CTFishTalk.com: A Connecticut Shellfish History - Guilford, CT IMEP #49 - - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

IMEP #49
A Connecticut Shellfish History – Guilford, CT
For the Guilford Shellfish Commission
Tim Visel
The Sound School
February 2014
(IMEP Habitat History Newsletters can be found indexed by date on The Blue Crab.Info™
website: Fishing, eeling and oystering thread) and Connecticut Fish Talk.com Salt
The History of Shellfishing – A Brief Outline
--Potential History Capstone Project—
- Also reprinted in Part -
University of Connecticut Sea Grant - Wracklines, Volume 14 #1 Spring/Summer 2014

Preface

Much of Connecticut’s shellfish history is contained in municipal town hall records or newspapers. For centuries the Boards of Selectmen decided such common resource rights including alewife and herring. Records of shellfish harvests and regulations (mostly management ordinances) are recorded in meetings and town records. Other towns held copies of newspapers that contained legal notices to electors – Clinton, Connecticut for example did that and I was able to cross reference, the town meeting date from the local newspaper back to the town meeting minutes. This type of research is time intensive but could serve as a Capstone effort for interested students for a local shellfish commission.
This paper for the Guilford Shellfish Commission last year was reprinted in part in the University of Connecticut Wracklines Magazine – Spring/Summer issue which focused upon shellfishing. On page 17 is a reprint of a rare 1889 map showing the natural and planted oyster beds for Connecticut. Wracklines is now online and is an important reference for current shellfish events and research. The spring/summer issue is devoted to shellfish, it is an excellent reference for those interested in Connecticut’s shellfisheries.

Guilford is a coastal town that has had several local histories published about it and perhaps has some of the best records for historical shellfisheries. But that is not to say that all Connecticut’s shore towns do not, each has historical records and many references to local shellfisheries. Clinton, Groton, Norwalk, Niantic, Milford, Bridgeport and of course New Haven all have rich shellfish histories.

The history of shellfishing is also related to climate, biological and cultural beliefs and values. Most of New Haven’s production of soft shell clams for example were fed to pigs. Quahogs were shoveled overboard as that took up too much valuable deck space for a Baltimore oyster market that demanded up 6 inch oysters. And important concepts of home gardening, soon spread to summer visitors and gave rise to the recreational shellfish industry. Harvesting local shellfish became a summer event gathering families to participate in “shore bakes” a reminder of our appreciation of Connecticut’s first residents - Native Americans.

As I write this section researchers are closely examining Native American shell middens for clues to resource abundance and climate condition explanations for them. These studies in future years will add much to our understanding of our fisheries history.

Students interested in this type of FFA non experimental research or a Capstone Project, please see Tim Visel in the Aquaculture Office.
I respond to all emails at tim.visel@nhboe.net

Colonial Settlements
When the first settlers came to Guilford in September of 1639, they found local waters and rivers containing shellfish especially oysters. English common law (1300s) had already established title to submerged lands for oyster culture; the problem was there was no established legal entity here to title them out. So the first shellfisheries were held in common: the important land was adjoining the town center and expanded outward to farms or on rivers for mills. These common shellfishing rights were first reserved for legal “freemen” town electors, then residents. Common rights (similar to rights of way) fell under the jurisdiction of governing bodies or to local selectman. As lands were taken up, title was granted to the “owner” contrary to today, the coastal lands were not that desirable. Brutal winters meant blowing snow and little protection from hills or trees. In summer, swarms of insects made coastal living almost impossible. Native Americans would return to the coast in late august and burn the marshes and eliminate the insects of the later “Indian Summers.” They would harvest conch, soft shell clams, quahogs, bay scallops and oysters in large numbers leaving sometimes enormous shell heaps called “middens.” We can today trace these early clam bakes to coastal remains along Connecticut’s Coast.
As coastal land was deeded, the rights to coastal resources belonged to the riparian land owner and in exchange for the rights to haul a seine or launch a skiff an owner was due 12.5% of the fish catch as “a share” but this was largely negotiable. This did not apply to shellfishing as shellfish was harvested from boats, so no need to use or cross private land. The right to fish extended out from shore into the Sound and this included the setting of fish traps. Again these were structural and such rights belonged to the landowner. Rights to herring runs were sometimes put out to public bidding, but the successful bidder had to maintain the run, (also similar to bridge toll franchises) Alewife runs which often went to public bidding and return a portion of the catch to the selectman or public body to be used or sold.
Of course the Native Americans had already utilized the vast shellfish resources. When the first settlers arrived they found them consuming the same types of shellfish known in Europe, oysters, clams and mussels. (Not that much was written about bay scallops, mussels or conch until in the later Colonial period.) Oysters were king, followed up by clams or quahogs, and cockles. Although the Native Americans feasted upon soft shell clams (long clams) we call steamers today, they were mostly fed to pigs or salted for codfish bait. They were not generally consumed as oysters were so plentiful. Soft shells and bay scallops were often shunned until the 1870s.
The Native American name for round or hard clams was Quahog (Quahaug) and also shared a special relationship; Native American’s formed Quahaug shells into tubular beads. Although Danish –German culture had developed trade beads in the 9th and 10th centuries, all reports mention blue and white shell beads made by and valued by Native Americans along Connecticut’s coast. Quahog shells were broken and fashioned into blanks to be smoothed and bored for threading onto natural fiber twine. This has raised some sort of controversy by which method did Native Americans bore such a small diameter hole; it suggests (although not confirmed) that trade with fishers and perhaps Vikings themselves iron pins centuries before were exchanged. As Europe held trade beads as legal tender, Wampum (beads from quahog shell) was quickly incorporated into Colonial currency and wampum was legal “tender” for commerce here (Connecticut) until 1792.
The blue (purple) beads of Quahog shell were much more valuable (as in Europe) and one fathom (six feet) of single thread strand of white beads was worth 10 shillings, but 20 shillings for the blue (purple) beads. The diameter of the shell beads was such that only extremely old Quahog shells (blunts) those that had very thick shells 3/8 inch or more could be used. The commercial aspect of the quahog continues to modern times as represented by its Latin scientific name Mercenaria, mercenaria or ”money, money.”

