Seven Stake Nets, 68 Haul Seines, Four Pound Nets, 10 Bow Nets, Harvested a Total of 468,344 Shad, Valued at $69,260

A historical review of the shad fisheries of North America

Item Type monograph

Authors Mansueti, Romeo; Kolb, Haven

Publisher Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

Download date 04/10/2021 00:59:02

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/27445 seven stake nets, 68 haul seines, four pound nets, 10 bow nets, harvested a total of 468,344 shad, valued at $69,260. He divided the fisheries as follows: Nunticoke River.-Many of the eastern tributaries of Chesapeake Bay have their sources in the State of Delaware, yet Nanticoke River is the only one which penetrates that State sufficiently far to maintain shad fisheries within the limits of Delaware. The Nanticoke in Delaware is small, the distance from the State line to Seaford being only eight miles. Above Seaford, the river is very narrow and shallow. Drift gill nets and haul seines were the principal harvesting gear, the former being used from the Maryland line to Seaford, the fishing centers being Seaford and Woodland, while seines were operated from two miles below Woodland to two miles above Seaford. Drift nets ranged from 70 to 90 yards in length, with about a five and one-half-inch stretch mesh. The season began about March 20th and ended during the first or second week in May. During Stevenson's time the laws of Delaware made it illegal to take shad in this river after May 31st of each year. In the vicinity of Seaford the water was so clear that all drifting took place at night. Five haul seiners were required at each fishery, and the beaches rented usually for about $15 annually. Broad Creek,-This creek is a branch of Nanticoke River, joining that stream a short distance above the Maryland line. It penetrates the swamps of Southern Delaware. Its shad fisheries were of local importance only, the fish being obtained by drift nets and seines. Delaware Bay.-The shad fisheries carried on in the Bay by residents of Dela- ware were very much less extensive than those carried on by New Jersey citizens. The residents of the two states generally fished on the same grounds, with similar forms of gear, depended on the same markets, and their interests were identicaI in nearly every particular. The principal fishing centers on the Bay were located at Bombay Hook and Bowers Beach. During Stevenson's time the head of the Bay was assumed to be at a line drawn from Bombay Hook to the mouth of Stow Creek on the New Jersey shore. The forms of gear used were drift gill nets, stake gill nets, seines, and pound nets, the first named being by far the most important and obtaining the major part of the catch. In 1896 a total of 64 fishermen fishing 65 units of gear caught 30,161 roe and 17,359 buck shad, valued at $8,456. The stake-net fishery in Delaware Bay were confined to the use of seven rows on the flats on the Delaware side immediately above the mouth of Mispillion River, in from six to 10 feet of water. Drift nets were used principally in the channel of the Bay and on the edge thereof, the nets averaging over 1,000 yards each. The fishing season began about the second week of March and continued until the 1st of May, when the sturgeon fishery proved more remunerative. Other fishermen moved toward the upper reaches of the river after shortening their nets. Delaware River.-The shad fisheries of Delaware River prosecuted by citizens of Delaware were somewhat less extensive than that of New Jersey residents. In 1896 Delaware residents took 280,869 shad from the river, operating from such fishing centers on the river as New Castle, Delaware City, Wilmington, and Port Penn. A totaI of 186 fishermen operating 81 drift nets and four seines took a total of 180,876 roe and 99,993 buck shad from the river side of Delaware. A number of small streams tributary to Delaware Bay and situated entirely within this State yielded a quantity of shad each year. They all rise in the central and western part of Delaware and flow in a general easterly direction to their entrance into the Bay. They are short, the longest barely exceeding 25 miles, and are tidal nearly to their source. The most important are: Broadkil Rivet*-This creek is situated in Sussex County and empties into Delaware Bay a short distance above the breakwater at Lewes. It is nearly 20 miles long. Stevenson (1899) stated that, "According to Dr. Shortlidge, formerly fish con~missioner of Delaware, shad were not caught in Broadkil Creek previous to plantings of fry made there about eight years ago." Shad were taken in some abundance by means of seines and drift nets; in 1896, the catch of shad numbered 6,185 roes and 7,620 bucks, with a local valuation of $2,139. A State regulation made it ". . . unlawful for any person or persons to make more than one haul on the ebb tide and one haul on the flood tide for the taking of shad in Broadkil River, or to use the rattler, which is made to scare the shad, or to use anything that might be conceived of to drive the shad," and that the 101 seine shall not remain across the river longer than one hour on each tide. Steven- son commented that, ". . . it does not appear that these regulations are enforced." Mispillio?~I2iver.-This is a narrow, tortuous, sand-fill creek, entering Dela- ware Bay about 17 miles northwest of Cape Henlopen. Near its mouth it aver- ages 80 yards in width, and in the vicinity of Milford, 18 miles from the mouth, the average width is about 30 yards. Drift nets measuring about 50 yards in length, and a few seines, about 80 yards in length, were used to harvest shad. Most of the drifting occurred about Milford, but extended as far as 14 miles below. Haul seining took place around Milford. Over 50,000 shad were caught in this stream in 1806. Murderkill Creek.-This creek's shad fisheries were small, confined to the use of a few drift nets, seines, and bow- nets by men living at Fredericka, which is about 12 miles from Delaware Bay. A total of 8,700 shad were caught in the Murderkill in 1896. St. Jones Creek.-This stream is a tidal creek, 40 miles in length, emptying into Delaware Bay about 75 miles below Philadelphia. The shad fisheries were Iimited to the use of haul seines at Lebanon, Cherrytree Landing, and Dover, the gear ranging from 80 to 100 yards in length. A total of 1,656 roe and 2,404 buck shad were taken in 1896. There was a State interdiction against ". . . any net, seine, or other device used in fishing in or across St. Jones River on or during any flood tide." Leipsic Creek.-This stream differs little from the other small creeks of Delaware, a few drift nets and seines were used between the mouth of the Creek and Leipsic. A total of 2,798 shad, worth $420, were taken in 1896. Duck Creek.-This stream is narrow and winding, 15 miles in length, emptying into Delaware Bay about five miles above Bombay Hook Point. The fisheries, conducted by means of haul seines, were located at Smyrna and Walker. Only 1,500 shad, valued at $240, were taken in 1896. Appoquinimink Creek.-This is a tidal stream, 20 miles in lengtb, lying entirely in Newcastle County, and emptying into the Delaware River about five miles below Port Penn. Two seines, used by fishermen from Odessa, harvested 350 shad in 1898. Christiana Creek.-This creek forms the harbor of Wilmington, and during 1896 the creek was crossed by several dams for generating water power above the city. Haul seines and drift nets harvested 2,900 shad worth $484 during that year.

CURRENTSHAD FISHERIES OF THD STATEl OF DELAWARE The current shad fisheries of Delaware are but slightly changed from the industry of 50 years ago. They differ only in magnitudethe recent overall average being less than 3.8 percent of the 1880-1908 overall annual average for the State. The same general locations and the same gear with minor exceptions are utilized to this day. Fiedler7s and Anderson and Power's recent compilations of fishery statistics are particularly valuable in determining the value and extent of the fisheries, although they are indicators of magnitude rather than of precise details. The fisheries are reported by counties as follows: New Castle Coumty.-The northernmost of the three counties, it has led the others in production according to available breakdowns in production. In 1937 over 57 percent of the total, and in 1938 over 49 percent of the total catch, was harvested in this county. Strangely enough, shad were not recorded from this county in 1945, although shad-fishing took place during that year. This county encompasses the gill netting and haul seining grounds in the Delaware River near Newcastle, Delaware City, Wilmington, and Port Penn. The following rivers and creeks which are important shad streams, are located in this County: Christiana, Appoquinimink, Blackbird and Duck. No shad can legally be taken from rivers and creeks in the County after June 15th. Kent Co~nty.-This central county is bordered on the east by Delaware Bay, where shad fishing is principally by drift and gill nets. During the years 1937, 1938, and 1945, over 15, 15, and 48 percent, of the total catch was taken from this county. Smyrna, Leipsic, Dover, Frederick, and Milford are still comparatively important shad fishing areas. Leipsic, St. Jones, Murderkill and Mispillion rivers are all located in it. little Creek is one of the most important shad streams. No shad can be taken from rivers or creeks after June 1st 102 in Kent County. In the Mispillion River, it is illegal to capture shad except between March 1st and May 15th. Sussex Cozcnty.-This southernmost county is more important for menhaden, croakers ,and squeteagues, yet during the years 1937, 1938, and 1945, a little over 27, 35, and 51 percent, respectively, of the total shad harvest came from this County. It is bordered on the east by Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The Mispillion River, which borders Kent County, Broadkil and Nanticoke rivers and Broad Creeks, are found in it. An important drift-net fishery still exists around Seaford, as well as at Milford and Bethel. Some shad are apparently taken in otter trawls off the coast incidental to other important food fishes. No shad can be kept if caught in the rivers and creeks of Sussex County after June 1st. In the Broadkil River and tributaries shad are not allowed to be harvested from Saturday noon until Monday sunrise during the season from March 1st to June 1st. Highly specific laws are applicable to this river and its tributaries, and the laws are apparently over 50 years old. With reference to the shad-Fghtening device, mentioned by Stevenson (18991, the 1951 law states definitely . . . that it shall be lawful in taking shad,,in Broadkil River during the season, to employ the device known as a rattler. Although bow nets h,ave been legal devices, no commercial landings for the gear are available for this area. The current statutes indicate that it is also lawful to set seines across the Broadkil for periods of not more than 30 minutes when fishing for shad. It is unlawful to catch shad in this river above the location known as "Sand Haul.'' Some idea of the relative numbers of shad that have been taken by the various gear may be obtained from the following: CATCH OF SHAD BY GEAR IN DELAWARE" Amount of shad in pounds Year Haul Seines Stake Gill Net Otter Trawl 1937 2,600 13,800 4,1000 ---- 1938 1.800 8.800 3.8100 ----

1948 17;000 34,900 100 * Source: publish$-reports of U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From a general perusal of these figures several obvious inconsistencies occur. For 1945 the figure for haul seines seems somewhat high and probably represents the combined figure of haul seines, drift and gill nets, all of which may have been accidentally lumped together. The years for which no record is available of the catch by drift or stake nets probably is due .to incomplete collection of information. Shad probably have been taken in otter trawls in offshore waters for a much longer time than 1947 and 1948. The lack of earlier records is probably due to fishermen regarding the few shad caught by trawl as inconsequential for record when compared to their larger catches of other species. The lack of statistics for bow and fyke nets, both of which take a number of shad in adjacent Maryland, points up the possibiliky that a substantial number of shad may be taken by the numerous small-scale local fishermen and farmers who are allowed to fish without license for shad in streams passing through their land. Mr. Jay Harmic, fishery biologist, Delaware Game and Fish Commission, (in Ett.) states that commercial fishermen around Port Penn, Delaware City and Little Creek, throw back many buck shad, preferring to obtain only roe shad. Some of the fishermen will not go out for shad until they have orders, indicating, perhaps, that a poor market existed in spring, 1952.

D~CLINEOF THn SHAD FISHBRIES IN DBZAWARE STATE It is widely believed that the decline of shad production in the State of Dela- ware is simply a reflection of the decrease in catch in Delaware River and Bay. The story of declining shad production is one of widespread pollution by municipal sewage, industrial wastes, and oil in the upper Bay and River. These waters are shared by New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; Delaware State shares a large portion of the Bay with New Jersey. Generally, it is now believed that shad runs have decreased principally because of the failure of juvenile shad to survive the rigors of a lethal minimum oxygen content of the lower River. The work of Ellis, Westfall, Meyer, and Platner (1947) showed that the minimum dissolved oxygen content was lower than five parts per million, which was the minimum level to permit the safe passage of young shad downstream in autumn after they hatch and develop in the relatively clean upstream nursery grounds. The detailed story of pollution in the Delaware River and Bay has been presented in the accounts of the shad fisheries of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Very little information is available on pollution in the Delaware State portion of the River and Bay as it affects shad. It is generally understood that there is little pollution in the lower Bay and near the Atlantic ocean, and along the coast of Delaware where there are only very small industrial and metropolitan developments. Most of the small inland rivers and creeks are relatively unchanged except for greater siltation due to land use practices in the adjacent drainage areas. Many of the streams in upper Delaware possess less cover and less favorable en- vironmental conditions for the spawning of shad than in former years. However, very little objective information is available on this matter. Dams in Delaware, such as the Wilmington dams on Christiana Creek, and the many smaller dams that have inipounded the millponds that are found inland on the Coastal Plain, are of little importance. Few shad are reported to make their way upstream as far as these dams. The effects of the proposed damming of the Delaware River on the shad fisheries in Delaware Bay and inland waters of the State have recently occupied the thoughts of responsible authorities. Since these obstructions will be located between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and even in New York State, the project is not an immediate problem in Delaware State. The situation will be roughly analogous with the Maryland-Pennsylvania problem in which Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River has completely obstructed shad movements into Pennsylvania. A more detailed discussion of this general situation is presented in the account of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania shad fisheries. There is no information availabIe concerning the effects of fishing gear and intensity on the decline of shad in the territorial waters of Delaware. Stocks of shad presumably could have been depleted by concentrated, unrestricted fishing in the small rivers and creeks characteristic of the State during the last six or eight decades. Such has not been the case. Laws forbidding the closing off of rivers and creeks with haul seines and other nets were in existence over 50 years ago, but Stevenson (1899) stated that many were not enforced. "Rattlers," closely related to "shingles" of the Susquehanna River shad fishermen, were illegal 50 years ago, but this law was not enforced. Curiously enough, the 1951 fish laws of Delaware states that it is lawful to set seines across the Broadkil River for periods of not more than 30 minutes when fishing for shad, and that it is per- missible to use rattlers and other devices for driving fish into the nets, both a direct contradiction to the old laws. Whether such practices outlined above can contribute to the decline of shad is a moot point, but the legalization of such methods indicates that fishermen rather than professional fishery managers have been responsible for certain laws. Catch records, the changing numbers of fishermen, gear, and boats, during the most productive years of the shad fisheries have not been collected by State officials, hence an appraisal of fishing pressure on the declining fisheries can only be surmised by analyzing the available Federal figures.

REHABILITATIONAND MANAGEIMENT OF SHAD FISHEXLIES OF DBLAWARE STAT'M Federal officials made the first attempt to rehabilitate the declining shad fisheries of Delaware River and Bay by stocking princigally in the upper reaches of the Bay. Apparently, there was little support of the program from Delaware; at least, there are no records of the State's participation in this work. Federal workers were openly optimistic of these early stocking activities, and, consequently, they stocked shad fry and fertilized eggs generally. Thus, in 18181the U. S. F. C. stocked 940,000 shad fry in the headwaters of the Nanticoke River in Delaware. By 1889, stocking had increased in the number of fry and stations; over 5,000,000 shad fry were distributed at the following locations: Brandywindppoquinimink Creek; Smyrna-Leipsic Greek; Jones-Murderkill Creek; \Mispillion River; Broad- kil River; Indian River; and, Nanticoke River. Further stocking was carried on during various years; in 1890 and 1898, 4,500,000, and 3,000,000 shad fry, respectively, were introduced. Some of the most intensive stocking of shad for which there are records occurred during the following years: Number of Shad Fry Stream Location 1900 1903 Brandywine Creek, Wilmington ...... 5,175,000 3,050,000 Blackbird Creek, Middletown ...... 300,000 Smyrna Creek, Clayton ...... 150,000 i50,000 Leipsic Creek, Cheswold ...... 150,000 150,000 St. Jones Creek, Dover ...... 300,000 400,000 St. Jones Creek, Lebanon ...... 450,000 Murderkill Creek, Felton ...... 600,000 400,000 Xurderkill Creek, Frederica ...... 450,000 150,000 Mispillion River, Milford ...... 600,000 400,000 Indian River, Millsboro ...... 475,000 850,000 Nanticoke River, Seaford ...... -- ... 2,500,000 Total for Delaware waters ...... 8,650,000 8,050,000 Shad by 1923 were no longer stocked by the U. S. B. F., the federal successor of the U. S. F. C., and there does not seem to be any further reference to the stocking of shad in the State. Stocking, of course, continued in the Delaware River, sponsored largely by the authorities of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. According to Thomas N. Stayton, chief warden of the Delaware Board of Game and Fish Commissioners, shad have never been stocked by the State anywhere. Coincidental with the heavy stocking at the turn of the century was the perceptible decrease in the commercial production of shad. The circumstantial evidence was probably enough to discourage the development of any optimism in the potentiaiities of stocking. Although artificial propagation and stocking of shad fry are now regarded as not efTective in the rehabilitation of the fisheries, there are a number of fishermen who feel strongly that the contrary is true. Delaware has been a member of the Interstate Commission on the Delaware itiver Basin since 1936 and it has participated in the cleanup of pollution, and to a lesser degree has explored the possibility of developing the Basin into a new source of a drinkable water supply. As mentioned before, this measure calls for the construction of at least three dams, after which there was anticipated increased flows 04 water during summer and fall. The results of such improvements in flow regulation of the lower River theoretically would accelerate the restoration of the shad fisheries, according to the Pirnie Report quoted at greater length in the New Jersey section of this paper. Simultaneously, fishways would be installed to allow shad to migrate upstream for spawning purposes. According to L. A. Walford, chief, Branch of Fishery Biology, U. S. F. W. S., in a memorandum about fishways in the proposed dams of the Delaware Basin prepared in 1951, no fishway designs are available which would allow shad to surmount the proposed Tock,s Island Dam which would be about 150 feet high, although it is possible to construct effective ones in the smaller dams. In the meantime, Dr. Walford recommended that plans be incorporated in the construction schedule for fishways for all three dams in the hope that some type of successful fishway for the highest dam may be realized. If no such fishway is forthcoming, it is anticipated that the present rehabilitatory measures for the shad fisheries would be nullified. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Interstate Com- mission on the Delaware River Basin recommended to Delaware authorities in 1949, The Delaware River Shad Protection Act which would be shared by New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware. It would have provided for the following points: (1) the licensing of shad fishermen; (2) the fixing of the seasons; (3) limiting the fishing gear after January 1, 1950, to persons who fished for shad in 1949 or in four of the ten years preceding 1950; (4) forbidding the issuance of licenses to extend operations beyond those of 1949; (5) freezing tlie total amount of gear until the catch exceeded 500,000 fish. Thereafter the authorities involved, after a joint consultation, would issue permits for such additional gear as they may find can safely be issued without impairing the annual yield of shad. "In other words the bill is a cooperative measure for the joint management of the fishery, designed to limit the fishing pressure while the run is building up and then to hold it to a point which will produce the maximum sustained yield." The Act, therefore, is but a modified version of the Maryland Fish Management Plan, which was 105 inaugurated primarily to rehabilitate the remaining stocks of shad entering the State's waters. The management of fishing rights in Delaware Bay has been shared between New Jersey and Delaware. By and large the management aspects of the Bay were controversial. The interstate compact of 1907 gave each state equal fishing rights and provided that only concurrent laws were valid. Delaware adopted an act in 1914 providing for a reciprocal enforcement of fishing laws between the two states. In general, the relationship between them has been friendly and cooperative regarding fishing rights. Delaware, however, failed to incorporate The Delaware River Shad Management Act within its body of laws during the 1951 legislative session. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission stated in its 1950 Report that Cominissioners from New Jersey and Delaware were concerned with w,hat modifications would be required in the joint shad management plan, adopted in 1949 by Pennsylvania and under consideration between Delaware and New Jersey, for mutual acceptance. It is believed that the Act will be acceptable to both States with minor revisions and with the drafting of effective concurrent legislation of fishing laws. More detailed information on this matter is presented in the discussion of the management of shad in New Jersey. The cnrrent management measure enforced by Delaware authorities is the weekend rest period, which lasts from two o'clock of every Saturday afternoon until midnight of the following Sunday. In addition, several other statutes discussed elsewhere are enforced. Commercial fishermen have requested an active effort to rehabilitate the shad fisheries in addition to laws. The State authorities are now considering a plan for limiting the number and types of gear independently of the The Delaware River Shad Restoration Act which has not yet been enacted in Delaware. They are also actively effecting the cleanup of pollution touching their State, and are cooperating with INCODEL. They do not contemplate, however, the reestablishment of a stocking program, nor the inauguration of a hatchery. With the exception of a short investigation of a very small portion of the Dela- ware Coast by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no research work on shad has been carried out in recent years. Appropriations by the legislature of Delaware have assured a two year budget for the new research and educational program of the University of Delaware with respect to marine fisheries, and investigations of shad in the State may be included in this program.

SHADLAWS IN DELAWARF, STATE Aecording to the Delaware State Board of Game and Fish Commissioners (1951), the shad fisheries are subject to the following statutes: (I) the open season for shad fishing in inland waters and in Delaware River and Bay is from March 1st to June 10th; (2) a rest period in which shad fishing is prohibited occurs from 2 P. M. of every Saturday until midnight of the following Sunday; (3) shad seines and nets are illegal if they possess a mesh less than five and one- quarter inches stretched; (4) drift gill nets for shad are the only gear permitted within one-helf mile of the mouth of any river, creek or stream emptying into the said waters; (5) shad fishing is illegal in the waters of Kent and Sussex counties after June 1st. There is a number of other restrict~onsthat are applicable to specific streams and counties. They have already been cited, or they may be reviewed in the 1951 edition of the laws.

