private fishing boat can be written off as legitimate business

entertainment expenses.

An unknown number of private boats that participate in marine

angling rely on the sale of fish to help defray all or part of

their boating expenses. The practice of selling or utilizing

recreationally caught fish to defray expenses or make a profit is

not limited to private fishing boats. Many of the marine anglers

112.

who fish from shore, party, or charter boats regularly sell their

excess fish an,d also fish that they are not'. particularly fond of

eating. Some restaurants own their own fishing boats, and some

restaurant owners charter fishinc- boats in order to provide

fresh fish for their establishments.

The problem in defining recreational and commercial fishing

is further comDlicated in Delaware because of a long established

and traditional recreational net fishery. Net fishing regulations

in Delaware have been minimal and are virtually unenforced. The

State Legislature has at various times passed special interest

legislation restricting or prohibiting the use of certain types

and sizes of nets in certain areas during specific hours and specific

times of the year. Although most of these laws are still in effect

the laws are seldom, enforced because of conflicting statutes azidl

antiQuated intention of the laws. The State Legisla-(-,ure has not

specifically designated a state agency to be the regulatory authority

for marine finfish. Commercial fishing licenses were not, and are

not now reauired in Delaware. Almost anyone, if they so desire,

can set a net in Delaware to catch a "mess" of fish for their

family and friends. The occasional "just for the fun of it" net

fisherman has, on occasion, caught more fish than he can conveniently

give away. Some of these net fishermen are more or less obliged

to sell 'heir excess fish before they spoil. Some of the more
successfuu! occasional or recreational net fishermen eventually

become serious commercial net fishermen. The desire to be allowed

to set a net is still strong in Delaware.

113.

Nea-rly all the food fish that are now reporI.-ed as commercial

landings in Delaware are caught in stualked or drifted gill nets.

The total value of all commercial fish landings in Delaware has been
.steadily increasing since 1974, as shown in Table 21. In the spring

of 1979, the per-pound landed value of all food fish increased

dramatically. Striped bass were sold for more than ';'P'2-50 per pound.
I;ive eels and summer flounder also reached 4)l per Pound. The

increased val u@e of all fish will undoubtedly tempt. more recreational

fishermen to sell their catches.

Although the prices of commercially caught finfish are
C>
slowly increasing (Table 21), the total value of all commercial

fisheries landings in Delaware has been steadily decr easing (Figure 1).

The landed value of all commercial fi sheries was 0111Y three quarters

of a million dollars in 1978. Surf clam landings accounted for

a significant portion of the total fisheries value during the period'
from 1969 through 1974. The value of blue crab landings from 1972

throuc-h 1977 also made a signi"Cicant contribution to the total

fisheries value.

The number of persons actively engaged in commercial fishing
in Delxaare is now estimated to be less than 200. Delaware's highest.
recorded number of full and part-time commercial fishermen was 1,434
persons in 1957. Gainful employment in the fishing industry in
C3

Delaware has steadily declined, and the official count of 548 persons
in 1974 (Table 22) must include a large number of casual fishermen.

Commercial fishinc, in Delaware does not create a large number
0 1 1
of indirect benefits to local communities at the present time. 1@ven

- from commercial seafood
the Delaware seafood consumners se'Ldcm benefit

1-14.

TABLE 2 1

RECENT TOTAL FINFISH LANDINGS AND VALUES
Aivg@Lb
Year Pounds Value Pr ce

1968 1609900 24tO29 .15

1969 143,000 202338 .14

1970 300t6OO 59,227 .20

1971 431t900 91,567 .21

1972 810t500 141,248 .17
1973 1519700 290P561 .26

1974 758t5OO 189t471 .25
1975 797t2OO 205,969 .26

1976 727t5OO 231,328 .32

1977 945t5OO 256PO42 .27
1978 938,600 336,816 .36

Total Value

Blue Crabs,

Surf Clam

I
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 197,

YEARS
Fig. 1. Total value of Commercial Fisheries landings In Delaware

116.

landings in Delaware because a large portion of the seafood

catch is sold,to out-o'L-state wholesale buyers. Employment of

Delawa-re residents in the commercial fishing industry is relatively

low, and crew members are often recruited from out of state.