Colonists soon learned the value of shellfish, as Native Americans often baked shellfish in the fall in open roasts; settlers saw value in keeping them (mostly oysters) alive in cellars packed with moist saw dust or seaweed for the long, cold winters. Native Americans preferred to smoke quahogs on beach grass dried for winter use, but oysters caught in the fall would make it to March or April alive with little care. Stacking them “cup” side down so as to hold the oyster liquor in moist sawdust in cellars became a skill. Oysters became an emergency food supply for the long cold and often brutal New England winters.
Many authors agree that at first little of the shellfish then made it commercial shellfish routes, local supplies sustained the local populations and transportation routes were just so poor. However, by 1750 shellfish was loaded on smacks, small sailboats and sent to New York City, a great advantage was Long Island, a natural breakwater and although the Sound was often treacherous, it was nothing like sailing to Boston the next largest ocean city available market.

According to Lewis Radcliffe (article from Hygeia – The Health Magazine 1938 copyright The American Medical Association) in his article titled “Oyster and Oyster Farming.” The growth of the New Haven oyster grew from an 1835 schooner carrying Virginia oysters arrived too late for the New Haven markets, pg 2.
“To avoid the loss of the cargo, the oysters were dumped overboard in one of the nearby coves. The following fall it was discovered that these oysters had increased at least a third in size and were of most excellent flavor. This incident, which led to the transportation by schooner each spring of hundreds of thousands of bushels of Chesapeake and Jersey oysters for transplanting and marketing the following autumn, represented one of the earliest steps leading to the development of oyster farming in this country.”

Oysters were in great demand, to a lesser extent; quahogs but soft shell, clams bay scallops and mussels were mostly shunned. Lobsters and shad were often delivered to the “back door,” so your neighbors would not know if you were eating them—plentiful, but considered the food of the poor- much different today! Instead, exposed shellfish at low tide were often the food of the poor, an emergency food bank, that of all else you could always dig some clams for supper. As New York City grew and the ethnic makeup broadened, small commercial markets grew for other shellfish species. But the concept of recreational shellfishing would occur largely after the Civil War when summer residents streamed north to escape brutal heat waves that first began in the mid Atlantic states. By 1880 recreational shellfishing was mentioned in US fish commission reports and grew in many shore towns. A detailed paper about natural shellfish beds in eastern CT is found on The Sound School publications directory titled “The natural clam and oyster beds of eastern CT East Haven to Stonington, CT“ and contains reference to summer “shore people” harvesting shellfish on pages 7, 9, 10, and 12. (It is on our Sound School Publications Directory).

Oyster culture however would begin first, a growing Connecticut population soon exhausted river natural oyster beds, and the populations that the first settlers experienced were largely underexploited with the extent of natural recruitment soon depleted. For oysters; the demand for them soon had agricultural attempts, long known in Europe to farm them, no other state would develop such a need for oysters, as commerce or what could be caught naturally was a modified Native American strategy, if it was there we would harvest it; if it wasn’t we would harvest something else. Not so with oysters and Connecticut during some warm climate periods became favorable to grow oysters for commerce as well as food. As early as 1842 coastal land owners were allowed to close off creeks to create an “oyster pond” as long as none of your neighbors complained. Protections were then given to those who planted Southern seed oysters called bedding stock: millions of bushels of seed oysters were soon arriving in Connecticut from the Chesapeake Bay region to grow to legal or commercial size. This protection was only for over season and not permanent like grazing livestock on a common meadow. Constant poaching was once common of imported bedding stock, but most catches by this time had passed subsistence harvesting but now included investment as a crop- the first commercial enterprises we call Aquaculture today.
In 1855, Connecticut law changed to allow towns to set up oyster committees appointed by the local selectmen; such oyster committees had two charges:

1. Set off natural beds, not to be granted; maps on file;

2. Allow up to 2 acres for private designation. If not opposed a title/deed is made available, recorded in land records; permanent ownership protection of “planted” oysters. Many Connecticut towns now contained deeds to two acres for shellfish, these deeds still exist in the local land records.
In 1864 the deeds became taxable as real estate. The importation of Southern Chesapeake Bay seed oysters (under legal protection) which had soared in the 1850s was interrupted by the Civil War. Seed oysters imports resumed after the war, but the 1870s were hard on oyster interests. It was very cold and stormy here then, many oyster beds were simply washed away; oyster companies failed. Oyster interests retreated to the largest harbors. Southern “plants” seed oyster supply greatly diminished – storms washed such oysters off beds and cold temperature froze shallow grow out beds.
The war also disrupted seed and market oyster sales and experiments were under way to produce seed oysters up here long considered too risky, early plants of shell (cultch) did collect seed oysters in large numbers and as the heat increased into the 1890s, so did the oyster sets here.

As the winters now became milder in the 1880s, oyster sets in Long Island Sound greatly improved. The Great Heat 1880-1920 would bring increasingly hot sometimes brutal summers and better oyster sets to an all time record set of 1899. Round clams, (quahogs) now became scarce, (they prefer cold), but long clams soft shells (mya) sets soared and with the heat waves, came an increase of summer visitors.
Although wealthy families from Baltimore and Philadelphia often summered in New England away from the oppressive summer heat long before the 1890s, the heat would bring killing diseases north that were unprecedented and the stream of summer visitors quickly turned into a flood. I can recall talking to Elmer Edwards of Groton’s Shellfish Committee in the 1980s (he was in his 80s) saying that eastern Connecticut summer communities sprang up faster than spring corn. Families in New York City fled into Connecticut shore towns to seek relief from the oppressive heat and disease outbreaks and being more affluent (the poor remained in the cities to face killing heats and disease), they had more time and brought with them a taste for shellfish long neglected -- long clams or to them “steamers”---cooked in large kettles outside on the beach (not to add to the overwhelming kitchen heat) and boiled (steamed) in sea water. By the early 1880s, “summer people” harvesting is mentioned in many federal reports. There was no cost involved as it was a then a free and common fishery, for residents and that included I guess summer “people” and caused some friction between the all year round people and summer visitors. That is also mentioned in the reports -1889 Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 2 to 3 thousand “summer” recreational harvesters frequented the shoreline. I think it was more but many towns did not regulate public fisheries and enforcement was easily avoided. There are just very few good statistics for this period.

In the 1890s

Town oyster committees empowered by state law, granted town grounds out to the middle of Long Island Sound. In 1881, a new law established the state town jurisdiction line, landward towns remained in control outside the line; the state had jurisdiction-- this line continues today.
The most important shellfish areas, bays, coves and rivers remained under town jurisdiction. As the 1880s closed, conflicts came up, towns lost designations, some people were granted the same oyster beds, etc. Reports of summer people harvesting from planted areas (oyster culture) and foggy nights often contained poaching. I’m certain recreational shellfishing increased as summer hotels added clam bakes and shore dinners to menu boards. As people went to these clam bakes, they soon learned that they also could do it themselves. Clamming (soft shell) and torch lighting blue crabs became popular summer activities and were done by mostly young people. Just as leisure recreational fishery, shellfishing was done not to provide food for a needed dinner or to be shipped to growing commercial markets like New York City, it was done because it was fun. This no doubt raised some eyebrows from people who needed it as food or a job, but at the same time created markets and labor opportunities themselves. After all, the people who enjoyed shore dinners or clam bakes at summer hotels had to buy them somewhere. It was the local shell fishers who often supplied the local hotels. And oysterng was closed in the summer months (for spawning reasons) and quahogs generally resided in deeper water so the species that grew thick on warm summer flats, accessible at low tide were “steamers” that would be soon the clam of choice and now rising prices. From pig food and codfish bait steamers now was a seasonal “shore” food, and the “summer people” wanted them. Recreational harvesting for them does appear in the 1880s Shellfish literature.

Recreational shellfishing continued to expand as tourist industries continued to flourish; temporary campsites turned into summer cottages, instead of a few weeks to escape the worst summer heat, seasons were now well into the fall, towns often set catch limits and season’s to control harvests, usually by the Boards of Selectmen. However the glory years of oyster harvest 1885-1905 were now over, as the climate turned colder and by the 1930s steamers and oysters retreated back into the deep and protected coves; instead this was the time of quahogs and bay scallops and the recreational equipment changed also.