TRBNDOF THB SHAD FISHEEIES OF THE STATH OF DELAWARE The only shad catch records available with which to analyze the trend of the fisheries in the State are those primarily referable to Delaware Bay and vicinity collected by Federal sources. A cursory examination of the production figures reveals two general periods. They are: (1) a period of high production (1880- 1908, a span of 28 years in which 18 years of statistics are missing) when the overall average annual yield was 1,331,000 pounds of shad; (2) a period of continuing low production (1921-1948, a span of 27 years of which 10 years of records are missing) when the overall average annual yield was about 51,000 pounds, although the fluctuations during the 27-year span ranged from a low of 13,800 pounds in 1942 to 147,000 pounds in 1926 and 132,900 pounds.in 1945 (see Figure 15). From an examination of the annual returns for the penod of continuing low production, it is not possible to demonstrate a decline, increase, or leveling-off process in the commercial production. The fluctuations in statistics may be sue to a com- plex series of economic and biological factors, as well as differences in the mode of collecting the records. Some records are no doubt more reliable than others, 106 but since the rate of reliability varies depending on the conditions and time intervals during which the ,statistics are collected, it is even more difficult to interpret a significant trend in production. COMMERCIAL HARVEST OF SHAD DELAWARE ---- 1880-1948 -DISCONTINUOUS} ,- I CONTINUOUS STATISTICS

\\ ..a. t' 0 I...,... I.-.. I..., ..I . I...... , 1880 1690 I920 1930 1940 I950 Is ?€OAR FIGURE15 ANNUAL CATCH STATISTICS OF SHAD IN DELAWARE * Year Production In Pounds Year Production In Pounds 1880 1,050,000 1930 54,000 1887 1,270,000 1931 39,000 1888 1,389,000 1932 16,000 1889 1,498,000 1933 22,000 1890 1,797,000 1935 25,000 1891 1,500,000 1937 20,500 1896 1,640,000 f 1938 14,400 1897 1,621,000 1940 31,500 1901 1,368,000 1942 13,800 1904 951,000 1943 23,700 1908 870,000 1944 41,600 1921 87,000 19415 132,900 1926 147,000 1947 67,600 1929 94,000 1948 52,900 * Based on statistics gathered by various Federal sources. IComputed on the basis of 3.5 pounds per shad. SHAD FISHERIES OF NEW JERSEY EARLYSHAD FISHERIDS OF NWJWSEY The size of the shad fisheries of New Jersey has been presented in great detail by Stevenson (1899). He stated that the fisheries were comprised of the following: (1) a total of 2,774 fishermen, shoremen and transporters; (2) a total of 1,180 boats, 848 drift nets, 2,627 stake nets, 87 haul seines, 245 fyke nets. He divided the various fisheries as follows: DeCaizuare Bay and River.- The sources of the Delaware are in the high plateau of central New York, at an elevation of more than 1,800 feet above sea level. Eighty miles below the headwaters it passes through the Kittatinny Moun- tains at a distance of 200 miles below its source. It crosses the escarpnlent line near Trenton, the head of navigation, 280 miles from its headwaters and 133 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. From Trenton to Fort Delaware, a distance of about 75 miles, it is a broad, navigable stream from one half to two miles in width. It supports considerable commerce below Philadelphia. Near Fort Delaware it in- 107 creases in width, and at some indefinite and much-disputed point it merges into Delaware Bay, which is merely a continuation of the estuary of the river. This body of water separates Pennsylvania and Delaware from New Jersey, and the fisheries are prosecuted by residents of those three states. The following account covers all of the fisheries of the River and Bay in the three states as outlined by Stevenson. These fisheries were the most extensive in America, the annual yield ranging between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 shad, being several times greater than on any other river on the coast. The catch numbered 3,882,624 in 1896, of which 3,003,595 were taken by New Jersey fishermen, 550,640 by Pennsylvanians, and 328,389 by Delawareans. The River and Bay have been divided conveniently into three sections: (1) Delaware Bay; (2) tidewater portions of the river from the head of the Bay to the fall line at Scudder Falls; and (3) from the escarpment line to the head of the river. The total yield for 1896 for these three sections was (1) 1,103,821 shad; (2) 2,602,628; and (3) 176,175, respectively. The Delaware Bay portion of the basin forms an arm of the sea varying in width from 4 to 30 miles and is 45 miles in length, covering 601) square miles. Stevenson arbitrarily reported that the head of the Bay was a line drawn from Bombay Hook on the Delaware shore to the mouth of Stow Creek on the New Jersey shore. The Bay's channel is from 30 to 50 feet deep and from one to three miles in width, and on either side there are broad shoals or flats covered by from five to 20 feet of water. The gears used in 1896 were drift nets, stake nets, seines, and pound nets, the first named being by far the most important, having taken in the past as much as 99 percent of the total catch. The following table summarizes the magnitude and importance of the shad fisheries in 1896 in the three states based on catches from Delaware Bay: Boats, gear, etc. Shad harvest State Fishermen Number Value Number Value Delaware 64 65 $5.700 47.620 $ 8.456 New Jersey 577 Pennsylvania 11 - - Total 652 5488 $103,495 1,104,321 $104,761 The drift nets in Delaware Bay were used principally in the channel and on the edge thereof, averaging over 1,100 yards each, with a usual mesh size of 5% inches. Many fishermen operating these nets lived temporarily near the mouth of Stow and Cohansey creeks and shipped their fish from Bay Side. The fishing season began about the second week of March and continued until the 1st of May, after which time the sturgeon fishery proved more profitable, and many of the

