A history of Quahoging in Eastern North America: Part II, History by Province and State

Abstract

The northern quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the Atlantic Coast of North America from the Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while the southern quahog, M. campechiensis, ranges mostly from Florida to southern Mexico. The northern quahog was fished by native North Americans during prehistoric periods. They used the meats as food and the shells as scrapers and as utensils. The European colonists copied the Indians treading method, and they also used short rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians of southern New England and Long Island, N.Y., made wampum from quahog shells, used it for ornaments and sold it to the colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made in small factories for eventual trading with Indians farther west for furs. The quahoging industry has provided people in many coastal communities with a means of earning a livelihood and has given consumers a tasty, wholesome food whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than a dozen methods and types of gear have been used in the last two centuries for harvesting quahogs. They include treading and using various types of rakes and dredges, both of which have undergone continuous improvements in design. Modern dredges are equipped with hydraulic jets and one type has an escalator to bring the quahogs continuously to the boats. In the early 1900’s, most provinces and states established regulations to conserve and maximize yields of their quahog stocks. They include a minimum size, now almost universally a 38-mm shell width, and can include gear limitations and daily quotas. The United States produces far more quahogs than either Canada or Mexico. The leading producer in Canada is Prince Edward Island. In the United States, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead in quahog production in the north, while Virginia and North Carolina lead in the south. Connecticut and Florida were large producers in the 1990’s. The State of Tabasco leads in Mexican production. In the northeastern United States, the bays with large openings, and thus large exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters, have much larger stocks of quahogs and fisheries than bays with small openings and water exchanges. Quahog stocks in certified beds have been enhanced by transplanting stocks to them from stocks in uncertified waters and by planting seed grown in hatcheries, which grew in number from Massachusetts to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Full text

64(3) 1
Introduction
The quahog, Mercenaria spp., rang-
ing from the Canadian Maritimes to
Mexico’s southern State of Campeche,
Quahogs in Eastern North America:
Part II, History by Province and State
CLYDE L. MacKENZIE, Jr., ALLAN MORRISON, DAVID L. TAYLOR,
VICTOR G. BURRELL, Jr., WILLIAM S. ARNOLD,
and ARMANDO T. WAKIDA-KUSUNOKI
has long provided North Americans with
a high quality food and has also been an
important part of the seafood trade and
sociocultural customs. Officially, the
common name “northern quahog” is
listed for Mercenaria mercenaria, which
ranges from New Brunswick, Canada,
into Florida, while “southern quahog”
is given for Mercenaria campechiensis,
ranging mainly from Florida to southeast-
ern Mexico (Turgeon et., 1998). But in
the industry, the term quahog is used from
the Canadian Maritimes through Rhode
Island, while simply clam or hard clam is
used from Connecticut through Texas; in
Mexico, it is the almeja (clam).
The fi rst article (Part I) reviewed the
range, biology, and ecology of quahogs,
gave an historical overview of the indus-
try (including wampum manufacture
and usage and the use of quahogs in
clambakes), and described harvesting
gears and methods. This article (Part II)
summarizes the history of the industry
in specifi c Canadian provinces and U.S.
and Mexican states, describes harvesting
gears and methods (including trips with
typical quahogers and wardens) in more
detail, and discusses quahog enhance-
ment programs. The authors have been
professional observers of quahogs and the
quahog fi shery for many years. A substan-
tial amount of the text material is based
upon these observations and is unanno-
tated. The remaining material is collected
from the literature and is so cited.
Clyde L. MacKenzie, Jr. is with the James J.
Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, North-
east Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, 74 Magruder Road,
Highlands, NJ 07732; Allan Morrison is with the
Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries, and Forestry, P.O. Box 2000, Char-
lottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada; David
L. Taylor is with the Division of Marine Fisher-
ies, North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 769, Morehead
City, NC 28557; Victor G. Burrell, Jr. is with
the Marine Resources Research Institute, South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
Box 12559, Charleston, SC 29422-2559, and
his contribution is number 427 from the South
Carolina Marine Resources Center; William
S. Arnold is with the Florida Marine Research
Institute, Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, 100 Eighth Avenue S.E., St. Petersburg, FL
33701-5095; and Armando Wakida-Kusunoki is
with the National Fisheries Institute, Regional
Center of Fisheries Research of Cd del Carmen,
Ave. Heroes del 21 de Abril S/N, Colonia Playa
Norte, Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico
C.P. 24120. Mention of trade names or commer-
cial fi rms in this paper does not imply endorse-
ment by the National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA.
ABSTRACT — The northern quahog,
Mercenaria mercenaria, ranges along the
Atlantic Coast of North America from the
Canadian Maritimes to Florida, while
the southern quahog, M. campechiensis,
ranges mostly from Florida to southern
Mexico. The northern quahog was fi shed
by native North Americans during prehis-
toric periods. They used the meats as food
and the shells as scrapers and as utensils.
The European colonists copied the Indians
treading method, and they also used short
rakes for harvesting quahogs. The Indians
of southern New England and Long Island,
N.Y., made wampum from quahog shells,
used it for ornaments and sold it to the
colonists, who, in turn, traded it to other
Indians for furs. During the late 1600’s,
1700’s, and 1800’s, wampum was made
in small factories for eventual trading with
Indians farther west for furs.
The quahoging industry has provided
people in many coastal communities with
a means of earning a livelihood and has
given consumers a tasty, wholesome food
whether eaten raw, steamed, cooked in
chowders, or as stuffed quahogs. More than
a dozen methods and types of gear have
been used in the last two centuries for har-
vesting quahogs. They include treading and
using various types of rakes and dredges,
both of which have undergone continuous
improvements in design. Modern dredges
are equipped with hydraulic jets and one
type has an escalator to bring the qua-
hogs continuously to the boats. In the
early 1900’s, most provinces and states
established regulations to conserve and
maximize yields of their quahog stocks.
They include a minimum size, now almost
universally a 38-mm shell width, and can
include gear limitations and daily quotas.
The United States produces far more
quahogs than either Canada or Mexico.
The leading producer in Canada is Prince
Edward Island. In the United States, New
York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island lead
in quahog production in the north, while
Virginia and North Carolina lead in the
south. Connecticut and Florida were
large producers in the 1990’s. The State
of Tabasco leads in Mexican production.
In the northeastern United States, the
bays with large openings, and thus large
exchanges of bay waters with ocean waters,
have much larger stocks of quahogs and
fi sheries than bays with small openings and
water exchanges.
Quahog stocks in certifi ed beds have
been enhanced by transplanting stocks
to them from stocks in uncertifi ed waters
and by planting seed grown in hatcheries,
which grew in number from Massachusetts
to Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Canada
United States
Mexico

2 Marine Fisheries Review
History of Quahoging by Country
Canada
The Canadian Maritime provinces
are at the northern end of the northern
quahog’s range (Fig. 1). The northern-
most location where a commercial
fi shery ever existed was off the town of
Neguac on the north side of Miramichi
Bay, New Brunswick. Except for a short
pulse in the 1950’s, the fi shery for north-
ern quahogs in the Canadian Maritimes
was relatively small until the 1970’s, but
it has since expanded as the demand for
quahogs grew, especially in the United
States which receives 90% of its land-
ings (Jenkins et al., 1997). The fi shery is
concentrated in the southern Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Fishermen harvest quahogs
in inlets around Prince Edward Island
(P.E.I.) and in New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, which border on Northumber-
land Strait. In addition, a new fi shery
in St. Mary’s Bay, an arm of the Bay
of Fundy, in southwestern Nova Scotia
began in 1997.
The initial literature reference found
regarding quahog harvesting in Prince
Edward Island was by MacBride (1912),
1
Daigle, O. Oyster culturist, Richibucto, New
Brunswick, Canada. Personal commun., 1999.
who stated the fishery was of recent
origin. The quahogs were harvested with
rakes having teeth 23 cm long. The qua-
hogs were taken up with lumps of bottom
or “blue mud,” that was shaken out before
the quahogs were removed. The demand
was entirely for half-grown quahogs, be-
cause the “bull” quahogs (chowders) had
a foot deemed too tough to chew. Some
oystermen complained that harvesting
quahogs damaged oyster beds.
The 1950’s pulse in quahog produc-
tion came from the Neguac area and
lasted for about three years (Daigle
1
);
the highest annual landings, about
2,040 t of whole quahogs (=57,000 bu,
or 627,000 lb of meat), were in 1953.
This Neguac stock previously had not
been exploited, but recruitment to it
apparently was low. The fi shermen har-
vested the quahogs by “crawling” (Fig.
2) and removed nearly all the stock.
After the fi shing ended, most remnant
quahogs ultimately died of a disease
(Caddy and Chandler, 1976), later
2
Landry, T. Government of Canada, Fisheries
and Oceans, Moncton, New Brunswick. Personal
commun., 1999.
thought to be QPX (Landry
2
). The area
no longer has a commercial fi shery.
Throughout the late 1950’s, 1960’s,
and 1970’s, annual Maritimes quahog
production remained below 225 t of
shell stock (about 6,300 bu or 70,000 lb
of meat) (Caddy and Chandler, 1976),
but from 1984 through 1997 it fl uctuated
between 500 t (=14,000 bu, or 154,000
lb of meat) and 1,000 t (=28,000 bu, or
308,000 lb of meat). In 1998, production
was 694 t (=19,500 bu, or 215,000 lb of
meat) (Canada Fisheries and Oceans
statistics).
On P.E.I., the most productive quahog
harvesting areas are in the West, North,
Hillsborough, and Vernon Rivers, and
in Percival and Malpeque Bays. In
New Brunswick, they are in Cocagne
and the Shediac Bridge area, while in
Nova Scotia they are in Wallace Har-
bour, Tatamagouche Bay, and Pictou
Harbour. Additional small stocks exist
in little inlets, such as St. Ann’s Bay on
the northeast shore of Cape Breton Island
Figure 1. — Shorelines of Canadian Mari-
time Provinces showing locations men-
tioned in text.
Figure 2. — Harvesting quahogs by
feeling in muddy sediments, Prince
Edward Island, 1998. Photograph by
A. Morrison.