The 1950s

Quahog tongs soon became common place, and “lookers” with dip nets – glass bottom view boxes for bay scallops; many feel that the scallop view box and dip net evolved from torch lighting blue crabs or the day time spearing winter flounder – I agree. Just as the 1960s plumbers helper to harvest sub tidal soft shells evolved from a much earlier practice of a flounder pounder, a device to pummel soft shell clams (then of little value) below holes cut into salt pond (ice) to attract winter flounder below (they had value) so they could be subject to long handle spears. Scallop “lookers” could be truly a recreational shellfish gear type, the former commercial bay scallop gear was a long handle rake called a push/pull or scallop drags a modified seed oyster hand hauled dredges. In the 1870s a period of great cold and frequent Nor’easters—Greenwich Connecticut was Connecticut’s Bay Scallop Capital. Old relic scallop shells are still found here*.

Recreational fishing picked up after World War II and construction of the turnpike, Route 95. Commercial activity was minimal; the 1950s and 1960s hurricanes eliminated much of the oyster industry in central and eastern Connecticut. Although the Quahog sets after the 1938, 1954 and 1955 hurricane seasons were immense, they occurred in deep water (out of tongs reach) and hydraulic clam dredges were yet to be invented (1958). Recreational shell fishing was established and as the 1960s faded into the 1970s it then rebounded. So did the soft shells, as the heat returned, oyster sets and soft shell clam sets increased also (after 1972-73). With the warmer temperatures duck and geese populations also rebounded and they wintered over as they had a century ago. Warmer water meant a higher bacteria counts and as shellfish populations increased from the colder 1950s and 1960s, but so did water quality concerns. The largest factor would be that bacteria thrived in heat as well as oysters perhaps better! Many towns were unprepared for the quick return of oysters and soft shell clams although some still had oyster ground committees of the last century. As Madison, Guilford, and Groton had (1983) –they were inactive as their primary functions staking out and mapping natural beds or granting deeds to oyster growers no longer existed- oysters and soft shell clams grew everywhere it seemed and people saw the shellfish and wanted to harvest it, other towns had no committees, others had no shellfish regulations at all*. Illegal harvesting increased in shellfishing and seed oyster, fishers called “Natural Growthers” sought to harvest the remaining seed oyster populations now seen as “going to waste” In many towns and documented the wastes to state and federal officials including Guilford. In 1971, the Connecticut Natural Growth Oyster Association overturned Connecticut residency laws providing a new increase in recreational shellfish permit sales. Towns could charge more for non-residents, however.

1980s to Present

Many towns except for a few kept Colonial rights to manage shellfish populations and when local control was challenged over shellfish waste in the 1980s, it was the recreational shell fishers who outnumbered the few commercial operations that remained (less than 20) and spoke about new management programs. In the 1980s, as shellfish populations continued to grow (mostly soft shell and oysters) record waste happened for the lack of relays – shellfish undergo a natural process of purification when relayed to clean water free of bacteria. A need for shellfish management similar to commercial methods was required and recreational shell fishers would now have a voice also at the shellfish management table. Relays (similar to trout stocking) greatly increased interest in recreational shellfishing, towns entered into cooperative agreements with commercial shell fishers (very similar to the earlier bid process for town Alewife fisheries, one bushel for every 10 to the town). Commercial operations moved shellfish from closed areas to open areas for natural bacterial cleansing, recreational shellfish permit sales soared in Madison after oyster relays from 1978 to 1986 Guilford also saw permit sales soar into the hundreds (see appendix).

The role and function of local shellfish commissions also increased dramatically moving into aquaculture experiments, establishing spawner sanctuaries (as commercial operations did a century ago), purchasing seed shellfish, all to enhance recreational shell fisheries at the same time supporting commercial operations – who had the equipment to harvest and relay shellfish for the public. The Guilford Shellfish Commission in Connecticut led the renewed legislative effort and stated that it had never relinquished its shellfish role nor would it. (Sally Richards, Personal Communication). See letter dated January 27, 1986.
Looking back it is the opinion of this author that it was the Guilford recreational shell fishers who went to Hartford to testify that towns should retain local control of shellfisheries that won in 1984. It was a different scenario a century ago instead of grumbling about recreational shell fishers from commercial operators, now recreational shell fishers supported commercial relays, preventing waste and increasing public access and education about a natural renewable resource long a part of Connecticut’s shore history, shellfish.

The increase in awareness and appreciation of this resource has created public shellfish days (Madison) and Shellfish harvest Days in Westport and Branford. Many young people attend these shellfish days and learn about Connecticut’s rich shellfish heritage. In the late 1980s Connecticut designated the oyster as the state shellfish an honor well deserved.
Summary
If the original Guilford planters could return to Guilford today one of the few things they would recognize other the shoreline perhaps would after almost 400 years would be the right to shellfish, as voted by Guilford in December 1754 under local laws.

“The Preservation of Oysters, that they may not be unnecessarily despoiled and destroyed to save public good to prevent such public damage (and) preserve (and) promote the growth of them in this town” (The freemen vote that) “no person export from the town any oysters from the East River beds, under penalty of a shilling per bushel, unless the oysters be called and the dead shells upon which the growing oyster grow be thrown in the river.”