I fishermen were attracted to that industry. Those who did not engage in the sturgeon fishing usually shortened their nets and fished for shad in the upper reaches of the river in the Philadelphia area. In the early part of the season, when the water was usually turbid, the nets were operated during the day, but as the water became clearer night fishing became more profitable. Of the drift-net catch, 1,037,001 were obtained by New Jersey fishermen, 413,220 by Delawareans, and 18,600 by Pennsylvanians, the total valued at $103,996. Stevenson stated, "The great excess of roes over bucks is noticeable, the former being 94 percent greater than the latter, due mainly to the large mesh used in the drift nets." The stake- net fishery in Delaware Bay was confined to the use of seven rows on the flats on the Delaware side of the Bay immediately above the mouth of Mispillion Creek, in from six to 10 feet of water. Two seines were used on the New Jersey side of the Bay in 1896 for taking striped bass, white perch, etc., and a few shad were caught. The Delaware River below Scudder Falls was considered, from a commercial and fishery standpoint, one of the most important streams on the Atlantic Coast. It varies in width from four miles at the lower end to a few hundred feet near Trenton. By the Compact of 1783 between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the whole surface of Delaware River from shore to shore is the dividing line between the two states with regard to the arrest and prosecution of offenders against the laws of either state. All fishing ceased after June 10th of every year, and also from sunset Saturday night until 12 o'clock P. M. Sunday.of each week (ca. 1896). The principal fishing centers were Penn Grove, Pennsv~lle,Salem, Pedricktown, Gloucester, and Camden in New Jersey; Delaware City and Newcastle in Dela- ware; Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. The following table summarizes the magnitude of the tri-state fisheries in the Delaware River below Scudder Falls in 1896: 108 Boats, gear, etc. Shad harvest State Fishermen Number Value Number Value Delaware 186 182 $22.372 280.869 $ 39.341 New Jersey 1,582 1272 i94,734 1,892;360 182;211 Pennsylvania 507 405 50,581 429,399 49,465 Total 2,275 1,859 $267,687 2,602,628 $271,017 Of 2,602,628 shad caught in 1896, a little over 80 percent were taken by drifting, while the remainder was taken by means of haul seines. The drift nets were similar to those operated in the bay, but were smaller. During Stevenson's time it was difficult to separate the drift-net fishery of the Bay from the River fi,shery. Many fishermen operated in the upper bay during the early portion of the shad season, advancing upriver and shortening their nets as the season progressed. Of 414,044 yards of drift nets used in this section of the River in 1896, aboutl 19 percent was operated by 164 Delaware fishermen, about 15 percent was operated by 340 fishermen from Pennsylvania, and the remaining 66 percent was operated by New Jersey fishermen. From the head of Delaware Bay to the falls above Trenton there were 45 shad haul seines operated in 1896, of which four were in Delaware, 15 in Pennsylvania, and 26 in New Jersey. The seine fisheries in the lower part of the river below Fort Delaware took very few shad, their catch consisting principally of white and yellow perch, striped bass, catfish, carp, etc. Above Fort Delaware the River narrows and maintains an average width of {from one to two miles up to the mouth of the Schuylkill River. This stretch of river contained five seine fisheries located above Thompson Point, at the mouth of CIenmell Creek. Between Eagle Point and Fisher Point, on the New Jersey side directly opposite Philadelphia, were located three very important seine fisheries; namely, Howell Cove or Fancy Hill, Gloucester, and Pea Shore located immediately above Gamden. Each fishery averaged about 63,000 shad during 1896, and Stevenson cites greater catches at one or more of the fisheries as far back as 1818. Other important seine fisheries were located between the Pea Shore fishery and Burlington in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, from Burlington to Trenton, Badger Island, and at other intermediate points. In the rapids between Trenton and Scudder Falls dam six seine fisheries operated. From Scudder Falls to the headwaters, especially to Lackawaxen, a distance of about 140 miles, the shad fisheries were more extensive on the Delaware than on any other river of the United States. The most extensive was the stretch 40 miles above Scudder Falls Dam. Six miles above Trenton, at the head of the rift known as Scudder Falls, there was a timber and stone dam four or five feet high and 800 feet or more in length, extending in a broken line across the stream, with a chute 115 feet in width for the passage of fish and rafts. This I dam was constructed in 1835 and improved in 1869. The fishermen brought suit (1870) in the County Court at Doylestown, Pennsylvania, against the company, claiming that the change in the dam was injurious to the passage of shad. The Court imposed a nominal penalty on the company, and restrained them from repair- ing or improvi!ng the dam. As a result the dam had so deteriorated by Stevenson's time that it offered little obstruction to shad. At LambertviIle, 15 miles above Trenton, there was a stone and cribwork dam, three to 10 feet high and 1,700 feet long, a chute being left for the passage of rafts. At Lackawaxen there was a canal-feeder darn just below the entrance of the Lackawaxen River with a cribwork structure about 400 feet long and two feet high, with a chute 160 feet wide for rafts. During freshets the water rose several feet above the crest of this obstruction and shad ascended in some numbers to Burrows Dam, in New York, about 50 miles upriver. There were numerous minor dams between Trenton and the New York line, but they did not seriously impede the upward migrations of shad during freshets. Following is summarized the magnitude of the bi-state fisheries in the Delaware River above Scudder Falls in 1896: .fl Boats, gear, etc. Shad harvest State Fishermen Number Value Number Value Pennsylvania 187 113 $18,110 102,641 $16,329 New Jersey 133 68 29,992 73,534 13,252 - -- - - Total 320 181 $48,102 176,175 $29,581 109 Most of the available locations on the Upper Delaware were occupied by seine fisheries, some of which dated back to 1790. A total of 59 seines yielded 169,575 shad, valued locally at $28,841, during 1896. This yield was unusually large, more being obtained at times than could readily be disposed of, and the price received was the lowest known on the river for several years. Stevenson speculated that the large run was probably due to the fact that four or five years preceding there were heavy freshets, which restricted the fishing in the early part of the season, thus permitting the shad to reach the upper waters to spawn. Although spearing of shad on the Delaware River was illegal, this device was used quite extensively in 1896 at Lackawaxen Dam, 146 miles above Trenton. Some of the spear fishermen operated from rowboats, while others worked from the apron of the dam. Some shad were taken every season from several streams in New Jersey tributary to the Delaware; I. e., the Cohansey, Salem, Raccoon, Mantua, and Timber creeks. In other streams along this shore, such as Maurice River, Woodbury, Old Mans, Rancocas, Cooper, etc., a few shad were taken for local use, but Stevenson pointed out that these fisheries were so intimately associated with those of the Delaware, or that they were so small and so irregularly prosecuted, that it was not practicable to show the actual quantity taken. Cohansey Creek, which enters Delaware Bay 37 miles above Cape May, is tidal as far as Bridgeton, where there was an earthen dam, 11 or 12 f,eet high for the development of water-power. It ranked in 1596 third in importance among the shad-producing streams of New Jersey, being surpassed only by the Delaware and Hudson rivers. Drift-net and haul seine fishermen lived at Bridgeton and Fairton, operating at various points on the Creek. Salem River rises in tha' northeastern part of Salem County and discharges into Delaware River at a point four miles below Fort Delaware. Drift-nets were the principal harvesting gear in 1896. The shad fisheries of Raccoon River, which enters Delaware River opposite Marcus Hook, were limited to the use of two small haul seines which harvested a small catch. Stevenson declared that "The small catch was due to the shad being driven away by the dumping of mud in Delawaye River just below the entrance of Raccoon River." Mantua Creek discharges into Delaware River about 10 miles below Philadelphia, and shad were harvested in this stream by means of haul seines. 'Big Timber Creek, forming the boundary between Glouces- ter and Camden counties, is 30 miles in length, and was fished primmarily by means of haul seines. Ocean Shore of New Jersey.-Stevenson stated hhat in severaI of the small sounds and bays on the ocean shore, a few shad were taken each year in seines, stake nets, and fyke nets set for other species of fish. Shad were reported from Jenkins Sound, Ludlum B8ay, Barnegat Bay, Metedeconk River, and Manas- quan River. On the coast from Barnegat Bay to Sandy Hook numerous pound nets were operated from May to October, in which shad were taken incidentally during May. The nets set in 1896 numbered 49, valued at $116,600, yielding 13,675 shad, worth $2,715 at iocal rates. Stevenson remarked, "This is the southernmost point on the Atlantic coast at which shad are taken in considerable numbers outside the general coast line." Sandy Hook Bay.-This Bay, forming a part of the waterway tributary to the harbor of New York City, is separated from the ocean on the east by a narrow sand beach known as Sandy Hook. The shad fisheries were confined to the use of stake nets, which averaged between 150 and 160 yards in length. The nets used in 1896 numbered 107. They captured 6600 shad valued locally at $1,320. Rarztan Bay.-This Bay occupies the triangular space between Staten Island, New York, and the coast of Middlesex and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey, and its waters commingle with those of the ocean through Lower Bay. Its shad fisheries were valuable, the annual yield approximately 50,000 shad, the forms of gear used being pound nets, stake nets, seine, and fyke nets. Of 43,437 shad taken in 1896, 26,702 were obtained in pound nets, 15,675 in stake nets, 1,010 in seines, and 250 in fyke nets. The stake nets were set specially for shad, but the pound nets, seines, and fyke nets depended principally on the catch of other specles. Shad were taken principally by fishermen living in Port Monmouth, Belford and Keansburg. Raritan River.-The Raritan is the longest river situated wholly within New Jersey, originating as it does in the northwestern part of the State and 110 flowing a distance of 45 miles to its entrance into Raritan Bay at South Amboy. Fyke nets, set for striped bass, were the main harvesting gear for shad in the spring. In 1896, 11 fyke nets, set near the mouth of the river, were operated by one man using one boat. About 2,500 shad, which sold for $938, were harvested. New York Bay.-In that section of the New Jersey shore bordering New York Bay and Hudson River many shad were caught every year, the yield in 1896 being 217,858, of which 49,758 were caught in fyke nets in New York Bay and 168,800 in stake nets in Hudson River. This area and its history is described more fully in the section devoted to the early history of the shad fisheries in New York. Some comments on the shad fisheries of the New Jersey portion of the Delaware River earlier than those of Stevenson (1899) were made by Howell (1837), and were reprinted by McDonald (1887). Howell stated, "The importance of this species of property was recognized at an early period of our history, when fisheries were comparatively few, and numerous salutary provisions were enacted from time to time in relation to them, whose object was to perpetuate their benefits and secure them to their rightful possessors. Amongst others were those protecting the fisheries from unnecessary interruption by vessels and rafts, which are expressly required to avoid the seines while fishing, and prohibited under severe penalties from anchoring within the fishing range of any of the fisheries." Additional facts about the early fisheries cited by Howell concerned the utilization of shad. "The writer has known sixty and seventy wagons supplied in a day (each, perhaps, taking at least 100) at the Fancy Hill fisheries, si$ miles below Philadelphia. The great mass are salted like mackerel, and chiefly for domestic use. In the fresh state they are, in the height of their season, one of the most delicious of any of the finny race, and decidedly the best mode of cooking is that called 'planking', which consists in nailing the fish to a clean oaken plank, previously heated, and setting it before a brisk fire. By this method the juices of the fish are all preserved. They are sometimes treated like hams, viz, by rubbing them with fine salt, saltpeter, and molasses, and smoked fot; a few days, and in this way are very superior to those cured with salt alone. A remark that Howell made about spent shad is of especial interest. He wrote, "After having spawned the old fish soon disappear. They are occasionally caught indeed, in the nets, but they are thin and worthless, and, from their attenuated condition, are called by the fishermen "racers." Meehan (1907) discussed in great detail the contribution made by hatching shad and stocking them in the Delaware River by Pennsylvania Fish Commission- ers. He attributed the highly successful run of 1907 to the intensive stocking program, although he cited no statistics. He cited some interesting facts in addi- , tion to his subjective account of shad production and hatchery work. He wrote of l a 15 pound "hard" female shad that was taken during this successful year. He also stated, "The natural spawning grounds on the Delaware River are above Trenton, from Trenton clear up to the New York line. Every pool above Trenton is a spawning pool, if of any size, and up to-well, even last year-I saw fish, and fish in some numbers, spawning up in Monroe county. Quite a number of fish could be seen working back and forward on the surface of the pools, in the act of spawning, and there were quite a large number of young fish that went down the river last fall, and went down remarkably late." Fowler (1906, 1907 and 1908) collected many interesting observations about shad in New Jersey waters. He reported that the largest shad encountered at that time was a specimen taken above Trenton which weighed 13 pounds, two ounces. He also cited a reliable observer who found that spring run shad contained food in their stomachs. A hermaphrodite shad containing well-developed milt and roe was brought to Camden from the Delaware River. It was also noted that moving shad differed from herrings when ascending the Delaware by not making ,any disturbance when rising to the surface of the water. Fishermen believed this was due to shad having a more pronounced shape to the snout. Fowler stated, "As the fry develop they soon reach a half-grown size, when they will devour most all kinds of insects and small aquatic animals, and at 'this season may be taken on a fly. When ascending the river, as on one occasion at the Dela- ware River bridge, at Trenton, the shadow of this seemed to form an impassable barrier. To one looking down from above large schools could all be seen herded all along the edge of the dark shadow [of the bridge], but not a single individual 111 for an instant passing into it. Finally a leader among the fish appeared, and after swimming along the shadow several times finally determined on a point to pass through, when the whole multitude placidly followed in a narrow stream." CURRENTSHAD FISHERIES OF NEW JERSEY At the present time the New Jersey shad fisheries are divided between the Delaware and Hudson rivers, the bulk of the shad reported from the State being taken in the latter river. In fact, over an 11 year period, 1940-1950, the Hudson River shad industry has averaged a little over 92 percent of the total annual yield for the State. The Delaware River shad fishery can be divided into seven shad- producing counties : Bu~lingtonCounty.-Located in the lower middle portion of the State, bordered on the west by Delaware River and on the southeast by the Mullica River, the fisheries contributed about 11 percent of the total landings of the Delaware in 1949. This quantity was obtained by six men fishing two nets and working out of two boats. When shad occur, they are taken in Rancocas Creek between Centre- ton and Rancocas Park by drifting. Cmdelz County.-Located southwest of Burlington County, it is bordered on the west by a small stretch of the river. Very little shad fishing takes place in the river; within the last two or three decades three haul seines and three drift gill nets, about 150 fathoms in length, were used. Cumberland County.-Located in the extreme southwestern portion of the State and bordered by the Delaware Bay, this county harvested 91 percent of 44,680 pounds of shad caught in the Delaware in 1950. The shad were. caught in both the Bay and in the Maurice River by means of a total of 36 nets, of which drift nets were used in the former area, and drift nets and haul seines were used in the Maurice River. Within the last three decades motorboats as well as rowboats were used in the operation. More shad fishermen work in this county; a little over 50 percent of a total of 62 fishermen engaged in fishing during 1950 were located in Cumberland County. Gloucester County.--Located southwest of Camden County, this area contributed less than one-tenth of one percent of the Delaware River shad harvest for 1949. Not much fishing has occurred in this county in recent years. Formerly, drift gill nets, operated out of motor and row boats, were fished by fishermen principally from Oldmans Creek and Bridgeport. Hunterdom County.-Located on the western side of the north-central poi-tion of the State, this county has also contributed even less than Gloucester County during 1949 and 1950 from the Delaware shad landings. Only haul seines are used in this county since gill nets are prohibited by law above Trenton Falls. The length of nets vary from 60 to 300 yards, and are operated from rowboats. The fisheries were located near Stockton and Lambertville. Mercer Cozcnty.-Located between Hunterdon and Burlington Counties in the western part of New Jersey, this county has contributed barely more than Hunter- don County's share of the 1950 shad landings, i. e., less than one-tenth of one percent. Fisheries were located near Titusville, Wilburtha and Trenton, the shad being caught by haul seines about 300 yards long. Salem Cozmty.-Located between Cumberland and Gloucester Counties, this area is second to Cumberland County in shad production on the Delaware River, yielding five percent of the 1950 landings. Drift gill nets, operated from motorboats have been used in recent years. In 1950, 14 fishermen, working seven nets from seven boats, caught over 3,800 pounds of shad valued at over $1,550. The remaining current fisheries of the State are located in the Hudson River, and on the oceanside. The annual landings for shad have been reported by the U. S. F. W. S. by counties in recent years for these two areas. A breakdown by counties for 1945 is available in Statistical Digest Number 18 by Anderson and Power (1949). They are: Bergen County.-Located in the extreme northeastern portion of the State, this county borders the Hudson River. According to the 1945 fishery statistics foi- New Jersey, 20 percent of the total landings were harvested in this area. A total of 75 fishermen operated 22 stake gill nets and one drift gill net taking a greater portion of the Hudson River shad than any other group of New Jersey fishermen. The stake nets are set from Alpine south to the mouth of the River on the New Jersey side. Hudson County.-Located just south of Bergen County and immediately par- allel to the Hudson River, this county is credited with about 1.6 percent of the 112 total landings of shad for 1945 in New Jersey. A total of 10 fishermen operating just a few drift and stake nets have fished this highly industrialized area in the last few years. MkZdEesex County.-Located in the east central portion of the State, just south of Union County, this area accounted for a little more than three tenths of one percent of the 1945 landings of shad for the State. Most of the catch was from the Raritan Bay area; drift gill, stake nets, and fyke nets accounted for the shad, although the sets were for other species of fish. itfonmouth County.-Located in the east central part of New Jersey, this county took 40 percent of the total landings of shad recorded for New Jersey in 1945. This County is bordered by Sandy Hook Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, into which flow several important shad-producing streams and rivers. A total of 50 drift nets, six anchor gill nets, 61 stake gill nets, 53 pound nets, and 21 otter trawls were operated off this County in 1945, accounting for a large number of shad even though some of the nets were operated for other fish species. Ocean County.-Located just south of Monmouth County on the eastern side of the State, this area accounted for a little more than 23 percent of the total landings of shad in 1945 for New Jersey. Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, and a portion of Great Bay, possess pound nets, stake and fyke nets which take a number of shad each year. In the small creeks and rivers inland from the sounds and bays, drift nets are employed. Atlantic County.-Located south of Ocean and Burlington County, this area accounted for two percent of the total landings of shad in New Jersey in 1945. Many drift and stake gill nets, and otter trawls are employed in this region, and shad are taken incidentally to other species. Cape May County.-Located at the southern tip of New Jersey, this area accounted for one and one half percent of the total landings of shad in 1945 for the State. It is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by Delaware Bay. In 1945 a total of 25 pound nets, 671 drift gill and 58 stake gill nets were used to fish the area, shad being incidental except in spring. Some idea of the relative success of the various gear used in harvesting shad may be gained from the following: CATCH OF SHAD BY VARIOUS GEAR USED IN NEW JERSEY* Weight in Pounds 1940 1943 1945 1948 Haul seine 72,400 22,600 47,200 9,000 Anchor gill net 41,600 7,500 Drift gill net 90,900 19,600 42,300 95,906 Stake gill net 1,951,200 2,064,500 1,569,000 1,273,200 Pound net 1,199,800 1,200,000 1,249,900 467,500 Fyke net ...... 200 Weir ...... 2,o60 Otter Trawl i00 .... 400 4,600 - DECLINE]OF SHAD IN NElW JEiRSaY WATERS Howell (1837) complained that gill-netters ". ..have literally taken forcible possession of the river Delaware under the plea of its being a common highway, and have virtually dispossessed the lawful owners of the fisheries of property which they considered as secure and as much their own as their farms." The drift gill nets, ". ..although prohibited by law, yet so lame are its provisions that it is morally impossible to enforce it, except in cases where the name of the offender can be obtained," caused a great deal of ill-feeling during Howell's time. He stated that they ". ..have increased to such an extent as already greatly to depreciate the shore fisheries, and if not checked they must ere long render them worthless. * * * I have no data by which to estimate the number caught by gill seines, but from the rapid multiplication of these destructive contrivances it must be very great." Stevenson (1899) presented some interesting data from the records kept by the Fancy Hill fishermen. Between 1818-1896, the fisheries were divided into three divisions: (,l)period during which no gill nets were used from 1818-1822-average annual yield for five years was 111,000 shad; (2) period during which a few gill nets were used from 1845-1865-average annual yield * Source: Published accounts of U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 113 for six years was 66,200 shad; (3) period during which the gill net fishery was fully established from 1886-1896-average annual yield for nine years was 52,200 shad. It would appear from this information that the yield of shad decreased with the increase of drift-netting, but before such a premise is acceptable, the annual increment of fishermen, gear, and other factors must be determined. Howell also spotlighted the destruction of young shad. "The young fish remain in the river until towards autumn, by which time they have attained the size of small herrings, when they in turn disappear. They are caught in immense numbers in the weirs and racks and baskets which are constructed in the shallow waters above the falls for the purpose of taking the common river fish, and they are so tender as to be destroyed by the least violence. These contrivances, so destructive to the young fish, have consequently become objects of legislative prohibition." Meehan (1907) also deplored the destruction of juvenile shad. "Small mesh shore nets unquestionably are an evil and catch and destroy thousands of small shad. Contrary to the usual belief we find that yearling shad had come into the river. LThls observation has not been corroborated by recent shad biologists, although several investigators have spoken of precocious males that do so, i. e., fish that may be two or three summers old]. They are about the size of a herring and I have seen heaps estimated to contain four to five thousand in the markets selling at 50 cents per hundred, or the price of herring. Hence a small mesh net must inevitably be a factor in destroying the fisheries and I feel that no shore net should have a mesh less than four and a half inches even in the pocket or bag. I particularly mention shore nets in this connection for the reason that on the Delaware river, notwithstanding the laws of both New Jersey and Pennsylvania require a minimum mesh of four and a half inches stretched measure, no giller uses less than five inches and the majority use a mesh of five and a quarter to five and half, while most of the shore men use a net with a mesh in the pocket or bag as small as two and a half, as they claim, not of shad but of herring." Meehan continued his remarks, "While I believe that improper nets and water pollution are factors against an increase in the number of shad and perhaps have had something to do with the decrease in the number of fish in the six years preceding 1907, the results in 1907 show to my mind conclusively that there is something else of greater importance, namely, water temperature. It is a well known fact that shad come into the river freely when the water temperature is below 59 or 60 degrees and on examination of the records we will find that since 1900 and until this year the water temperature of the Delaware river I during the greater part of the shad season has been below those figures. * * "' The greatest number of fish within about 24 hours of being ripe was during the third and fourth weeks in May with the temperature average below 58" and there was also during that period a notable decrease in the number of shad caught." Although it cannot be inferred that natural mortality resulting from spawning brought about a decline in shad production, the remarks of Fowler (1907) are of interest in this matter. He wrote, "When spent, the shad, like the chub, was found to be weak. They would drift down with the tide, and sometimes when they would be carried into an incoming tide at Trenton and not having strength to resist it, though with the impulse, would die. They were found sometimes in numbers. At times fungus diseases would break out, though equally rare at others." Stream pollution from the extensive industrialization of the Delaware River is reputed to be the dominant cause of the failure of fish stocks. The Report of the State Commissioners of Fisheries of Pennsylvania (1898) first mentioned the role of pollution in the Delaware, although the Attorney-General stated there was no legal remedy when the effluent was destructive to fish only. The Pennsylvania Commissioners, (1899) treated pollution at great length, generally maintaining that no industry would be ahut down in order to control pollution as alleged by certain industrialists. They also lamented the fact that no remedy was forthcoming, although they placed some hope on the State Board of Health. Meehan (1907), however, tended to scoff at the effects of pollution on shad. "If water pollution had been a very heavy factor in determining the run of shad there could not have been any great increase in 1907 over previous years for the reason that the river is just as badly polluted today by the cities of Philadelphia, Camden, and Trenton as in former years and if 114 anything the oil nuisance at Point Breeze was worse. The only effect that I could see in regard to the pollution was that after the water temperature became highest in June, the fish in the neighborhood of Torresdale tasted strongly of the pollution. The data therefore in the possession of the department leads to the conclusion that nature rather than man is responsible for the marked fluctua- tion in the run of shad in the Delaware River." The attitude expressed above was based chiefly 0: ignorance of the effects of pollutants, but to his colleagues he recognized that . . . . it [pollution] is an enormous factor" in the decline of shad. Protector James M. Stratton in the 1815 Annual Report of the New Jersey Board of Fish and Game Commissioners wrote that, "Various reasons are given for the scarcity of shad in the Delaware river and bay. Some claim that the continual dredging of the river prevents the fish from coming to the head water; others attribute it to pollution . . ." In the 1916 report he stated, "The fishermen who are engaged in the business in Delaware Bay and the lower portion of the Delaware River generally attribute the decrease to the lack of propagation of shad and to the refuse from the DuPont Powder Works at Pennsville, and Gibbstomn, and other factories along the river. * * * " The case of the State of New Jersey against the State and City of New York, the State of Pennsylvania (Intervenor), in which the defendants were to be enjoined from diverting any waters from the Delaware River or its tributaries to the water shed of the Hudson River to increase the water supply of the City of New York, was described in the 1931 Annual Report of the New Jersey Board of Fish and Game Commissioners. The United States Supreme Court gave the opinion that the taking of 600,000,000 gallons daily would not materiaIly affect the river for fisheries of shad, but the river's recreational reputation would suffer and increased salinity at the mouth would harm the oyster bars. Charles N. Burch, Special Master in the case, referring to the shad industry in the Delaware River said in his report: "While, necessarily, there must be sufiient water in the river so that the shad can migrate upstream during the spawning season and also sufficient water . . . so that shad . . . can return to sea, yet it does not appear that there is any absolute relation between the high flows and the heavy catches of shad. I am of the opinion that the pollution of the Delaware River has had a much more damaging effect on the shad industry than have the variations of the flow in the river from year to year. There are, no doubt, other causes for the decline in the number of shad migrating into the Delaware River as into other streams flowing into the Atlantic Ocean, but these other causes are of an obscure I character which will have to be determined by a more extensive and intensive study by fish experts. The greater part of the pollution . . . comes from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the correction of this pollution is beyond the scope of the , instant case. . . . there is . . . substantial contribution of pollution from . . , New York and particularly from Port Jervis. The treatment of sewage and industrial waste at Port Jervis will leave the Delaware River in a relatively clean and sanitary condition where it enters . . . New Jersey, and it will then be a matter for New Jersey and Pennsylania to correct and prevent undue pollution below Port Jervis. To me, as a layman, I can well understand how the migration of shad up the river in the spring would be materially reduced by reason of the polluted condition of the river below and at Philadelphia and Camden. At the time of the inspection trip the pollution of the river between Philadelphia and Camden was such that a distinctly disagreeable odor was noticed." Pollution has held the spotlight in the shad fisheries of the Delaware River for the last two decades. The three conservation commissions, the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have been especially cogni- zant of the lack of objective information of the effects of pollutants on shad. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission requested the U. S. F. W. S. in 1943 to conduct an intensive survey on the Delaware. The study was climaxed by the work of Ellis, Westfall, Meyer, and Platner (1947), who demonstrated that gross pollution occurs in a 50-mile stretch of the river from Pennsville to near Riverton, New Jersey, which seriously reduced the oxygen dissolved in the water. For 35 or 40 miles of this stretch of the river dissolved oxygen was reduced to less than two parts per million during the period of downstream migration of shad fry. As shad eggs and young shad are sensitive to deficiencies of oxygen, the existence of a section of water of lethally low oxygen content inflicts a heavy 115 mortality during and after the spawning period. Walford (1951B) stated that, "The causes of reduction of the dissolved oxygen in the waters of the Delaware in this sector are three-municipal sewage, industrial wastes, and oil. Oil pollution apparently should not exist as there are Federal laws prohibiting the introduction of oil and oil wastes into public waters affected by tides. The engineering problems of overcoming the oxygen demand of municipal sewage and industrial wastes are considerable but not insuperable, and the Inter-State Commission on the Delaware River Basin has taken steps to remedy the situation." Walford described the former range of spawning shad that had apparently been curtailed by pollution. "In former years the spawning grounds of shad extended all the way from Philadelphia well into the upper reaches of the river in New York State. Probably the principal spawning area was a short distance above Gloucester. At the present time, however, successful spawning is restricted to that portion of the river above Milford, Pennsylvania, beginning approxiinately 130 miles above Philadelphia. ColIections of eggs during the 1944 spawning season show that there was some spawning from Bordentown, New Jersey, to Equinunk, Pennsylvania, but that nearly all of the eggs below Milford, Pennsylvania, were dead when taken. Normal survival is found only in samples collected at the mouth of the Lackawaxen River and at Equinunlc. Thus the maintenance of the present fishery must depend upon survival of the spawn deposited in only one-fourth of the present spawning range where the river is polluted, but narrow and swift- flowing." Aside from pollution, New Jersey fishermen attributed the decline of shad to the use of fyke nets with wing walls, in which "thousands of young shad were found." Protector James 1&1.Stratton, in the 1916 Annual Report of the New Jersey Board of Fish and Game Commissioners, noted that the continual decrease in the shad was not wholly due to illegal practices and pollution. Significantly, he stated, "Many persons who were formerly engaged in shad fishing are now steadily employed at good wages in Du Pont's and other munition plants along the Delaware River. This, in addition to the gradual falling off in the catch for the past two or three years, is a reason for the decrease in the number of men engaged during the past year. This census shows a decrease in the number of nets in operation and number of persons engaged in the business. It will also be noted that notwithstanding the fact that the price of shad has advanced 100% during the past three years, the catch of shad has decreased more than one-half i million fish." The decrease in number of shad fishermen was sustained after World , War I, for in 1920 Protector Stratcon stated, "A scarcity of labor and the advance I in the cost of nets, together with the gradual falling off of catches for the past three years, were no doubt the causes of the small number of men engaged in the business." For example, the number of shad fishermen engaged during 1920 was 32 percent lower than 1917, according to statistics compiled by Stratton. From about 1913 until 1930, Protector Stratton compiled detailed statistics by county of the number of boats, nets, fishermen, and their respective mlues for the Dela- ware River portion of New Jersey. In addition, he recorded the number of shad caught, their value, and annually tabulated their increase or decrease. From 1930 until 1950, there was an almost uninterrupted series of county statistics of the shad catch of New Jersey. Beginning in 1937, the New Jersey Reports began publishing the same detailed information for the Hudson River shad fisheries of New Jersey. They are important for an analysis of the changes in numbers of boats, gear, and fishermen on the production of shad. In general such an analysis demonstrates that the fluctuations in the production of shad may be due to an increase or decrease in fishing intensity, as well as such deleterious factors as pollution and illegal gear. Closely associated with the Delaware River decrease in shad production was the problem of the Hudson River shad fisheries. New- Jersey, through its Warden force, cooperated with the U. S. F. W. S. in the collection of scales and other data. Cable (1948) stated that the present decline had been due to failures in reproduction of shad rather than to overfishing. The Eighth Annual Report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (1950) reported on this matter in greater detail, stating that studies indicated that the dissolved oxygen content of some portions of the Upper Hudson was lower than was previously believed and that such deficiency may have had some bearing upon the survival of shad eggs and young shad fry in the upper Hudson River. 116 Although dams constructed on many of the major rivers and tributaries along the Atlantic Coast have contributed to the decline of shad, there does not seem to have been such a problem on the Delaware River system. The Schuylkill and Lehigh rivers have been blocked with dams for more than a hundred years thereby obstructing the spring migrations of shad. Many of the small tributsry streams have been dammed. The records of many of these have been cited by Stevenson (1899), but their importance has been minimized. During spring freshets shad were able to surmount most of them. The dam constructed by the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company at Lackawaxen impeded the progress of shad, so that a fishway was constructed. The Report of the Pennsylvania Commissioners of Fish- eries for the years 1889-90-91 (1892) remarked that the erection of fishways was signally successful. "Since the building of the Lackawaxen Dam, forty-five or fifty years ago, not a shad was seen above the dam until the spring of 1890, after the fishways were put in, which have proven a great success. The Burrows dam (in New York) is about 70 miles above the Lackawaxen dam. I am informed by reliable witnesses that last spring there were vast numbers of shad below the apron of the dam and that for many rods the water was a solid mass of fish." The Report for 1901, however, stated, "At same time it is reported a gentle slope exists in the Lackawaxen dam rendering fishways, now dilapidated, of no further use.'" During 1898 a controversy existed concerning the legal reason for the occurrence of the dam maintained at Scudder Falls above Trenton by the Trenton Water Company, organized about 1870, to supply water power to industries located nearby. The act of the New Jersey Legislature of 1870 gave the right to the Company to maintain the dam. A channel 150 feet wide was freely used by shad until cribbing was erected in the channel, resulting in a direct fall of two and one-half to three and one-half feet. This matter was adjusted amicably by 1900. REIHABILITATTONAND MANAGFIMEINT OF NElW JERSEY SHAB Management methods early in the 19th century consisted of the enactment of laws restricting the fishing season and types of gear. Howell (1837) mentioned that weirs, racks, and baskets, which were recognized to destroy juvenile shad, were outlawed. Certain salutary provisions were made to protect shad spawning beds from unnecessary interruption by vessels and rafts. These rafts were required to avoid the seines while fishing, and were prohibited under severe penalties I from anchoring within the fishing range of any of the fisheries. Stevenson (1899) also mentioned laws that restricted fishing. Later legislation restricting the i taking of shad were as follows: (1) in 1913, pound nets were declared unlawful 1 everywhere except in the Atlantic Ocean, Sandy Hook, Raritan Bay, and along I the Cape May County portion of Delaware Bay; (2) in 1914 all spearing and gigging of shad and other fish and the erection of eel weirs in the fresh waters of New Jersey were prohibited; (3) in 1916 the legislature recommended that the shad season close May 31; (4) in 1941 the Federal authorities required the shortening of nets in several areas in the Hudson River in New Jersey and New York. A further and more comprehensive restriction of fishing effort and gear was ad- vocated in The Delaware River Shad Protection Act endorsed by the Interstate Commission of the Delaware River Basin and the Atlantic States Marine Fish- eries Commission. L. A. Walford reasoned in a 1951 memorandum to the above Commission that, "In order to assure such an increase in stock, restrictions have been proposed to prevent a sudden expansion of the commercial fishery. The amount of fishing effort (that is, units of gear) and the time it operates, must be restricted so that the fishery will not capture an inordinate proportion of the total spawning runs. * * * " Until 1941 Delaware River fishermen strongly heId to the principle of artificial propagation and stocking of shad as the great single rehabilitation method. In recent years fishery biologists have indicated as fruitless the stocking of shad fry, but, unfortunately, without direct evidence to support their thesis. An examination of stocking records of shad fry in the Delaware and the subsequent total commercial yield has revealed no correlation. Apparently this easily discernible fact prompted the New Jersey authorities to turn from artificial propagation of fish after 1941, although many fishermen continue to believe that it is the only method of saving the fisheries. The U. S. F. C. planted 160,000 shad fry in the Delaware at Bloomsbury, New Jersey, in 1875. This was followed by an almost annual stocking of large 117 numbers of shad fry and fertile eggs. In 1885, two of the principal shad propa- gating stations of the Commission were located in New Jersey; one at Gloucester City, where the Steamer Fish Hawk collected over 10,000,000 shad fry from May 23-June 10, and the other at Lambertville, where a temporary station was established and serviced by a railroad car fulIy equipped with shad hatching apparatus. In 1889, for example, almost 5,000,000 shad fry were released at Gloucester, Bridgeton, and Lambertville. Several million more fry were released in the Dela- ware River at various points in Pennsylvania. In 1890-91, over 4,000,000 and in 1898 1,500,000 shad fry were introduced in the Delaware from points in New Jersey. This was amplified by a much larger stocking in Pennsylvania. During the years marking the turn of the century the Delaware was stocked heavily with fish hatched by Federal authorities, but New Jersey was unable to organize its own hatchery. Meehan (1907) stated that between 1897 and 1904, Pennsylvania did no shad work on the Delaware owing to insufficient appropriation. The U. S. F. C. occupied and operated in 1898 the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's field station at Bristol for a portion of the season, the steamer Fish Hawk having been taken away for naval purposes. For two years thereafter the United States government took a very large quantity of eggs from fish in the Delaware River, but immediately after 1900 there was a noticeable decrease and in 1905 when the U. S. F. C. operated the Pennsylvania S'cate hatchery at Torresdale jointly with the State, there were only a little over 3,000,000 eggs taken and most of them from two shore nets, one at Washington Park, and one a short distance above Torresdale. Significantly, this decrease in availability of eggs followed after a tremendous stocking program from 1890 to 1900, indicating that there was probably no benefit to be derived from stocking shad fry. The decrease in the number of eggs caused the U. S. F. C. to abandon its work on the Dela- ware by 1907, leaving the entire hatchery program in the hands of Pennsyl- vania. For 1907 Meehan reported that almost 5,000,000 shad fry were hatched in the Delaware. Ironically enough, he pointed out that there was a perceptible increase in the shad run for 1907, although there was very little important shad stocking for four or five years preceding the run. The New Jersey Fish and Game Commissioners reported in 1912 that the launch, "Protector", besides patrolling the Delaware River and Bay during the open season for shad, was used in collecting shad eggs and in their distribution when hatched, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Fish Commission at Torres- j dale. Over 24,500,000 fry were released. This was repeated in 1913. Confronted ! with the decline of shad in 1915, the State Board issued permits to fishermen to 1 take shad until June 20th for the purpose of securing shad eggs and hatching 1 them at the Torresdale Hatchery in Pennsylvania. The State of New Jersey established its own hatchery in 1927. A delegation of shad fishermen appealed to the Board to construct a hatchery in southern New Jersey, where "The rehabilitation of the industry meant great material wealth to South Jersey." The fishermen testified that the streams in the southern portion of the State were unpolluted, particularly the Maurice River and other bodies remote from built up areas and industrial plants. The fishermen agreed to furnish eggs without cost. A canning factory at Pennsville was donated for hatchery quarters. Only 40,000 fry were hatched during the initial year. In 1928 the eggs were hatched at Hancock's Bridge and over 1,000,000 fry were distributed. Practically all of the eggs were collected on the Maurice River below Millville. This activity was continued without interruption until 1941 at the Hancock Bridge hatchery, after which time the propagation of shad was discontinued. Rest days as a management measure were not adopted by New Jersey authori- %u;qqsa ayl xoj a*? aqq 30 s6ap Ma$ .t. go Bu;llna o) aa*r%zpInoM dnor.8 aq$ qsy? palsaB%ns uo!ye%a~ap ayl 30 auo 'A-~ayal~ypvys .E. qs!Iq.t.lsa alels ay? ?ql LZGT u~ palsanbax uauuaysy uaqa ,,'sleaA $0 wia? s lo$ po~~adpasop E 20 pzqs 203 ysy ol asuaag a paqsoonpe uawraysy aruog,, qaqq qno pa!+u;od uoq?'ea~~.ro$aaqo.~6 uaqA\ palsaf%ns seilr qaadsa sryq go atuaqxa ayl 9161 u~ ySnoq21.t. LIquaae~I!$un sag of shad, "which, it was believed, would be a conservation measure." For several years the laws of Pennsylania and New Jersey relating to fishing on the Delaware River had not been unifori~lin accordance with the treaty or agreement between the two states which was entered into in 1794, according to Meellan (1907). Under the New Jersey law shad fishing closed on June 15th while in Pennsylvania June 20th. "As a rule the shore men cut out their nets about the third or fourth of 118 June on both sides and by common consent the gillers stop on the 15th." The two states had pledged not to amend these laws without the agreement of each since the boundary waters between them were governed by concurrent laws. The New Jersey Legislature passed a law in 1938 to the effect that there would be a reciprocal enforcement of fishing laws between New Jersey and the states of New York and Pennsylvania. The old controversy between Delaware and New Jersey as to the rights of the former state to fish within the jurisdiction of New Jersey in Delaware River and Bay was settled in 1914 when Delaware adopted an act providing uniform laws to regulate the catching and taking of fish in the River and Bay between both states. In the 1950 Report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission progress regarding conferences between Delaware and New Jersey Commissioners was discussed. The two principal problems were: (1) to determine what modifications are required in the joint shad management plan, adopted in 1949 by Pennsyl- vania and under consideration between Delaware and New Jersey; (2) to determine the present status of the laws governing fishing on Delaware River and Bay and more specifically to determine what conservation measures applicable to such fisheries should be recommended to the legislatures of the two States as the basis of a new start toward effective concurrent legislation in compliance with the compact of 1905. The conferees agreed upon the principle of dividing the Bay into three areas in which different regulations would apply, particularly with respect to the lengths of the nets permitted. The Report stated, "The Delaware Bay situation is complicated by the fact that fishing operations there are not selective, that is to say that nets set for shad are apt to catch other species such as striped bass, and nets of smaller mesh are apt to take fish of numerous species. Under such circumstances the problem of regulating a single species, as for example under the shad management program, becomes rather complicated and difficult." The subject of size limits was discussed, and minimum lengths were to be set by biologists of the two States. The Delaware River Shad Management Act, as the interstate control will be called, was not adopted in 1951 by Delaware primarily because the legislative deadline for the introduction of new measures had passed before it was introduced- According to the 1949 Report of the AtIantic States Marine Fisheries Com- mission, The Delaware River Shad Protection Act, if passed by all states con- { cerned, would have (1) provided for the licensing of shad fishermen; (2) fixed the ,I seasons; (3) limited the fishing gear after January 1, 1950, to persons who fished I for shad in 1949 or in four of the ten years preceding 1950; (4) forbidden the issu- I ance of licenses to extend operations beyond those of 1949; (5) frozen the total amount of gear until the catch exceeded 500,000 fish. Thereafter the authorities ; involved, after consultation, would issue permits for such additional gear as they may find can safely be issued without impairing the annual yield of shad. "In other words the bill is a cooperative measure for the joint management of the fishery, designed to limit the fishing pressure while the run is building up and then to hold it to a point which will produce the maximum sustained yield." Many authorities have felt, in recent years, that the Delaware River Basin should be managed as a physiographic unit rather than as a political section of each state. Thus, the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin was organized in 1936 under the auspices of the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 19415 the Interstate Commission was concerned with the cleanup of pollution in the river, and in 1949 it explored the possibilities of developing in the Delaware River Basin a new source of potable water supply for the metropolitan district of Philadelphia and for the communities of northern New Jersey. According to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, New York is already building dams on the tributaries of the Delaware River within that state for the development of a great supply of potable water for the New York City population. If dams are built across the main stream of the Delaware, biologists of the U. S. F. W. S. believe that there will be no chance for the restoration of the shad run. As yet no fully successful fishway for shad has been devised. The Interstate Commission was informed of the expressed hope of responsible biologists that a study be made of the possibilities of obtaining the desired supply of drinkable water by damming tributaries of the River rather than the main stream. 119 The Interstate Commission 011 the Delaware River Basin and the AtIa~ltic States Marine Fisheries Commission have actively supported a program for the rehabilitation of the shad fisheries; both advocate nieasures that will not harm the potential buildup of the shad run that is expected to follow after the cleanup of pollution and the institution of the various management practices outlined in The Delaware River Shad Protection Act. In the 1949 report of the latter Corn- mission, the benefits to be derived from the above named measures were given as follows: "If the shad run of the Delaware can be restored to its one time abundance it will mean an annual income from the river to the people of the four states amounting to something between three million and four million dollars per year which is equivalent to a three or four percent return on one hundred million dollars. To secure such a return requires no material investment other than that to which the people of the valley are already comnlitted and which in their own interest must spend to clean up the river even if no shad were involved. The income from the return of the shad run is therefore an extra dividend which the people of these four states may earn by reasonable forethought and care in the placement of dams for potable waters supply but which they can Iose entirely and forever by indifference or oversight." The Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission report in 1947 stated that dams were being planned to cross the Delaware River at Phillipsburg, Belvidere and near Bushnell. Vigorous opposition to such dams was recorded by the Com- mission and the U. S. F. W. S. with the Federal Power Commission. In 1951 the Commission outlined further development on the damming of the River. The undertaking was divided into several stages, and storage reservoirs were to be located at Cannonsville, on the lower Neversink River and on Basher Kill from Godeffroy to Phillipsport, and at Wallpack Bend. A diversion dam was to be constructed at the main river at Barryville. A survey made by several consulting engineers, known as the Pirnie Report, called attention to the anticipated increased flows of summer and fall after the dams are installed. They also expressed the belief that such increased flow will result in an improvement of the sanitary and salinity conditions of the lower river, and thus will accelerate the program being currently prosecuted by this Commission for the restoration of the shad fisheries. The Pirnie Report, with maps and diagrams was submitted to theU. S. F. W. S. with the request for an analysis and comment. That analysis was transmitted to the Commission by L. A. Walford, in January, 1951. He stated, "The Fish and Wildlife Service is interested in this project primarily because of its effect on the I shad fishery of the Delaware River. Work is now under way to rehabilitate the j shad fishery which would be nullified in large part through the construction of the 1 project. It is unfortunate that this particular project includes one dam (the Tocks I Island Dam) which is about 150 feet high. Although it might be possible to construct fishways over lower dams which would permit passage of the spawning I adults upstream, no designs are available for a fishway which could be guaranteed to permit them to surmount a height of 150 feet. A dam at this site would cut off all of the area where spawning is now successful and at least part of that which would be available if pollution in the lower part of the Delaware were completely abated. It is obvious, therefore, that the construction of Tocks Island Dam would be harmful to the shad fishery, both present and potential. * * * " Walford pointed out that fishways known to be negotiated by shad, at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River and at the dam at Lawrence, Massachusetts, on the Merrimack River, are constructed on dams that are much lower than the proposed Tocks Island Dam. He made two important recommendations: (1) "It is recommended that the possible effect of the Tocks Island Dam on the present and potential shad fishery of the Delaware River be given full consideration in determining the de- sirability of Project No. 2039;" and 32) "Should the permit for the project be granted, we recommend that the origlnal construction plans include fishways for all three dams in the hope that some type of fishway for successfully negotiating the highest of these may be developed." Another important aspect of the managing of the shad fisheries of the Dela- ware is the collection of basic research data. Dr. Walford, in his 1951 memorandum to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, declared that on the basis of such information "There is now no indication of overfishing of the existing small shad population in the Delaware River. Although the annual addition of young fish making their first annual spawning migration is very small, the catch, too, is small because very few fishermen are still engaged in the fishery. * * * " The Progress Report of the Shad Investigation Program of the U. S. F. W. S. (1952) stated that, "A preliminary investigation of this watershed was under- 120 taken in 1950 to aid in formulating a plan for the study of the shad populations of the river. Fishermen were contacted along the bay and river to determine their methods of fishing, length of season, and importance of the past and present fishery. It was determined that so few shad now get above the present polluted area that no investigation constructed around the commercial catch or related to adult shad would be feasible. * * * " In the Annual ,Report of the Branch of Fishery Biology, U. S. F. W. S., in 1951, it was reported that, "In the current survey, commercial eel traps located along the river are used to sample young shad as they move down the river. From data collected it will be possible to determ~nethe relative importance of various sections of the river as far as shad juveniles are concerned." A sharp controversy has developed in recent years between the sports and commercial fishermen over the large numbers of striped bass that are netted during early spring by shad fishermen. Sports-fishermen have become so indignant about this situation that they have labelled it the "Great Shad Subterfuge." The State permits the commercial netting of striped bass by means of shad nets only if the bass enter the nets accidentally. The fishing act of New Jersey was amended in 1951 to state that any striped bass of legal size that may become entangled in drifting shad nets between March 1st and June 10th could be retained legally. Various changes were made in this bill; in 1948 a law was passed absolutely prohibiting the capture of striped bass with nets of any kind. However, during and even simultaneous with shad runs, striped bass were captured in large numbers. Recently, Raymond R. Camp, author of Wood, Field and Stream, in the New York Times (February 28, 1952) presented the sportsmen's viewpoint in this controversy. He stated, "During the past few weeks, according to representatives of sportsmen's groups that have checked the Mullica River, scene of the bass slaughter, more than 150,000 pounds of bass have been shipped to market, along with enough shad to fill a bushel basket. One observer reported that on the opening day of the so-called 'shad-netting season' more than 5,000 pounds of stripers were hauled in by one group of commercial fishermen, but not one shad was in the nets." The present executives of the New Jersey Fish and Game Council were strongly criti- cized for not returning the striped bass to a "no-netting7' status, and for minimiz- ing the harvest of this game fish in shad nets. Sportsmen have been particularly voluble about shad-fishing in the Mullica River and Great South Bay during Febru- ary in past years. They have demanded an estimate of poundage of shad taken from these waters in late winter and presumably have received no reply from the Council. The Tenth Annual Report of the Atlantic States nlarine Fisheries Commission (1951) shows an interest in the basic aspects of this problem, It pointed out that a significant amendment adopted by the New Jersey legislature in 1951, corrected the condition arising under the earlier act of 1948 forbidding the netting of striped bass. Since a serious waste of striped bass ensued, as exemplified above, the new legislation in 1951 reduced the time in which inshore gill nets might be set to Feb- ruary, March, and April, and permitted the retention of legal size bass taken in shad nets with a mesh size of five and one haIf inches. The Commission unofficially endorsed the measure. Sports-fishermen are expected to continue their criticism of fishery authorities in New Jersey until some measure is submitted which will either limit shad fishermen from setting their nets in the "hot-spots" of the controversy, or one which will modify the existing statute. The New York Times (*March 26, 1952) also reported that shad fishermen caught large numbers of striped basS, " . . - 70 percent of them well over the sixteen-inch legal minimum for marketing," between Nyack and Tarrytown in the Hudson River. The fishermen legaliy c;uId market their catch, but sportsmen are expected to protest their right to do so. LAWSRFIGULATING SHAD IN NEW JERS~WATERS It is illegal to spear shad in the fresh waters of New Jersey. Haul seining beneath ice in salt water .is also illegal. It is unlawful to construct a dam in any stream wfhout installing a fish ladder or other contrivance to permit passage of shad and oher migratory species. In Delaware River and Bay, between New Jersey and Delaware, and in tributaries where tide ebbs and flows, it is unlawful to use a net of any End between hours of 2 P. M. of every Saturday and 12 o'clock midnight Sunday. Thesame regulation is in effect in the River between the State and Penn- sylvania, and tributaries between Trenton Falls and, Birch Creek. !L"he license fee for pound netson the Atlantic coast of the State is $20 to $50. The fee for setting or operating aiet for taking shad in tidal waters ranges from $.25 to $10.00. Resi- 121 dents of New Jersey must obtain a license that costs $25 before they can operate a net in the Hudson River. TRBNDOF NEW JERSEY SHAD FISHEXIFIS The production of shad in New Jersey waters is a function of the Atlantic oceanside and of the Delaware and Hudson Rivers, both of which are shared by other states. Where figures are available there is always an element of unreliability, whether they were collected by state or federal workers because of the differences in methods .and intensity of operations. The discrepancies between statistics gathered during the same year by these two agencies demonstrates this point (see table of catch statistics). For the Delaware River the State agency collected figures annually from 1913 to the present even during years when the Federal agency made no compilation. In addition, the State has collected detailed information in the Hudson River portion of New Jersey from 1937 until the present. The combined figures very roughly approximates the Federal figures, although many inconsistencies are present. Assuming that the Federal annual landings consist of both the DeIaware and Hudson River returns, and the oceanside figures, it is possibIe to show three periods of production even in the absence of complete records for certain years. They are: (1) .period of high production (1880-1908 - a span of 28 years with 17 years of statistics missing) during which time the average annual level was 8,250,000 pounds, fluctuating from around 750,000 pounds in 1880 to 14,0D~0,000 pounds in 1901; (2) period of low production (1920-1936 - a span of 16 years with eight years of records missing) during which time the average annual level was 380,000 pounds, or about which represents a decline of 96 percent below the 1880-1908 average annual yield; (3) period of returning high production (1937-1948 - a span of 11 years with two years of records missing) during which time the average annual yield was 3,120,000 pounds or only about 37 percent of the 1880-1908 high production level (see Figure 16). This figure would have been somewhat higher had it not been for the recent well-known declines in the Delaware and Hudson rivers. In general, the catch statistics collected by the (State for the Delaware River do concur with the Federal returns except for the recent or third period o+. production. These statistics exhibit (1) an early, presumably high penod of pru- duction up to 1913; (2) a period of low production (1916-1944), in which the overall annual average was about 262,000 pounds; (3) a period of low production (1945-1950) in which the average annual yield was about 57,000 pounds. The latter period is in direct contrast to the third period based on Federal compilations. The Hudson River statistics collected by the State have exceeded 1,000,000 pounds annually since 1937, except for the 1949 and 1950 decline in production. During spring of 1952 the number of shad in the Hudson took a big jump up. The catch 15 r