TABLE 22

FULL AND PART-InTME ZIMPLOYMENT IN TIE FISHING INDUSTRY IN DELAWARE

Date Number Date Number

1947 19207 1963 662
1948 1,320 1964 691
1949 19050 1965 520
1950 19143 1966 449
1951 19076 1967 445
1952 918 1968 433
1953 19050 1969 462
1954 1,189 1970 623
1955 1@321 1971 714
1956 1,257 1972 667
1957 1,434 1973 541
1958 lt384 1974 548
1959 894 1975 -
1960 719 1976 -
19, 6 1 781 1977 -
1 962 742 1978 -

117.

IDENTIFICATION 0F FISHERY PROBLEMS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

After a careful consideration of coastal fisheries throughout

Delaware, certain problems, issues and opportunities regarding

development and management have been identified. Foremost and

common to all aspects of Delaware's coastal fisheries is the absence

of any dominant policy upon which the state bases fisheries manage-

ment and deveIopment programs.

The drastic decline in commercial fisheries, as evidenced by

the closing of the menhaden processing facilities at Levies without

any concentrated effort to attract new fishery related industries

as replacements indicates the lack of a commercial finfish policy.

However, recreational fishing activity in Delaware Bay has increased

dramatically as commercial fishery landings have declined. Recreational

fishing activities now far outweigh the benefits of encouraging the

intensification of near shore commercial fishing effort. Conflicts,

exist at, the present time, and these conflicts will increase as

commercial and recreational fishermen attempt to catch fish in the

same area and at the same time. Policy guidelines might aid in the

management of these situations.

In order to develop a comprehensive fishery policy, several

other subordinate problems, issues and opportunities must first be

analyzed.

The apparent success of the Fisheries Conservation and

Management Act of 1976, which has created new opportunities for

domestic fishermen to fish for species previously depleted by foreign

fishing fleets, also has created the opportunity for development of

118.

deep water fishing port facilities, especially in the Middle
Atlantic area. Breakwater Harbor, in Lewes, is ideally located in

relation to the offshore fish stocks in the Fishery Conservation
Zone (3 - 2bo miles) off the Middle Atlantic states. The present

Owner of the former menhaden processing plants at Breakwater Harbor
CD -

is rebuilding the piers and rehabilitating existing warehouses and

utilities and advertising leases to fishery related industries.

Appropriations have been approved by the U. S. Congress for

dredging the access channel to Breakwater Harbor to a depth

which will allow all but the largest of fishing vessels to dock

there.

A dedicated effort should be made by the Department of

Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Office of Management,

Budget end Planning, and the Division of Economic Development to
CD

encourage the orderly development of these Dort facilities in

comDliance under environmental and local and county guidelines. The

staffs of these departments should act as liaison between the owners,

Lewes officials, county officials, and potential fishermen, fish

buyers, processors, and marketing agents.
Considering the fact that many offshore (3 - 200 mile) species

of fishes are now being managed under fish management plans developed

by the Regional Fishery Management Councils and implemented by the

Secretary of Commerce, the need for management of many inshore species
in the territorial seas 0 - 3 miles) and in'-and waters of Delaware

is becoming more apparent. Anadromous fishes may either be regulated

by the state or preempted from state control by a fish management

plan as implemented by the Secretary of Commerce. To date, there

has been no preemption by the Federal Government- to manage any

inshore species, but problems with managing these species are

increasing. Also apparent, as a problem, are those species of fish

which migrate between states that have vastly different lwvs and

regulations pertaining to these fish. Consequently, 'he management

of these stocks can be splintered and contradictory between adjoining

states. The jurisdictional- level Of fisheries management is,

therefore, a major problem confronting coastal states. An equitable

allocation of fish stocks between states for both recreational and

commercial interests must'. be addressed to conserve these stocks.