This to my knowledge this is the first oyster cull law in Connecticut.
Guilford most likely has one of the better histories for fish and shellfish rules which many times evolved into state statutes. Madison, originally a part of Guilford still has Guilford’s shellfish rights in Clinton.

1753 - Guilford cull law for oysters – shells returned for reproduction purposes
1766 – Closed oyster season May 1 to September 15, Guilford
1775 – Catch restrictions imposed by Guilford – limit harvests and season
1794-- February 24, Guilford votes to regulate shad fishing in the Hammonasset River, alewife and herring included
1842 – Protects bedding stock plants; state law upheld by Guilford
1855 – Two acres law; two acre deeded for oyster (shellfish culture)
1864 – Taxable in every town designated as pasture land
1879-- Guilford declares East and West Rivers as natural oyster beds.
1881 – State town shellfish Jurisdiction line drawn
1889 – Bureau of labor statistics – list several hundred recreational shell fishers. Some from Westbrook to Guilford, Natural Shellfish beds now described by law
1915 – Natural bed law- re-designation of some natural beds – New Haven
1955 – First mention of Shellfish Commissions – Waterfront/East Lyme special legislation
1972- Town residency requirement overturned – residents of all towns can purchase permits – shoreline towns can charge more for non-residents – See Natural Growth Association vs. Greenwich, CT.
1982 – With massive waste of shellfish legislation is proposed to remove local shellfish jurisdiction to the state Guilford’s concern leads to compromise legislation
1985- Oyster ground committees deleted – Strengthens role of shellfish commissions (Guilford leads in this legislative action – see letter of January 27, 1986).
1987 – New section local Shellfish Management plans should be prepared and periodically undated and submitted to the Commission of Agriculture for review and comment – increase commercial and recreational shellfishing
1987- Shellfish management plans – approved by State Dept of Agriculture Aquaculture Division – Guilford drafted local language
- promotes Shellfish use
- Commercial activities
- Recreational shellfish fisheries.
See Section 26-257 (a) (b) (c)
This act places the responsibility from Selectmen to local shellfish commissions by state statute. This measure is still in place.

Appendix I
Madison history of shellfish permits (Shellfish Commission created 1980)
1974 to 1981 – records for # permits sold not available
1981 – No data oyster relay 1,500 bushels recreational permits five dollars – no number of permits issued
1982 1,200 bushels oyster relay $5 fee – 348 recreational permits sold
1983 125 bushels clams relay
500 bushels oyster relay
235 permits sold $5 fee
1984 400 bushels oyster relay
190 permits sold $5 fee
1985 100 bushels oyster relay
300 bushels clams relay
157 permits sold $5 fee
1986 70 bushels oysters relay
100 bushels clam quahogs
152 recreational permits sold $10 fee
1987 100 bushels oyster relay
200 bushels clams
67 permits sold $10 fee
1988 150 bushels clams relay
No oyster relay
61 permits sold $10 fee
1989 75 bushels oysters relay
125 bushels clam relay
74 permits sold $10 fee
1990 65 bushels oysters relay
40 bushels clam relay
100 permits sold $10 fee
Source Madison Shellfish Commission Management Plan
1991, copy 7A – Heather Crawford – Connecticut Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, University of Connecticut

Appendix II Climate and Shellfisheries, The Great Heat 1880-1920
Some extent of the recreational shellfishery 1880 to 1920 is found in the historical account: The Poquonnock Bridge Story, Carol W. Kimball, 1984. Here a resort opens and welcomes an eager population to spend time by cool waters 18878, Mystic Press Article, Pg 133.
Bushy Point “consists of a long strip of beach… and a house on the beach has rooms kept clear to accommodate picnic parties and excursionists.”
1892 Bushy Point Pavilion had a dinging room that serves chowder. Clam bakes were provided for excursions

1893 July 4 Bushy Point Resort opens for the season “with a clam bake and shore dinners which are served at noon daily except on Sunday.”
Also, there were “rowboats for rent with fishing gear, bait and crab nets.”

1897 With springtime so warm swimmers were already swimming (Poquonock River) by May 30th and people came for the day wearing bathing suits to eat supper at the shore. The sale of shore dinners increased as added activity repeated at hundreds of locations along Connecticut’s coast offered “shore dinners,” clam bakes and boat rentals for fishing and crabbing. In the 1905s the Blue Crab fisheries were very high and it was a popular activity (many sources).
No doubt the rise in summer communities increased the interest in shellfish and shellfishing activities.

Appendix III Guilford local shellfish regulations
Source of timeline dates:
Guilford information from the Chapter on Shellfish, pg 186-190. History of Guilford and Madison, Connecticut by Bernard Christian Steiner, 1897, reissued by the Guilford Free Library, 1975.