NEW 3ERSE Y 1880-1950

YEAR ~IGURE 16 122 figures may not show the increase as there were fewer fishermen operating. It is evident, in conclusion, that the shad fisheries of New Jersey have under- gone two well-defined stages: (1) a period of high production; and (2) a period of low production. The third stage may be termed a recent "period of fluctuating production" in which it is possible to demonstrate both high production and a corn- paratively low production within the State's landings of shad. Consequently, the future harvests depend largely on the extent and success of the rehabilitation of the current fisheries. CATCH AND STOCKING STATISTICS OF THE SHAD FISHERIES OF NEW JERSEY Year Delaware Rives Shad 5 Hudson River Total Production Shad in pounds Production in Stocked shad Production Pounds fry in numbers in pounds State 8 Federal [I 1880 - - - 750,000 1887 - - - - 6,495,000 - - 1888 - - 6,523,000 1889 - - - 10,424,000 1890 - - - - 10,623,000 1891 - - - - 10,225,000 1896 - - - - 11,680,000* 1897 - - - - 13,001,000 1901 - - - - 14,031,000 1904 - - - - 4,338,000 1908 - - - - 3,004,0100 1912 - 24,500,000$ - - - 1913 2,640,000* 25,300,000$ - - - 1916 795,000" - - - - 1917 567,000" 1,500,000 - - - 1920 152,000 1,800,000 - - - 1921 70,000" - - - 168,000 1923 119,000" - - - - 1925 353,000" - - - - 1926 834,000" 40,000 - - 553,000 1927 145,000" 40,000 - - - 1928 212,000" 1,120,000 - - - 1929 335,000" 2,688,000 - - 342,000 1930 216,0100" 3,094,000 - - 224,000 1931 126,000" 763,000 - - 257,000 1932 159,000" 8105,000 - - 224,000 1933 3,290,000 - - 4158,1000 1934 226,000" 2,774,0100 - - - 1935 845,000" 3,563,000 - - 818,000 1936 371,000" 6,230,000 - - - 1937 203,000" 1,870,000 1,800,851; 2,003,851 3,339,500 1938 328,0010" - 1,496,124; 1,824,124 2,492,000 1939 336,000* - 1,754,3011 2,090,301 - 1940 116,000" 4,116,000 1,803,254jf 1,919,254 3,364,400 1941 146,427; 6,608,000 1,775,1741- 1,921,601 - 1942 157,2881 None 1,9414,6381 2,101,926 4,825,300 1942 270,4861- None 1,515,2941 1,785,780 3,348,300 1944 207,2161 None 2,158,024t 2,365,240 4,313,800 1945 105,056; None 1,295,1321 1,400,188 2,916,500 1946 69,069; None 1,525,2431 1,594,312 - 1947 89,7401 None 1,024,392t 1,114,132 1,574,500 1948 20,7221 None 1,231,8001 1,252,522 1,853,200 1949 16,924f None 972,857t 989,781 - 1950 44,680+ None 520,9581- 565,638 - No statistics available far spaces marked with a "-". * Poundage calculated on basis of 3.5 pounds per shad. f Based on actual statistics collected by the State of New Jersey. $Number of N. J. shad fry combined with Pa. stockings of shad fry. I Based on statistias extracted from Annual Reports N. J. Div. Fish & Game. 11 Based on published statistics of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 123 SHAD FISHERIES OF PENNSYLVANIA The shad fisheries of Pennsylvania have been confined to the Susquehanna River and to the Delaware Bay and River and their tributaries. In the total fisheries of the State, the Susquehanna has been a minor factor in the production of shad over the 60 year period of statistics. After the construction of Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River in Maryland, completed in 1928, shad fishing ceased in the Pennsylvania portion. Shad fishing in the Delaware River has continued to this day. Currently, the Delaware River is being cleaned up to encourage the revival of the former shad runs. A small segment of sports fishermen has requested that a study of the former fisheries be made in the Susquehanna, and that the possibility of passing shad over Conowingo Dam and the upriver dams be investigated. During the summer of 1951 two investigators from the C. B. L., Md. D. R. E., visited the sites of former shad fisheries and spoke to a number of former shad fishermen throughout much of the Susquehanna Basin. In addition, numerous references to shad and the fisheries were perused in newspapers, county histories, and fishery texts with the intent of ascertaining: (1) the extent and value of the former shad fisheries; (2) the extent of spawning and occurrence of hatcheries; (3) location of dams, and (4) the extent of pollution. A vast amount of information has been published on the early history of the Susquehanna River shad fisheries; the best accounts are by Willis (1882), Earl1 (1887), Meehan (1893), Stevenson (1899) and Bortner (1947). The following account is at best a review of the available information. SHADIN THEl SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Susquehanna River is situated partly in Maryland and New York, but principally in Pennsylvania, traversing that State from its northern to its southern border. Its source is in Otsego Lake, New York, flowing a distance of 422 miles to its entrance into Chesapeake Bay. It possesses the largest drainage basin on the Atlantic Coast. It differs from most streams on the Atlantic coast north of Cape Lookout in that it maintains fluvia1 characteristics almost to its mouth and crosses a fall line very near its entrance into Chesapeake Bay, only the extreme southern end being tidal. From the mouth to Columbia, a distance of 43 miles, the width varied from a few hundred yards to over a mile in Stevenson's time but the characteristics of most of this length have now been greatly altered by dams. Forty miles above Columbia the river receives its second largest tributary, the Juniata, a stream 100 miles in length, the shad fisheries of which were formerly of considerable local importance. Immediately above Sunbury, 38 miles above the Juniata junction, the Susquehanna receives its principal tributary, the West Branch, which flows a distance of 175 miles. At present this stream is said to be devoid of aquatic life, due to coal mine wastes. At Binghamton, New York, 318 miles from the mouth of the river, the shad fisheries reached their northernmost extent in the Basin. ECONOMICIMPORTANCE OF THE SHAD FISHmIIS Historical reference to the shad fisheries of the Susquehanna River does not occur as early as for some other streams since the river was inland and its banks were, therefore, settled at a later date. According to tradition seine fishing was unknown on the river until the arrival of settlers from Connecticut in the Wyoming Valley region. At least as early as 1787 there were established fisheries on the upper river. These fisheries were operated on a cooperative basis. The seines required 10 or more men to haul, each man contributing his labor and his portion of the net. The value of a share seemed to have varied considerably, running from $20 to $500 in different sources. There is also a great deal of variation in the reported number of shad taken at the individual fisheries and the value of the catches. It seems logical to suppose that the variation existed in fact as well as in report, due allowance being made for exaggeration. Meehan (1893) gives some reports of definite fisheries which throw some light upon the situation as it existed before the building of the canal and rafting dams. In 1820, a fishery just below Danville gave an annual yield of from 3,000 to 4,000 fish worth from 12.54 to 25d apiece (or a total value of $400 to $1000.) The Sunbury Beacon of April 26, 1830, says: "Not less than four or five thousand shad were caught on Saturday last within a quarter of a mile below the dam. Upward of 500 were taken by one dip net." How many of such runs existed in a season is not known. Hauls of several thousand fish at once were reported many 124 times but there is good reason to suppose that these were exceptional and probably exaggerated. The researches of the Wyoming Historical and Geological Society (see Earll, 1887 and Meehan, 1893) of Wilkes-Barre led to the conclusion that the larger fisheries netted in the neighborhood of $12,000 annually. Meehan concludes, "As the river was ascended the shad appear to have decreased in number but increased in size." However, there is no scientific evidence available to support this premise. Even as far up the river as Binghamton, New York, the fish were of some economic importance in the early nineteenth century. Wilkinson (1872)) says, "It was made quite a business by some and after the country was sufFi.ciently filled in with inhabitants to create a demand for all that could be caught the business became a source of considerable profit. During a few of the first runs the shad would sell for eight or 10 cents apiece; and after this the price generally went down as low as three pence per shad. Several hundred would sometimes be caught in one draught." Perkins (1870) states that many shad were packed in salt in barrels and thus sent to market. Prices reported for shad sustain reports of their abundance. At a town meeting held at Wilkes-Barre on April 21, 1775, prices set on various articles for sale were: beef per pound, 7d., eggs per dozen, 8d., shad a piece, 6d. In 1820 at the same place they were sold for $18.75 per hundred. In 1830 at Har- risburg, according to Colonel Henry Shoemaker, roe shad were quoted from 10# to 25C apiece. According to the researches of the Wilkes-Barre society mentioned above merchants from as far away as Philadelphia came during the fishing season with various goods to trade for fish. The fish were salted, smoked, and dried as well as sold fresh. Salt was brought from New York State and was in such demand that a bushel brought 100 shad. Nevertheless, the shad fishery was a seasonal business of short duration and the men engaged in it were not professional fishermen, but farmers or merchants during the greater part of the year. Consequently, when the building of the canal dams eliminated the fisheries on the upper parts of the river no one was left unemployed. Wilkinson (1872) states that the shad ceased coming up as far as Binghamton, New York, about 1820. The period of the canal dams was from 1830 to 1890. It was also a period in which financial returns from the river came from boating and rafting. The shad season was the season of heaviest traffic on the river so that the rivermen were not the fishermen of this period. -4s already stated, the fishermen were mainly farmers and artisans and it was from them that the protests concerning the effects of the dams emanated. The shad entered the economic life only very locally. As the number of shad reaching the river above Columbia became less dnd then irregular, depending upon what breaks might exist in the dams, the seine fishing at the "batteries9' fell into disuse. Mr. William Freyrneyer of Sha- mokin Dam, who can recall fishing back to the early 18807s, caught a few shad with dip nets but remembers only a tradition of the battery that existed at that point. Mr. J. F. Stailey of Harrisburg reported that the fish which he helped to catch in about this same period were sold locally at Newport where the fishery existed. The last break in the Columbia dam (1895) was not repaired and for the next decade there was a revival in the seine fisheries at least as far up the river as the Clark Ferry Dam and in the Juniata. Stevenson (1899) found 51 seines operating in the Pennsylvania part of the Susquehanna in 1896 and a like number of bow nets. Of these, 33 seines were below the Columbia Dam and presumably could have been operating for many years past, but 18 were above the dam, two being in the Juniata. He placed the value of the catch that year at $11,996, the number of fishermen engaged in the work at 428, and the value of the equipment used at $11,146. This return was on a basis of an estimated 255,000 pounds of fish (with an average of $110 per unit and $26.00 per fisherman). Stevenson expected a large increase in the fishery as a result of the destruction of the Columbia Dam. Statistics of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service show some increase in the occasional surveys made during subsequent years but not one of great proportions. Some light is thrown on the failure of the expected revival of the shad fishery by the following quotation from the report of the State Commissioners of Fish- eries for 1899, "At Steelton there was plenty of good shad fishing a year ago but the interest died out, possibly owing to the poor return per fisherman and to the 125 fact that the great Pennsylvania Steel Works are now employing all the men they can get day and night, so that shad fishing was scarcely necessary as a means of obtaining a livelihood.'' The beginning of work on the hydroelectric dam at Holtwood in 1906 did not have any immediate effect upon the fisheries above that point. The fish were sold locally and apparently little effort was made at this time to preserve them as had been the custom in an earlier day. G. K. Urban, now Superintendent of the Holtwood Dam, who grew up near Washington Boro, states that the fish were caught during the week and were sold about the countryside by horse and wagon. By Saturday they would be selling for $.05 apiece, otherwise they would spoil over Sunday. Mr. Joseph Wertz of the same locality stated that he could not remember that any fish were shipped on the railroad or even iced down. The fishing was done by seines, bow nets and gill nets. Wertz said that the last were illegal at the time but they appear among the gear listed in the statistics of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1901 and subsequent years. The total catch in 1909 was 217,000 pounds. The Holtwood Dam was completed in 1910 and fishing above that point apparently dropped even though fishways were installed. No survey was made by the Fish and WiIdlife Service untiI 1915 when the catch was 33,000 pounds. That the abrupt drop was due largely to the dam and not to a decrease in the fish available in this drainage basin is shown by the fact that the decline for the Chesapeake as a whole was about 1/3 compared to 6/7 for the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless fishing for shad did continue in the Susquehanna below the Holt- wood Dam. R. N. Weaver, now Superintendent at Safe Harbor, stated that a fishery existed just below the Holtwood Dam itself. During the run four or five boats would anchor along the spillway walk on the Lancaster County side near the tailrace and dip nets were operated from the boats. As many as 100 to 150 shad could be dipped in a single day. Roe shad sold for about $1.00 apiece. Other fishermen obtained pIaces on the rocks below the dam. Two men would work in pairs, one staying at the fishing point day and night to retain right to the point and the other removing the fish caught, salting them or selling them. This was a coniinercial venture, for fish were sold to dealers from Columbia and Lancaster who came down on the train to purchase the fish. During the same period seining continued to be practiced below Holtwood. Fred Narvel, now a fishing guide at Conowingo, related that he was at one time engaged in fishing near Mt. Johnson Island. Four men worked the seine. The fish were iced in cheap barrels and shipped by railroad to Fulton Street in New York. It was, however, a rare day when more than 300 shad were taken in the hauls. About $.20 a pound was received for shad at this time. The building of the dam at Conowingo closed down this fishery in 1924, according to Mr. Narvel, although the statistics of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service state, "There was no commercial fishing in the Susquehanna in Pennsylvania in 1920 and 1921." (Fishery Industries of the United States, 1921, footnote, p. 85.) Commercial fishing in the tidal portion of the river which still exists at Havre de Grace is essentially Chesapeake Bay fishing.