The issue to be addressed in Delaware is whether or no t

regulatory authority for coastal fisheries should be authorized

by 'he lecislature to 'he Both the po2i,.cal and scientific

conservation of natural resources axe delicate points in this issue.

Viuch consideration should be given tuo the local economy and best use

of oi irr fishery resources. I'Lowever, to insure the continuation of

the fishery and the preservation of a species, decisions must be

made in a timely and open fdshion. The question is whether the

legislature, DNREC, or another form of authority might be in the

best position to make these decisions. The DNREC has the technical

staff and the experience in dealing with marine fisheries enforcement

problems since they are-the designated enforcement agency for existing

finfish sta-'%-.utes and shellfish regulations.

120.

Regardless of which agency determines the management of an

inshore fishery, an adequate data base on catch and effort by

fishermen, reliable fish stock assessment and the socio-economics

of the fishery must be collected and competently analyzed. This

is a problem in Delaware. A bystem, should be established, either

mandatory or voluntary,to enable the DNREC, in cooperation with

other states and federal agencies, to collect these statistics

from fishermen in addition to the biological and ecological data

regarding the resources. Conserving fish stocks while allocating

the maximum sustainable yield to both recreational and commercial

fishermen is a major issue and should be addressed.

Another -oroblem in coastal fisheries in Delaware is lack

of public understanding of coastal fisheries management and the

consequent reluctance -to accept management of marine fisheries.

Many individuals I.-hink of fisheries management in coastal waters

as being similar to that practiced with fresh water lakes where stocking

new species of fish and reclamation projects have been successful.

These individuals fail to realize that the ocean, bays and tidal

rivers have their limits, and fisheries management in these coastal

environs involves many more aspects than restocking depleted species.

A program should be designed to administer an integrated information,

education and enforcement pro-ram for coastal fisheries management.

The final issue identified is related to all the above

problems and issues for coastal fisheries in Delaware - the question

of how to finance coastal fisheries management programs. Different

121

sources of possible revenue have been identified. These include

a recreational fishing license, a commercial fishing license,

additional boat registration fu_qds, area user fees, unclaimed,

off-road gasoline taxes and additional general fund appropriations.

These new sources of revenue, other than general funds, should be

dedicated to marine fisheries management programs and not subject

to indiscrimiiiant budget reductions or diversions by special interest

groups.

Pxesently, most of the DITREC's coastal fisheries management
is funded with the following federal grants in aid: (1) Federal
C@
Aid in Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act P.L. 81-681);
.(2) Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (P.L. 89-304); and (3) Commercial

Fisheries Research and Development Act (P.L. 88-309). Each of these,

however, requires a proportional matching amount from the state, and*

it is these matching funds that are in short supply.

Only those who harvest certain shellfish in Delaware are

required to be licensed. Licensing fishermen would serve the dual

purpose of identifying fishermen for the gathering, of catch and

effort statistics as well as increasinr, revenues. Another value of
C) I
licensing is that the true number of commercial fishermen could be

defined and substantiated in disputes with offshore oil support

facilities, oil spills, fish kills, CZM planning, etc.

Each possible source of revenue should be analyzed thoroughly.

If le-islation is required to generate or dedicate these revenues,

it also should be prepared.

122

RANKING OF PROBLEMS, ISSUES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

The purpose of the second task in this program is to rank
the problems, issues and opportunities associated with Delaware
coastal fisheries. Each problem, issue and opportunity previously
described is inter-related, but some need more immediate attention
than others.

Priotity Number One
The first issue that should be considered, but notnecessarily
resolved immediately, is a state policy for coastal fisheries. Coastal
Zone 'Management, issues must consider coastal fisheries. However, with-
out policies to'serve as a guide, decisions involving management of
the coastal zone may be delayed pending impact analyses on present
fisheries and future fisheries potential. A sound fishery policy would
greatly assist in the decision making process.