Connecticut State Legislation:
After a decade of complaints about dam construction blocking Salmon and Shad runs (now a fish of value for factory workers); in 1867, the General Assembly creates Fish Commissions to look into the Protection of Shad and Salmon fisheries in the Connecticut River. Issues reports identify dams block passage, recommends “fish ladders” be built to restore runs (1895). A dispute largely between haul seines and fixed traps of the Connecticut River shad fishery goes to the legislature; local rights are extinguished from local towns; state new sets, seasons and gear restrictions, but is quiet towards “fish ladders” over dams.

1913 The Commissioner of Fisheries and Game became the State Board of Fisheries & Game
1971 State Board of Fishers & Game merged into the Department of Environmental Protection
1981 After a decade of complaints by seed oyster harvesters, Connecticut seeks to retain local areas closed to shellfish revert back to the State. An effort to remove local shellfish control is defeated after Guilford testimony.
1986 Legislation strengthens the role of local towns in shellfish management. Guilford rewrites much of local control language.
2011 – DEP and Department of Energy merged to form DEEP, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

Appendix #4
A Connecticut Shellfish History – Bay Scallop Questions

Our shellfish history reflects both habitat conditions and historical, cultural resource values. One of the largest challenges between terrestrial and marine habitat succession is cultural use bias and time. For those who produce agricultural crops, negative habitat conditions are instantly apparent; a killing frost that knocks down apple tree blossoms to the ground or a sudden heavy rain that washes away newly planted seed off fields can be seen immediately after one event. In the marine environment we have few such records. A strong storm may leave shellfish cast-up on the beaches, but only valued species are frequently mentioned. Lobsters and clams most frequently are mentioned after storms in the historical literature but in more recent times bay scallop seed. I am certain other species were cast upon the shore but not valued, perhaps, as just fertilizer. Historical resources are filled with gathering seaweed, for example, for soil replenishments or bedding.

Bay scallops seem to be the most prevalent during cold and storm-filled periods - and most incidences of seed “strandings” occur then. They have huge changes in abundance faster than any other species. I believe a foundation for this lack of understanding about abundance is also time. Our agricultural history is yearly, it does not take 12 years to raise a legal size tomato as it does for lobsters. The few clues we have about marine habitat conditions exist in climate records and fishery statistics. Some agriculture years are better than others - harvests increase and decrease; we know these as annual crop reports. In the marine field historical references include catch and landing statistics reflecting sometimes decades of habitat conditions. The bay scallop is unusual, it can go from almost nothing to huge beds very quickly.

Bay scalloping was great in the 1870s in Greenwich, Connecticut. It was much colder then and at the same time Connecticut farmers’ lost apple trees in the bitter cold; bay scallops off of Greenwich filled boats. When the first settlers came in small boats and observed shellfish, they reported lobsters one fathom in length or oysters the size of a person’s shoe, but what was not reported was the habitat conditions that preceded these observations.

Large lobsters and giant oysters portray a long period of cold – adults could survive but younger ones could not. Cultural factors also need to be considered, biology also. The truth may reflect both – cockles were once esteemed but soft shell clams (long clams) were largely ignored used as animal food or codfish bait. Lobsters are ferocious cannibals, eating their young as anything else within the habitat carrying capacity. It therefore is completely natural to have over time fewer larger lobsters. Perhaps the best species to review in our area is the bay scallop for cold and for heat, oysters.

As Connecticut is subject to large variations in climate, some shellfish resources appear to come and go in long cycles. Biology also could account for fluctuations as well. Quahogs can live to be over 50 years old; they spawn usually every year but set heavy in deeper waters two or three times a century. Oyster sets increase in warm periods and decline during cold.

The shellfish that might provide the best clues to a shellfish habitat history could be the bay scallop. It was a habitat question that Nelson Marshall asked about almost four decades ago. Here is a part of an article titled, “The Unpredictable Bay Scallop” from 1979 taken from a larger article he wrote for the University of Rhode Island’s publication Maritimes.

The Unpredictable Bay Scallop

Nelson Marshall, professor of oceanography and marine affairs
“In the last few years there have been bumper crops of scallops in the coastal ponds of southern Rhode Island. This followed more than a decade when the scallop was a rarity in many of the same ponds. If we understood the reasons for past scarcities and present peak harvests, we could manage this choice shellfish resource more effectively. So let us see what we do know and we do not know – and I am afraid the emphasis will have to be on the latter.

Though the scallop, Aequipecten irradians, returned in some of the coastal ponds in southern New England earlier than in others, and though harvests have been greater at some sites than others, the recovery of bay scallop populations has been a general phenomenon both in Rhode Island and in some of the scallop grounds in eastern Connecticut. While the situation to the east, in the Cape Cod area, has not fully paralleled this pattern of scarcity and recovery, there have been variations in the population there also.