64(3) 3
(Moore
3
). On a limited scale, the stocks
are harvested recreationally.
About 75% of the Maritimes quahogs
currently are landed on P.E.I. by 300–400
fi shermen (Jenkins
4
). The peak harvest-
ing period is from late June to late Sep-
tember when water temperatures range
from 10°–25°C. New Brunswick has
30–50 quahog fishermen, and Nova
Scotia, where quahog harvesting has
been increasing in recent years, has
100–125 quahog fi shermen, of these 25
harvest in contaminated waters on the
Northumberland Strait portion of Nova
Scotia (Gillis
5
) and 30 harvest in St.
Mary’s Bay (McGuire
6
).
No one has identified the quahog
predators in the Maritimes. The likely
predators in the estuaries include mud
crabs (family Xanthidae); rock crabs, C.
irroratus; and starfi sh, A. vulgarus and
A. forbesi.
Government Regulations
Fishermen who harvest quahogs for
sale must possess a license issued by the
Canadian Government. A limited number
of licenses are issued, so new entrants
must obtain a license from a person who
wishes to leave the fi shery.
The only closed season for clean water
harvesting in the Maritimes is in Queen’s
County, P.E.I., where in 1998 the closed
season extended from 1 May to the fi rst
Monday following 15 July. This was an
experimental closure and it was contin-
ued in 1999. The harvesting of quahogs
in contaminated areas for relaying was
allowed in this area during this closed
season. Also in 1999, Sunday and night-
time fi shing was not allowed in Queen’s
County. The minimum lengths that
quahogs can be harvested are 50 mm in
P.E.I., and 38 mm in New Brunswick and
3
Moore, B. Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
Sidney, Nova Scotia, Canada. Personal commun.,
1999.
4
Jenkins, J. Chief, Resource Allocation and De-
velopment, Government of Canada, Fisheries
and Oceans, Charlottetown Prince Edward Is-
land. Personal commun. 1999.
5
Gillis, G. Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
Pictou, Nova Scotia, Canada. Personal commun.,
1999.
6
McGuire, A. Innovative Fisheries Products,
Digby County, Nova Scotia, Canada. Personal
commun., 1999.
Nova Scotia. In some areas, fi shermen
are discouraged from taking chowders
to ensure that adequate spawning stocks
are maintained.
Fishing Methods
Fishermen use four quahog harvesting
methods: 1) “crawling” (hand picking),
2) “stomping” or “tramping” (walking),
3) raking, and 4) tonging. The fi rst three
methods are used on intertidal fl ats and
in wading depths during low tides. Most
effort takes place during large, full-moon
tides when larger and less fi shed areas
are available. The tide level ranges from
0.5–3 m in various locations in the south-
ern Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The most common and productive
method is “crawling,” in which a fi sher-
man, while crawling on hands and knees,
sweeps his hands through the mud to fi nd
quahogs. The method is used in water less
than 0.75 m deep and on intertidal fl ats.
The fi shermen wear gloves and usually
have a container supported by a tire inner
tube for fl otation tied to their bodies for
holding the quahogs.
When crawling in eelgrass beds, the
fi shermen have to wear shirts with long
sleeves to protect their arms from cuts.
Harvesting is easiest in areas covered by
sea lettuce because the quahogs protrude
above the mud-like sediments. Crawlers
do not like to harvest in shelly bottoms
because the shells will cut their gloves.
The most productive fi shermen harvest
up to 5–6 hr and obtain 100 to 200 lb
(1.25–2.5 bu) of quahogs/day when fa-
vorable tides occur.
“Stomping” or ”tramping” involves
fi shermen feeling for quahogs with their
feet while walking over bottoms in water
depths up to 0.75 m or on bare fl ats. They
wear stockings or neoprene booties to
protect their feet from sharp shells. This
method is used on fi rmer and sometimes
sandier bottoms than those where “crawl-
ers” harvest. The quahogs are easier to
locate when the areas are covered with
water than on bare fl ats. When a “stom-
per” fi nds a quahog, he bends over and
picks it up, and, after making sure it is
legal size, places it in a bucket or fl oat-
ing container. “Stompers” harvest about
66% as many quahogs as “crawlers” do
in a day.
Fishermen rake quahogs on intertidal
beaches (Fig. 3). The rakes are 15–25
cm wide and are either homemade or
modifi ed garden rakes. The raking is done
mostly in fi rm sand and clay bottoms,
often close to shore, but sometimes in
rocky areas where other methods are not
used. Fishermen stand and rake through
the sediments. Raking in water is not ef-
fective because the quahogs are diffi cult
to locate in the silty water stirred up by
the rake. Some crawlers use rakes if they
are in an area of abundant quahogs where
a rake is the only suitable method (Gay
7
).
Rakers usually harvest about half as many
quahogs as the “crawlers,” because their
time available per tide is shorter.
Fishermen tong quahogs where water
depths range from 0.5 to 4 m (Fig. 4).
Bottoms with shells produce the most
quahogs. The fi shermen tong from dories
4.5 to 5 m long and propelled by 10–35
hp outboard motors. The dories have
tonging boards in their bows for culling
and measuring shellfi sh. Their anchor
lines are looped around hooks on the cull-
ing boards to allow easy adjustment of
their lengths. From 30 to 40 tongers work
in the 3 provinces in any given summer
day, and each tonger harvests 100–250
lb (1.25–3 bu) of quahogs/day.
In some areas of Prince Edward Island,
fi shermen who possess a clam license
also harvest some quahogs in their tongs
while harvesting oysters during the oyster
season, which runs from 1 May to 15
July and 15 September to 30 November.
The quahog bycatch is relatively small
and varies in size among areas. At least
half the Maritimes’ quahog landings are
harvested by “crawlers,” while tongers
harvest the least amounts. Raking and
“stomping” together account for less
than a third of the total.
St. Mary’s Bay Fishery
In 1997, a new quahog fi shery in St.
Mary’s Bay supported about 30 fi sher-
men, most all of whom were experienced
softshell clammers. They used modifi ed
4–5 tine clam rakes (hacks) with short
handles for harvesting quahogs. Tides
in this area rise and fall an average of
7
Gay, R. Fisherman, Pownal, Prince Edward
Island, Canada. Personal commun., 1999.

4 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 3. — Harvesting northern quahogs with a rake, Prince
Edward Island, 1998. Photograph by A. Morrison.
Figure 4. — Harvesting eastern oysters, Crassostrea virgin-
ica, and northern quahogs with tongs, Prince Edward Island,
1998. Photograph by A. Morrison.
about 6 m, exposing tidal fl ats that may
extend as far as 1.5 km from shore. The
fi shermen travel to the quahog grounds
using vehicles called “four wheelers.” At
times during the summer, the fi shermen
can harvest during both the morning
and afternoon low tides. Each harvests
about 220 lb (2.75 bu) of quahogs/tide
(McGuire
6
). St. Mary’s Bay is closed to
direct harvesting for market due to bacte-
rial contamination, and so the quahogs
have to be depurated in the Maritimes’
only on-shore depuration facility, located
in Digby County, N.S.
Quahog Dealers
Fishermen sell their quahogs to shell-
fi sh dealers, who also handle oysters;
softshells, Mya arenaria; blue mussels,
Mytilus edulis; and surfclams, Spisula
solidissima. P.E.I. has about eight shell-
fi sh dealers who handle quahogs, New
Brunswick has two, and Nova Scotia has
four including the depuration plant in
Digby County. The P.E.I. dealers recently
began buying quahogs by the piece rather
than by weight, because they were sell-
ing them by the piece. Dealing by weight
became awkward because quahogs from
different areas and bottom types vary in
weight depending on their shell thickness
and shape (Fortune
8
). In 1998, P.E.I.
dealers paid per piece Can$0.20–0.24
for small, $0.17–0.19 for medium, and
$0.08–0.10 for large quahogs. In New
Brunswick, dealers paid about Can
$1.35/lb for small, $0.65/lb for medium,
and $0.15/lb for large quahogs. The
fi shermen truck their quahogs from the
shores to the dealers’ plants. Some fi sher-
men pay other quahogers Can$1.00/bu to
deliver them.
Dealers who relay contaminated
quahogs must hold them for a minimum
of 14 days on an approved clean-water
lease for depuration before marketing
them. Many quahogs harvested from
closed areas in Nova Scotia are relayed
to P.E.I. for depuration. Before being
marketed, relayed quahogs must be
tested for bacterial contamination by an
approved laboratory, such as the Food
Technology Center in Charlottetown,
P.E.I. New Brunswick does not have
a fi shery for quahogs in contaminated
waters. Most quahogs are taken to
8
Fortune, B. Canadian Cove Shellfi sheries,
Orwell Cove, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Personal commun., 1999.

64(3) 5
the United States in temperature-con-
trolled trucks, and they have a 30-day
shelf-life.
Recreational Fishery
Throughout their range in shallow
waters in the Maritimes, quahogs are
harvested by tourists and local people
for home use, though softshells and
surfclams are more popular with the
recreationalists. A license is not required
by recreational clammers, but a person
cannot possess more than 50–100 qua-
hogs depending on the location. The qua-
hogs are gathered by “stomping,” raking,
or digging with forks or shovels. Quahogs
harvested by recreational harvesters are
not included in offi cial landings statis-
tics. Canadians rarely eat quahogs raw
on the half-shell. Littlenecks, topnecks,
and cherrystones are usually steamed and
then eaten.
Quahog Culture
The three provinces have conducted
culture trials with quahog seed produced
in various hatcheries. The trials, initiated
in the mid 1970’s, have provided rather
poor results due to the 6–7 yr usually re-
quired for the quahogs to attain a length
of 50 mm (Kerswill, 1949) and problems
with predators. In addition, substantial
numbers of juveniles often die from
other causes in their fi rst winter.
Quahogs adapted for fast growth
(“notata” variety) are being tested. Three
known importations took place between
the early 1990’s and 1997. The fi rst two
were “unoffi cial” while the third came
to P.E.I. from the Aquaculture Research
Corporation in Dennis, Mass. The “no-
tatas” were spawned in the hatchery at
the Ellerslie Fisheries Station in January
1998 and growout trials now are under-
way in the three Maritime provinces. On
P.E.I., six sites were chosen for growth
trials. In the spring, seed at a mean length
of 6.2 mm was planted at a density of
500/ft
2
in 16 ft
2
plastic trays containing
sand. The mean size of the seed after 4
months was 14.5 mm (MacNair
9
).
9
MacNair, N. P.E.I. Dep. of Fisheries and Tour-
ism, Prince Edward Island, Canada. Personal
commun., 1999.
United States
Massachusetts
The bays in Massachusetts that have
produced the most quahogs have been
Wellfl eet Harbor, Pleasant Bay, Cotuit
Harbor, Buzzards Bay, and Katama Bay
(Belding, 1912) (Fig. 5). Massachusetts
towns have local control over manage-
ment of their shellfi sh resources. It is
administered by town-employed shell-
fi sh wardens or constables, who work
within state regulations administered
by the Massachusetts Division of Envi-
ronmental Law Enforcement. The towns
regulate the number of bushels, referred
to as a “limit,” each quahoger is allowed
to land each day (Whittaker
10
).
10
Whittaker, D. State of Massachusetts, Division
of Marine Fisheries, Pocasset, Massachusetts.
Personal commun., 1999.
To date, the longest historical record
about quahoging in any section of
the state was published in an article
describing the history of shellfi shing
on Martha’s Vineyard in a county his-
torical magazine (MacKenzie, 1992b).
The histories of the quahog fi sheries in
some of the other Massachusetts loca-
tions probably are similar. The history
on Martha’s Vineyard is presented here
in lieu of an overall State history. Indian
middens containing quahog shells have
been found on Martha’s Vineyard. One
midden, on the northwest shore of Sen-
gecontacket Pond, had quahog and bay
scallop shells with some arrowheads
scattered to a 60-cm depth through-
out a 4-acre field. Indian middens
comprised almost entirely of quahog
shells also lie along some shores in
the town of Marion facing Buzzards
Bay; one midden is about 12 m in dia-
meter (MacKenzie et al., 2002:Plate 1).
Figure 5. — Southeastern Massachusetts showing locations mentioned in text.
Massachusetts
Wellfl eet Harbor
Cape Cod Bay
Pleasant Bay
Cotuit Harbor
Buzzards Bay
Nantucket Sound
Katama Bay
Martha’s Vineyard
10 Mi.
10 Km.