Priority Number Two
The most obvious opportunity is the current and almost urgent
need for a Middle Atlantic fisheries port to accommodate increased
fishing fleets fishing in the Fisheries Conservation Zone (3-200 miles).
Breakwater Harbor and adjoining piers and property in Lewes of the
former menhaden processing plants are ideally situated for port
development. Other Middle Atlantic ports (Cape May, N.J., Ocean City,
Md., and Chincoteague, Va.) are over crowded and have shallow depths
in their inlets. Breakwater Harbor has recently been approved for
dredging, has no inlet to shoal, and has ample room for dockage
facilities as well as storage, fuel, ice, transportation and c9mmunity
interest in this type of development.
Other states are actively advertising for fishermen and fish
packers, processors, shippers and marketing agents to locate at their
ports, and Delaware should exert equal effort to attract these seafood
industries to Lewes.

Priority Number Three
A problem that presently complicates coastal fisheries manage-
ment is the present set of laws pertaining to marine fishing. Many
of these laws were enacted over SO years ago when fishing vessels used
C,
sail power and steam engines, and refrigeration was not yet available.
Legal methods of fishing and restrictions on various species of fish
are no l'onger applicable in most cases. The public is often confused,
justifiably so, when interpretation of the antiquated laws requires

an attorney's legal opinion. In essence, the entire Delaware Code
related to coastal fisheries should be redrafted and submitted to
the Legislature for consideration.

Priorit-v Number Four
Coastal fisheries management should be based on timely, and
C@ I
the best available, scientific and socio-economic data. This legis-
lation should include the granting of regulatory authority to the
C, I'D 0 1 1
DNREC, with possible veto or approval from a legislative or appointed
committee, establishing commercial fishing licenses, recreational
fishing licenses, fishing crear identification and marking requirements,
fish sanctuaries, and reporting requirement of catch and effort data.
Much-attention should be directed to the arowina, conflict between
0 0
recreational fishing interests and expanding commercial fishing oppor-
0 0 __1
tunities with modern fishing gear. Supply and demand for fish stocks
C, ID
could have profound effects upon Delaware's coastal communities in the
very near future.
If coastal fisheries management is to be applied, using the
best available scientific and socio-economic data, this information
must first be collected and correcly analyzed. This will require
either voluntary or mandatory keeping of records bv commercial and
recreational fishermen, fish buyers, fish proces sors and fish shippers.
It also will include up-to-date field inventories of Delaware's fish
stocks in coastal waters. An integrated system must also be developed
in cooT)eration with other state fisherv manaaement agencies and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA, U. S. Department of Commerce)
for collecting data required of migratory stocks of fishes, and from
C,
the fishermen who pursue them beyond the three-mile territorial seas of
adjoining states. Conserving fish stocks a-, id allocating the optimum
0 C) Z>
sustainable yields to both recreational and commercial fishermen is a
critical management issue and should be resolved.

Priority Number Five
A recurring problem that hinders coastal fisheries management
is the biased public opinion that formulates because of inaccurate
theories and insufficient data. To help resolve this problem and
correctly inform the fishing and non-fishino public, an integrated
program involving information, education and enforcement of our
coastal fisheries should be developed. Delaware's Marine Police should
receive additional education in marine fisheries management in order

124 .

to provide accurate answers to the questions of the public. A package
of materials related to coastal fisheries management should be compiled
C>
for distribution to boat owners, fishermen and conservation groups
I
throughout Delaware.

Priority Number Six
Last, but not least, is the problem of funding coastal
fisheries management. All options should be explored in order to
address the financial needs of managing our fishery resources.

125

DEVELOP STRATEGIES AND OPTIONS TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS AND
ISSUES IN ORDER TO FORMULATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Several options exist for managing coastal fishery stocks.