DAMSON THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER It is difficult to trace in detail the history of the damming of the Susquehanna River. Very early in the 19th century mill dams were constructed which apparently were responsible in some degree for the decline of the shad mn on the extreme upper reaches of the river. Thus, by about 1820 the shad had ceased to go as far up as Binghamton (Wilkinson, 1872). However, there was no extensive industrial development along the river at that time so that the large dams characteristic of the New England rivers where textile manufacturing was becoming important were not constructed. The first dams which were of real significance for the shad run were those constructed in connection with the bnilding c%f canals. These had their greatest development in the 1830's. One of the earliest of these canal dams was the one built at Nanticoke in 1830, according to Stevenson (1899). The Columbia dam about which so much was later written was constructed in 1835. Some of these canal dams, such as those at Safe Harbor, Middletown, and Duncan's Island, later disappeared, but in 1896 when Stevenson made his report, there still existed dams at Columbia, Clarks Ferry, Sunbury, and Nanticoke. In addition, Stevenson states there were numerous small dams between Nanticoke and the New York State line as well as on the West Branch. 126 The third phase of the history of dams on the Susquehanna began in 1905 when work was begun on the dam now known as Holtwood. The oriffinal project was not brought to an immediate conclusion because of the failure of the builders, the McCall Ferry Power Company. The dam was finally closed across the river in 1910. A fishway was provided but the shad never used it and, consequently, since 1910 shad have been unknown above Holtwood. A power development was started in 1901 at York Haven. A dam was constructed at Conewago Falls but was not put into operation until 1904. It consists of two sections on both sides of Three Mile Island, the eastern half being high but the western part being not above 16 feet in the lower portions. The height of the dam is quoted as 22 feet in the report of the Secretary of War published as Doe. 186, 69th Congress, 1st Sess., p. 10. The same source lists a dam of four feet elevation at Harrisburg built for sanitation. These three dams were the only ones in existence in 1920. The construction of the Conowingo Dam, completed in 1928, closed off to the fish about 13 miles below Holtwood. No provision for fishways was made at this dam primarily because federal and Maryland authorities stated that a successful fishway for shad did not exist. The fishery below Holtwood after 1910 was ehm- inated. The latest of the series of hydroelectric power dams was completed in 1932 at Safe Harbor. Since this was above the two other large installations its construction had no effect upon the shad. According to the letter of the Secretary of War printed as House Document 702, 77th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 17, there were, in 1942, 23 hydroelectric plants in the Gusquehanna drainage of which onIy the four mentioned above are on the main river and only six have installed capaci- ties of over 2,500 kiIowatts. FISHWAYSAT SUSQUEHANNA DAMS Attempts to allow passage of fish through river obstructions were made quite early on the Susquehanna River. Meehan (1893) attributes the decline in the shad run on the Susquehanna directly to the building of the dam at Columbia and to other canal dams. There was, however, little attempt to do anything about the situation with respect to dams until just after the Civil War, when Colonel Worral was appointed Fish Commissioner. A law was assed by the legislature in 1867 directing that the companies owning darns on tie Susquehanna should within six months provide such devices as would permit the free passage of shad and other fish up the streams. The Tidewater Canal Company, owner of the Columbia Dam, made an opening in the dam to serve as a fishway but the other companies fought the law on the grounds that they had purchased the dams from the State outright and that the law was unconstitutional as it infringed upon their vested rights. After a four year legal battle the State Supreme Court sustained the companies' plea. In the case of the Columbia Dam, however, Worral found that the original charter had required that a rafting channel be left and a later law had required a sluice for the passage of fish. It seems that a satisfactory passage had never actually been made though the State acknowledged the dam as satisfactory in 1863. The passage made by the Company in 1867 at a cost of $5,000 is described in detail by Meehan. Thougll it was hailed as a complete success by Worrall in his report for 1870, it does not appear to have been so in fact. A natural break due to flood occurred in 1873. This was followed by a second fishway, a third in 1880 and a fourth in 1886. Meanwhile anothcr natural break occurred in 1877. Although the 1889 flood was one of the greatest on the river there is no indication of a further break at that time, perhaps because it was not accompanied by ice. Meehan gives an extensive account of the Rogers fishway which was built in 1886 [?I, stating "The Rogers' fishway successfully withstood the great ice freshets, and the shad e17ery season passed through them [sic!] with great freedom." How- ever, Stevenson (1899) writing after the season of 1896 sags only, "While shad do pass above the dam, yet during recent years few have been caught above Columbia, exce t when breaks exist in the obstruction." Meehan states that the Rogers type of fishway was later very successfully applied to the Lackawaxon Dam on the Delaware. The Report of the Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission (19419) stated categorically that every fishway at the Columbia Dam proved to be a failure. The era of canals was coming to a close at the end of the 19th century. In 1895 there was a large break in the Columbia Dam and in 1806 there was much further destruction by ice. Said Stevenson (1899), "If the break in the Columbia 127 Dam is not repaired, the catch above that point will doubtless continue to increase, as the fishermcn will make preparation for them." In 1896, Stevenson gave a total catch for the Susquehanna of 70,596, which, at three pounds per fish, would equal 211,798 pounds (19,179 pounds above Columbia Dam) valued at $11,916. In 1897 the statistics were 202,700 pounds and $10,953 (only York and Lancaster counties mentioned). In 1901 the catch was 409,339 pounds (only Lancaster and York counties nlentioned), at a value of $23,4112. In 1904 the catch was 204,439 pounds (Atkinson, 1950, gives 156,919 pounds) valued at $12,812 (of this amount 37,575 pounds and $3,270 were listed from Dauphin (Perry, and Juanita counties and the rest from York and Lancaster). The figures for 1908 compiled by the U. S. Rureau of the Census (Fisheries of the United States: Washington, 1911) give 312,000 pounds and a value of $19,000 (with no indication of counties). In 1908 the river was clear of obstructions, except for the partially completed HoItwood Dam, up to C!ark's Ferry, at least. These figures do not show the upswing in product;.on pre- dicted by Stevcnson but neither do they show the rapid decline mentioned in the Statement of the Pennsylvania Water and Power Company published as Appendix A of the Susquehanna River Fishways by Bortner (1949). The next phase opens wish the completion of the Holtwood Dam in 1910. The fishway here, of the modified Cail type, was at the east or Lancaster County side of the dam and is sometimes spoken of as two fishways because as originally constructed it was divided into two channels. This structure was later remodelled to combine the two channels into one broad one. It was reported that shad were frequently seen at the lower end of this fishway but none was observed to make an attempt to ascend it. A series of observations was made in 1913 at this fishway which showed that carp, walleyes, eels, largemouth bass and sunfish made an attempt to go over it; the results of this study were published in the Repo1-t of the Pennsylvania Department of Fisheries for 1915. In 1913 a resolution requiring the Company to provide an adequate fishway was approved and the Comniissioner at that time, N. R. Buller, designed a fishway 600 feet in length and 40 to 50 feet wide simulating natural riffles. This was installed at the west or York County side of the dam. Although it was built very solidly of concrete it was several times damaged by ice and was remodelled at various times. However, it did not apparently pass shad. There was much discussion in 1915 of the problem and complaint concerning the situation principally from York County. In 1915 a shad supposedly was seen in the forebay of the dam and the report of the Pennsylvania Department I of Fisheries for 1915 carried three sworn statements to that effect. In 1916, Dr. I R. E. Coker of the U. S. B. F. made a report in which he concluded that while the I Buller or York fishway was an interesting experiment there was no proof that it passed shad. The difficulties associated with the height of the dam, the extremes of flood stages, the small storage capacity of the pools, and the large quantities of ice carried in the springtime caused Coker to conclude, "No fishway has ever been designed or constructed which could be expected to work successfully for shad under similar conditions," (Report Pa. Dept. Fisheries, 1916). When the plans for a dam at Conowingo were being made attention was called by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania to the effect of such a dam on fish, especially the shad. The Federal Power Comnlission thereupon called upon Com- missioner Henry 07Malley of the U. S, Bureau of Fisheries who replied in part 1 (in a letter dated December 29, 1923) as follows, "It is very doubtful that shad would ascend a fishway of any description or any height. It is also my opinion that none of the fishways as now constructed would be pseful in assisting eels or fishes to pass over a dam one hundred feet high. For thls reason, a fishway in the Conowingo Dam is not recommended by this office." In view of this stand thc Commisaioner of the Conservation Department of Maryland, Swepson Earle, and the Commissioner of Fisheries of Pennsylvania, N. R. Buller, executed an agreement with the owners of the dam in 1928 whereby an annual contribution of $4,000 to each state was accepted in lieu of the construction of fishways. This whole transaction is documented in the statement made by the Susquehanna Power Company in Bortner (1947) which is printed in the Report of the Joint State Government Commission on the Susquehanna River Fishways, 1949. Mr. Paul LeFever, Superintendent of the Conowingo Dam, stated that a complete study of fishways for the Conowingo Dam was made by Stone and Websters, the contract- ors, before the dam was built. When the Safe Harbor Dam was built similar in lieu payments were made. Although no fish use the fishways at Holtwood and they are not maintained, a voluntary payment of $2,500 is made each year. 128 Here the matter rested until 1947 when a resolution in the Pennsylvania legislature called for a study to be made of the advisability of constructing fishways in the Conowingo, Holtwood and Safe Harbor dams. A report was issued by the investigating sub-committee of the Joint State Government Commission in January, 1949. This Report, entitled Susquehanna River Fishways, has been referred to above. It contains statements by the two sets of companies concerned and a report by Miss L. E. Cable. Miss Cable's report ascribes the loss of the Pennsylvania shad fishery to the construction of the dams. It states that the type of fishway now operating in Bonneville Dam In Oregon is the only type to take shad over a dam, and that, while this type is prodigal of water when in operation the short period of migration would make it possible to impound the water during most of the year. "When construction of fishways has been accomplished, it may be found that the environment of so much of the river has been changed by impoundments that the shad will not thrive or that the young will not survive descent over so many dams." The Susquehanna Power Company in its statement says, "We would like to point out, however, that any fishways requiring in excess of 20 cubic feet of water per second would have the effect of reducing the output and capacity of the Cono- wingo Project to generate electricity." The Pennsylvania Water and Power Com- pany in its statement says, L'Furthermore, consideration should be given to the fact that the ultimate cost of any fishways constructed at the three dams at the expense of the owners of the dams wonld be borne by the rate payer who consumes the electricity produced at these hydroelectric projects." The recommendations of the report of the Joint State Government Commission were: "I. That a resolution be introduced at the 1949 session of the General Assembly of Pennsyl- vania asking that the Congress of the United States direct a general study of the biological and hydroelectric factors which need to be known if effective shad fishways are to be constructed. 11. That an upward adjustment of the in-lieu payments called for by present laws be considered by the General Assembly-such adjustment to take account of (a) the inadequacy of the original payments from an in-lieu point of view and (b) subsequent increases in price levels." The 1949 legislature increased the maximum in-lieu payments to $6,500 and passed a resolution calling for tine biological and hydrological study mentioned in the recommendations above. In March 1950, the U. S. F. W. S. under an action of the Xlst Congress began a six year study of the shad fisheries of the Atlantic Coast, the Susquehanna being studied in 1952. Meanwhile, certain groups in Pennsylvania had become interested in a scheme to transport adult shad above the dams. No action was taken on this proposal in 1950 but the advice of the U. S. F. W. S. was solicited and in December, 1950, Clinton l$. Atkinson, former Chief, Middle and South Atlantic Fisheries Investigations, under whose direction the above mentioned shad survey was conducted, delivered a statement on the matter to the Joint State Government Commission. After pointing out the importance of the Susquehanna shad run to the whole Chesapeake picture, he indicated some requirements of a fishway for the Susquehanna dams. Among these are pools at least six by 10 feet and three feet deep, steps between pools not more than eight inches and preferably five, a flow velocity of not more than five ft./sec. and a submerged opening. Further he stated that the collection system offered the greatest difficulty in the design while the height involves but little difkulty. He pointed out that the spring flow of water would have to be sufficent to operate the fishway and the adults and young would have to pass through the turbines or over the spillway in the fall. With respect to the plan to transport shad above the dam Atkinson (1950) indicated that it was entirely feasihle but he knew of no place where the plan had been adopted on a permanent basis. Finally, he recommended that the transportation plan be adopted on an experimental basis. The Pennsylvania legislature passed (1951) a bill directing the Joint State Government Commission to make "a comprehensive study of the migratory habits of fish particularly shad including the stocking and tagging of shad below and above the Safe Harbor Dam, the Holtwood Dam, and the Conowingo Dam." POLLUTION IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVW Pollution as a factor in the decline of the Susquehanna River shad fishery was not recognized until comparatively recently, and it is even now difficult to assess the role of pollution in the decline of the shad or in the possible rehabili- 129 tation of the Susquehanna as a shad stream. Three sources of pollut~oncan be recognized: industrial wastes, sewage, and siltation, all of which more or less alter the oxygen and temperature conditions of the water. There is a general feeling that the Susquehanna suffers less from pollution than many other Pennsylvania river systems. So far there has not been demonstrated oxygen deficiencies comparable to those in the Delaware. The principal complaints have been directed toward coal mine, tannery, and paper mill wastes. The coal mine wastes are of two sorts: sulphuric acid, chiefly from the soft coal mines, and actual particles of coal, chiefly from the hard coal mines, which constitute a kind of siltation of industrial rather than .agricultural origin. The report of the State Con~missionersof Fisheries for 1898 first mentions pollution as a problem confronting them. This problem rapidly assumed a major position in the subsequent reports. In 1916 the Commissioners began a survey of the tributary creeks of the Susquehanna with regard to pollution. At the turn of the century the courts would not enforce the statutes on the books, it being held that to attempt to do so would be very injurious to industry. In 1916, however, the Attorney-General's office called a conference on the subject. It was not until after World War I1 that the present state-wide campaign for cleaning up the streams really got under way. All persons interviewed during the course of this investigation agreed that sewage pollution was not of great importance to fish in the Susquehanna drainage. Such pollution, moreover, is being cleared up rapidly. The State Health Depart- ment has secured treatment in many boroughs and all are under orders to supply treatment facilities within the next few years. Although the present shortage of materials has been used in seeking delays, the Health Department has been able to secure denials of all such pleas from the legislature. E. Raymond Hoffert, in charge of the division of Sanitary Engineering, stated that industrial pollution is now better controlled than municipal sewage pollution. Tanneries were an early source of pollution, particularly on the West Branch and on the Juniata. Wastes fi-om tanneries, however, passed out into the streams by leaching through gravel and probably were not very destructive to fish life. Wastes from paper mills in the same region were highly acid and allegedly killed fish. Colonel Henry Shoemaker stated that fiber particles which have been known to kill fish by coating their gills were removed from most paper mill wastes at an early date. In the latter half of the 19th century lumbering was the chief industry along the West Branch and it seems conceivable that sawdust could have been a major pollutant at that time, acting in somewhat the same way as paper mill fiber wastes as well as causing reduced oxygen content through decay. This situation must have been confined to the upper river. The most serious pollutant on the West Branch is colorless acid waste coming into the streams from the soft coal district. Even though many of the mines are now abandoned, the old pits continue to seep acid into the streams. The condition is not so obvious as in the hard coal areas because actual coal particles are not present. The waters may thus be very clear but entirely without aquatic life because of the low pH. Mr. Hoffert maintained that tributaries bearing alka- line waters from the north soon neutralized the acid conditions, except when there are heavy rains over the coal regions and a simultaneous lack of rain over the watersheds of the diluting tributaries. In any case, he stated, the acid waters do not descend below Williamsport and shad, if introduced above the dams, are not likely to get up any higher than that point. The most obvious, if not the most serious, pollutant in the Susquehanna is coal dust and particles froni the hard coal region on the North Branch. This problem is shared with the Schuylkill and the Lackawaxen on the Delaware drainage. There is considerable variation in the early accounts of coal pollution. Colonel Henry Shoemaker stated that the coal was visible on the main river as far south as Harrisburg even during the Civil War. At that time some hard coal mines had been operating for thirty years, though it was not until the last half of the 19th century that extensive exploitation of the anthracite beds was undertaken. Persons interviewed on the lower river (from Washington Boro downstream) were all of the opinion that the river was free of coal at the turn of the century when they were boys. G. K. Urban, Superintendent of the Holtwood Dam, stated that the water was then very clear and aquatic vegetation was lush. Boys were said to have drunk river water without ill effects. 130 Large quantities of coal did come down the river, however, and at the present time the Pennsylvania Water and Power Company is recovering it at a rapid rate from the beds of the lakes impounded behind the Holtwood and Safe Harbor dams. Yet the effect of such pollution on fish remains unclear. The coal particles do not decay and cause reduced oxygen tensions and it seems unlikely that the particles are normally so thick as to seriously change the physical characteristics of the water. The main effects would seem to have come from siltation, by which aquatic weed beds were smothered, thus aft'ecting spawning gi-ounds and cover for young fish. Soil erosion in the Susquehanna basin as elsewhere has resulted in muddied streams and subsequent deposition of silt. The lower river would seem to be normally somewhat muddy now. In the Piedmont section of the basin, land is mostly cleared and it was observed that tributary streams, such as Conestoga Creek became deeply opaque with clay particles after a very light summer shower. However, water from the more foresced upper part of the basin apparently dilutes this load considerably and the main river has not observed to be anywhere near so heavily loaded with silt as are the southern rivers which flow for much longer distances through predominantly agricultural country. P. M. LeFever, Plant Superintendent at Conowingo, stated that siltation in the lake above the dam sometimes created pockets at the mouths of the streams when the water was low and fish caught in these sometimes are killed, probably by the warming of the enclosed water and the reduction of the oxygen content. In summary, it is thought that pollution has played a relatively minor role in the depletion of shad in the Susquehanna. In the opinion of Mr. Hoffert pollution should not now, at any rate, be a serious deterrent to the reestablishment of the shad.

