Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T15:35:03.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saving the Fisherman as Well as the Fish: Conservation and Commercial Rivalry in Maine's Lobster Industry, 1872–1933

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Richard W. Judd
Richard W. Judd
Affiliation:
Richard W. Judd is assistant professor of history at theUniversity of Maine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historians of Progressive Era conservation measures have focused on the efforts of government resource experts to free environmental management decisions from special-interest groups. Professor Judd argues that this emphasis has obscured the importance of economic factions in securing conservation legislation reflecting their various interests. His examination of Maine's ongoing efforts to manage its lobster industry demonstrates that scientific conservation codes received legislative sanction only when they could be made to conform to the commercial needs of the industry's competing groups.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 62 , Special Issue 4: Resource-Based Industries , Winter 1988 , pp. 596 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McEvoy, Arthur F., The Fisherman's Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850–1980 (New York, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooley, Richard A., Politics and Conservation: The Decline of the Alaska Salmon (New York, 1963)Google Scholar. For an overview of history and management theory, see McEvoy, , “Law, Public Policy, and Industrialization in the California Fisheries, 1900–1925,” Business History Review 57 (Winter 1983): 494–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ackerman, Edward A., New England's Fishing Industry (Chicago, Ill., 1941), 43Google Scholar. See also Dewar, Margaret E., Industry in Trouble: The Federal Government and the New England Fisheries (Philadelphia, Pa., 1983), 20, 134–35Google Scholar.

3 Hays, Samuel P., Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920 ([1959]; New York, 1980), 1–2, 23–27Google Scholar; Koppes, Clayton R., “Efficiency/Equity/Esthetics: Towards a Reinterpretation of American Conservation,” Environmental Review 11 (Summer 1987): 129–30Google Scholar; Arthur F. McEvoy, “Toward an Interactive Theory of Nature and Culture: Ecology, Production, and Cognition in the California Fishing Industry,” ibid.: 295.

4 Hardin, Garrett, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162 (13 Dec. 1968): 1243–48Google ScholarPubMed. See also McEvoy, “Toward an Interactive Theory of Nature and Culture.”

5 Acheson, James M., “The Lobster Fiefs: Economic and Ecological Effects of Territoriality in the Maine Lobster Industry,” Human Ecology 3 (1975): 183–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McEvoy, “Toward an Interactive Theory of Nature and Culture,” 290; Cheung, Steven N. S., “The Structure of a Contract and the Theory of a Non-Exclusive Resource,” Journal of Law and Economics 13 (April 1970): 54–55Google Scholar.

6 McEvoy, Fisherman's Problem, 9–11; Cooley, Politics and Conservation, 58. See also Christy, Francis T. Jr., and Scott, Anthony, The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries: Some Problems of Growth and Economic Allocation (Baltimore, Md., 1965), esp. p. 9Google Scholar: “Eventually, the fishery may arrive at an equilibrium of population and effort, which is likely to be marked by a relatively large amount of [fishing] effort, a low population, and a low sustainable yield.”

7 McEvoy, “Toward an Interactive Theory of Nature and Culture.”

8 McEvoy, Fisherman's Problem; Cooley, Politics and Conservation; McEvoy, “Toward and Interactive Theory of Nature and Culture,” 295.

9 Bird, Elizabeth Ann R., “The Social Construction of Nature: Theoretical Approaches to the History of Environmental Problems,” Environmental Review 11 (Winter 1987): 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Dewar, Industry in Trouble, 174–80: Anderson, Lee G., The Economics of Fisheries Management (Baltimore, Md., 1977)Google Scholar, chap. 5, “Economic Aspects of Fishery Regulations,” 151–86.

11 Cooley, Politics and Conservation, 200.

12 Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (Chicago, Ill., 1963), 4Google Scholar. On conservation, see pp. 110–11.