Various levels of federal and state authority and interstate agree-

ments and commissions exist to manage fisheries. However, each has

its own deficiencies, and an overall set of guidelines should be

established and followed by all the states and federal authorities

for a species of fish throughout its range.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)

was a compact created to allow the Atlantic coastal states to better

manage their marine fisheries. In 1950, the Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission made the first amendment to the existing compact

between the Atlantic coastal states. This first amendment made

provision for any two or more states to set up joint regulations for

the management of common fisheries resources. Amendment No. 1 has

not been ratified by the states of Delaware and New York.

The State of Delaware had previously entered into a compact

with the State of New Jersey in 1905, years before the establishment

of the ASMFC. The 1905 Compact established uniform fishing regulations

for the common finfisheries shared by Delaware and New Jersey. Recently,

it was determined that the 1905 Compact was never ratified correctly,

and the compact is no longer considered valid. The enactment of

the eel fishing license by the legislature directly discriminates

against New Jersey fishermen in the Delaware River and totally ignores

the provisions of the 1905 Compact.

126

It is imDerative that Delaware and other coastal Atlantic

states enter into working agreements with neighboring states in

order to develop plans for the management of near shore migratory
marine resources. State/federal programs, sponsored by the Nation;il

Marine Fisheries Service and the ASMFC should be encouraged for

regional or coastal management of fish species that migrate along
the Atlantic Coast. If something is not done soon ai the cooperative

inter-state level, there is a good possibility that individual state

fishery managemeilt rights might be preempted by federal involvement.

The State Legislature should consider delegatincr authority

to the Department of Natural Resources and Lhvironmental Control

to regulate marine finfish in Delaware waters. Natural marine

resource populations fluctuate so much that firmly established laws,

seasons and limits are often detrimental to effective management of

the resources and the livelihood of the fishermen. The state should

also consider and provide more financial support to the Department

in order that they might be properly equipped to manage and protect

the marine resources within the state.

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was

established primarily to manage offshore fisheries. However, the

fishery conservation zone extends from the three-mile state terri-

torial sea boundary to the 200-mile offshore limit. The Regional

Fishery Management Councils are predominantly oriented toward

the management of offshore fish stocks, bnd they have no authority
in the management, of coastal and regional inshore fish stocks. There

127

is a continuing effort to arnend the Fishery Conservation and

Mana-ement Act to extend the council's authority into territorial

seas of the states if the states are unable to manage their own
coastal fiskery resources.

The regulatory authority for effective management of all

marine fisheries resources in Delaware should be given to the

DeT)artment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The

Department also should be given the authority to license commercial
CD

finfishermen within the state. Licensing is required in order to

obtain reasonably reliable catch and effort data on all fish stocks

in Delaware.

OCELN FIS=,RY PORT DEITELOPI-21TT IN DELA1,11rARE

Implementatation of the 200-mile fishery conservation
zone (FC47j) by the United States and similar action by other coastal

nations has'stimulated latent United States interE.;-'L; in offshore

fishing. Fish consuming nations (Japan, Russia, etc.) with

nationally subsidized distant water fishing fleets are no longer

able to indisdriminately harvest huge quantities of fish close to

the coast',s of the United States and many other nations. It is true

that enactment of the 200-mile fishery limit came only after many

of the more valuable East Coast groundfish populations had been

severely over-harvested by foreign fishing vessels. Regional fishery

.councils have been created to develop resource management plans

for fishery resources with the FCZ.

Prior to the establishment of the 200-mile limit, offshore

fishing by United States vessels was not especially profitable

because shore-based U. S. fishir-c- vessels could not compete economi-

cally against foreign labor, factory and nationally subsidized

foreign fishing fleets. Foreign nations could catch and sell processed

fish to U. S. fish buyers at prices much lower than the mini-mum

prices required by U. S. fishermen.

Fish flesh has long boen a significant source of protein

throughout a large portion of the world. Fish consuming nations

are faced with ever increasing fish shortages, and several fishing

nations are exploring the possibility of purchasing huge quantities

of fish from U. S. fishermen. The increased marketability of fish

129

now cauaught by United States fishing vessels is causing major

conflicts within the regional fishery management councils.