SHADSPAWNING IN THE SUSQUElHANNA Shad spawn almost entirely in fresh water. In recent years, however, some observers have indicated that perhaps shad did not migrate up the Susquehanna to the New York headwaters in order to spawn, as has generally been assumed by residents and biologists since the early 19th century. It has been said that spawners ran up the river on exploratory journeys, returning downsti-eam two Qr three weeks later after the spawn had becoine sufficiently ripened for enlission. An examination of all the available evidence indicates that this premise is unjusti- fied. According to a review of the literature, facts about the biology of shad, and interviews with fishermen and river-folk who handled shad in the Suscluehanna years ago, shad did penetrate into the far reaches of the river for spawning purposes. Meehan (1893) quoted the report of a committee designated to probe into the causes of shad decrease, in which circumstantial proof is available that shad spawned in the Sus$quehanna. "A practice exists in the upper branches of the large rivers, against which the penalties of existing laws are suffieient if they were effectively put into aperation for the public benefit. It is that of erecting fish baskets for catching rock fish [striped bass] in the summer and autumn of the year, when the young shad descend from their birth places to the sea in quantities as vast as the dry leaves which are drifted by the winds. These fish baskets are connected with dams which jut out from the shores to the center of the river where a fall of one or two feet throws all the fish into a Iattieed apartment, through which the small shad cannot escape. Into these baskets thousands and millions of young shad from three to six and eight inches in length, are caught and die; for they are so tender in that stage of their existence that the slightest blow or resistance causes their immediate death. Some of the representatives of the Legislature have seen large quantities of these dead fish thrown out from the baskets; floating on the water or offending the senses on the shore. * * * After depositing their spawning we are told that the female shad grow very thin and sometimes become blind; they are seen upon the surface feebly exercising their powers until they reach the shore or die on the water. It is the opinion of many that the parent fish do not return to the sea-although the maies are often found late in the autumn, fat and solid as in their full season." The belief embodied in the latter part of the above statement regarding roe shad dying after spawning was widespread among residents along the Susque- hanna River who were interviewed during 1951. All firmly believed that the shad spawned on the flats along the River, yet none had ever witnessed the actual I31 spawning operation. The phenomenon of fingerling shad caught in eel pots or fish baskets was widely observed and was an annual occurrence. Residents at Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor, Washington Boro, Harrisburg, Millersville, and Shamokin Dam, remeinbered when shad penetrated the Susquehanna, and all stated the "razorbacks" or "throwbacks" (usually applied to spent roe shad but occasionally referred to bucks) were a frequent occurrence after the shad run was under way. They all referred to the spectacle of young shad coming down the river in autumn and glutting the eel baskets. Most of them believed also, that the females died after emitting their eggs. Joseph Wertz, vice-president, Pennsylvania Folklore Society, stated that several efforts were made to outlaw fish pots because of their wholesale destruction of fish around 1915. One pro- ponent of fish pots took the mesh from a pot to the State Capitol to show a committee that a young shad could pass directly through the net. Fish pots, however, were subsequently outlawed. William Freymeyer at Shamokin Dam remembered clearly shad caught between 1889 and 1900 that exuded eggs in a liquid stream without the benefit of external pressure. Several old observers stated that many spent shad were found with the ventral area discolored and spoiled, and whenever these were caught in haul seines 01- gill nets they were thrown back into the water. At Columbia Dam roe shad were stripped under certain circumstances and the fish exuded presumably ripe eggs. Colonel H. E. Shoemaker, president, Pennsylvania Folklore Society, stated that during the Civil War period along the Susquehanna at Harrisburg rafts of that period proceeded along special routes in the river marked with several stakes in places at which shad were said to be spawning, calling them "shad nests" or "spawning beds." Raftrunners and boatmen were fastidious in the recognition of these breeding areas and would avoid them. During the spawning period near the Columbia Dam fishermen usually spoke of carp feeding upon shad eggs during the former's forays on the shoals of the River, but actually it is believed that the carp spawning runs occurred simultaneously with the shad runs. Carp are not definitely known to feed on shad eggs. Colonel Shoemaker also stated that during shad runs at Harrisburg, bald eagles congregated on trees on the islands of the river to await the appearance of dead fish, presumably spent shad. Hundreds of eagles resided at this area I until the termmation of the shad run. He stated that at one time during the Civil War a cannon was fired and it frightened all of the eagles away. The occurrence of eagles, well-known for their carrion-feeding habits, might indicate that spent shad were the direct cause of their presence. Actually it is probably just as conceivable that dead or dying shad, kiIled or injured by haul seiners and gill nets above Harrisburg, may have been the primary cause of the large number of floating fish. There were large fisheries for shad above and below Harrisburg. Another indication that shad spawned naturally in the Susquehanna was the prevalence and use of the phrase during the shad fishing era, "She is as thin as a Susquehanna shad." Shad apparently spawned in the furtherest reaches of the Susquehanna. Ac- cording to Wilkinson (1872), "shad ran up the Susquehanna in great numbers as far as Binghamton [New York] and even some to the source of the river. * * * The shad seemed never to find either a place or time at which to turn, and . go back. Even after depositing their eggs they would continue to urge their way up stream until they would exhaust their entire strength. * * * Their young fry would pass down the stream in the fall, having grown now to the lengtb of three or four inches, in such number as to choke up the eel-weirs. * * * They have discontinued running up as far as this for twelve or fifteen years [since 18201 . . ." Although it was recognized early (Meehaa, 1893) that shad were gradually decreasing in production in the Susquehanna, no rehabilitory measures were carried out during that time. The mention of the several shad hatcheries in the Susquehanna system points up the fact that shad spawned freely in the river I rather than the fact that artificial propagation could replenish the dwindling fishery. In 1873 the large run of shad in the Connecticut River was first attributed to artificial hatching and releasing of them. Accordingly, the State of Pennsylvania contracted with Seth Green, the pioneer shad fish culturist at Rochester, to use his special hatching boxes for three years for the sum of $2000. 132 The first shad hatchery on the Susquehanna was established in 1873 at New- port, Perry County, at the fishery of Messrs. Miller and Klough, with Mr. Rhan~e, one of Mr. Green's assista~ts,in charge. Despite difficulties with the water system, the operation succeeded in turning into the Susquehanna at Newport 2,700,000 shad fry. Two other temporary shad hatcheries, one at Columbia and one at Marietta, were functioning at the same time under the direction of Mr. Welcher, a culturist employed by Prof. Spencer Fulleton Baird, the United States Fish Commissioner. From these stations about 500,000 fry were liberated. In 1874, 3,065,000 were hatched for the Susquehanna, but after that time operations apparently ceased. Apparently unsuitable conditions rather than the lack of spawning shad were the cause of unsuccessful propagation on the Susquehanna. Shad hatchery operations continued on the Delaware River, and shad fry from this river were often deposited in the Susquehanna River. REIHABILITATIONOF THE SUSQUBHANNA SHAD FISHERIES According to the Report of the Pennsylvania State Commissioners of Fisheries for 1887 and 1888 a law was passed as early as 1803 making it incumbent upon mill dam owners to provide means of passage for fish. When, however, the fever for canals struck the country such measures appear to have been forgotten and even restrictions written into the canal charters were not enforced (see section on fishways), until the late 1850's. The second matter which engaged the attention of those who were interested in maintaining or reviving the Susquehanna shad fisheries was the restriction of the apparently destructive means of fishing. The eel pots and fish weirs which were so destructive of young fish in the fall were declared illegal and for over a decade in the latter part of the 19th century the reports of the Commissioners lament their inability to enforce the law for the suppression of these gears in the Susquehanna River while praising the beneficial effects of their elimination in the Delaware River. In the report of 1889-90-91, seining out of season, pound nets, and fish weirs were declared a thing of the past in the Delaware. The Report of 1895 stated: "The good effects of keeping the Delaware clear of fish baskets . . . are made more manifest when comparison is made with the Susque- hanna." Again, in the Report for 1900: 'Tn all other parts of the state there is at least some respect shown for the laws of the state, but on the Susquehanna respect for fish laws seems to be generally absent." Allied with this problem was the one of securing cooperation from Maryland in suppressing the gear thought to be deleterious. In the Report for 1887-88 complaint is made that the fish weirs in the Maryland section of the river were un- hindered and that the Maryland Commission had taken no action against them. Meetings were held on the subject and the Maryland Commissioners were reported to have attempted to secure legislative action without success. Finally the subject ceased to be discussed in the annual reports. The artificial propagation of fish was the next measure undertaken to stem the decline of the fisheries. Apparently the first undertaking of this sort in Penn- sylvania was for the benefit of the shad, although later efforts were centered in- creasingly on game fish. According to Meehan (1893), in 1873 a hatchery was established at Newport on the Juniata River and 2,700,000 fry were turned into the rives. About 500,000 fry were turned into the Susquehanna at CoIumbia and Marietta by an operator working for the United State Fish Commission. In 1874 the Susquehanna received 3,065,000 fry. The same year the first permanent State "hatchery was established at Marietta, Lancaster County, but it is not clear whether this hatchery ever produced shad. However, after the first few years the State appears to have ceased efforts at producing shad fry for the Susque- hanna and for many years all the hatching for the stream was done at the U. S. Fish Commission hatchery at Havre de Grace, Maryland. The Report for 1900 stated: "In spite of fish baskets and the wholesale slaughter of the Maryland fishermen . . . the run of shad in the Susquehanna seems to be steadily increasing. This increase has been due entirely to the work of the U. S. Fish Commission which has been hatching enormous quantities of eggs of the shad at its battery at Havre de Grace." All of this was supposition, since actual benefits from stocked shad fry have not been demonstrated. Although Meehan had mentioned pollution, specifically by sawmills and coal mines in his work, which was first published as a part of the Report for 1892- 93-94, the subject was not mentioned by the Commissioners until the Report of 133 1898. It was mentioned that the attorney-general had stated that there was no remedy against pollution when it was destructive to fish only. The next year the Commissioners went into the matter at some length, stating that no industry would be wiped out by the effort to control pollution, indicating that industrial pollution was uppermost in their minds. Action through the State Board of Health was suggested. None of this referred specifically to the Susquehanna, but Iater in the same report a case of sewage pollution at York is mentioned. In this case the Superior Court had reversed an acquittal obtained in the Quarter Ses- sions. In 1915 an intensive survey was begun of the industrial pollution in the streams of the State including the Susq~zehannaand its tributaries. The following year the attorney-general called a meeting of representatives of industry to discuss the matter with the Fish Commission and this meeting is reported almost verbatim in the Report of 1916. The war period was found not to be propitious for this undertaking. However, after the Second World War, intensive efforts to abate pollution in all Pennsylvania water was instituted on a Statewide basis. The lead in this work was taken by the health authorities and the fish have bene- fitted incidentally. As indicated in the section on pollution above, this matter is of less importance, but still a factor, from the point of view of the shad fishery on the Susquehanna than it is on the Delaware. The most recent developments concerning the rehabilitation of the shad on the Susquehanna originated in 1947 when a resolution in the Pennsylvania legislature directed the Joint State Government Commission to prepare a report dealing with the problem of the construction of fishways or other devices on the lower Susquehanna River to facilitate the migration of fish. The committee issued its report in January, 1949. Details of this matter have been given in a previous section. Congress made appropriations in 1949 for an intensive study of the shad along the whole Atlantic Coast and in the latter part of 1950, Clinton E. Atkinson, who first headed this work, answered a further inquiry from the Joint State Government Commission of Pennsylvania relative to the rehabilitation of the Susquehanna shad. Among the main points made by Mr. Atkinson were: (1) Any attempt at rehabilitation should be preceded by an interstate agreement as to the regulation of the fishery; (2) the height of the dams offers a little difficulty in the design or operation of the fishways; (3) the run-off in April, May, and June should be sufficient to allow the fishways to operate; (4) adult shad could be transported by truck around the dams but the cost, as also in fishways, would probably exceed the commercial value of the fish; (5) damage of the turbines to adults and fingerlings would have to be evaluated. He recommended that the transfer of shad over the dams be attempted first on a "pilot-plant" basis with all fish transferred, tagged and released in part above each dam, and, in addition, that adults and juveniles be passed experimentally through the turbines. There was a great deal of agitation in the spring of 1951 by the press concerning the proposal to transfer fish around the dams in tank trucks, particularly after a resolution to that effect was introduced into the General Assembly. House Bill No. 175, passed in the summer of 1951, provided that: "The Joint State Gov- ernment Commission, hereinafter termed 'Commission', is hereby authorized and directed to make a comprehensive study of the migratory habits of fish, particularly shad, including the stocking and tagging of shad below and above the Safe Harbor Dam, the Holtwood Dam, and the Conowingo Dam. The Commission is hereby authorized to invite and accept from the federal government cooperation and financial ajd in connection with the study authorized and directed in Section 1. The Commission is directed to report the results of the study hereby authorized and directed to the next regular session of the General Assembly. The sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) or as much thereof as may be necessary is I herebv awnronriated to the Commission for the -purposes - of the study as determined by the Commission." Shad returned to the Susquehanna River of Pennsylvania after being absent from the river for over 30 years. On May 5, 1952, the shad trucking experiment began when 86 shad were Eaught at Perryville at the mouth of the Susquehanna River on Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. They were transported in tanks to Peach Bottom on the Susquehanna above Conowingo Dam, Lancaster County, Pennsyl- vanla. A total of 12 died in transit; the remaining specimens were tagged by biologists of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and introduced into the water. Almost two hours were required to deliver the fish by means of (three) tank trucks, co-mplete with aerator, and operated by members of the Pennsylvania Fish Com- mission. Plans were made to stock a total of 500 shad at Peach Bottom, 2,000 above Columbia, which is above all three dams, and 500 in the Susquehanna Flats area of the Bay as a part of the experiment. A reward of 50c per tag was being offered for the recovery of the small, red, circular plastic disk. Until June 5, 1952, a total of 4,000 shad was to have been placed in the waters of the river north of the three power dams. Actually, at the end of the season, 1,184 had were released above the Dam, while about 500 were liberated below. A number of dead shad was recovered. C. H. Walburg, fishery research biologist, U. S. F. W. S., revealed to the press (Busser, 1953) in November, 1952, that no juvenile shad were found in the stocked portion of the river after seinings were made in August. The samples were taken from the Maryland line upstream past the power dams at Holtwood and Safe Harbor to Falmouth at the mouth of the Conewago Creek near the Dauphin County line. He remarked, "I can only say that the shad stocking program in the Susquehanna is a failure." Walburg (1954) has summarized the results of the experimental transportation of live shad past the Susquehanna River dams. SUMMARYOF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER SHAD FISHERIES (1) Much of the information available on the shad fisheries of the SUS- quehanna River up to about 1875 is based on hearsay, tradition, and in certain cases, exaggerated accounts. Following the formation of the U. S. F. C. detailed records were collected, and although not completely reliable or complete enough to show an accurate picture of the fisheries as a whole, they serve to give a fair picture of the magnitude and trend of the shad fisheries. (2) During the early part of the 19th century, before the construction of dams, the shad fisheries of the Susquehanna River and tributaries in Pennsylvania, north into New York State, were relatively productive when compared to less populated areas where the fisheries were undeveloped. Stevenson (1899) suggested that there was a greater annual harvest during the latter part of the 19th century than was actually recorded in the statistics although available commercial statistics for a later period were low. Actually, the Susquehanna was never a major factor in Pennsylvania's commercial shad production when the 60-year period is examined critically. (3) The productivity of the river was seriously curtailed about 1835 by the Columbia dam which cut off a large portion of the river normally used for spawn- lng. Although various fishways were installed in the dam between 1863 and 1873, they were ineffective in passing shad. A break in the dam allowed shad to ascend as far as Clark Ferry. The river remained open to shad until 1910 when the Holtwood dam was constructed. The average annual yield between 1890-1909 (nine years of records) was 252,000 pounds. By 1915 the catch had declined to 10 percent of this level. (4) Although there are no scientific facts to support the claim of overfishing in the Susquehanna River, the condition of this waterway was such that shad were particularly vulnerable on their spawning gronnds to over-exploitation. Under these circumstances a diminished total catch and an increasing wasted effort probably resulted as the fishery was more heavily exploited. Consequently, in specific areas, overfishing may have contributed to the decline of shad production. (5) Pollution in the upper Susquehanna River arising from coal mine, tannery, paper mill, and sewage wastes was not considered to be of any great importance. Preliminary tests indicated that oxygen deficiencies were not comparable to those in the Delaware River. It is believed that pollution probably would not be a serious deterrent to the re-establishment of shad, although it is recognized as an important and potentially-serious factor. (6) Evidence indicates that shad spawned all along the Susquehanna River north into New York State. Young shad were observed in large numbers in fish baskets each autumn, and a shad hatchery was established at Newport in 1873, and temporary stations were located at Columbia and Marietta. Spawned-out or spent shad were familiar to most fishermen on the river. (7) The restoration of shad in Susquehanna River can be carried out only if a practical and thoroughIy successful fishway for this species is constructed. In addition, water quality conditions and basic ecological factors must be favorable for the survival of shad in the river. Thus, such a program must be preceded 135 by exhaustive studies of engineering, economic, and biological aspects of the river. Any attempt at rehabilitation should be preceded by an interstate agreement as to the regulation of the fishery by Pennsylvania and Maryland. (8) The authorities of the State of Pennsylvania have taken the initiative in the approach to the problem of the restoration of shad in cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Shad have been introduced in the Susque- hanna River above dams on an experimental basis to determine (1) if shad will spawn in the river; (2) if fingerlings and adults are injured or killed by turbines in the dams; and (3) if adult shad will return and are recaptured with tags that have been attached to them in the river above the dams. (9) Fishways are not considered to be effective despite the passage of shad at three dams in other states. The installation of fishways in the three power dams of the Susquehanna is necessary if shad runs are expected to occur on a sustaining basis. So far as fishways for the Conowingo, Holtwood, !and Safe Harbor dams are concerned, the collection system at the foot of the dam is considered of the greatest importance and will present the greatest difficulty in the design. According to some authorities the height presents no problem. Run-off in spring is considered sufficient to allow fishways to operate. A major problem is one of determining the effectiveness of a Ashway in passing shad. If it is assumed that 10,000 shad reach Conowingo dam, and if it is assumed arbitrarily that a fishw'ay may be 10 percent effective, then only 1,000 would reach Holtwood Dam, 100 would pass Safe Harbor Dam, and only 10 would pass York Haven. Since there is no vital need for fresh water fish passage over such dams, although some species use them, the construction of fishways appear to be economically unsound. If a greater number of shad successfulIy negotiated the ladders, that is, a theoretical annual commercial yield of 250,000 pounds (at the 1904 level), the annual production wouId be worth, at $.50 a pound, only $125,000. The cost of the fishways would be extraordinarily high; the expense would be borne by the rate payer who consumes the electricity. Another problem is one of estimating the potential recreational value in a sports fishery for shad, or small-scale capture and utilization of shad as a food fish by the summer resident. SHADFISHERIES OF THE DELAWARE RIVE8 IN PENNSYLVANIA The Delaware River is the eastern boundary of Pennsylvania. About sixty years ago the Delaware river was regarded as the most productive shad stream on the Atlantic coast. Today it is one of the poorest, having produced only about 17,000 pounds in 1949. Four states have had a share in the fishery: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Up to the present time no large dams have been constructed on this river though three or more large impoundments are now in the planning stage. These in particular have engaged the attention of persons interested in rehabilitating the shad fishery. Thus in its much divided control and its lack of dams the Delaware is unique. EARLYHISTORY OF DHKAWARE SHAD FISHING William Penn in one of his letters mentions, ". . . six hundred shad had been taken with one sweep of the seine" in the Schuylkill. In his treaties with the Indians he stipulated that the English be permitted to fish in that stream. However, there appears to have been but little interest in the fish after the colony was well established. The people of the lower Delaware, being in direct communi- cation with all parts of the world by ship and many of then1 being traders and merchants, were not as obliged by necessity to make full use of the bounty of the country as were the settlers on the inland Susquehanna. In 1680 a New Jersey settler, Mahlon Stacey, wrote in a letter of the fisheries resources of the Delaware River and about the same time shad were being caught near Chester and selling at six for a shilling. Very little is known concerning the shad fishery on the upper Delaware prior to 1800. Meehan (1893) states that the Dutch and German settlers there did not seem to know about seine fishing until long after that method had been carried to the Susquehanna by the Connecticut settlers. What fishing was done in the earlier times apparently was carried on in the manner of the Indians, who constructed pens of brush and then drove the fish into them as they crossed the shallows. According to Meehan information was gathered in 1818 for the New Jersey legislature concerning the shad fisheries on the Delaware below Trenton. This survey showed that there were then 70 fisheries employing 1336 men to whom wages totaling $80,160 were paid; fishing gears were appraised at $82,800 and 136 taxes paid amounted to $1,650. There was thus an outlay of $164,610 involved in these fisheries. In the same period a fisherman was said to have cleared $1,000 annually for eight years. Further, one fishery was rented in 1835 for $1,400 a year. Though these figures may not be reliable in detail, there is a sufficient amount of information otherwise to show that the nineteenth century shad fishing on the Delaware had taken on the aspect of a commercial venture. The fish were sold on the spot, mostly to farmers who preserved them for the winter. One eyewitness account states, "I have often seen several hundred wagons at once waiting at the fishery to get supplied. The shad at that time sold to the farmers at from seven to 15 dollars a hundred. There never was any troubIe in selling all the shad that could be caught to the farmers." The story of shad fishing in the Schuylkill, largest tributary of the Delaware, belongs entirely to this early period. It is of some interest since it runs from abundance through efforts at conservation to final complete extirpation. The earliest methods were penning after the Indian fashion. This was followed by the method of racks in which an obstruction was built from shore to shore. Such methods brought about two major objections, one on the score of obstruction to canoe traffic, an important type of commerce on the stream in the early eighteenth century, and the other on the score of interference with the fishing rights of the inhabitants upstream. Thus, in 1724 an act was passed by the provincial assembly for "demolishing and removing fishing dams, wears, and kedles set across the River Schuylkill." There was little result from this actsand another of similar intent was passed in 1734. This was modified in 1736 to permit the erection of dams in April and May when the fish were running, but the Governor did not approve of the modification, citing the facts that the dams deprived the settlers on the upper river of that to which they had an equal right with the others and that the dams could only result in the extermination of the fish by which the inhabitants and their posterity would be robbed of a great source of benefit and profit. The antiquarian Pennypacker states, "After the racks had been removed from the Schuylkill, fishing instead of being the occasional pursuit of the whole neighborhood, became a regular avocation, and was conducted by a few skilled persons, who gave their time and attention to it. Pools were cleared away in the river and the fish were hauled into the shore by means of seines." In the early 19th century shad were still being oaught in considerable numbers in the Schuylkill. But in 1818 the Schuylkill Navigation Company built two large dams, one at Shawmont and the other at Reading, and a few years later the City of Philadelphia constructed a third dam at Fairmount for water supply purposes. The dams completely eliminated the shad fishing above them. Then a little later a gas works was built near the mouth and the pollution that entered the river from this point is said to have caused the fish to avoid even the lower reaches below the Fairmount Dam, although there is no scientific evidence for this statement. It is interesting to note th,at at the time the gas works was under consideration some contemporary voices were raised against it on the ground that the wastes from it would destroy the fishing. Thus over a hundred years ago the dangers of pollution were recognized at the very beginning of the history of contamination from which the Delaware has been so vastly and adversely affected. About this same time a dam was erected on the Lehigh also and since this was located near the mouth of that stream the fish were presumably barred though little is recorded concerning the fishing on this second large tributary. On the main stream, however, only one serious impediment resulted from the great dam- building era, a structure at Lackawaxen, which is more fully noted below.