6 Marine Fisheries Review
Several others have been covered by
house construction.
The fi rst record of commercial qua-
hoging on Martha’s Vineyard was written
by Freeman (1807): “The poquau (called
the quahog in the county of Barnstable) is
found in Old Town (Edgartown) Harbor,
at Cape Poge, and in Menemsha Pond;
great quantities are exported. It is taken
with iron rakes in deep water; and in shal-
low water it is picked up by hand. Cape
Poge Pond, a lagune of salt water, affords
an inexhaustible supply of poquaus and
eels: Boats which are chiefl y from Con-
necticut, frequently enter it and procure
poquaus from the natives.”
During the 1900’s, the fi shermen used
short rakes, basket rakes, and bull rakes
for harvesting quahogs. In the early
1900’s, Edgartown had the fi nest little-
neck fi shery in Massachusetts. In 1903,
the town passed a regulation forbidding
the taking of quahogs under 1.5 inches
across their widest part. Fishermen who
used short rakes got to the beds in row-
boats and sailing sharpies (Fig. 6). They
put the quahogs in the boat which they
towed with a rope around their waist.
(Some years later, they began using
a basket fl oated inside an automobile
inner tube to hold their quahogs.) The
investment required by the fi shermen
was small: boat, $20; rake, $3; and
basket, $2. At this time, Edgartown also
had about 40 long-rake fi shermen who
dug quahogs in 1.5–4.5 m of water from
catboats and other boats. The fi rst rake
used was the basket rake, which had a
pole of yellow pine 6–7 m long. Fisher-
men later also used bull rakes. In 1907,
production of quahogs in Edgartown was
20,000 bu, which brought the fi shermen
about $32,000, an average of $5–$8/day/
fi sherman (Belding, 1912).
In about 1930, Massachusetts authori-
ties increased the minimum size limit for
quahogs to a 2-in (51-mm) diameter. A
boom followed in the mid 1930’s for
Edgartown fi shermen, because in 1930
or 1931 quahogs set densely throughout
Katama Bay, and about 70 full-time and
part-time fi shermen raked quahogs there.
About 30 regulars dug with short rakes
at low tide, mostly in the bay’s shallow
channels in knee to waist-deep water.
About 10 others dug in waters 1.5–3 m
Figure 6. — Sailing sharpie with mast
lying inside (Courtesy of Mystic Sea -
port Museum, Mystic, Conn.).
deep using basket rakes and bull rakes.
The bonanza also attracted about 30 part-
timers who harvested the town limit of
2 bu of littlenecks during low tides and
also worked at odd jobs ashore. The little-
necks sold for $1.25 and the chowders
for $0.50 a bushel. The 1938 Hurricane
washed sand over most of the beds and
quahogs have never been as abundant
since.
During summers, in the 1920’s and
1930’s, one of the local markets for
quahogs was a daily clambake. In ad-
dition, summer visitors also purchased
littlenecks for half-shell consumption
and meats from large quahogs for chow-
ders, both of which were available from
markets and peddlers. In the 1950’s,
littlenecks and cherrystones were offered
in some island restaurants and seafood
snack bars and sold for 3 for $0.10 or 12
for $0.35, but most of the quahog pro-
duction was shipped to the mainland.
Katama Bay still produces quahogs,
and in the 1990’s about 15 men, mostly
teenagers and retirees, harvested them in
the summer.
Darling (1984) describes additional
historical details about Massachusetts
quahoging in a booklet entitled, “Qua-
hoging Out of Rock Harbor 1890–1930.”
Rock Harbor is an inlet in Orleans on the
north shore of Cape Cod. Its fi shermen
raked quahogs in Cape Cod Bay. Darling
(1984) said, “The safety of the quahoger
depended on his boat and engine. The
boat had to be able to ride out storms and
to ride smoothly at anchor while raking.
The fi rst boats used out of the harbor were
catboats because they were the ones im-
mediately at hand in the 1890’s. They
used sails for propulsion. The shape of
the cat was nearly ideal for quahoging
in that it was wide for its length thereby
offering a reasonably stable platform on
which to work. Catboats were seldom
over 26 feet (7.9 m) in length as a larger
cat tended to be clumsy and less sound
structurally. With the advent of gasoline
powered marine engines the mast was
removed and an engine installed.
“As engines became available men
began to design and build their own
ideas of the perfect quahoging boat.
The hulls were made longer and some-
what narrower in relation to their overall
length. Decks were made quite fl at and
the cockpit area was made smaller in re-
lation to the size of the boat. At fi rst there
was no break in the level of the deck, but
the cockpit coaming was made lower so
that it didn’t strike the quahoger’s leg
so high up when the boat rolled. Then
a raised deck forward was added which
gave an excellent unobstructed working
surface at the bow where the launching
of the rake took place. This was a mixed
blessing as now the quahoger had to
be sure to remember to step down to
the narrow lower section of the deck,
which was outside the coaming of the
cockpit, whenever he had raked back to
the end of the raised forward deck over
the cabin.
“Usually the quahoger-built boats
kept the catboat’s square stern and shal-
low draft, but when anchored stern to the
waves the square and fl at construction of
the stern made them pound. The seem-
ingly obvious answer to this problem was
to build double-enders which rode easily
when stern to the seas. Unfortunately this
design rolled excessively when the seas
were quartering or broadside and had to
be heavily ballasted for the sake of stabil-
ity. So the square-sterned type was the
best after all.”
The fi rst engines used in the catboats
were the Mianus and the Lathrop. Darling
(1984) said, “A single cylinder, 2-cycle
Mianus engine had a fl ywheel, crank-
shaft, connecting rod and piston. On the
front of the engine, between the cylinder

64(3) 7
and the fl ywheel, there was an eccentric
which moved a push-rod up and down.
This rod operated a water pump and the
moveable arm of the ignition system.
These eight moving parts, some enclosed
by the base and cylinder, were the engine!
The electrical system consisted of four
dry cells connected to a transformer-like
coil which intensifi ed the spark before it
was fed to the igniter.
“A small oil reservoir on each cylinder
was fi lled with about a cup of oil before
each trip and adjusted to drip oil slowly
into the crankcase. No mixing of oil and
gasoline was necessary. A grease cup was
connected to each of the two main bear-
ings and was turned down half a turn or so
before each trip. These engines, both one-
and two-cylinder types, turned propellers
up to 22 inches (56 cm) in diameter and
drove the boats at a steady eight to ten
knots, which was as fast as the hulls were
designed to go. These engines would
move the boat forward or astern equally
well depending on how you started them!
And, with experience, you could reverse
them while running.
“The old Lathrop had no carburetor,
but had a device that was called a va-
porizer. Gasoline fl owed into it and was
sucked into the base of the engine through
a small unit in which a spring held a brass
ball against a collar.
“A one-cylinder 2-cycle Lathrop
engine . . . had a fi xed point of the ig-
nition that went through the top of the
cylinder, while the moveable point, which
made and broke the contact, went through
the front of the cylinder. The spark was
produced when these two points broke
apart. ‘Make and brake’ was the name for
this type of ignition. This mechanism was
activated by a push-rod which in turn was
moved by an eccentric on the crankshaft.
This eccentric was really an off-center
wheel on the crankshaft located between
the fl ywheel and the base of the engine.
This same eccentric worked the water
pump to cool the cylinder walls. In the
oldest engines the cylinder head wasn’t
cooled at all but this caused problems
which led to a change in the design. There
were no gears to operate anything — just
the eccentric and the push-rod!
“The fl ywheels on all of these early
engines were large, even massive, and
had a built-in retractable brass pin to use
as a crank. The spring that was supposed
to pull these pins back into the fl ywheel
when the engine started could break.
This would leave the pin sticking out
the full four to fi ve inches (10–12.7 cm)
of its length, whirling around with the
fl ywheel! This was a real arm and leg
breaker! After starting the engine under
these conditions a board could be held at
a slant in front of the spinning wheel so
that the pin would hit the board thus forc-
ing it back into the rim of the fl ywheel
where it belonged.”
The fi shermen of Rock Harbor dug
quahogs in the bight area of Cape Cod
Bay between Wellfl eet and Brewster. The
water depths were 3–12 m. They carried
poles for their rakes of lengths of about
8.5, 13, and 17 m. The metal rakes were
about 0.75 m wide and had teeth 10 cm
long. A net bag 0.75–0.9 m long was
attached to hold the quahogs and trash.
Besides the rake and poles, each fi sher-
man carried a crockery jug of water to
drink (Darling, 1984).
The fishermen found their digging
location by sighting ranges on shore
points, stakes, and buoys. Upon reach-
ing a good location, they set out a stern
and bow anchor, with the bow facing
the current. The line (also known as a
warp or road) between the anchors was
180 m long and was kept tight to prevent
the boat from swinging back and forth.
In raking quahogs, the fi shermen tossed
their rake into the current. The pressure
of the current against the rake’s handle
kept the rake’s teeth in the bottom. Two
men could rake off a boat, one off each
side. They raked the length of the boat
by inching backward from bow to stern.
When the areas were raked out, they let
out slack on the anchor line and turned
the rudder to one side, which brought
them to a new area. When that area was
raked out, the rudder was swung the other
way and the boat moved in the opposite
direction to unraked bottom. If a bottom
became fi shed out, the anchors were reset
in another location (Darling, 1984).
The daily catch/man ranged from 3 to
10 bushels; the catch depended mostly
on the hours available to work. Before
World War I, there were three grades
of quahogs: blunts (thick bills), sharps
(thin bills), and littlenecks. By the early
1920’s, another grade had been added,
called “counts” because they counted
100 to a bucket. They included blunts
and sharps between 2.5 and 3.5 inches
(6.4–8.9 cm) long. Counts today are
opened and served on the half-shell as
littlenecks or cherrystones (Darling,
1984).
Before 1925, most fi shermen packed
their quahogs in barrels and shipped
them to a shellfish commission mer-
chant in Fulton Market, New York City.
They never knew what their pay would
be until they got their checks. Around
1925, a local man began buying quahogs.
It meant no packing and the fi shermen got
their checks every day. But if the price
was down, the fi shermen did not sell their
quahogs immediately. They spread them
in designated beds and took them up in
the fall or early winter when the price
was higher. Before World War I, the Rock
Harbor fi shermen got about $1.00/bushel
for quahogs. During the 1920’s, the price
averaged about $3.50/bushel (Darling,
1984).
In the 1930’s, secondhand automobile
engines, many from wrecked automo-
biles, were installed in boats replacing
the Mianus and Lathrop engines. The
most common was a 4-cylinder Chevrolet
engine. They had standard transmissions
that were set in high gear, and forward
and reverse gears were then possible.
The engines were cooled with salt water
which ran through the engine block. The
engines were durable and many ran more
than 10 years.
Information about some other Mas-
sachusetts areas over the past 50 years
is available. Since the late 1940’s, the
Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries has conducted a transplant-
ing program from polluted harbors and
rivers, such as the Taunton River, which
fl ows past Fall River into Narragansett
Bay, to certifi ed beds in Narragansett
and Buzzards Bays for depuration and
subsequent harvesting by fishermen.
Between the mid 1960’s and the early
1980’s, regular annual relaying was at a
rate of about 8,000 bu/yr, and the trans-
planting continued during the 1990’s. In
1980 and 1981, State of Massachusetts
surveys of quahog abundance in its pol-