13 Maine, Sea and Shore Fisheries Commission [hereafter, SSF] Biennial Report, 1903–1904 (Augusta, Me., 1904); Goode, George Brown, The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1887), 2:24Google Scholar; Industrial Journal (Bangor, Me.) 25 Nov. 1887Google Scholar. For an overview of early lobster fishing in Maine, see Martin, Kenneth R. and Lipfert, Nathan R., Lobstering and the Maine Coast (Bath, Me., 1985), 9–29Google Scholar.

14 John N. Cobb, “The Lobster Fishery of Maine,” Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission (1889): 250–52; Goode, , Fisheries and Fishery Industries, 2:24Google Scholar; SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 45; Bishop, W. H., Fish and Men in the Maine Islands (New York, 1885)Google Scholar; Chase, S. M., “Lobsterman's Island,” Scribner's Magazine 46 (July 1909): 1–11Google Scholar.

15 Dow, Robert L., The Story of the Maine Lobster (Augusta, Me., 1949), 5–6Google Scholar.

16 SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 40; Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 31–33; Cobb, Lobster Fishery, 256.

17 I thank Nathan R. Lipfert for making available a typewritten chronology of Maine's lobster legislation. On rising conservation concern in the 1870s, see Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 43.

18 Industrial Journal, 5 Sept. 1884, 17 Dec. 1886; Rathburn, Richard, “Notes on the Decrease of Lobster,” Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 4 (1884): 421–26Google Scholar.

19 Industrial Journal, 17 Dec. 1886; Cobb, “Lobster Fishery,” 250; Maine, Bureau of Industrial and Labor Statistics, Annual Report, 1887 (Augusta, Me., 1887), 116Google Scholar; Maddocks, Luther, “Looking Backward: Memories from the Life of Luther Maddocks,” typescript, p. 4, Special Collections Department, Fogler Library, University of MaineGoogle Scholar; McLoon, Albert C., “Rockland's Lobster Industry,” Board of Trade Journal (Portland, Me.), 22 (Sept. 1909): 227–39Google Scholar.

20 Industrial Journal, 17 Dec. 1886; SSF, Biennial Report, 1917–1918,18; Republican Journal (Belfast, Me.), 15 Feb. 1883Google Scholar; Robert L. Dow, “Maine Has Been Trying to Manage Her Lobsters for Over 3 Centuries,” National Fisherman reprint, State Documents, box 42, Fogler Library.

21 Republican Journal, 8 Feb. 1883; Cobb, “Lobster Fishery,” 258; Myers, Edward H., “The Law of the Lobster,” New England Galaxy 4 (Spring 1963): 16Google Scholar.

22 Cobb, “Lobster Fishery,” 246, 253; Industrial Journal, Nov. 1901, 18.

23 SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 37; ibid., 1905–1906, 29. The development of steam-powered smacks to freight lobsters to other points along the seaboard was another factor in the expansion of fresh-fish markets. See Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 57, 59.

24 Cobb, “Lobster Fishery,” 255; SSF, Annual Report, 1898, 15; SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 46; Industrial Journal, 11 Nov. 1898. For a brief history of pounds, see Dow, Robert L., Harrington, Donald M., and Scattergood, Leslie W., “The Role of Holding Pounds in the Maine Lobster Industry,” Commercial Fisheries Review 21 (May 1959): 4–11Google Scholar.

25 Industrial Journal, 17 Dec. 1886, 18 Feb. 1887, 1 Feb. 1889; Republican Journal, 8 Feb. 1883. Pounds were indeed destructive, given the vulnerability of lobsters to cannibalism, overcrowding, pollution, and disease in confined areas. See Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 57.

26 Industrial Journal, 1 Feb. 1889.

27 Petitions endorsing some means of manipulating the law to protect the canning industry and to extend the closed time into the tourist season came from Southwest Harbor, Jonesport, Tremont, Seal Cove, Goldsboro and vicinity, Milbridge and vicinity, Brooklin, and Sedgwick. These villages lie east of the Penobscot. Petitions that supported the ten-and-a-half-inch law came from Lewiston, Biddeford Pool, Cushing, Friendship, Bremen, Monhegan Island, South Bristol, Portland, Cape Elizabeth/Chebague Island, Vinalhaven, Orrs Island, Phippsburg, and St. George/Port Clyde. These ports are west of the Penobscot except Lewiston (which is inland) and Vinalhaven (which possibly was tied to the Bar Harbor tourist industry). Petitions are in the legislative graveyard, Maine State Archives [hereafter, MSA], Augusta, chap. 128, 1883, box 597.