DECLINEAND RECOVESY IN THE9 NINETBUNTH CElNTTJRY Although tentative efforts at conservation were made in Colonial days, little was accomplished. The mid-19th century saw a period of exploitation of almost all kinds of natural resources resulting in such evident depletion that the modern phase of conservation was brought about. So it was with the Delaware shad fisheries. Although there were no dams on the main stream, the yields of the fisheries declined to such an extent that the newly organized Pennsylvania Fish Commission in the 1870's began to consider fishing methods as a possible cause of the depletion. Meehan (1893) says, "Of one fishery belonging to the Howell family of Woodbury, New Jersey, a record of catches has been kept for more than a century and a half. From the record it appears that prior to 1825 the average annual returns were about 130,000; from 1845 to 1849, the average fell to 66,890; from 1866 to 1869 the average catches were 60,739; from 1870 to 1873 the yearly average was less than 25,000. Since the abolition of the fish baskets under the current laws of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the shad catch at this place during the season runs into the hundreds daily.'' The fish basket and the fyke net were considered the important destructive devices to shad. The fish baskets were set in the fail especially for the purpose of catching eels as they descended the river and hence are also referred to as eel pots. Young shad descending the rivers at the same time were caught in large numbers in these contrivances. The Pennsylvania State Fish Commissioner in 1874 said, "Of a11 the implements for the wanton destruction of fishes which have ever been constructed by human skill, the one most worthy of condemnation is the ordinary fish basket. These instruments of extirpation are placed in the mid- channel of the river, with long arms or wings made of stones, extending on either side towards the shores. Every living creature carried by the current is swept into these baskets . . . Scarcely a young shad which succeeds in getting through the slats of the basket will live, whiIe millions are stopped upon the baskets and there allowed to die . . . In one instance the owner of the basket said that he thought in one night he had thrown from his fish basket more than a cart load of young shad." In this and other such accounts no mention is made of young herring and it is to be supposed that considerable quantities of the destroyed fish were herring rather than shad. It was said that for miles above Trenton the fish baskets were set one above the other. Gill nets also came in for a share of criticism. Apparently they came upon the scene in force during the second quarter of the 19th century. The seiners, operating from shore and having a considerable vested interest in the shoreside fishing rights considered the drift netters as interlopers. As early as 1833 the New Jersey legislature appointed ,a committee to look into the complaints on this score. That the yields of fish were becoming less per unit of effort at this time is indicated by the fact that while gillers and seiners were antagonistic on all other points both agreed that the existing restrictive legislation must be removed. Nothing, however, actually came of the work of this committee. In 18616, James Worrall was appointed as the first fish commissioner in Penn- sylvania. During the first few years of his office efforts to improve the shad fisheries were paramount. Measures considered were: (1) the construction of fishways at dams, (2) the destruction of fish-baskets and weirs, (3) the regulation of gill netting, and (4) the artificial propagation of the fish. The first of these measures applied to the Delaware proper onIy at Lacka- waxen, ,and efforts here were made only after long controversy and experience on the Susquehanna. The delay seems to have been due to the fact that the dam was so far up the river that a relatively small portion of the stream was affected, whereas on the Susquehanna much the greater part of the stream was blocked by the Columbia dam. The Eackawaxen Dam was owned by the Delaware and Hud- son Canal Company and according to Stevenson (1899) was 400 feet long and only two feet high. Yet both the New York and the Pennsylvania Fish Com- missions claimed that until the Rogers Fishway was installed in 1890 not a shad had been seen above the structure. Stevenson evidently confused the fishway wit11 a rafting channel and stated that during freshets the water stood several feert above the crest of the structure and shad passed easily. Although this seems quite credible, it would appear that the information in the reports of the state fish commissions might be more reliable since Stevenson could have given the situation but a cursory inspection. The first efforts at having the fish baskets removed ran into a legal snag. It was found that 10 days notice had to be given before a sheriff could aestroy such a contrivance. The commission recommended that no notice be given and that a penalty be attached to the maintenance of such a nuisance. Subsequent to the passage of such legislation vigorous measures were instituted and on the Dela- ware great success was achieved in this work, through the cooperation of New York and New Jersey with Pennsylvania. It was to this destruction of the fish baskets that Meehan almost entirely attributed the recovery of the Delaware shad fisheries; that the work of removal of fish baskets had made but little headway on the Susquehanna where there was no such recovery at the time he wrote seemed to confirm his opinion. 138 With respect to gill netting action was temporized. Meehan stated, "While it was admitted that by this means more fish were captured than should be, yet this interest was too large and too valuable to be swept away by an enactment, especially since the ground is often inaccessible to shore fishing and consequently the only means of fishing would be with a drift or gilling net." Restrictions were placed upon the time for drift netting and attention was directed toward more strict enforcement. The fourth measure undertaken to better the shad fishery was the artificial hatching of shad eggs. The same year that this work was begun on the Susque- hanna, 1873, about one million fry were released into the Delaware by Dr. J. H. Clark, one of the Fish Commissioners of New Jersey. Although Pennsylvania made a conditional appropriation to carry on this work the next year, the New Jersey legislature failed to provide the funds and nothing further was done at this time. No further mention of artificial propagation has been found until 1887 when the United States Fish Commission Steamer, "Fish Hawk," was sta- tioned at Gloucester, N. J. and hatched and released in the Delaware 35,000,000 shad fry. In 1889 and 1890 a shad hatchery was operated on shore at Gloucester. In 1894 an experimental hatchery was established at New Hope but the season was bad. Subsequently a hatchery was started at Eristol above Philadelphia, often referred to as the Torresdale Hatchery, and from 1896 shad were regularly hatched at this station and returned to the Delaware River. In 1915 and 1916, some time after the yield of shad on the Delaware had sharply declined, shad were stiill being hatched at Torresdale, though the growth of the City of Phila- delphia was encroaching upon it. Hatchery work ceased sometime before 1925 in the Pennsylvania part of the Delaware River. About this time also efforts were made to obtain more uniformity in both laws and their enforcement among the states concerned with the Delaware River. After a series of meetings between the Fish Commissioners of Pennsyilvania, Delaware and New Jersey, a code of laws to be uniform for the whole river was adopted and subsequently passed by the legislatures. Later New York was brought into this arrangement. When in 1895 misunderstanding concerning a New York law resulted in the reestablishment of fish baskets in the upper river, the matter was quickly settled and wardens of both states moved against the contrivances. All this was in marked contrast to the relations between Pennsylvania and Mary- land. When, about 1889, the shad fisheries of the Delaware took an upward turn, there were virtually no statistics upon which to document the existence of a rise in yield. Meehan, without citing his source, states that the Delaware shad fisheries were worth only $81,000 in 1873, by 1889 they had become profitable once more, and in 1890 had reached a value of $500,000. In the early 1890's the fish were so numerous that only the development of rapid-iced transportation prevented low prices. Delaware River shad were said to reach at that time the fish markets of Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Chicago. Stevenson (1899) gives catch records for two old established fisheries opposite Philadelphia, but these are somewhat frag- mentary. Nevertheless, he shared the general impression as to the great increase in shad yield during the early nineties. He suggested that the large run of 1896 may have been due to the fact that for four or five years preceding there were heavy freshets which restricted the fishing thus permitting the shad to reach the upper waters to spawn. At any rate, whatever the comparison with former years, the Delawzre took first rank in comparison with other rivers at that time. Stevenson states unequivo- cally, "These fisheries [those of Delaware River and Bay] are the most extensive in America, the annual yield ranging between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 being several times greater than any other river on the coast." In 1896 shad to the number of 3,882,624 were tabulated as taken in the Delaware system with a value of $45,359. The total value of the capital investment was listed by Stevenson as $419,284 and the number of fishermen employed was 3,247, of which about 77 percent were residents of New Jersey, 15 percent Pennsylvanians, and 8 percent from Delaware. According to Meehan many of the fisheries operated on the New Jersey shore were owned by Pennsylvanians. In Delaware Bay, below Fort Dela- ware, drift nets were the main gear. There were a few seines and stake nets in the Bay but only four pound nets are recorded as against 689 in the Chesapeake. Fishing in the Bay was suspended after the first of May, the fishermen either turn- 139 ing to sturgeon or going farther up the river to fish. Twenty-eight percent of the Delaware yield was obtained from the Bay. The largest yields were obtained in the section of the Delaware between Fort Delaware and Scudder Falls near Trenton, 67 percent of the total. The principal fisheries were located on the New Jersey shore. There were three times as many gill netters as seiners, a ratio which had developed since about 1850, prior to which time seines were used exclusively. In yardage the gilI nets predominated even more; 414,044 yards to 17,903 for the seines, though they caught only about four times the number of fish. However, since the gill nets caught such a large proportion of the valuable roe fish, the value of the seiner's part of the total catch was only about 15 percent. The most valuable fisheries were opposite Philadel- phia. The prosperity of the Delaware shad fisheries continued for a number of years. A survey by the Bureau of Fisheries in 1897 set the yield at 14,393,000 pounds (somewhat less than the estimated weight of the number reported in 1896 by Stevenson). In 1899 the Report of the Pennsylvania State Commissioners of Fisheries (1900) stated, "On the lower Delaware River the shad fishing season was the greatest in the history of the river. In all probability there was never before, not even in Colonial days, such a run of shad, and the size too was phe- nomenally large." Another survey by the Bureau of Fisheries in 1901 indicated a yield of 14,922,000 pounds. Another very large run was reported without figures by the Pennsylvania Commissioners in 1900. Prices were reported to be low. The next survey was not until 1904 when the Bureau of Fisheries reported 5,520,000 pounds of shad produced in the Delaware. (Note that the figures for the Delaware River in the table at the end of this chapter are Pennsylvania landings only). DAMS AND THREATS OF DAMS The only dam which has hindered the movement of shad to any appreciable extent on $he main stream of the Delaware was the canal feeder dam previously mentioned just below the mouth of the Lackawaxen. Even at this point it seems that the fish negotiated the barrier whenever there was high water. Although there was much discussion of the success of the Rogers Fishway installed there, it is not certain that this ever had any real importance. Stevenson mistook it for a rafting channel and by 1900 the fishway was dilapidated and declared unnecessary. Two other dams in the vicinity of Trenton apparently never obstructed the entire river, although there was some litigation with respect to them. Efforts to construct dams on the Delaware for a long time ran up against the fact that all such proposals had to be agreed to by the legislatures of both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The compact declaring the entire river surface to be the boundary between the two states was signed in 1783. Throughout the 19th century there were disputes concerning this compact, chronicled in some detail by Meehan. Most of the earlier proposals concerned the securing of water for canals and were opposed both by fishermen and rafters. Later, water for industrial and domestic use was urged as a reason for building dams. The dam at Scudder Falls was for this purpose. An injunction against this structure in 1870 did not result in the removal of the dam but restricted the repair of it so that it gradually disintegrated. Projects to dam the river much more completely than any of the canal dams began to make their appearance before the beginning of the twentieth century. It must have been evident to the fishing interests at that time that the pressure for dams would become greater, and the powers of the state legislatures to resist would become weaker, for it was now suggested that dams would violate federal laws concerning navigable rivers. And, in fact, it has since been held that the Compact of 1783 which was entered into before the adoption of the Constitution was superceded by the latter document. The most recent move in this field has been concerned with the development of the Delaware to provide hydroelectric power. The Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin (INCODEL) has made studies to combine the production of hydroelectric power with water supply, flood control and several other purposes. More recently the Delaware River Development Corporation has obtained per- mission from the Federal Power Commission (effective July 1, 1951) to make explorations for a proposed purely hydroelectric development consisting of three main-stem dams, the first at Tocks Island, to be over 150 feet high. INCODEL, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Atlantic States Marine Fis'heries 140 Comnlission have all been interested in presenting the case for fisheries in respect to this project. Early in 1950 a plan to obtain these benefits by the construction of a series of dams was proposed by two engineering firms. Some of these were to be located on tributaries but three were to be on the main stream. It was held that the dams on the tributaries (some were already under construction for the New York City water supply) and the uppermost dam on the main stream at Cannonsville would not seriously interfere with shad spawning, but that the dams at Barryville and a later one to be built at Wallpack Bend would constitute serious impediments. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission requested the U. S. F. W. S, for comment on these plans and that agency replied with the following recommendations: (1) That alternate plans be developed not calling for the construction of mainstream dams across the Delaware; (2) That, if construction of these mainstream danzs is insisted upon, they be provided with fishways which the Fish and Wildlife Service has found capable of passing shad over the dams; (3) That, in addition to fishways which will pass shad, diversion channels built in connection with main-stem dams be screened with fine mesh self-cleaning screens which will keep out the young dowr-stream-migrating shad. INCODEL assured the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that it was anxious to bring about the restoration of the shad fishery of the Delaware and therefore stood ready to recommend whatever fishways or whatever processes may be neces- aary to effectuate the program. POLLUTION No other factor looms so large in the picture of the Delaware Basin fish life at this time as does pollution. As noted in connection with the Susquehanna, there was little mention of this problem, except with respect to the discharge from the Philadelphia gas works into the SchuyIkill until the beginning of the twentieth century. By 1915, however, the Pennsylvania Fish Commissioners were writing in their annual report that pollution of the streams was the largest problem with which they had to deal. Legal notice of the problem had also been taken in Penn- sylvania, for a law passed in 1909 states that it shall be unlawful "to allow any dye stuff, coal or gas tar, coal oil, saw dust, tan bark, cocculus indicus (otherwise known as fish berries), lime, vitriol, or any of the compounds thereof, refuse from gas houses, oil tanks, pipes, or vessels, or any deleterious, destructive, or poisonous substance of any kind or character, to be turned into, or allowed to run, flow, wash, or be emptied into, any of the waters aforesaid, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Fisheries or the court that every reasonable and practicable means have been used to prevent the pollution of waters in ques- tion by the escape of deleterious substances." This law indicates by its wording some of the sources which were contributing to the pollution of streams. The rapid industrialization of the Delaware valley with the accompanying rapid increase in population inevitably resulted in a heavy burden on the streams which had always served to carry away wastes but with unnoticed effect in the days of a farm economy and light population. The outbreak of the World War I in Europe stepped up tremendously the industrial activity of the United States. It is, therefore, not strange that in 1916 complaints concerning the contamination of streams had become so frequent that the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania called a meeting of all persons interested in the subject. It was admitted at this meeting that popular clamor prompted the attorney general to action but that it was impossible in a short time to undo the accumulated pollution of the past. The State Health Commissioner was of the opinion that it would take years to work out methods by which pollution could be avoided and to bring the methods into use. It was obvious that industry did not have at the time any clear idea of how pollution could be avoided. The Attorney General complained that the legislature which passed the law mentioned above did not have any idea of the situation that would be faced in enforcing it. The proceedings leave the impression that the problem at the time was one of avoiding the enforcement of the law without appearing to do so, while encouraging the State Health Department, the Corn-. missioners of Fisheries, and the Sanitary Water Commission to carry on into methods of preventing pollution. It is very interesting to notice that no mention at all was made of sewage waste at this conference. The passage of the years only brought additional amounts of pollution to the Delaware. When INCODEL was organized one of the first problems that 141 engaged its attention was that of pollution. It was not, however, until after the Second World War that intensive efforts to work against stream pollution were undertaken. See the account of New Jersey shad fisheries for recent developments in the pollution and dam problem in the Delaware River.

l880 -194Z

LESS THAW l0,OOO POUNDS

IWO 18*0 I#0 1*10 IbLO 1930 W YEAR FIGURE17 CATCH STATISTICS OF THE SHAD FISHERIES OF PENNSYLVANIA HARVEST IN POUNDS * SUSQUEHANNA RIVER DELAWARE RIVER Year Total 1880 - - 559,000 1887 - - 1,424,000 1888 - - 1,387,000 1889 - - 2,753,000 1890 204,659 2,693,341 2,898,000 1891 201,089 2,491,911 2,693,000 1892 231,712 1,764,770 1,996,482 1896 254,763 1,925,000t 2,165,000t 1897 202,700 1,804,300 2,007,000 1901 383,059 2,509,941 2,893,000 1904 256,919 579,081 836,000 1908 312,000 281,000 593,000 1909 216,762 - - 1915 32,851 - - 1921 None 19,000 19,000 1926 None 21,000 21,000 1929 None 22,000 22,000 1930 None 5,000 5,000 1931 None 7,000 7,000 1932 None 2,000 2,000 1933 None 2,000 2,000 1935 None 10,000 10,000 1937 None 12,600 12,600 1938 None 13,900 13,900 1940 None 10,100 10,100 1942 None 7,200 7,200 * Based on figures collected by the Federal authorities. t Calculated on the basis of 3.5 pounds per shad. 142 At the close of the Second World War the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania inaugurated an intensive campaign for clean streams. The focus of attention this tinle was not on industry but on municipal and institutional sewage.' In 1950 the Sanitary Water Board of the Pennsylvania Department of Health announced that 42 municipal sewage systems were in operakion on the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers and many were increasing the treatment facilities, notably Philadelphia where about sixty million dollars were being expended for the work. Pollution by silt and fine pieces of coal from the anthracite mines was declared to be completely eliminated. Water in the Schuylkill was declared to be running clear in many places for the first time in a century. Standards for the treatment of waters in various industries were adopted by the Sanitary Water Board and many industries, pafiicularly the coal, oil, and paper companies were reported to be spending many millions of dollars on treatment plants. A report by John Boardman, engineer for INCODEL, issued late in 1951 covers the pollution in the Delaware in the vicinity of Philadelphia. Philadelphia's Northeast treatment plant was reported in operation in 1951 and the Southeast and Southwest plants were under construction; these will each take care of about three quarters of a million population equivalent, a load now being discharged into the river untreated. Camden is constructing two treatment plants and three others are to be begun shortly in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Of 69 municipalities contributing wastes in this section of the river, 14 have primary treatment, 43 have both primary and secondary, and 13 have no treatment. Of 57 with treatment, 35 are satisfactory, 21 inadequate, and one undetermined. Of 66 industrial plants, 28 have treatment facilities and 38 do not. It was reported that the oil refineries have done an outstanding job of pollution abate- ment. It was stated that the Army Engineers removed about 20,000,000 yards of silt yearly from the river and it was found that coal culm from the Schuylkill was carried up the Delaware by tidal action. It is believed that by 1956 the Delaware River in this sector will have reached a degree of recovery providing at least 50 percent of oxygen saturation at all times. SHAD FISHERIES OF NEW YORM STATE FORMERSHAD FISHWIIQS OF NW YORE STATE DeKay (1842) made some of the earliest observations on the shad in New Yorlr waters. His interesting remarks are as follows: "Unlike most of the genus which appear to reside in the northern seas, this species comes to us from the south to deposit its spawn. We infer this to be the fa&, from bhe chronological order of its occurrence along our coast. At Charleston, [South Carolina], according to my friend Dr. Holbrook, they appear in January or February, later at Norfolk, and here the latter end of March or beginning of April, their appearance being accelerated or retarded by the mildness or severity of the season. On the coast of Massachusetts, they appear during the month of May, and farther north they have been observed still later. There are several varieties, which have suggested various popular names. On the coast of Carolina, the fatter ones have the tail swollen, and are called Clubtails. Formerly, a large variety, supposed to be an old fish, and weighing from ten to twelve pounds, were frequently taken in the Hudson River, under the name of Yellow-backs. They were distinguished immediately by their large scales and the brassy color of their backs, and are now seldom seen. In those which ascend the Connecticut, the bodies are more cylindrical, with a quantity of mucus distributed over the body, which gives it a slimy appearence obvious to the touch and eye. They are considered superior to those on our coast." DeKay continued his observations, "Upon entering the Hudson River, they ascend one hundred and fifty miles to spawn. They descend in the latter part of May, when they are called Back Shad, and are lean and scarcely fit to eat. In abundant seasons, they are sold at from six to ten dollars per hundred, and are packed away in salt. Of late years, it has been observed that they are more scarce, being driven away by the increasing number of nets set for their capture. Thirty years since, they were caught in large fyke or hoop-nets, which could only be set in shallow places, leaving the main channel of the river open. These, however, have been superceded by gill-nets, which are attached to long spears, and often set in from seven to ten fathoms of water, nearly blocking up thd whole channel. It is easy to foresee, that before many years, the shad will be driven entirely from the river. We know of several individuals who have a 143 capital of from six to eight hundred dollars invested in nets, boats, etc., for this fishing; and from information derived from various sources, have no doubt, that along the course of this river, there is a capital invested in the shad fishery alone of nearly half a million dollars." Stevenson (1899) presented an exhaustive survey of the shad fisheries of the 1896 period in New York waters, whereas McDonald (1887) limited his survey to the Hudson River fisheries. The former author remarked, however, that most shad operations were carried out principally in the Hudson River and ". . . the sections of New York Bay leading thereto, over 98 percent of the yield in 1896 being obtained in those waters. A few shad are also obtained in the Nissequague River, Little Neck Bay, Gardiner Bay, Long Island Sound, and Great South Bay, but the catch in the last three bodies of water is merely incidental to the taking of other species of fish." Stevenson also presented a detailed statement of the number of persons employed in the shad fisheries, the number of boats, apparatus, and yield of shad in each form of apparatus, by water areas. He divided the fisheries as follows: New York Bay.-This name applies to the whole area from Sandy Hook to the Battery. The near approach of Staten Island to the western end of Long Island divides the Bay into two unequal portions known as Upper Bay and Lower Bay, the former being about five miles long and almost as wide, and the latter having a shape of an equilateral triangle, each side about 15 miles in length. Connecting the two, occupying the space between Long Island and Staten Island, are the Narrows, the least width of which approximates one mile. At the extreme upper end of Lower Bay, occupying the cove between Coney Island light and Fort Hamilton, is Gravesend Bay, a small body of water covering about two square miles. The fisheries of each .of these areas were as follows in 1896: Lower Bay.-The shad fisheries were confined to a few pound nets on the shore of Staten Island between Elm Tree beacon and Fort Tompkins Light. A total of 14,000 shad, valued locally at $1,680, was harvested by 18 men manning six boats. Gravesend Bay.-Two large pound nets and two rows of fyke nets, the latter being set with 30 in one row and four in another, were set in from 10 to 25 feet of water. The pound nets required two sets of twine, since the large quantity of drift and refuse becoming fixed to them prevented their being operated more than a week at a time. A total of 6,430 shad, valued at $770, was halrvested in 1896. The Narrows.-Drift gill nets were operated in this area two or three weeks before the Hudson River season began. The nets averaged about 400 yards in length with a 5% to 5% inch mesh, and were operated at depths of 25 to 30 feet 1 on account of the extensive navigation. Even at this depth the suction caused by large steamers frequently entangled the nets in a mass. In 1896 there were 59 boats operated by 120 men, and 63,500 shad, valued locally at $3,620, were taken, the catch being much less than usual. Most of the fishermen lived on Staten Island, or Bay Ridge, Fort Hamilton, Gravesend on Long Jsland, and a few lived "up the [Hudson] River," the rendezvous being at Fort Hamilton during the fishing season. Upper Bay.-Stake and fyke nets were the principal means of taking shad along the western side of the Bay on the Jersey Flats, between the northern end of Staten Island and Bedloe Island. The stake nets were owned by fishermen from Bay Ridge, and were set in 4 rows containing 151 "stations." The abundance of drift matter and other refuse in the water necessitated the use of two sets of nets, each remaining in the water about a week. A total of about 30,000 shad, of which some three-fifths were roes, was taken by stake-netters. The fyke nets were owned by fishermen from Hudson County, New Jersey, and 49,758 shad, valued at $7,337. were taken in 1896. Great South Bay and Gardiner Bay.-A few shad were caught incidentally in pound nets set in Great South Bay, the catch being due to the lateness of the period when the nets were set. In the pound nets at the eastern end of Long Island Sound, between Montauk Point and Orient Point, some shad were taken each year, particularly in Fort Pond Bay, Napeague Bay, and along the shores of Gardiner Island, where they were caught in the greatest numbers on the eastern side. From a total of 105 nets set in 1896, 4391 shad, valued at $1,031, was havested. 144 Long Island Sou~d.-Stevenson (1899) stated that most of the shad entering Long Island Sound passed along the northern shore and entered the large tributaries flowing into it through the State of Connecticut, very few being taken on the New York Shore. Of the 74,319 shad caught in this sound and tributaries in 1896, 70,288 were taken along the northern shore and in the rivers flowing therein, while only 4,031 were taken along the southern shore, in pound nets near Orient Point, Nissequague River, and Little Neck Bay. Between Orient Point and Horton Point, a few shad were taken incidentally with other species in pound nets set at the eastern end of the Sound on the Suffolk County shore. Stevenson subdivided the Sound as follows: Nissequague River.-Westward of Horton )Point no shad were taken on the southern shore of-Long Island Sound until this river is reached, it being a small sand-hill stream extending from Smithtown Bay for several miles into the interior. Stevenson remarked, "While shad have been caught in this stream for a number of years, yet fisheries have been prosecuted only during the past two or three years. The fisheries were most extensive in 1896, when nets were operated at various times, catching 1,256 shad from May 1 to May 13. On the night of May 13 fishing was stopped by the local authorities, the twine being destroyed and arrests made of a number of the fishermen. After that date many of the fishermen engaged in taking shad by the means of spears, it being easier to elude arrest when so engaged than when using a drift net." He noted that the number of shad caught by spears approximated 482. Little Neck Bay.-This Bay is considered a tributary of East River, and shad were said to enter Long Island Sound by way of East River and the Narrows. Stevenson stated, "Seasons of scarcity in Little Neck Bay are usually coincident with those in New York Bay and Hudson River, and not with those in the Connecticut." Shad were taken principally by pound nets during 1896, but one gill net was operated, so that a total of 1,777 shad, valued at $575, were taken in Little Neck Bay. Delaware River portion of New York State.-Bean (1903), in his Fishes of New York, has provided most of the information on shad in the New York portion of the Delaware River, although Stevenson (1899) wrote that, "During freshets the water stands several feet above the crest of [a canal-feeder dam just below the entrance of Lackawaxen River] and shad ascend in some numbers to Burrows dam, in New York, about 50 miles above Lackawaxen." Bean declared, "The obstructions in the Delaware have been almost entirely overcome. In 1891 shad were caught higher up the Delaware than for many years, and spawned in the upper reaches of the river beyond the New York state line. In 1891 the Delaware, for the first time since 1823, was restored to its normal condition by means of the fishway [?I at Lackawaxen; and, according to Col. Gay, it is at present the best shad river in the country. * " * Mr. Ford noticed that every pool in the upper river was full of shad, and he saw them playing in the water by the hundreds. Mr. Van Gordon saw them above Port Jervis, and they were observed * as far up as Deposit, N. Y." Hudson River.-In 1896, Stevenson (1899) reported that, "In point of commerce the Hudson is the most important river of the United States, and formerly its shad fisheries were the most valuable on the Atlantic seaboard, but in this particular it is now surpassed by other rivers. Its sources are in the Adirondack Mountains in Essex County, whence it flows in a general southeasterly direction about 110 miles to Sandy Hill, and thence almost due south nearly 200 miles, to its entrance into New York Bay. From New York Bay to Piermont the width is from 1 to 2 miles; between Piermont and Haverstraw it expands into Tappan Bay, with a length of 12 miles and a width of 4 to 5 miles; while from Haverstraw, 34 miles distant from New York, to Albany the width of the river varies from 900 to 300 yards. At Troy, 6 miles above Albany, it receives its principal tributary, the Mohawk, whose volume of water is greater than that of the Hudson above that point. Above Troy the river partakes of the charact~risticsof a large mountain stream, with numerous falls and rapids." Early in the history of the shad fisheries of the Hudson River dams have loomed up as an important factor in delimiting upriver migrations. At Troy there was a State Dam, built in 1826, a log cribwork filIed in with stone, 1,100 feet long and 10 feet high, and according to Stevenson, this formed an impassable barrier to the further progress of shad except when water rose above the crest of the dam during freshets. Formerly a fishway, of which there is no recorded use 145 by shad, was constructed upon this obstruction, but it was destroyed by a freshet during the early 1890s, and was not subsequently replaced. At Mechanicsville, nine miles above Troy, there was a dam of cutstone masonry 16 feet high, built in 1882. Three-quarters of a mile above this point there was a dilapidated log dam with an original height of eight feet. More dams were located at Stillwater, Saratoga, Fort Miller, Fort Edward, Sandy Hill, Glens Falls, Palmer Falls, etc. Prior to the construction of the Troy Dain in 1826 shad ascended the Hudson to the falls at Sandy Hill, 50 miles above Troy, and up to 15 years before 1896 they were taken in some abundance within a short distance below Troy. During Stevenson's time there was little fishing above Castleton, a short distance below Albany. The fisheries in 1896 extended from the mouth of the river nearly to Albany, the river being filled with nets up to Hudson, in Columbia County. The legal season extended from March 14 to June 15 of each year, with a closed period extending from sunset on Saturday until sunrise on Monday of each week. In 1880 there were 711 men employed and the catch of shad numbered 639,000; in 1885 the yield was reported at 1,174,835; in 1887 the yield was 1,568,634, while in 1896 only 588,898 shad were reported, valued at $83,237. Thus, even during the latter part of the 19th century the yield fluctuated considerably from year to year. The greater part of the shad was taken with drift gill nets, and the remainder was taken with stake gill nets, haul seines, pole gill nets, and fyke nets. The fisheries were located at Troy, Saugerties, Hyde Park, Highland, West Point, Verplanck Point, Croton Point, Sing Sing, Nyack, Fort Washington Point, Yonkers, Alpine, and Kinston Point. Stevenson gives a detailed breakdown of the type and size of nets used, men employed, yield of shad by gear, and additional information about the Hudson River fisheries. Some idea of the relative efficiency of various types of gear can be obtained from the statistics provided by Stevenson: CATCH BY GEAR OF THE NUMBER OF SHAD IN THE HUDSON RIVER IN 1896 Number of Number of Number of gear roe shad buck shad Total Total value Drift gill net 337 162,385 134,793 297,178 $42,958 Stake gill net 617 106,065 74,710 180,775 $26,823 Pole net 14 - - 41,800 $4,342 Haul seine 41 - - 68,345 $8,991 Fyke net 20 - 800 $123