8 Marine Fisheries Review
luted waters of Narragansett Bay and
Buzzards Bay (only areas deeper than
3.7 m were included) found the standing
crop was 610,000 bu, 75% of which were
chowders (Hickey, 1983).
Besides Cape Cod Bay, quahogs also
grow in Buzzards Bay and Nantucket
Sound, which all have oceanic waters.
In the late 1940’s, 10 boats using rocking
chair dredges began harvesting quahogs
in Buzzards Bay. Their ports were various
local harbors, such as Dartmouth, New
Bedford, and Fairhaven (Bourque
11
). The
harvesting continued in later years, and,
by the 1990’s, 12–15 dredging boats,
which ranged from 10 to 15 m long
and used hydraulic dredges with blades
40–91 cm wide, harvested quahogs
in the bay year-round, except in outer
New Bedford Harbor where the season
is September–June (Fig. 7). The dredg-
ing depths are 2.4–15 m (avg. 9 m). This
latter depth is the maximum limit for the
hose which leads to the dredge; the ratio
of hose length to depth is 3:1. The catch
is 90% chowders and the remainder little-
necks and cherrystones. The philosophy
is “what comes aboard, stays aboard,”
except for seed. Individual towns now
regulate the number of bushels allowed
to be harvested. During the warm months,
each boat is limited to 10 bu of littlenecks/
day but can land unlimited quantities of
the larger quahogs. During the winter,
fi shermen can retain all the littlenecks
they can harvest because Massachusetts
authorities believe they die if returned to
the bottom. The boats harvest in their
town waters of New Bedford (7 boats),
Fair Haven (2 boats), and the Elizabeth
Islands (near Cuddyhunk and Penekese
Islands) (1 boat) (Whittaker
10
).
During the warm months, about 270
bull rakers, short rakers, including a few
tongers, scuba divers, and treaders har-
vest quahogs daily in town beds around
Buzzards Bay: Westport, 50; Dartmouth,
25; New Bedford, 10; Fair Haven, 30;
Mattapoisett, 1; Marion, 10; Wareham,
20; Bourne, 62; and Falmouth, 60. Nearly
all the Falmouth fi shermen dig only in
the winter because the largest beds are
closed due to pollution during the warm
Figure 7. — Harvesting northern quahogs with hydraulic dredge, Buzzards Bay,
Mass., mid 1990’s. Photograph by D. Whittaker.
11
Bourque, B. Shellfi sh warden, New Bedford,
Massachusetts. Personal commun., 1999.
months. The divers work only in Ware-
ham, 1; New Bedford, 3; and Fair Haven,
6; they use a ping pong paddle with holes
in it to scour away the sediments to fi nd
the quahogs. The treading is limited to
a few men in Marion. Some bull rakers
and tongers harvest year-round. Harvests
vary by season because the quahogs
are near the surface during the warm
months, but burrow more deeply during
the cold months putting some beyond
the range of the rakes’ teeth. Each bull
raker harvests about 1,400 quahogs
(“pieces”)/day from late May through
September, 1,000 quahogs/day from
October through December, and 600–700
quahogs/day from January through mid
May (Anderson
12
).
Most of the towns around Buzzards
Bay each issue at least 1,200 permits to
recreationalists (local resident, seniors,
and non-residents) each summer. During
summer weekends in good weather and
a low tides, about 1,200 recreationalists
dig quahogs in the towns around Buz-
zards Bay: Westport, 225; Dartmouth, 12;
New Bedford, 12; Fair Haven, 275; Mat-
tapoisett, 75; Marion , 20; Wareham and
Onset, 50; Bourne, 530; and Falmouth,
20. In most towns, each permittee is
allowed to land one peck (1/4th bu) of
quahogs/week (Bourque
11
). In 1999,
quahog landings by Buzzards Bay recre-
ational diggers totaled nearly 15,000 bu,
or about 25% as many as the commer-
cial fishermen landed (Whittaker
10
).
Some harvesting areas are classifi ed as
conditionally approved for digging by the
Division of Marine Fisheries. The areas
are closed for 5 days immediately follow-
ing varying amounts of rain in different
locations (Bourque
11
).
Cape Cod Bay now has a small dredge
fi shery for quahogs. The State allows har-
vesting with rocking chair dredges, but
not hydraulic dredges in this bay. About
12 boats are active; 6 sail from Wellfl eet
and 6 sail from Orleans (Anderson
12
).
Belding (1931) mentioned a quahog
fi shery using dredges in Nantucket Sound
from 1912 to 1915. But he said, after sev-
eral years of harvesting, the beds were
nearly exhausted. Between 1940 and the
late 1950’s, the beds were harvested spo-
radically by boats which sailed from ports
on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard.
In 1956, fi shermen used hydraulic jet
dredges to harvest the quahogs there for
the fi rst time; 5 boats were using them in
the late 1950’s (Ropes and Martin, 1960).
Quahoging ever since has been limited in
nearly all of the sound because the qua-
hogs have been scarce (Whittaker
10
).
In May 2001, however, a large bed of
quahogs, 4–5 km
2
, was discovered on
Handkerchief Shoals in the northeast
corner of the sound about 5 km west
of Monomoy Island. Its depth is 9–11
meters. In the summer of 2001, 15 boats
out of a fl eet of 22 boats, 13–22 m long,
were harvesting the quahogs daily, each
12
Anderson, M. Fisherman, Chatham, Massachu-
setts. Personal commun., 1999.

64(3) 9
landed about 35 bushels of littlenecks
and 35 bushels of cherrystones and
chowders. They use hydraulic dredges
that are 0.9–1.0 m wide. Their ports
are Chatham, Hyan nis, Harwich, and
New Bedford. The crews observe large
numbers of seed quahogs while harvest-
ing, and so the bed may continue to
produce for at least a few more years
(Whittaker
10
).
Of the three states in southern New
England, only Massachusetts has been
active in the hatchery-growout culture
of producing quahogs, while Rhode
Island and Connecticut have been inac-
tive. In 1990, at least 20% of the quahogs
produced in Massachusetts resulted from
hatchery seed (Anonymous, 1992). In the
early 1990’s, many towns spread hatch-
ery seed over public beds and about 80
individuals in the state, each with from
0.5 to at least 10 acres of leased bottom,
grew the seed (MacKenzie, 1997a).
Since the mid 1990’s, about 20 towns
around Cape Cod and in Buzzards Bay
have purchased and grown seed for
their fishermen. The seed has come
from two hatcheries in Massachusetts
and others in Maine, New York, and
New Jersey. Before any batch of seed
could be imported from the other three
states, it had to be certifi ed as disease-
free by recognized authorities. The State
authorities have not allowed imports of
hatchery seed produced south of New
Jersey, because they have feared it
may carry diseases. Some towns have
purchased 1-mm seed at $3–$4/1,000
and grown it in fl oating upwellers. It
has been later grown in boxes or under
screens where its survival has been as
high as 80%. Town workers spread this
seed over public grounds at sizes slightly
smaller than littlenecks. At such sizes,
few quahogs have been killed by preda-
tors. Other towns have purchased seed
at about 18 mm in length, which costs
$33–$35/1,000, and spread it without
protection from predators. The towns
involved in quahog programs have each
purchased from 0.25 to 5 million seed/yr
(Moles
13
). Fishermen have found higher
13
Moles, J. State of Massachusetts, Division of
Marine Fisheries, Pocasset. Personal commun.,
1999.
harvests on the public beds as a result
of the “seeding,” but the exact contribu-
tions of the cultured quahogs to the total
harvests have not been determined. In
most towns, fi shermen license fees for
shellfi shing have been raised from $25/yr
to $200/yr to pay for the purchases and
growing of the seed (Anderson
12
).
The attitudes of authorities in various
towns differ toward leasing bottoms. At
one extreme, authorities in Wellfl eet have
allowed unlimited leasing of public bot-
toms and nearly all its bottoms now are
leased. At the other extreme, authorities
in Chatham, which is one of the state’s
most important quahog producers, and
several other towns allow no leasing of
public bottoms. Their authorities felt it
would be too diffi cult to lease bottoms
equitably among the towns’ fi shermen
(Anderson
12
).
The number of individuals who now
grow quahogs on their leases (grants) in
Massachusetts has risen to about 250.
The large increase in the quahog cultur-
ing on leases began in 1994–95. It was
assisted by the Northeast Regional Offi ce
of the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Gloucester, Mass., which provided about
$420,000 to fund three quahog culture
projects. The projects, 2 of which were
training projects for fishermen, were
part of an aquaculture focus through
the Fishing Industry Grant Program and
the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program,
which together supported 41 shellfi sh
and fi nfi sh aquaculture projects costing
$7.3 million during FY 1994–99. Most
individuals who participated in the two
quahog training projects were fisher-
men who had been losing substantial
time fi nfi shing due to declining stocks
of groundfish and other species; the
techniques learned gave them the abil-
ity sell seafood they raised themselves
(Beal
14
).
Each leaseholder purchases from
10,000 to 4,000,000 seed/yr. They spread
it on their leased bottoms and cover it
with nets (Fig. 8). The nets have to be
cleaned regularly, because they collect
fouling organisms which clog the meshes
in the nets and during winter silt collects
under them. If the silt is not washed away,
it can smother the quahogs. The survival
Figure 8. — Checking survival of seed quahogs under a predator-control net,
Pleasant Bay, Ma., 1998. The quahogs were purchased from a hatchery. Photograph
by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
14
Beal, K. National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA, Northeast Region. One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, Massachusetts. Personal commun.,
1999.