In the new England fishery management zone, groundfish

stocks of cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder have been seriously

reduced, at least in part, by foreign fishing pressure. The

elimination of the major foreign fishing pressures has resulted

in a 50 percent increase in the number of U.S. vessels fishing for

the same species. The New England Fishery Management Council is

attempting to manage these groundfish resources by establishing

catch quotas, but the New England fishermen are reluctant to accept

most of the council management recommendations. Essentially, the

increased marketability of white flesh fish (cod, flounder, etc.)

is causing U. S. fishermen to exert increased fishing pressure on

the existing New England groundfish stocks to a degree similar to

that previously employed by foreign fishing vessels.

Within the mid Atlantic fishery management zone, and especially

off the coast of Delaware, there are no large offshore stocks of

the traditionally higher valued white flesh groundfish. Prior to

the enactment of the 200-mile limit, the offshore fishery resources

in the mid Atlantic region were aboundant enough to keep several large

foreign fleets fishing night and day throughout the warmer months

of the year. Now, according to National Marine Fisheries Service

surveys, previously under-utilized stocks of squid, butterfish and

red hake are abundant enough to form the basis of a large and intensive

mid Atlantic offshore trawl fishery.

-ies just inside
The old menhaden plant docks and shore facilit

Cape Henlopen-in Lewes, Delaware appear to be ideally suited for

the development of an offshore ocean fishery port. It is important

to emDhasize the desirability of developing port facilities for
vessels engaged in fishing for offshore and/or under-utilized
C) CD

fishery resources. The development of nearshore trawling fleet

facilities should not be encou-raged until conflicts between recreational

fishermen and hearshore trawlers are resolved.

A small fleet of nearshore tra-eilers has operated out of

Ocean City, Maryland for a numbe-- of years. Thus far, there have

been no recent major problems between the Ocean City trawling fleet

and the recreational fishing fleet. -This is in Dart due to the

-relatively small size of the Ocean City trawlers, as well as the

relatively small number of trawling vessels that operate.
CD

Party boats, charter boats, and private recreational .1"ishing

boats in Delaware rely a1most entirely on the seasonal abundance off

nearshore fish s-Qec4L--s for business and/or recreation. The State of

Dela,, @;are has legal jurisdiction over fishery resources only within

three miles of the Delaware coastline. United States commercial

fishing vessels of any type and size can, and do, legally fish for

-hat are marketable. Nearshore fish
any nearshore fish species 11

species, including sea trout, croaker, rockfish, bluefish, summer

flounder, porgies, etc., sometimes school in heavy concentrations

as far as 20 miles from.shore. On unobstructed bottom and in shoal

waters, schools of these nearshore species are especially vulnerable

to trawl netting and 'purse seinin,,. Durinm the siriraers of 1977 and

197E3, seve-l-al pairs of New Ulersey trawlers were engaged in pair

Lor sea trout near the mouth of Delaware Bay. Several

incidents have already occurred between trawlers and charter

fishing boatus, and future confrontations are almost certain to

occur*

It should be reemphasized that most of Delaware's important

recreational finfish migrate through the nearshore FIZ. Development

of a deep water port facility in Lewes might result in increased

nearshore trawling pressure on the trout, flounder, croakers, etc.

on which the recreational fishery depends.

132

RESOLVING CRITICAL PROBLEMS AND-ISSUEES

One problem that was identified as critical and in need of

immediate attention in the Coastal Fishery Assistance Program

contract fo:@ this past year is the boundary dispute between Delaware

and New Jersey in the Delaware River and Bay. This problem has not

been resolved, and it is outside the jurisdiction of the Division

of Fish and Wildlife, DNREC, to resolve. However, it is being
addressed by the Office of Ylanagement, Budget and Planning (OMBP)

and should be resolved in 'Che near future.