28 SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 39; ibid., 1891–1892, 22–25; Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 16.

29 Industrial Journal, 25 Nov. 1887. For statistics on the landings of Maine lobsters, units of gear, value, and average price per pound since 1880, see Dow, Story of the Maine Lobster.

30 McLoon, “Rockland's Lobster Industry.”

31 Complaints from lobster fishermen recorded in Industrial Journal, 25 Nov. 1887.

32 SSF, Biennial Report, 1917–1918, 29–30; Maine Sportsman (Bangor, Maine), July 1894, 14Google Scholar.

33 Board of Trade Journal, 14 (Sept. 1901): 144Google Scholar.

34 Industrial Journal, 20 Feb. 1891; Governor Milliken, Carl E., Annual Address (Augusta, Me., 1917), 13Google Scholar; Board of Trade Journal 20 (Oct. 1907): 284–85Google Scholar; Maine Sportsman, April 1894, 12; SSF, Annual Report, 1902, 21.

35 SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 33; ibid., 1905–1906, 19; ibid., 1917–1918, 30; Smith, Hugh M., Report of the Special Commission for the Investigation of the Lobster and Soft-Shell Clam, U.S. Fisheries Bureau Report, 1903 (Washington, D.C., 1905), 142Google Scholar.

36 Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics, Annual Report, 1887, 112.

37 Acheson, “Lobster Fiefs"; Acheson, , “Territories of the Lobstermen,” Natural History 81 (April 1972); 60–69Google Scholar.

38 SSF, Biennial Report, 1893–1894, 35; ibid., 1907–1908, 18.

39 Middleton, P. Harvey, “Saving the American Lobster,” Scientific American 101 (16 Oct. 1909): 277–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, Clyde C., “A Review of Lobster Rearing in Maine,” Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries Research Bulletin No. 5a (Boothbay Harbor, Me., 1950), 4–5Google Scholar.

40 Industrial Journal, 7 Sept. 1900; SSF, Annual Report, 1896, 20–21; Smith, Lobster and Soft-Shell Clam, 143–44; Cobb, “Lobster Fishery,” 241.

41 Taylor, “Review of Lobster Rearing”; Dow, “Maine Has Been Trying to Manage”; SSF, Biennial Report, 1903–1904, 10; ibid., 1907–1908, 19; ibid., 1911–1912, 17–18; Weekly Kennebec Journal (Augusta, Me.), 10 June 1908Google Scholar; Industrial Journal, Nov. 1901, 18; “Artificial Propagation of Lobsters,” Scientific American 91 (1 Oct. 1904); 233–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knight, A. P., “Lobster Mating: A Means of Conserving the Lobster Industry,” Science 44 (8 Dec. 1916): 828–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

42 McLoon, “Rockland's Lobster Industry,” 231; Dow, “Maine Has Been Trying to Manage.”

43 Herrick, Francis H., “The American Lobster: A Study of Its Habits and Development,” U.S. Fish Commission, Bulletin 15 (1895): 1–252Google Scholar. See also Herrick, , Natural History of the American Lobster (Washington, D.C., 1911)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Field, G. W., “Biological Basis of Legislation Governing the Lobster Industry: Abstract,” Science, n.s. 15 (18 April 1902): 612–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The report was published orginally in the Massachusetts Commissioners of Fisheries and Game annual report for 1901.