10 Marine Fisheries Review
rate of quahogs from initial planting to
harvesting, 28–60 months later, is about
50% (Kruczek
15
). When the quahogs
attain littleneck size, they are harvested
with bull rakes. Most individuals earn
from $5,000 to as much as $50,000/yr
from their quahog leases (Moles
13
).
With the increased number of active
quahog leases in the state since 1990,
the quantity of quahogs landed that was
produced from hatchery seed probably
has risen and it was above 20% of total
quahog landings in Massachusetts. As a
consequence of the increased landings,
landed prices of littlenecks fell from
$0.23/piece in 1995 to $0.17–$0.18/
piece in 1999. The quality of hatchery
quahogs is not quite as good as wild
quahogs. Selected for fast growth by the
hatcheries, their shelf-life is shorter, and
their shells are thinner and more brittle
than wild quahogs. A higher percentage
of hatchery quahogs than wild quahogs
is broken when sorted and counted by
machines (Anderson
12
).
Trip on a Shellfi sh Warden’s Boat:
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts,
18 May 2001
The day began at 9:30 a.m. instead
of 8:00 a.m. because the warden had
to prepare slips to carry to the bank in
order that the fi shermen the City of New
Bedford had hired for harvesting quahogs
would be paid. The city authorities had
been awarded $289,000/year for 10 years
to be allocated for: 1) shellfi sh relays, 2)
plantings of hatchery seed quahogs, 3)
law enforcement, 4) development of a
10-year management plan, and 5) ad-
ministration. The money was from fi nes
in excess of $200 million the Federal
Government assessed two New Bedford
companies for dumping PCB’s into the
harbor. The dumping forced regulatory
offi cials to halt quahog and lobster har-
vesting outside the harbor; the harbor
waters themselves were previously pol-
luted and uncertifi ed. In 2001, the city
hired dredgers and bull rakers to harvest
9,800 80-pound bags of quahogs from
its harbor for transplanting to certifi ed
waters in nearby New Bedford, Fair
15
Kruczek, B. Fisherman, Orleans, Massachu-
setts.
Personal commun., 1999.
Haven, and Dartmouth. This was the
first such transplant from the inner
harbor since 1989. The transplanting
program ran for four weeks, during
which the dredgers and rakers harvested
from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. Each dredging
vessel transplanted 80–110 bags/day
while the hand rakers each harvested
about 40 bags/day, which the wardens
transplanted. The fi shermen were paid
$10/bag. The program was handled by
the city’s shellfi sh warden.
Between 10:00 and 10:20 a.m., the
warden and his assistant raised a yellow
fl ag on a mast on the east shore of Clarks
Cove and another on the west shore of
outer New Bedford Harbor. The fl ags
signaled to the fi shermen that the waters
were open that day for harvesting qua-
hogs. Raised red fl ags signaled the waters
were closed because too much rain had
fallen.
We then drove to Pope’s Marina on
the north side of New Bedford Harbor,
and at 10:30 a.m. boarded the city’s 7.6
m fi berglas boat, propelled by a 225 hp
outboard motor, and headed to the other
side of the harbor, a distance of 1.4 km.
The sky was overcast, the air temperature
was 18°C, and the wind blew gently from
the southwest at 8 knots. The port of New
Bedford, once the “Whaling Capital of
the World,” now is the “Scallop Capital
of the World” because it probably is the
largest scallop port in the world (nearly
all scallops handled here are sea scallops,
Placopecten magellanicus; the rest are
bay scallops, Argopecten irradians, from
Cape Cod bays); it is lined with fi shing
docks and marinas. On this day, most of
the port’s many sea scallop, otter trawl,
ocean quahog, and surfclam vessels were
in port because the U.S. Government
landing quotas were fi lled.
Just inside the rugged stone hurricane
barrier which protects the city’s water-
front from hurricanes and other strong
gales from the southwest (the barrier’s
height is 3.5 m above the water), we
stopped and watched the two bull rakers
and two dredging boats that were work-
ing in the program. The warden and his
assistant’s attention was focused on
whether the hired fi shermen would have
large harvests. The fi shermen sorted the
quahogs by hand and tossed them into
burlap bags while pushing the trash
(other mollusks and shells) overboard.
They were harvesting from bottom sedi-
ments consisting of mud-sand, sand, and
clay. The quahogs were abundant, and
the catches were good. Each raker had at
least twenty 80-pound bags of quahogs
aboard after 4 hr of raking. The warden
and his assistant took aboard 24 bags
from one boat, and we left the area to
transplant them.
We went through the opening in the
hurricane barrier (gates can be swung to
close this opening when strong winds are
forecast) and headed southward and then
westward toward the west side of Clarks
Cove, a distance of 7 km from the harbor.
En route, the warden dumped one of the
bags into a tub and picked out the qua-
hogs, leaving the trash (mostly live chains
of quarterdecks, Crepidula fornicata) in
the tub. He said the bags had too much
trash, and he would scold the fi sherman
about it. We arrived at the planting site at
11:38 a.m., and, as we drifted slowly, he
and his assistant dumped all the quahogs
out of the bags into the water, which was
2–3 m deep, in 5 min; they saved the bags
for the rakers to fi ll later in the week.
Inshore of us, one quahoger was diving
for quahogs, and off the north shore of the
cove a bull raker was harvesting quahogs
and a fi sherman in a boat was trolling
for bluefi sh. The beds of relayed quahogs
will be opened for direct to market har-
vesting in 90 days, or earlier if recertifi ed
by the Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries.
We returned to New Bedford Harbor
and the warden told the fi sherman that
he had included too much trash with the
quahogs in his bags. The fi sherman said
he would cull more carefully. We then
went over to chat with the warden of the
Town of Dartmouth who was in another
fi berglas boat. He had taken aboard 20
bags of quahogs from the other bull
raker to spread on a bottom in Dart-
mouth waters 9 km southwest of New
Bedford. Only one dredge boat remained
working, because the gear on the second
one was broken and it went to a dock for
repairs. We returned to Pope’s Marina at
2:50 p.m., our day was fi nished, and the
warden and his assistant were pleased
with the way things went.

64(3) 11
Rhode Island
Commercial quahoging in Rhode
Island was fi rst recorded in the 1870’s,
when about 75 fishermen harvested
quahogs in the state (Ingersoll, 1887)
(Fig. 9). Fishermen rowed their boats
to the beds and harvested quahogs with
tongs (Desbonnet and Lee, 1991). By
the early 1900’s, some fi shermen were
towed to the beds by motor boats (Boyd,
1991), and by the late 1930’s many had
their own outboard motors to propel their
boats. In the 1940’s, when the oyster in-
dustry in Narragansett Bay had declined,
the quahog fi shery grew in importance
(Fig. 10). During World War II, about 40
boats, 9–10.6 m long, using rocking chair
dredges (Fig. 11), joined the tonging fl eet
harvesting quahogs. Each dredging boat
was limited by state regulation to 40 bu/
day. This fi shery ended in 1956.
From the late 1800’s to the early
1920’s, Rhode Island landings of qua-
hogs totaled about 15,000 bu/yr, but
afterward production increased and
reached 425,000 bu in 1955. It fell after-
ward as the state banned dredging and
closed some beds due to pollution (Boyd,
1991), and the quahogs may have become
scarcer, perhaps as starfi sh became abun-
dant (Pratt et al., 1992). Production fell
to 210,000 bu in 1974, but rose again to
350,000 bu/yr in the 1980’s.
The Rhode Island Department of En-
vironmental Management regulates the
quahog fi shery (Fig. 12). The principal
management involves: 1) limiting the
sizes of quahogs which fi shermen can
harvest to at least 1.0 inch in width (about
1.5 inches long); 2) restricting harvests to
clean waters; and 3) transplanting qua-
hogs from polluted to certifi ed public
bottoms for depuration and subsequent
harvesting by the fi shermen.
About 33% of the quahog grounds in
Narragansett Bay are polluted and un-
certifi ed for direct marketing. Located
mainly in the north end of the bay, some
grounds contain large concentrations
of quahogs. Most polluted grounds are
closed to harvesting for direct sales to
markets, but some with the lowest bacte-
ria counts are opened during dry weather.
When it rains steadily and at least 12.5
mm of rain falls, water runoff from land
Figure 9. — Narragansett Bay area showing locations mentioned in text.
and overflows from sewers force the
state to close those grounds for at least 7
days. If at least 25 mm of rain falls, bed
closures last 10 days (Ganz
16
).
Since the late 1970’s, the state has
hired quahog fi shermen to rake up and
transplant polluted quahogs to certi-
fi ed areas, paying them, in the 1990’s,
$0.10/lb of quahogs. Each year, about
125 fi shermen were so employed. Each
harvested about 1–1.5 t (35–40 bu)/day.
From 1977 to 1998, from 7 to 322 t
(200–4,000 bu), with an average of 98 t
16
Ganz, A. Department of Natural Resources,
State of Rhode Island, Wakefi eld. Personal
commun., 1999.

12 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 10. — Rhode Island fi shermen in their rowboats har-
vesting quahogs with bull rakes, late 1940’s (from Tressler
and Lemon, 1951).
Figure 11. — Rhode Island fi shermen harvesting quahogs
with a rocking chair dredge, late 1940’s (from Tressler and
Lemon, 1951).
Figure 12. — Tech-
nicians recording
data during State of
Rhode Island sur-
vey of quahog beds
in Narragansett Bay,
1998. Photograph by
C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
(2,700 bu)/yr of quahogs have been
relayed. A new relay program began in
1997 that involves relaying quahogs from
the Providence River using dredge boats.
A survey showed the river had a standing
crop of 26,400 t (750,000 bu) of quahogs.
In 1998, the dredging boats moved 238 t
(6,665 bu) from the river while the hand
rakers moved 290 t (8,100 bu) from vari-
ous polluted areas to certifi ed areas. The
quahogs are transplanted in the spring,
and the state delays the opening of the
beds for harvesting by fi shermen until
the fall to give the quahogs opportunity
to spawn and provide a new set of seed
to the beds and surrounding areas. State
offi cials would prefer the quahogs be
left for 2 spawning years before they
are harvested, but that plan was not yet
implemented in 1998 (Rice et al., 2000;
Ganz
16
).
During the 9 months from September
1998 through May 1999, about 250 Rhode
Island fi shermen harvested quahogs with
bull rakes every day in certifi ed waters
when the price was suffi ciently high — at
least $0.19–$0.20/littleneck. Fewer dig-
gers harvest if the price falls to around
$0.12/littleneck. In the 3 summer months,
the number of fi shermen increases to
nearly 500, when students, teachers, and
others enter the fi shery (Lazar
17
). Most
diggers trailer their boats daily from their
homes to the shores, launch them, and
return home with them afterward. The
trailering allows them the mobility to
move among various harvesting areas.
Such mobility is important because
Narragansett Bay and the nearby salt
ponds have many inlets and coves, and
in windy weather the fi shermen usually
can fi nd sheltered places to rake quahogs
(Ganz
16
).
In addition, 40–50 scuba divers har-
vest quahogs. The state limits each diver
to no more than 12 bu of quahogs/day
(Ganz
16
).
The bull rakers once wanted the state
to ban quahog harvesting by scuba divers
(Fleet, 1992), and, in the early 1990’s, a
verbal “war” raged between the rakers
and divers. The rakers believed the divers
enjoyed a substantial harvest advantage
over them because individual divers
could harvest more quahogs than could
individual bull rakers. But, in that period,
earnest planning for quahog hatchery and
growout culture in Rhode Island began,
and both groups opposed it. The rakers
and divers “cemented together” in op-
position and have since got along well
(Ganz
16
).
State quahog landings have fallen
sharply since the mid 1980’s when
about 1,000 fishermen were digging
quahogs. In 1998, landings were 62,000
bu. The major cause of the production
decline has been a drop in the numbers
of fi shermen, because job opportunities
ashore increased due to a robust state
17
Lazar, N. State of Rhode Island Fish and Game
Department, Wakefi eld. Personal commun.,
1999.

64(3) 13
18
Va lliere, A. State of Rhode Island Fish
and Game Department, Wakefi eld. Personal
commun., 1999.
economy many abandoned quahog-
ing (Valliere
18
). In the 1980’s, quahog
fi shermen were having diffi culty fi nding
places to dock their boats and park their
boat trailers (MacKenzie, 1997a), but
this problem eased during the 1990’s due
to the reduced numbers of fishermen
(Valliere
18
).
Quahog culture is almost non-existent
in Rhode Island. In 1998 only a few acres
of bottom were leased, mostly for grow-
ing oysters. One reason for the absence of
quahog culture is that the quahog fi sher-
men are strongly opposed to it because
leases would remove some bottoms from
which they could harvest quahogs. Nearly
all bottoms where salinities exceed 15‰
already have quahogs in them. Also, the
fi shermen fear hatchery quahogs would
compete in markets with wild quahogs.
Another fear is the fast-growing, thin-
shelled hatchery stocks might interbreed
with the wild quahogs and reduce their
quality. Rhode Island state authorities do
not allow a hatchery to sell quahogs that
are less than 1 inch in width as is allowed
in some other states (Lazar
17
). Individual
rakers currently earn more money per day
than the only leaseholder who has been
growing and selling hatchery-growout
quahogs.
In recent years, on summer weekends
when the weather is good, at least 1,000
recreationalists harvest quahogs along the
shallows in Narragansett Bay and coastal
ponds. They wade and tread or use short
rakes for harvesting (Ganz
16
).
Trip on a Quahog Raking Boat:
Great Salt Pond, R.I.,
18 August 1998
The fi sherman, 45 years old, harvests
quahogs in various bays and ponds in
Rhode Island using a bull rake from
his 6.7 m fi berglass boat propelled by
a 150 hp outboard motor. Every day, he
tows his boat and trailer with his pickup
truck from his home to harvesting sites.
In 1997, he harvested quahogs 320 days,
during which he raked 4–5 hr/day. He
believes if he rakes more hours each
day, he will wear himself out and have
to quit this work at an earlier age than
he wishes because he enjoys it. He likes
raking in the winter best, because he
does not become too warm. He has a
reputation for making large harvests
of quahogs in relatively hard bottoms,
while many other diggers can outdo him
in soft bottoms.
Figure 13. — Quahogs and “trash”
after being dumped from rake into
hand sorter. Photograph by C. L.
MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 14. — Rhode Island fi sherman washing his catch of quahogs, Great Salt
Pond, 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
On this day, he worked in Great Salt
Pond (Pt. Judith Pond) on the southwest
shore of Rhode Island. Low hills rise
from narrow unspoiled marshes on the
shorelines along both sides of the pond.
The trees and shrubs growing on the hills
look wild and natural; some residential
homes are scattered among them. The
north end of the pond is narrow and has
a ramp which quahogers and sport fi sher-
men use to launch their boats.
The fi sherman launched his boat at
this ramp at 5:55 a.m., and we traveled
into the pond. The water visibility was at
least 2 m: No bloom of algae from excess
nutrients was present here. At a distance
2.5 km from the boat ramp, he “cut” the
engine, we stopped over an underwater
ridge, about 2 m below us, and he began
raking at 6:08 a.m. As he was harvest-
ing, he usually put the suitcase rake over,
raked for 1–2 min, left the rake idle for
a minute or two and culled his previous
harvest in his hand sorter (Fig. 13), and
then continued raking. He consistently
pulled up the rake for emptying 3–5 min
after he put it over (Fig. 14). Upon seeing
many oyster shells in his rake, he said the
highest survival of quahog seed is in beds
where shells or gravel or both, are abun-
dant because, he thought, predators have
diffi culty fi nding them in such bottoms.