Many of our efforts to understand the ups and downs of scallop population have been in vain, but the fact that the scallop is a highly prolific spawner is one clue to the problem. You might ask: “Isn’t there a contradiction between prolific spawning and years of scarcity?” Not at all. Many marine creatures, and some freshwater and terrestrial animals, are comparably prolific but, in the dynamics of natural systems, there is a rough inverse correlation between numbers of eggs produced and percent survival. If this were not the case we would have an aquatic environment packed with creatures crowding each other out and existing in numbers far beyond the supporting capacity of their habitats, an obvious impossibility. One of nature’s accommodations is for the percent survival for prolific spawners to be low, perhaps a very small fraction of one percent of the eggs produced and fertilized. Put another way: where the protection for survival of eggs and larvae is low, the quantity of fertilized eggs produced is high. And it follows, for the more prolific spawners, that the slightest shift in percent survival of the early stages will make the difference between a very successful and a very poor spawning year.

When the members of a species live several years and spawn each year, as do quahogs for example, we find that, though percent survival may repeatedly be poor, an occasional good year helps to maintain the stock. But the life cycle of the bay scallop is only about 18 months and it spawns only once in its lifetime. Accordingly, if percent survival is almost nil in any given year, the next generation will be minimal and, since there is almost no carry-over adult population, it may take time for the population to rebuild.
This simple insight into spawning dynamics is basic to understanding populations of marine organisms. Fluctuations are the norm rather than the exception and population continuity can only be expected where some life-cycle accommodation, such as the successive spawning of many individuals, tends to assure the continued presence of large numbers of the species.

The realization that fluctuations in the scallop populations are to be expected does not tell us, however, why we experienced so many years with very low scallop crops. We really do not understand why this prolific spawner failed to show a breakthrough in the survival of its spawn for so many years. Nor do we understand what happened more recently to reverse this trend.

It was thought that environmental forces might have been a cause of the population decline. Scallops fared quite well during the years when there was a blight that kept eelgrass from growing in our estuarine shallows and they were less abundant when the eelgrass recovered, so eelgrass was considered a possible culprit. Scallops grow very fast and need a lot of food; this may be supplied as plankton in the passing currents and, if thick stands of eelgrass are present, the food-bearing currents inevitably decrease close to the bottom where the scallops live. Such reasoning prompted some workers to clear the eelgrass from experimental tracts and the population recovery was impressive, but recovery was equally impressive in a number of places where eelgrass was not cleared away.”

Bay Scallops in local Connecticut histories appear to be abundant during the coldest and stormiest periods. They live about 30 months, 6 months after spawning at about 24 months. The hibernation period is marked by a raised growth ring in its shell. This extended period of life – with large mortalities after spawning provides no biological purpose, in fact competes with one-year-old seed for food. Most biologists here wondered why this extended life occurs after spawning and shellfishers often report at times a second growth ring.

In the late 1970s I was given about 20 large bay scallop shells caught in the Niantic Bay (River) area by a retired bay scalloper (1945 to 1955). They clearly had a second raised growth ring. It was colder during this period. The answer to this biological puzzle may be in fact it was not cold enough- a delayed hibernation had used up the scallops “biological clock” before it had a chance to spawn “twice”.
Production statistics from the Poquonock River (Groton) and the Niantic River Fishery, East Lyme / Waterford follow colder periods – an example-- the Poquonock River, Groton was a substantial producer of bay scallops – during the colder 1950s and 1960s. In the recent heat, bay scallop fisheries have declined in CT and even in more northern areas.

The single reason that after one spring (one raised growth ring) scallops continue to ripen in preparation of a second spawning but only a few survive to accomplish it. I has been a question that has plagued shellfish biologists and Guttsell (1931) reviewing Beldings research in 1910 reports that:
“Only a few survived to 2 years and a second spawning, this was the more remarkable because in all uses noted, the development of sexual products (gonad development – T. Visein) in preparation for second spawning began and continued normally until death intervened (biological clock- T.Visel). This suggests not death from old age but from some pathological factor. A few survived to a second spawning and even to an age of 30 months.”

I propose that the relationship of temperature and perhaps length and severity of hibernation period guided a genetic habitat clock – that the bay scallop simply ran out of biological time governed by a much colder time period, even back to the Ice Age. Its relationship to colder – even extreme cold is clear in the landing statistics and induces a bias to our own habitat comfort zone. We would conclude that a less harsh environment (warmer) (less storms) for us would naturally be extended to other organisms. The truth is bay scallops need cold, perhaps extreme cold to spawn twice. The fisheries records often include statements that explain this bias; fishery managers often express surprise or shock at the return of “bay scallops” during stormy and bitter cold winters. Such report is found in the Rhode Island natural shellfish literature.

If the genetic link to a habitat clock is confirmed bay scallop, could be some on important climate indicator of cold by presence of a second raised growth ring in buried shell middens left by the Native Americans.

Several research projects are looking into that currently.