45 Ibid.

46 Herrick, F. H., “Effective Protection for the Lobster Fishery,” Science, n.s. 23 (27 April 1906): 650–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

47 Field, “Biological Basis of Legislation”; Herrick, “Effective Production.”

48 Board of Trade Journal 20 (Oct. 1907): 284–85Google Scholar; SSF, Biennial Beport, 1913–1914, 15.

49 Industrial Journal, 1 March 1889.

50 Machias Union, 14 March 1905.

51 Maine, Legislative Record, Senate, 20 March 1905, 695.

52 Ibid.; Board of Trade Journal 29 (Jan. 1917): 223Google Scholar; Legislative Record, Senate, 3 April 1917. For a review of the resort industry in Maine, see Wescott, Richard, “Economic, Social, and Governmental Aspects of the Development of Maine's Vacation Industry, 1850–1920” (M.A. thesis. University of Maine, Orono, 1959)Google Scholar.

53 Legislative Record, Senate, 20 March 1905, 696; Eastern Argus (Portland, Me.), 13 Jan. 1909Google Scholar.

54 Governor Haines, William T., Annual Address (Augusta, Me., 1913), 8Google Scholar; Legislative Record, Senate, 22 March 1905, 769.

55 Legislative Record, House, 29 March 1917, 1044, 1051, 1053; Senate, 3 April 1917, 1182, 1189, 1055.

56 Ibid., House, 29 March 1917, 1055; 2 April 1919, 1146.

57 Ibid., Senate, 3 April 1917, 1188–89; House, 2 April 1919, 1146.

58 Ibid., House, 29 March 1917, 1055, 1049, 1052; Senate, 3 April 1917, 1192, 1092; 18 March 1921, 577.

59 Ibid., House, 29 March 1917, 1050–51, 1057; Senate, 3 April 1917, 1181, 1195.

60 Ibid., House, 31 March 1921, 881, 883; Senate, 31 March 1921, 837–38; House, 28 March 1923, 813; SSF, Biennial Report, 1922–1923, 14–15.

61 Legislative Record, House, 28 March 1923, 811; House, 11 March 1925; SSF, Biennial Report, 1917–1918, 34; Walter H. Donnell to Horatio Crie, n.d. [c. March 1932]; Donnell to Crie, 17 March 1932, SSF early correspondence, MSA [hereafter, SSF-MSA], box 3; R. T. Henderson to Crie, 8 April 1932, SSF-MSA, box 4.

62 Legislative Record, House, 31 March 1921, 881; 11 March 1925, 350; Portland Evening News, 31 March 1928.

63 For correspondence that sheds light on the duties of the wardens, see C. S. Beale to Horatio Crie, n.d. [c. May 1931], 19 Sept. 1931, n.d. [c. Feb. 1932], 19 June 1932, and Crie to Beale, 14 Dec. 1931, SSF-MSA, box 2.

64 W. A. Eastman to Horatio Crie, 14 June 1932; Elmer Donnell to Crie, 1 July 1932, SSF-MSA, box 3.

65 Eastman to Crie, 14 June 1932.

66 R. T. Henderson to Horatio Crie, 2 June 1932, SSF-MSA, box 4. On “territoriality,” see Acheson, “Territories of the Lobstermen,” and Acheson, “The Lobster Fiefs.”

67 Samuel Jones to Horatio Crie, 24 May 1931, SSF-MSA, box 4.

68 Fred F. Craine to Horatio Crie, 28 Aug. 1930; Legislative Record, House, 9 March 1933, 447, 452; SSF, Biennial Report, 1932–1933, 5; Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 77.

69 John W. Titcomb to Horatio Crie, 8 Dec. 1931, box 3; Crie to Mr. and Mrs. F. W. Ames, 19 Dec. 1931, box 1; George O. Beal to Crie, 18 Jan. 1932, box 2, SSF-MSA.

70 Llewellyn E. Crowley to Horatio Crie, 4 Feb. 1931, box 3, SSF-MSA; Legislative Record, Senate, 10 March 1933, 468.

71 C. S. Beale to Horatio Crie, 27 Aug. 1933, box 2, SSF-MSA; Legislative Record, House, 9 March 1933, 447.

72 Vernon L. Gould to Horatio Crie, 16 Feb. 1931, box 3; C. S. Beale to Crie, 19 Sept. 1931, box 2; M. D. Gatt to Crie, n.d. [c. Nov. 1931], box 3; Crie to Senator Frederick Hale, 13 Jan. 1932, box 4; Beale to Crie, 19 Oct. 1932, box 2; Alvin Beal to Crie, 18 Aug. 1933, box 2; Eastport Sentinel, 4 Jan. 1933; Crie MS for proposed article, typescript, n.d., box 3, SSF-MSA.