CUR~NTSHAD FISHERIFS OF NEW YORK STATE According to biologists of the Shad Investigations seetion of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service who recently conducted investigations on the Hudson River, the shad fisheries are divided generally into the upper and lower shad fishing area. The former extends as far north as Hudson, New York, above which no commercial fishing for shad occurs. The principal fisheries are concentrated around Poughkeepsie and Kingston where extensive drift-gill netting is carried on. A fishery exists at Malden, above which not much shad fishing occurs. In general, between Peekskill and Hudson, the principal method of harvesting shad is by means of drift gill nets; however, haul seines are operated to a certain extent at Athens, and Hudson, below Esopus Light, Dennings Point at Beacon, and other points in that vicinity. The lower shad fishing area consists of the entire Haverstraw Bay which is bordered by New York and at its extreme lower portion by New Jersey. Stake gill nets and pound nets to a lesser extent are the principal methods of catching shad. The stake netters are scattered on both sides of the Bay south of Peekskill to about 60th street in New York City, approximately a mile south of the George Washington Bridge. There are no major concentrations of fisheries in the Bay. Most of the catch is shipped by truck to New York, but some buyers purchase fish on the spot. Pound nets located off Staten Island and off the New Jersey coast contribute a small share to the total Hudson River fishery. At the present time there are no sport or angler's fishery located on the Hudson River. Its estuarine nature and other factors perhaps have precluded the establishment of fly and bait-casting such as is found on the Connecticut and Susquehanna Rivers. 146 A few shad are taken in Long Island Sound incidental to other fish species, and none is taken in the Delaware River portion of New York State. Fiedler (1941), Anderson and Power (1949), and Anderson and Power (19511, present the statistics of New York shad fisheries for the years, 1938, 1945, and 1948, respectively. From these records it is possible to obtain a general idea of the distribution and magnitude of the current shad fisheries of New York. The annual landings of shad were recorded for various counties of the State where the fish are taken. They are as follows: Albany Cou?zty.-Located on the west shore of Hudson River just north of Green County, it is situated at the northern-most point on the River where shad are taken commercially in the vicinity of Albany. No shad were harvested in this county in 1945, but in 1938, a little over one quarter of one percent (2,800 pounds) of the total catch for that year was harvested in Albany County. Columbia County.-Located on the east side of the Hudson River, directly north of Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester Counties. Hudson is the principal center for the fisheries, where a little over nine tenths of one percent (25,60@ pounds) of the 1945 landings, and five percent (54,400 pounds) of the 1938 landings of shad were taken in this County. Dutchess Coztnty.-Located on the east side of the Hudson River, directly north of Putnam and Westchester Counties, the fisheries are more or less found in the vicinity of Beacon, Hughesville, Poughkeepsie, Hyde Park, Staatsburg, Rhinecliff, and Tivoli. A little over 10 percent (292,200 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and 13 percent (140,000 pounds) of the 1938 landings of shad were taken in this County. Greene County.-Located on the west side of the Hudson River, directly north of Ulster, Orange, and Rockland Counties, the fisheries are more or less located in the vicinity of Catskill, Athens, Coxsackie, and New Baltimore. A little less than one percent (28,000 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and over one and one half percent (17,600 pounds) of the 1938 shad landings were taken in this county. Nassau County.-Located in the western portion of Long Island, adjacent to Queens Borough of New York City, the shad fisheries fo? this area are prosecuted incidentally to the fisheries for cod, butterfish and flukes. During 1938 a little less than one quarter of one percent of the 1938 harvest of shad for New York State was taken in this County; none was recorded in 1945. Arew York Cou9zty.-Located on the east side of the mouth of the ~Hudson River, and on the eastern portion of Long Island Sound, the area comprises only Manhattan Island. Only three hundredths of one percent of the 1945 landings far shad was recorded from this County. None was recorded during 1938. At this location shad are taken incidental to the cod, fluke, and haddock fisheries. Orange County.-Loclated on the west bank of the Hudson River, norkh of Rock- land County, the fisheries are largely found in the vicinity of Highland Falls, West Point, Cornwall on the Hudson, Newburgh, and Roseton. The extreme western part of the County is bordered by the Delaware River, the principal river town being Port Jervis, but shad have not been taken there commercially in recent years. About one third of one percent (9,400 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and two and one half percent (29,500 pounds) of the 1938 landings of bhe shad fisheries were taken in this County; shad was the principal fishery in this County on the Hudson during 1945. Putnanz Couwty.-Located on the east side of the river just north of West- Chester County and the principal boroughs of New York City. A little over three percent (106,800 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and one and two tenths percent of the 1938 shad landings were taken in this County. Rensselaer County.-Located on the east side of the Hudson River, this area is the northern-most point of comniercial fisheries, just north of Columbia. Cas- tleton-on-the-Hudson, Rensselaer, and Troy, are important towns near the fisheries. No shad were recorded during the 1945 survey, hut. a little more than 18 thousandths of one percent (200 pounds) of the 1938 landings of shad were recorded in this County. Shad are taken incidentally to the harvest of carp and alewives. Richmlzd County.-Located on the western shore of New York City at the mouth of the Hudson River, where Staten Island and St. George are Iocated. The fisheries for shad were the only operations carried out in this area in 1945. A little less than 19 percent (540,900 pounds) of the 1945 landings of shad was taken in this County; none was recorded in 1938. 147 Rockland County.-Located on the western shore of the Hudson River just north of the New Jersey boundary line, the fisheries are located in the vicinity of Piedmont, Nyack, Haverstraw, and Stony Point. A little more than 10 percent (559,100 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and over 14 percent (157,700 pounds) of the 1938 shad landings were taken in this County. Shad was the most important fishery in this County. Sufolk Couv~ty.-This County comprises the eastern three-quarters of Long Island, bounded on the north by Long Island Sound, on the south by Great South Bay and beyond by the Atlantic Ocean. A little over 7% percent (217,300 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and nine percent (96,300 pounds) of the 1938 landings of shad were taken in this County, even though menhaden, porgy, yellowtail and blackback flounder, and swellfishes, among others, far outproduce shad. Ulster County.-Located on the west side of the Hudson River, just north of Orange and Rockland Counties, the fisheries are located more or less around Milton, Highland, Kingston, Glasco, and Saugerties. More shad was produced in this County in 1945 than in any other; over 21 percent (602,700 pounds) of the 1945 landings, and over 29 percent (319,600 pounds) of the 1938 shad landings were taken in this County. Westchester County.-Located on the east side of the Hudson River, just south of Putnam County and north of Bronx Borough, the prin,cipal river towns are Croton-on-the-Hudson, Ossining, Dobbs Ferry, Tarrytown, and Hastings. Over 16 percent (236,700 pounds) of the 1938 shad landings were taken in this County. A review of tho shad catch by gear during 1945 and 1948 demonstrates the relative efficiency of the various types: PRODUCTION OF SHAD BY VARIOUS KINDS OF GEAR DURING 1945 AND 1948 * Type of gear Production of shad in pounds 1945 1948 Haul seines 48,800 65,600 Drift gill nets 1,072,700 612,400 Stake gill nets 941,200 443,700 Pound nets 758,200 267,500 Stop nets 28,600 - Otter trawls 900 4,000 I * Source: Published figures of U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Greeley (1939), in a survey of the fishes of salt waters of Long Island, stated i that, "Although there is some reproduction in the Nissequogue River, Long Island I is not an important production center for young shad while the Hudson River pro- duces great numbers . . . It is of interest to note that shore seining on Long Island disclosed no shad until August 23 when a young specimen was taken at Fire Island Inlet . . . This individual may be interpreted as the forerunner of a seaward migration of young from the Hudson. It is probably that continued shore seining at this point throughout the fall months might add considerable data as to the seaward migration of young shad." Greeley (1937) presented a large amount of information concerning the occurrence and natural history of the shad in the Lower Hy$on Watershed. A summary of his general observations are given as follows: Exceptionally large numbers of shad were taken by commercial fishermen during the 1936 run and young were taken at numerous points along the river during the summer survey. No yearling individuals were found. This tends to corroborate the general belief that the young shad make their way out to sea when less than one year old. Spawn- ing occurred principally during May. On May 14 the water temperature was 61 degrees off Port Ewen, where shad spawn is collected by the fishermen and taken up for hatching. Some of the fish seen on this date were spent, while others were in varying stages of ripeness. All fish examined during the first week of June were spent. Notes on the former status of the shad are given by Mearns: 'The Shad fishing is an important industry of this region. The Shad arrives about the first of April and is abundant by the end of the month. I have not heard of its ascending any of our small streams.' " Greeley (11937) also commented upon the morphological variation in shad as recognized by fishermen. "It was obvious that the fish varied in size, color and body proportions. Some of the variations noted were correlated with age, 148 sex, breeding ccndition 2nd handling. Small buck shad weighing scarcely a pound are very different in proportions from larger buck shad which in turn differ from roe shad. Some fishermen sort out the smaller male shad under the name of 'shadine', 'jacks' or 'rebs' (possibly a contraction of 'rebel shad'). Fish which are exceptionally deep bodied are often cailed 'chunkers'. Color variations are frequently split by fishermen as 'bluebacks' or 'yellowbacks'. Occasional individuals which have fins suffused with red are called 'red-fin' shad. It is often difficult to tell how much of this color is normal and how much is due to slight damage to fine capillaries in the skin. Many individuals have the cheeks suffused with red. During the breeding season shad normally lose much weight and the differences between the fresh run fish and spent fish are marked. Many of these variations are readily explainable without supposing that there are different races of fish. There are, however, two types of shad which appear to be distinct races although so much alike that considerable difficulty is encountered in readily separating one from the other." The two varieties are known generally as "blueback" and c'yellowback7', respectively, and Greeley has differentiated them in his paper. Curran and Ries (1937) studied the fishery intensively and reported that they inspected many catches from Saugerties to New York City. They corroborated Greeley's (1937) observations regarding the variation found in Hudson River shad. They remarked, "In the opinion of some fishermen there was the possibility of separating varieties or separate 'runs' of fish. A number of different comnlon names were in use by them: 'yellowback', 'blueback', 'greenback', 'golden shad', 'pink shad', 'pink-faced shad', 'hickory shad', 'locust shad7, 'chunker', 'chunk head' and 'red-finned shad', all being used for the one species, Alosu sapidissima. The term 'backer' was frequently used in referring to spent shad." Curran and Ries' observations of the Hudson River fisheries are of special interest. "All fishing for shad is done by means of gill nets usually of 5-inch mesh. The gill-net fishing is divided into two groups, the drift gill net and the stake gill net. In the lower portions of the river from New York City to Haver- straw, the latter type is used because of the shallow water and the many snags in the river. Stakes driven in the bottom about 30 feet apart are set up in the shallower portions of the water from approximately 15 to SO feet in depth. Between these stakes, the gill nets are set in such a way that they may be raised about the high water mark over the week-end when fishing is not allowed. The fishermen usually use the larger mesh nets in the deeper water for shad while in the shallower water, ranging from 16 to 20 feet in depth the minimum legal mesh, 2% inches, is used. The catch of shad taken with stake gill nets is usually smaller than those taken with drift nets." They continued, "By far the larger proportion of shad fishing on the Hudson 1 River is done by means of drifting. This operation is confined more or less to I the upper reaches of Haverstraw Bay northward to and above Hudson, although in the vicinity of Coxsackie the river is too shallow and the currents such *hat drifting becomes impracticable. Here seines and stake nets replace the drift nets for the little shad fishing that takes place. In drift netting, the nets are thrown in with the flood or ebb tide as the case may be and are allowed to run with the tide. When the tide reaches slack and reverses itself, the fishermen usually begin pulling the nets. In some cases when the run of fish is heavy, the fishermen make quick drifts to catch the last portion of the tide. This is especially true on heavy tides in the vicinity of Poughkeepsie and Highland, when long drifts with the flood tide would carry nets well up the river to the vicinity of the shallow waters around Esopus IsIand while strong ebb tides would tend to carry them into the abutments of the bridges at Poughkeepsie. Many fishermen in the vicinity of Poughkeepsie use the large 5%-inch mesh net in order to get only the larger fish. Small buck shad are usually not wanted because [they are] less marketable. "The catches of fish vary greatly with the wind and weather in all portions of the river. Although the season opens [during] the middle of March, little fishing is done in ordinary seasons much before bhe beginning of April in the lower reaches of the river. Before the end of the season June 15, most of the commercial fishermen put away their nets. This may be at the end of May in the vicinity of Poughkeepsie and about two weeks earlier in the vicinity of Nyack. * * * Fishing terminates usually with the appearance in the catch of a considerable number of spent fish. Because spent shad are thin and the flesh soft they do not bring good prices. The end of the fishing season, however, is not controlled wholly by the appearance of spent fish but the fishing tends to drop off as the market 149 becomes glutted. During the 1936 season prices dropped very low even on good quality fish, the price falling to 10 cents or lower a pound." In addition to the locations above Greeley (1940) listed the American shad from Lake Ontario, where he believes that 2 land-locked population may exist. There are not enough fish to constitlate a fishery. DECLINEOF SHAD IN THB NBW YORK STATE WAWS The shad fisheries of the Hudson River have exhibited great fluctuations in production. h1cDonald (1887), in discussing the conditions contributing to the decline of fish in rivers stated, "As explanatory of the decrease of certain fisheries on many rivers, it has been alle,ged frequently that the same is due to such deleterious influences as the disturbances of the waters by passing steamers, the pollution by sewage, and the refuse of the paper, calico, and other factories in operation along their banks. Were these valid reasons for the decrease of the ri~erfisheries, then certainly would the fisheries of the Hudson be reduced to a minlmum. Statistics, however, show that on this river, in spite of all these supposed baleful influences, the shad fisheries have fallen off less than in any other river on the Atlantic seaboard. It is manifest, then, that in accounting for the impaired shad fisheries of the Potomac and other rivers, we must adduce argu- ments more tenable than the disturbance and pollution of the waters. In New York Harbor alone, which is in an incessant state of turmoil, caused by the thousands of vessels daily plowing its waters, over 250,000 shad are a,nnually taken." Moore, Greene, et al. (1937) remarked that, "The shad fishery has had most frequent mention in the annals of the Hudson usually in connection with their abundance though there are recorded intervals of serious depletion with little progress toward securing necessary protection. * * * Periods of serious decline as represented in the fishermen's catches, in the Hudson River, have occurred in recent years at somewhat irregular intervals of 5 to 10 years. That the down swing is associated with the intensity of fishing only is not clearly apparent from the records. Conditions inherent in the present situation doubtless enter into the causes of decline. Conspicuously they are the presence of a barrier dam at Troy (limiting the spawning runs farther upstream) and the concomitant effects of pollution in that vicinity and from large centers of population down the river. , The obliteration of shallow spawning areas by dredging operations to maintain , navigation is obviously a limiting factor in production by the encroachment upon I the spawning grounds through the succession of fills in the shallow, marginal areas I and coves of the river. An additional hazard to eggs and fry is occasioned season- ; ally by the disturbances resulting from the wash of the river boats. The extent I to which these important factors limiting production enter into the problem as a 1 combined effect is certainly very great. It is recognized that losses in the fry and fingerling stages naturally follow from the predation by other fishes. Meager information is available of the nlovements of the fingerlings to the sea or of vicissitudes they encounter after they leave the river to mature in the coastal waters of the Atlantic." Cable (1944B) approached the problem of the decline of shad in the Hudson River from a somewhat different viewpoint, although some of the factors that are cited are coincident with Moore's ideas. Cable has traced the almost paradoxical history of the river as follows: ". . . the shad fishery in the Hudson River . . . has recovered fully from a state of near depletion during a period when pollution in the river, aIready bad, was steadily increasing. Many of the most productive years of the Hudson River fishery have been since the erection of the dam at Troy, N. Y., in 1826, which closed to spawning shad more tlian half the length of the river formerly traversed by them. Pollution, and an obstruction at some distance from the mouth of the river are known, therefore, to have been of little hin- drance to repopulation of one important shad fishery and may be eliminated as primary causes of declines in the shad fisheries of most other rivers." According to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Hudson River shad were so completely fished out by 1905 that it was practicaIly abandoned by the fishing industry. Marked increase in the fishery has been observed only since 1935. Cable's analysis of the Hudson River shad fisheries were continued as follows: "When the shad population in the Hudson River was so reduced it was no longer economically profitable to fish for shad, many of the fishermen took up other occupations. As a result of this reduced fishing rate, the fishery began to improve slowly at first, more rapidly in recent years. It is now more productive than ever 150