14 Marine Fisheries Review
The wind blew at 10–15 knots, or too
light to push the boat away from the rake
suffi ciently, and so he had to push the
boat himself using the rake. After he had
jerked (pulled) the rake about 12 times,
he had to push the boat about 1 meter
away from the rake and then he could
continue jerking it (“push and pull,”
as he called the action). He used two
3-m aluminum sections of handle with
his rake; the cross-handle was bent at a
slight angle for comfort. After he emp-
tied the quahogs from his rake into his
sorter, he put the rake over again, then
raked a little, and stopped to sort. Sort-
ing involved picking out the large shells
Figure 15. — When a Rhode Island fi sherman moves be-
tween grounds, he puts his rake on a stand and trails its handle
behind in the water. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 16. — Harvest of littlenecks and topnecks in Great
Salt Pond, R.I., 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 17. — Most Rhode Island quahogers trailer their
boats between their homes and the harvesting sites each day.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
from the sorter, putting the sorter over
the water, and shaking out the seed
through the openings. He then emptied
the legal-size quahogs into two white
PVC buckets which held suffi cient salt-
water to cover them. His quahog catches
were good and he brought up lots of seed.
It appeared from the quantity of seed
present, that any quahog predators, which
might have been here at times in the past,
were currently scarce in the pond.
During the day, he harvested in three
pond locations (Fig. 15). His fi nal raking
was at 10:50 a.m. He had made 40 rak-
ings and harvested 1,400 quahogs, an
average of 35 legal-sized quahogs/raking
(range, 19–55 quahogs/raking) (Fig. 16).
About 1,300 of the quahogs were little-
necks; at a selling price of $0.195 cents
each, they would bring him about $254;
the remaining 100 cherrystones would
sell for about $10, or more than enough
to pay for the fuel used by his outboard
motor and truck. We arrived back at the
boat ramp just after 11 a.m. He loaded his
boat on his trailer (Fig. 17) and drove to
a dealer to sell his quahogs. From there,
he drove home.
In overview, over the past few years
quahogs have remained abundant in
Rhode Island, perhaps because of the
reduced harvesting effort. The fi sherman
said, “We keep taking quahogs and they
keep coming.” The 12 or so quahogers
in Great Salt Pond appeared content.
They were making good money, they
saw lots of seed, and they were pleased
with actions (transplanting quahogs from
polluted grounds, and preventing aqua-
culture interests from leasing quahoging
bottoms) taken by the State Department
of Environmental Management.
Connecticut
Before the 1980’s, commercial quahog
harvests in Connecticut (Fig. 18) were

64(3) 15
Figure 18. — The shorelines of Connecticut and Long Island, N.Y., showing areas
mentioned in text.
relatively small compared with nearby
states, in part because the fi shing indus-
try had concentrated on oysters. In the
1920’s and 1930’s, about 50 fi shermen
in the entire state were harvesting qua-
hogs with bull rakes, but there was little
bull raking after that. In 1946, the fi rst
quahog dredges came to Connecticut,
when oyster companies in Norwalk
and New Haven got three rocking chair
dredges from Rhode Island. They used
them from oyster boats during the late
summer when oyster culturing and har-
vesting were slow. In 1958, the compa-
nies replaced the rocking chair dredges
with the more effi cient hydraulic dredges
and then used them on three or four boats
(MacKenzie, 1997a).
All Connecticut quahog harvesting
grounds are leased from the state, and
it is illegal to harvest quahogs com-
mercially on public grounds. In 1970
in the entire state, six boats, all owned
by oyster companies, were harvest-
ing quahogs part-time using hydraulic
dredges. In that year, fishermen dis-
covered a large stock of littlenecks and
cherrystones on broad tidal fl ats in upper
Norwalk Harbor, where they never had
been known to occur abundantly before.
Because the waters were uncertifi ed, the
state allowed the Tallmadge Company of
South Norwalk and other fi shermen to
transplant the quahogs to their certifi ed
leased beds for depuration. Harvesting
only during high tides with hydraulic
dredges, the fi shermen transplanted and
later harvested several thousand bushels
of quahogs before the stock was depleted
later in the year.
In the late 1980’s and 1990’s, Con-
necticut quahog production surged after
quahog abundances erupted. In the late
1980’s, fi shermen found quahogs distrib-
uted over much larger areas than they once
were. The grounds, encompassing hun-
dreds of acres of state-controlled public
grounds, were at distances from about 0.5
km to as far as 4 km from the shores and
at depths to 15 m (Williams
19
, Bloom
20
,
19
Williams, L. Fisherman, Milford, Connecticut.
Personal commun., 1998.
20
Bloom, H. Owner, Tallmadge Oyster Company,
South Norwalk, Connecticut. Personal commun.,
1999.
21
Hopp, D. Oyster fi sherman, Tallmadge Oyster
Company. South Norwalk, Connecticut. Personal
commun., 1999.
22
White, G. Foreman, Tallmadge Oyster
Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Personal
commun., 1999.
23
Volk, J. State of Connecticut, Department of
Agriculture, Aquaculture Division, Milford.
Personal commun., 1999.
Hopp
21
, White
22
). The fi shermen leased
many acres of the grounds from the state
so they could harvest the quahogs. Most
leases were 100–200 acres in area. They
were obtained on a competitive basis
through closed bids. The annual lease
rates for most ranged from $50 to $200/
acre/yr, but some leases went for as high
as $1,000/acre.
The big quahog production years were
from 1986 to 1996. In the mid 1990’s,
about 50 quahog boats were harvest-
ing daily, year-round. Many boats were
standard Nova Scotia-style boats that had
been used for potting lobsters. They were
fi tted with hydraulic dredges and pumps
for harvesting quahogs (Volk
23
). After
1996, some beds became depleted, state
quahog production fell, and, by 1999,
30 boats remained harvesting daily
(Hopp
21
). None of the leased beds were
planted with hatchery quahogs.
MacKenzie and Pikanowski (2000)
believe quahogs became abundant in the
late 1980’s because starfi sh had become
scarce in Connecticut. The starfi sh had
been abundant between 1957 and the
late 1970’s.
Trip on a Quahog Dredging Boat:
Long Island Sound, February 1998
The trip involved a day of harvesting
quahogs in Long Island Sound on a boat
that berthed at a dock in Milford Harbor
(Fig. 18). Measuring 10.7 m long, 4.6 m
wide, and drawing 1.2 meters, the boat,
17 years old, had a hull made of ferroce-
ment and wood, a new deck, A-frame,
and pilot house, and it was powered by
a 471 Detroit Diesel engine (Fig. 19). Its
captain and 2 deckhands, who made up
the crew, harvested quahogs with a hy-
draulic dredge; its dredging bar was 46
cm wide with 14 teeth set almost parallel
to the bottom, and with 11 jets at its front
to soften the bottom and 5 jets aimed
backward to drive the quahogs back into
the dredge’s cage. The deck of the boat
had two tables. One was a culling table
that measured about 1.5 × 2 m, stood
waist high, and was located about 2.5 m
from the pilothouse against the port rail.
The other was a mechanical sorting table
with an attached quahog counter that
stood against the boat’s starboard rail.
The captain held three leases, one in
Milford, one in Fairfi eld, and another in
Branford (Fig. 18). He regularly trans-
planted seed and market-sized quahogs

16 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 19. — Quahog harvesting boat that uses a hydraulic dredge, Milford, Conn.,
1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
from the Fairfi eld and Branford leases
to the Milford lease, located just 2.5 km
from Milford Harbor. By doing this, he
was able to harvest quahogs when strong
southerly winds prevented his boats from
running the 18 km to Fairfi eld or the 21
km to Branford each way to get quahogs
for orders.
Considered by his peers as one of the
best quahog harvesters in Connecticut,
the captain complained the weather this
autumn was too warm and too calm. It
meant no harvesting areas were closed
due to covers of ice and strong winds,
and all quahogers along the entire coast
from Massachusetts to Florida could
harvest at least a few days a week. The
markets consequently were glutted with
quahogs, he could not sell all he could
harvest, and the price had declined by 2–3
cents/quahog from last summer. During
the past few weeks, this crew harvested
about 3 days a week, and on those days
he harvested only enough quahogs to fi ll
the buyers’ orders, or about 66% of the
quantity he could have harvested.
The captain related some observations
about this fi shery:
1) More small quahogs survive in beds
with large quantities of shells;
2) If a bed has a good mixture of
quahog sizes, seed to chowders, thus
showing a good history of setting and
survival, the quahogs probably will con-
tinue to set. But if a bed contains but one
or two sets of quahogs, it may be risky
to spend much money obtaining a lease
for the bed because its quahog abundance
may be temporary;
3) Jetting water from a quahog dredge
changes the bottom substrate (fi ne sands
are brought to its surface) and also vi-
brates the surrounding sediments, forcing
the quahogs to burrow deeper where they
cannot be harvested. The dredgers have
to abandon the ground for a few months
to allow the quahogs to rise closer to the
surface.
4) A dredge must be heavy enough to
stay on the bottom, but not be too heavy
or it will sink into the bottom. He esti-
mates his dredge, which weighs 136 kg
out of water, weighs perhaps 32–36 kg
when jetting the bottom.
5) When the boat begins dredging on
a shelly bottom, it often gets about 20%
quahogs and 80% oyster shells in the
dredge. After a while, the ratio becomes
60% quahogs and 40% shell.
On this day, the buyer wanted the qua-
hogs to be packed in 3-peck onion bags
(4 pecks are in a bushel). Each bag would
hold either 400 littlenecks, 300 topnecks,
150 cherrystones, or 100 chowders. We
left the dock in Milford at 7:45 a.m. and
went to the captain’s Milford lease about
1.5 km west of Charles Island. It was
cloudy and damp, a wind of about 5 knots
blew from the shore in a northeasterly
direction, and the sea was calm while the
air temperature was about 6°C. The bed
was about 7.5 m below the water surface.
Its sediments consisted of a mixture of
sand, gravel, and oyster shells.
The captain dropped the dredge to the
bottom the fi rst time at 8:20 a.m. It was
retrieved 4 min later, emptied onto the
culling table, and returned to the bottom
by 8:25 a.m. The two deckhands, who
wore short boots, caps, and oilskin
pants and jackets over their clothes,
stood on opposite sides of the culling
table, picked out the quahogs, tossed
them into a wire basket, and pushed the
shells overboard as the boat was moving
ahead (Fig. 20). The fi rst catch was 1.5
pecks of quahogs. One deckhand hosed
the mud off the quahogs in the basket
(Fig. 21) and then put them on the me-
chanical sorting table and pushed them
onto the rollers. After that, the dredge
was lifted, emptied, and lowered about
once every 5 min. The catches ranged
from 1 to 4 pecks/lift. The deckhands
were consistently busy emptying the
dredge, culling and washing, pushing
shells off the culling table, putting the
quahogs onto the mechanical sorting
table, and removing the onion bags
from the base of the sorting table as they
became full of quahogs, tying their tops
tightly, and stacking the bags in front
of the pilot house. About every 45 min,
the crewmen shortened the length of the
towing rope because the tide was falling,
and they occasionally took 5-min breaks
to snack or quench their thirst.
The crew quit dredging at 1:40 p.m.,
and we arrived at the dock in Milford
Harbor at 2:15 p.m., with 22 bags of
littlenecks, 22 bags of topnecks, 9 bags
of cherrystones, and 2 bags of chowders,
the total the buyer could sell (Fig. 22).
The quahogs were carried into a walk-in
cooler at the edge of the shore; it measured
2 m wide, 2.1 m high, and 4.25 m deep
(Fig. 23). The buyer’s refrigerated truck
would arrive within a few hours and take
the quahogs to the Fulton Fish Market
in Manhattan, which opens at midnight.