73 Henry H. Y. Brownwell to Horatio Crie, 1 July 1931, box 2; Crie to W. T. Gardner, 4 Jan. 1932, box 3; Esten L. Beal to Crie, 8 Feb. 1932, box 2; Alton Dobbin to Franklin D. Roosevelt (copy), 17 March 1933, box 3; George O. Beal to Crie. 2 May 1933, box 2.

74 Eastport Sentinel, 4 Jan. 1933.

75 Ibid.; Legislative Record, House, 16 Dec. 1933 (special session), 196–97; Horatio Crie to Howard Burdick, 18 Dec. 1933, box 2; C. E. Pennard (Bernham & Morrill Company) to Crie, 11 June 1934, box 2, SSF-MSA.

76 Horatio Crie to Benjamin F. Young, 25 Jan. 1933, box 4, SSF-MSA; Kennehec Journal, 19 Jan. 1933.

77 Legislative Record, House, 9 March 1933, 455; Senate, 10 March 1933, 468, 470; House, 17 March 1933, 579; Senate, 22 March 1933, 687.

78 “The Fisherman's View of Proposed Legislation,” typescript, 23 Feb. 1933, vertical file, “Lobsters,” Maine Legislative and Law Library, Augusta, Me.

79 F. M. Jasper to Horatio Crie, 31 Dec. 1932, with clipping, box 4; C. S. Beale to Crie, 11 March 1933, box 2; Will Grindle to Crie, 24 Nov. 1933, box 3; Llewellyn Crowley to Crie, 1 Dec. 1933, box 3; Alton F. Dobbin to Crie, 13 Dec. 1933, box 3; Clarence Goldthwaite to Crie, 22 Dec. 1933, box 3, SSF-MSA.

80 Horatio Crie to Llewellyn Crowley, 16 Dec. 1933, box 3, SSF-MSA.

81 Legislative Record, House, 15 Dec. 1933 (special session), 152; House, 16 Dec. 1933, 197, 199.

82 Townsend, Ralph E., “Some Economic Issues in the Management of Maine's Shellfish Resources” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1933), 58Google Scholar.

83 James M. Acheson, Robert Boyer, and Peter Daniels, “The Political Use of Scientific Information in the Maine Lobster Fishery,” typescript, 13, courtesy of James Acheson.

84 Robert L. Dow, “Changes in the Abundance of the Maine Lobster Resource with Sea Temperature Fluctuations and Increases in Fishing Effort,” typescript, 1971, Fogler Library; Dow, , “Supply, Sustained Yield, and Management of the Maine Lobster Resource,” Commercial Fisheries Review 28 (Nov. 1964): 19–26Google Scholar (supplement); Dow, , “Some Nonbiological Problems of Lobster Culture,” typescript, 1974, Department of Marine Resources, Augusta, Me.Google Scholar.

85 Acheson, Boyer, and Daniels, “Political Use of Scientific Information,” 13.

86 Dow, “Supply, Sustained Yield, and Management of the Maine Lobster Resource,” 22; Martin and Lipfert, Lobstering and the Maine Coast, 107; Dow, “Maine Has Been Trying to Manage”; Acheson, Boyer, and Daniels, “Political Use of Scientific Information,” 7.

87 Acheson, Boyer, and Daniels, “Political Use of Scientific Information,” 2, 6, 16, 21.

88 North, Douglass C., Anderson, Terry L., and Hill, Peter J., Growth and Welfare in the American Past: A New Economic History, 3d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1983)Google Scholar, chap. 13, “The Destabilizing Nature of Growth,” 143–48.