Many informal interviews were conducted with fishermen in

gathering information on Delaware Coastal Fisheries issues, problems

and 0,0,0ort-unities. Although not critical, the most readily identifiable

opportunity involving fisheries is the potential for a major deep
wat er f ishing port in Breakwater F.---,rbor, Lewes, Delaware. @everal

meetings were attended that were sponsored by the Delmarva Advisory
to U .1.

Council in c-atherin- public comments on their "Delma--va Ocean Fishery
C3

Port.S-arvey". '-eakwater Harbor was designated as having ve--y high
CD

potential for fisheries development. Subsequent meetings with

Fisher Enterprises, Inc., the owner of the piers and property at

Brea-laiater Harbor,and the Division of Economic Development were very

productive in pursuing this opportunity. A brochure was designed

with appropriate demographic and fisheries information to advertise

the potential of the harbor facilities at Lewes. Governor du Pont,

Sussex County officials , and the Mayor of Lewes have also endorsed

the concept of a major,fishing port in Breakwater Harbor.

133.

Efforts should continue by fisheries personnel to provide

advisory services to these officials in their promotion of Breakwater

Harbor. Recreational, as well as commercial, fishing interests

should be considered in providing facilities at the Breakwater Harbor.

Legislative needs were not discussed in any detail with

legislators or fishermen during this program segment. Previous

legislative contacts indicated a need for additional data to better

ascertain if new legislation is required. These problems will,

therefore, be more directly addressed in the next segment of the

Coastal Fishery Assistance Program.

A meeting was attended in Fort Lauderdale, Florida which was

sponsored by the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. and

addressed the concept of a Marine Recreational Fishing License. Many

participants were officials from other coastal states who agreed

that the justification for such a recreational license is appaent,

but the public is not yet in a position to accept such a license.

Considerable opposition was expressed by many sport fishermen as to

the use of revenues generated by such a license. Recreational

fishermen apparently would be much more receptive of a recreational

marine fishing license if assurances could be made that all funds

derived from the sale of said licenses would be dedicated to marine

recreational fisheries programs.

A meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission was attended in Norfolk, Virginia

to discuss the marine recreational fishining license and other interstate

and state/federal fishing management proposals. It was evident from

the discussions that other coastal states are as much concerned
with managing coastal inshore fisheries as Delaware. Future
cooperation between states and the federal oovernment must be
pursued to @etter manage coastal fisheries without federal
preemption of historical fishing interests within the various

states.

REFERENCES

Abbe, G. R. 1967. An evaluation of the distribution of fish
populations of the Delaware River Estuary. M. S. Thesis,
University of Delaware, 64 P.

Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Vol. 53, 577 pp.

Castagna, M. A. 1970. Hard clam culture method developed at VIMS.
Marine Resources Advisory Series No. 4, Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, Va., 3 p.

Cole, R. W. 1976 a. Hard clam survey Indian River-Rehoboth Bay.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.

b. Hard clam planting experiments, Unpublished
manuscript, DNREC, Dover, Delaware.

c. Comprehensive report on the hard clam
Mercenaria mercenaria in Delaware, Unpublished manuscript,
College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Lewes,
Delaware.

Dahlberg, M. C. 1972. An ecological study of Georgia coastal
fishes, Fish. Bull. 70(2):323-353 pp.

Daiber, F. C. 1969. A summary of biological studies on Indian River
and Rehoboth Bays with management recommendations, Univ. Del.
for State Planning Office, Dover, Delaware, 26 p.

de Sylva, D. P. 1962. Racial status of juvenile striped bass in
the Delaware River Estuary, Univ. of Del. Dept. Bio. Sci.
(Newark), Ref. No. 61-10 (D, RS).

Higham, T. R. and W. R. Nicholson 1964. Sexual maturation and
spawning of Atlantic menhaden, U. S. Fish, & Wild. Serv.,
Fish. Bull. 63:255-271 pp.

Horn, James G. 1957. The history of the commercial fishing industry
in Delaware. Undergraduate thesis, Univ. Del., Newark, Del.