64(3) 17
Figure 20. — Culling quahogs from trash on
hydraulic dredging boat, Milford, Conn., 1998.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 21. — Culling and washing quahogs on hydraulic dredging boat,
Milford, Conn., 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 22. — Unloading harvested quahogs at Milford, Conn., 1998. Each
bag and basket contains a specifi c size and number of quahogs. Photograph
by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 23. — Placing harvested quahogs in
small cooler, Milford, Conn., 1998. Photo-
graph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
The captain would be paid $70–$72/400-
count sack of littlenecks, $60/300-count
sack of topnecks, $16/150-count sack of
cherrystones, and $10/100-count sack
of chowders. His gross for the day was
$3,046.
Long Island, N.Y.
Long Island, N.Y., has been a major
producer of quahogs, with harvests
coming mainly from four bays on its north
shore and Great South Bay (Fig. 18). In
the 1870’s, about 700 harvesters were
active, each gathering about 3 bu/day (In-
gersoll, 1887). Production continued af-
terward with the combined harvests from
the north shore bays being about equal
to that from Great South Bay (Fig. 24).

18 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 24. — Small sloops once used for dredging oysters (left) were later engine-driven and used for tonging quahogs during the
1930’s and beyond, Great South Bay, N.Y. (right).
Following a survey he made of the
mollusk fi sheries of Long Island, James
L. Kellogg (1901) said the quahog supply
in the town grounds from Freeport to
Patchogue in Great South Bay was
enormous. Fishermen harvested it with
tongs. He said:
“Opposite Fire Island inlet is the
town of Islip, which has always been the
center of the industry in (Great South)
bay. Soon after the civil war, a factory
for canning clams (northern quahogs)
was established there. After struggling
for several years to perfect the process
of canning, and to obtain a market, the
business grew to such proportions that
400 bushels (10,000 cans) of hard clams
were canned daily. This output continued
for years, clams being brought from all
parts of the bay. About fi ve years ago, the
supply began to decrease. Two years ago,
it became impossible to obtain clams,
and today very few are canned there. The
demand had steadily increased, and is
now greater than ever. In order to keep
its business, this company established
another factory in one of the southern
states (Florida?).” Kellogg believed the
quahog supply fell because oyster com-
panies had reduced the quahog harvest-
ing areas when they covered many of the
grounds with oysters.
From the 1940’s into the 1980’s, the
New York bays often produced the bulk
of quahogs in the United States (Fig. 25).
The percentage of total U.S. landings
coming from New York reached about
50% in 1947. It dropped afterward to just
under 20% in 1954, then rose steadily to
slightly above 60% of the total in 1978,
and remained slightly above 50% of the
total until 1980 (McHugh, 1991). The
landings afterward fell to about 25% of
the total in 1984 and to 17% in the early
1990’s, particularly as Great South Bay’s
production declined sharply (MacKenzie
and Burrell, 1997).
In the 1940’s (Fig. 26) and 1950’s,
most fi shermen used tongs in Great South
Bay and they dug mostly on former oyster
beds that had large quantities of surface
shells. The quahogs were more abundant
on those beds than on beds without the
shell cover, probably because the shells
hid juvenile quahogs from predators. In
the 1960’s and 1970’s, the fi shermen,
whose numbers had increased sharply by
then, used mostly bull rakes. The raking
removed most of the shells and the extent
of the shelly bottoms was substantially
reduced. Quahogs remain most abundant
in bottoms with large quantities of shell
fragments mixed with sand (MacKenzie,
1997a).
In the early 1900’s, the oyster indus-
try dominated shellfi shing in Great South
Bay. Oyster production, high until about
1920, fell afterward until by 1930 it had
fallen to less than half the peak amount.
While oystering fl ourished, it employed
most of the local fi shermen. As mentioned
in Part I in the section on bay and ocean
water exchange, the 1931 hurricane broke
an inlet through the beach at Moriches
Bay and the increased water exchange
with the ocean led to a huge increase in
quahog abundances (McHugh, 1991).
But duck farms on the bay’s north shore
brought some negative changes. The
duck farming had begun in about 1890.
By 1924, about 1.5 million ducks were
being raised, and by 1941 their numbers
increased to a peak of about 6 million. Ef-
fl uents from the duck farms washed into
the bay, phosphates became extremely
high, and nitrates declined in the water.
Dense blooms of Nannochloris spp. re-
sulted, the waters became yellow-green,
and the ciliary tracts of shellfi sh became
clogged with the algae. The blooms
lasted from the 1930’s through the mid
1950’s. Scientists from the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts
believed reduced tidal exchange between
the bay and ocean through Fire Island
Inlet and resultant stagnant waters aided
the blooms’ growth (Black and Kassner,
1988; McHugh, 1991).
In 1951, Moriches Inlet closed after
years of shoaling, but Hurricane Edna
reopened it in 1953. The result again
was good quahog growth. By 1957, a
shallow delta formed inside the inlet and
the inlet nearly refi lled again. In 1958,
the inlet was dredged and subsequently

64(3) 19
Figure 25. — Data from Great South Bay, N.Y. The upper panel illustrates historical
landings in New York (McHugh, 1991). The middle panel shows there were few
seed quahogs in the presence of a large number of adult quahogs in 1975 (Mac-
Kenzie, 1977). In lower panel, histobars representing the sizes of northern quahogs
killed by predators illustrate predation is heaviest on the smallest quahogs (from
MacKenzie, 1977).
protected by seawalls. Around this time,
duck farm production began to decline
and the farms began to treat the duck
wastes. Authorities had learned that
when Moriches Inlet was closed water
quality in Great South Bay deteriorated
and salinities declined, and, conversely,
when the inlet was open, increased fl ush-
ing improved water quality and salinity
increased (Kassner and Black, 1982;
McHugh, 1991).
In two years in the early 1960’s, qua-
hogs set densely throughout most of
Great South Bay, and, because the bay’s
quahogs grow slowly, the sets remained
as seed and littlenecks for several years.
By the mid 1960’s a few thousand fi sher-
men were harvesting the quahogs; most
were landing 5–10 bu/day. During the
most productive period in the 1970’s,
total production was slightly above
700,000 bu in each of the three best years
(Anonymous, 1987) (Fig. 25). After the
late 1970’s, the bay’s quahog production
declined sharply.
It might appear overharvesting by the
many fi shermen in the bay during the
1970’s was responsible for the decline
in quahog landings during the late 1970’s,
but data by MacKenzie (1977) showed
light sets had occurred during at least
four consecutive years when relatively
large quantities of mature quahogs were
present (Fig. 25). It appears instead that
adverse environmental factors affecting
quahog spawning and larval develop-
ment, rather than a dearth of mature
quahogs, were mainly responsible for
the falling stock. In addition, blue crabs,
which are ravenous predators of small
quahogs, became abundant during and
after the 1980’s and were also respon-
sible. Adverse environmental conditions
continued into the 1990’s as the inlets
allowed too little exchange of bay and
ocean waters to fl ush out the “brown
tides” that prevent normal feeding,
spawning, and growth of quahogs.
In 1999, only 50 men raked each
day on the public bottoms of the bay.
Each raker usually harvested 800–1,000
quahogs/day, but when the quahogs bur-
rowed more deeply into the sediments
during heat waves, the yield dropped to
600–800 quahogs/day.
Trip on a Quahog Escalator
Harvesting Boat: Great South Bay,
29 July 1998
The Bluepoints Company owns 90 km
2
of bottom in Great South Bay through
grants issued by English King Charles II
in 1664 and continuing through various
regents until 1693; the same bottom has
remained in the company’s hands ever
since (Strong
24
). The water depth over
this bottom, which is level except for a
24
Strong, C. Bluepoints Co., West Sayville, New
Yo rk. Personal commun., 1999.

20 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 26. — Fishermen measuring out his quahog harvest from Great South Bay,
N.Y., with dealer, early 1940’s (from Glancy, 1943).
few narrow channels, is about 2 meters.
The company has been harvesting qua-
hogs from these grounds for at least
half a century, and currently contracts 4
escalator dredge boats to harvest them,
after recently idling its own fl eet of about
10 escalator harvesters because harvests
were small. The contract boats are 15 m
long and have decks entirely enclosed
by steel walls (2.1 m high) and ceilings
(Fig. 27). Their escalator belts are 15 m
long, 46 cm wide, and their heads at the
bottom are 70 cm wide. Quahogs, oyster
shells, and chunks of sand held together
with mud come up the belts and drop
onto the ends of waist-high rubber belts,
that move the material across the sterns
of each boat. Each boat is operated by
one fi sherman who dredges for 8 hr/day,
7 days/week, but is idle every other
Sunday. The usual harvest is about 7 bu
of quahogs/boat/day, but summer heat
waves drive the quahogs deeper into the
sediments and the catch is often half as
large. The fi sherman on this boat believes
the quahogs are about evenly distributed
across the company’s bottoms.
We set off for the bay from the
company’s dock in West Sayville. The
town is known for its long shellfi shing
history, fi rst as an oystering center and
now as a quahoging port. The land at
West Sayville is low and fl at, and the
shoreline along the north side of the
bay has homes, many of mansion size,
along most of it. As we headed into
the bay, the water appeared brownish
from an algal bloom. Upon reaching a
harvesting site near the middle of the
lease at 8:20 a.m., the fi sherman started
the hydraulic pump, lowered the head of
the escalator dredge to the bottom, and
set the steering wheel so the boat would
turn in circles that appeared to be about
half a kilometer in diameter. As the day
passed, the wind and current moved the
boat slowly westward so it consistently
harvested on new ground. The fi sherman
felt certain the quahogs were scarce in
the bay because Fire Island Inlet was too
small, allowing little exchange of bay and
ocean waters. He related when the qua-
hogs were abundant during the 1960’s
and 1970’s the opening was wider.
As quahogs came across the rubber
belt (running from left to right if facing
the stern), the fi sherman picked out the
quahogs, and tossed them into three hand
sorters, each 50 cm
2
lying beside one
another (Fig. 28). Their grate bars were
spaced to retain the quahogs >1 in (25.4
mm) wide. The seed fell through onto
the belt and, with shells and chunks of
sediments, passed off the belt overboard
to the right. As the fi sherman fi lled the
sorters, he emptied the quahogs into
bushel PVC baskets (Fig. 29).
The escalator belt broke at 12:20
p.m. after 4 hr of dredging, and we had
to return to the dock. The harvest was
2 bu of littlenecks (800/bu) (Fig. 30).
The company pays the fi sherman $48 a
bushel. In this half-day, he used 20 gal-
lons of fuel, and so this was not a very
profi table day for him or the company:
the expenses were $20 for fuel plus the
cost of the belt repairs.
Trip on a Quahog Dredging Boat:
Oyster Bay, 1 July 1998
Oyster Bay, N.Y., has two groups of
fi shermen harvesting quahogs. One is
the F. M. Flower Company that controls
part of the bay bottom through leases
and harvests quahogs with hydraulic
dredges, and the other is comprised
of about 50 independent men who har-
vest on public bottoms using bull rakes
(Fig. 31).
During the winter of 1997–98, the
company had stocked a section of its
leased bottom along the west shore of
the bay by transplanting quahogs onto
it from another lease near the town of
Oyster Bay. Bacterial counts on this latter
lease were too high for the quahogs to be
marketed. The company now was harvest-
ing quahogs from the stocked lease; the
water depth there ranged from 1.5 to 3 m.
The harvesting boat was a typical oyster
boat, about 15 m long (Fig. 32), that was
fi tted with a water pump and hydraulic jet
dredge constructed with a dredge bar 46
cm wide, with 11 water jets aiming down
into the sediment and 3 water jets aiming
back to wash the quahogs into its cage.
The boat crew consisted of a captain and
two deckhands. The captain steered the
boat and raised and lowered the dredge by
pulling ropes, one to a clutch and one to a
brake, on the left side of the wheelhouse.
The deckhands emptied the dredge and
culled the quahogs on a table next to the
rail in the center of the deck.
The boat began dredging at 7:54 a.m.,
and subsequently towed the dredge in
3 tight circles, <300 m in diameter,
before lifting it for emptying. If towed