And if cold was good for bay scallops just the opposite it appears for oysters, up to a point. Shallow areas would heat up first and hold it. Sets for oysters increased beyond 1880 with the warming, but by 1889, some areas were too “hot.” One of which was Quiambaug Cove in Stonington, Connecticut. The warming temperatures allowed oysters to grow into new habitat areas with culture interaction, especially the planting of seed oysters.

In time as the temperature increased, these shallow coves became very hot and nutrient enhanced. Vegetation is a frequent mention. As the temperature increased to 1898, extremely hot temperatures gave rise to the black water deaths especially in shallow, poorly flush bays and coves.

By 1898 it was extremely hot in New England. Oyster sets improved but sudden rainstorms could wash nitrogen (mostly organic forms) into bays in which it would rot, reducing oxygen levels to very low levels. This was written by A.D. Mead of Brown University (Science Magazine, November 18, 1898) and detailed again by Dr. Scott Nixon (Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 135, p. 429-447, 1988) almost a century later. This huge die-off was proceeded by heavy rains and eliminated most of the lobster population in upper Narragansett Bay.

Below are two other examples that refer to very similar habitat conditions, again about a century apart – very similar habitat observations.

New London, The Day, November 11, 1889
Quambaug Oysters
____________________
Fresh Water and a Hybrid Plant Has Destroyed Many Bivalves

Mystic Bridge, Nov. 11 – “The oyster crop in Quambaug Cove this year is nearly a total failure. Of some 4000 to 5000 bushel of seed oysters planted last spring a good part are dead and the rest are very poor and watery, with the exception of a few that have been taken up and transplanted near the shore and which are in fair condition. The main trouble, as far as can be learned, is caused by a cabbage like plant* (as the growers term it), which grows over and entirely, covers the beds. It is also said the trouble is in part caused by the unusual amount of fresh water that has flowed into the cove the past spring and summer. A well known Norwich oyster grower by the name of Church put in some 1200 to 1500 bushels of seed last spring. Despairing of their even fattening he came down about a week ago, dug up the whole lot and sorted them over. About half of them were dead. Church carried the remainder to Norwich and transplanted them, with the hope of their fattening up in time for market.

The first oysters ever grown in the cove were put in by one Horton 10 years ago. Not long after, he transferred his bed to Elias Davis, who in turn transferred it to one Price who increased the bed and sold the oysters around the country. Their general excellence soon gained for them a widespread reputation, causing other beds to be taken year by year until at the present time nearly all of the available space is occupied. The beds for the most part are owned by residents thereabouts but several large beds are owned by well-known oystermen. The oysters have thrived wonderfully and increased year by year up to the present time.”

*Suspected to be sea lettuce (Ulva lactura)
In the historical shellfish literature you frequently see similar habitat observations. The sea cabbage description mentioned in 1889 would sound very familiar to John Hammond’s observations in Wellfleet almost a century later. This is his December, 1978 letter describing very similar conditions:

J. C. HAMMOND
PLANTER AND WHOLESALE DEALER IN
CHATHAM OYSTERS
CHATHAM, MASS 02633
“Home of the Pedigreed Oysters”
106 Main Street December 31, 1978
Mr. Robert Wallace
Wellfleet Shellfish Warden
Wellfleet, Mass.

Dear Mr. Wallace:
Thank you for your time in talking with Mr. John Richards and myself last Friday. I had wanted to meet you and also to inquire about a report by Mr. Richard Nelson of the Cotuit Oyster Co. that Wellfleet was having a high mortality in its oyster crop.

After talking with you and also with Mr. Howard Snow relative to the oyster mortality I have come to the following conclusions:

Because of an extremely heavy growth of the Green Algae, Ulva lactuca, (Sea Lettuce), oysters at Wellfleet were smothered and particularly those of large size, which because of their larger size may have come in more direct contact with the weed which laid heavily upon them. All shellfish such as clams, oysters, scallops and mussels, require a considerable amount of oxygen to sustain life and when dissolved oxygen is absent in the water shellfish soon die.

The next question is – Why is Wellfleet experiencing such a luxuriant growth of this weed?
Ulva and similar algae are stimulated by the presence of additional nitrogen compounds. Nitrogen is scarce in sea water. For this reason, Ulva and its relatives are often found in particular abundance at locations of moderate pollution. Mr. Snow informed me that pollution is entering your harbor from Duck Creek. Are there any other sources? Leakage from storm sewers, cesspool seepage, and agricultural runoff would favor the growth of Ulva.

One of the best known cases of this kind occurred on Long Island some years ago when nutrients from various duck farmers entered Great South Bay causing excessive vegetative growth that put the oyster industry out of business there.

It appears that it would be well for you to make a thorough investigation of any sources of pollution into Wellfleet harbor.

If you can get pollution stopped by yourself, I urge you to do it. Otherwise the whole Wellfleet Harbor may be quarantined by the State Environmental Health Department.
Yours for less Ulva and more Ostrea virginica.