Humphries, E. M. and F. C. Daiber 1968. Shellfish survey of
Indian River Bay and Rehoboth Bay Delaware, June 1967,
Technical Report, Delaware Project PH-86-66-159, Univ.
Del., Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratories.

Jensen, P. A. 1976. Delaware's small bay resources, Univ. Del.
Sea Grant Pub. DEL-SG-15-76.

REFERENCES

( cont'd)

Karpas, R. M. 1978. The hydrography of Indian River and Rehoboth...
s small bays, Masters Thesis, Col. Marine Studies,
Delaware'
Univ. Del., Newark, Del.

Keck, R. T. 1973. Marine invertebrate resources, Annual Report
1972-73 C.M.S., Univ. Del., Lewes, Del.

Keck, R. T. 1974. The hard clam survey of Delaware Bay. Final
Report submitted to Fisheries Division, Delaware Dept.
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Del.

KIRY, P. R. 1974. An historic 1 ook at the water quality of the
Delaware River Estuary to 1973, Dept. of Limnology, No. 4
Academy of Nat. Sci., Phila., Pa., 76 p.

Lesser, C. A. 1968. Marine fisheries survey, Del. Game and Fish
Comm., Dover, Del., 21 p.

Loosanoff, V. L. and H. C. Davis 1963. Rearing of bivalve mollusks,
In Advances in Marine Biology, Vol. 1, Academic Press,
London and New York, 136 p.

Mansueti, R.J. 1958. Eggs, larvae and young of the striped bass
Roccus saxatilis. Chesapeake Bio. Lab. Contrib. No. 113, 12 p.

Martin, C. C. 1973. Sport fishing survey of the Delaware Estuary,
Fed. Aid Fish Proj. F-24-R, Final Rep., Delaware Div. Fish and
Wild., Dover, Del.

McHugh, J. L. and R. B. MacMillan 1976. Comprehensive report on
the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) industry in New York
State, Unpublished manuscript. Coll. Mar. Studies, Univ. Del.,
Lewes, Del.

McHugh, J.L. and J. C. Ginter 1978. Fisheries, MESA New York Bright
Atlas Monograph, New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, N. Y.

Miller, J. P., J. W. Friederdorff, H. C. Mears, J. P. Hoffman,
F.R. Griffiths, R. C. Reichard and C. W. Billingsley 1975.

Annual Progress Report, Del. River Basin Anadromous Fish
Project AFS-2-6, USFWS, 223 p.

Miller, M. 1962. The Delaware oyster industry, past and present,
Boston Univ. Graduate School 62-4561, 325 P.

Miller, R. J. 1959. A review of the sea basses of the genus
Centropristis (serranidae), Tulane Stud. Zool. 7:33-68.

(cont'd) REFERENCES

Miller R. W.1977. Marine recreational fishing In Delaware,
Del. Div. of Fish & Wild., Dover, Del. Doe . 40-05/78/61-78.

Musick, J. L. and L. P. Mercer 1977. Seasonal distribution of
black sea bass Centropristis striata in the Middle Atlantic
Bight with comments on the ecology and fisheries of the
species, Trans. Am. Fish. Soo. 106(l):13-25.

Poole, J. C. 1961. A review of research concerning summer flounder
and needs for further study, N. Y. Fish. Game, 13:330.-231.

Raney, E. C. 1952. The life history of the striped bass Roccus
saxatilis (Walbuam), Bull. Bingham, Oceanogr. Collect
14(l):5-97.

Ritchie, T. P. 1976. The U. S. clam industry, Univ. Del. Sea Grant
Technical Report, DEL-SG-26-76.

Shuster, C. IT., Jr. 1959. Biological evaluation of the Delaware
River Estuary, Univ. Del. Mar. Labs., Information Series,
Pub. No. 3, 77 p.

Wilks, S. J. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus), Sandy Hook Lab. NMFS,
N.E. Fish. Center Tech. Rep. No. ll, 56 pp.

3 6668 14101 0456