64(3) 21
Figure 27. — Boat, which uses hydraulic escalator harvester,
at dock, West Sayville, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C. L.
MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 28. — Picking quahogs from “trash” moving along
conveyor belt on hydraulic escalator dredge boat, Great
South Bay, N.Y. Fisherman tosses the quahogs into hand
sorters on the far side of the belt, 1998. Photograph by C. L.
MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 29. — Emptying quahogs from hand sorter on
hydraulic escalator harvesting boat, Great South Bay,
N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 30. — Removing harvest of quahogs from hydraulic escala-
tor harvesting boat, Great South Bay, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by
C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
in a straight line, the water hose from the
deck pump to the dredge could be cut by
the propeller. Most tows lasted about 7
min. Each time the dredge was lifted to
the surface (Fig. 33), the captain dipped
it up and down in the water about seven
times to wash out mud and sand and then
brought it up and swung it over the culling
table. A deckhand emptied its contents
by releasing a door on its bottom (Fig.
34) and then swung the door closed, the
dredge went back over the side, dropped

22 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 31. — Quahog raker on public ground(foreground),
and quahog dredging boat on private lease (background,
at left), Oyster Bay, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C. L.
MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 32. — Quahog harvesting boat with deckhands cull-
ing quahogs while boat is dredging, Oyster Bay, N.Y., 1998.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 33. — Hydraulic quahog dredge
emerging from water after 7-min tow,
Oyster Bay, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C.
L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 34. — Emptying quahogs from hydraulic dredge onto culling table,
Oyster Bay, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 35. — Culling quahogs on harvesting boat, Oyster Bay, N.Y., 1998.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 36. — Lifting hopperful of quahogs
from boat onto dock, Oyster Bay, N.Y.,
1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.

64(3) 23
into the water, and then to the bottom.
Standing on opposite sides of the table,
the 2 deckhands rapidly picked out the
quahogs from the shells present, tossed
them into half-bushel baskets, and pushed
the shells off the end of the table and they
dropped overboard (Fig. 35). When fi lled,
the baskets of quahogs were emptied into
three 25-bushel hoppers. The time lapse
from fi rst lifting the dredge until it went
back overboard was 1 min.
By 2:30 p.m., the harvesting was
fi nished. The dredge had been lifted and
emptied 35 times, harvesting 62 bu of
quahogs. We returned to the dock in the
town of Oyster Bay, and the nearly full
hoppers were lifted onto the dock by
crane and run into a cold-storage room
(Fig. 36). The next day, the quahogs
would be culled into four marketing sizes
by machine, bagged, and then trucked to
restaurants in New York City.
Figure 37. — New York and New Jersey locations mentioned in
text.
Figure 38. — Raking quahogs in Raritan Bay, 1860’s (Harper’s
Weekly, 1869).
The F. M. Flower Co. has a hatchery
in Bayville on the northwest side of
Oyster Bay that is capable of producing
50–60 million quahog seed and 50–60
million oyster seed/yr. The seed initially
is grown on rafts anchored about 75 m
from the hatchery in quiet waters until
the quahogs attain a length of about 10
mm and the oyster seed are 25–30 mm
long, and then they are planted in beds
that are a few meters under water. The
company removes predators from the
beds with suction dredges before plant-
ing the seed but does not place screens
over it. When crabs are abundant, they
can kill many seed, and so the company
removes most of them with traps to keep
their losses low.
Raritan Bay, N.Y. and N.J.
Before the 1860’s, quahogs most
likely were harvested at wading depths
around the shores of Raritan Bay
(Fig. 37) by treading and with short
rakes. In the mid 1860’s, George El-
dridge, inventor of the bull rake, used
this new rake out of a rowboat to gather
virgin quahog stocks in the deeper bay
waters. Other fishermen soon made
similar rakes and eventually a fl eet of
boats with fi shermen using bull rakes
was harvesting quahogs in the bay
(Leonard, 1923) (Fig. 38) .
Harvesting with bull rakes involved
jerking the rake through the bottom,
about 50–100 mm at a time. In doing
so, fi shermen could feel and hear the
quahogs collecting and rattling in their
rakes. “It’s the kind of music we like to
hear,” one fi sherman remarked in the
1880’s (Kobbe, 1982). After pulling the
rakes through the bottom for about 1.8 m,
the fi shermen pulled them up to remove
the quahogs.

24 Marine Fisheries Review
Wind and water currents were impor-
tant to hand raking. Fishermen harvested
the most quahogs, i.e. 6–12 bu in 5–6
hr of raking each day, when the wind
and current were in the same direc-
tion. When the wind and waves were
opposed, the boats remained almost
stationary and the fishermen had to
push the boats away from the rakes
and could jerk them only 8–12 times
before having to push again. The result
was fewer quahogs. The Raritan Bay
bottoms where the New Jersey diggers
rake have entirely mud-like sediments.
The fi shermen have explored digging in
areas where the bottom is hard sand, but
found harvests poor there.
The fi rst description of sail dredg-
ing in Raritan Bay was included in an
1875 letter to Ernest Ingersoll (1887:
597–598): “They go after hard-shelled
clams from Keyport (New Jersey) in
squatty, one-sailed boats, called “cats”
(catboats) dragging clam-rakes, which
are thrown out and drawn by the wind.
The ground extends in Raritan Bay
from Sandy Hook to South Amboy (A
distance of 20 km). A good day’s catch
was from 3 to 3.5 barrels (9–10 bu). The
man who owns his boat and sells stock
by the ten or twenty thousand at whole-
sale is sort of an aristocrat compared
to those (diggers of softshell clams)
who go down to the shore daily, with
a basket, get their somewhat precari-
ous catch, take it home on their backs,
open the bivalves, and then peddle the
result in a can with a quart measure in
the other hand.”
From 1915 to 1925, the earliest period
for which data are available, about 40
boats comprised the sail dredging fl eet,
and in the late 1920’s and the 1930’s the
fl eet size was 25–30 boats. At times,
when the weather was too bad for local
lobstermen to venture into the ocean to
lift their pots, a few joined the regular
quahog harvesting fl eet by adding tem-
porary sails to their skiffs and putting on
dredges.
At low wind speeds, sloops could
tow only 2 dredges; if more were
towed, the boat would stop or move
too slowly. As the wind picked up, the
men added a third dredge and fi nally
a fourth. A typical drift was 1.5–3 km
long and lasted about 1 hr, depending
on the size of the quahog bed and wind
speed. As the boat drifted, it pitched and
rolled, pulling the rakes slowly and then
quickly through the bottom, keeping the
mud-like sediments passing through. It
was common for the boats to move too
slowly to dredge on summer mornings,
when the wind was too light, or when
the wind and current were in opposite
directions. When conditions were good,
daily catches ranged from 15 to 30 bu
for 2-man boats, and was about 10 bu
for one-man boats.
During most of the 1800’s and into
the early 1900’s, this fi shery alternated
by season with the oyster and blue crab
fisheries. The same boats were used
for harvesting quahogs during warm
months (April through August), oysters
during the fall and early winter (Septem-
ber through December), and blue crabs
during the rest of the winter (January
through March). The oyster industry
ended for good during the early 1920’s,
and from then on the boats harvested qua-
hogs into October and then converted to
dredging for blue crabs.
During the 1920’s, quahoging was
depressed in Raritan Bay. New York
authorities had banned harvesting qua-
hogs in its waters, which comprise the
northern half of the bay, due to pollution.
At that time, about 12 men were bull
raking on the New Jersey side of the bay.
During the 1930’s, the situation changed
dramatically because seed quahogs had
set densely over vast areas of the bay in
1930 or 1931. The fi shermen found the
set, and they learned they could sell the
seed for $1.00–$1.50 a bushel to lease-
holders in Barnegat and Chincoteague
Bays for planting, growth, and later
harvest. To collect the seed, fi shermen
inserted screen mesh in their bull rakes;
each could then harvest several bushels
of seed per day. From 500 to 600 men,
mostly raking from row boats, became
involved in the fi shery, each earning as
much as $10 on good days. When the
quahogs reached about 1 inch (25.4 mm)
long, another market developed, when
truckers who had delivered coal to the
local area from Pennsylvania, purchased
them. They carried the quahogs back to
Pennsylvania towns and sold them to be
eaten raw on the half-shell or steamed
(Red Bank Register, 1935).
In the early to mid 1930’s, when the
quahogs attained littleneck and cher-
rystone sizes, authorities in New York
temporarily banned the importation of
Raritan Bay quahogs for public health
reasons. However, in 1935 the U.S.
Health Service certifi ed the New Jersey
beds as safe for quahog harvest, and
on 15 October 1935, New York City
lifted its ban on New Jersey quahogs.
In 1939, authorities opened some beds
in the New York half of Raritan Bay for
quahog harvesting (Fig. 39). The landings
of marketable quahogs from the bay rose
from 11,560 bu (worth $13,029) in 1933
to 141,167 bu (worth $164,930) in 1938
(MacKenzie, 1992a).
During the 1940’s and 1950’s, each
bull raker was harvesting 8–10 bu of
cherrystone and chowder quahogs a day
in New Jersey beds. However, as many as
50 New Jersey quahogers went across the
state line in Raritan Bay to harvest qua-
hogs illegally in New York waters. They
dug at night to avoid detection because
the New York residency laws restricted
harvesting to state residents. Each New
Jersey quahoger often harvested as many
as 15–20 bu/night, thus explaining their
willingness to risk incarceration to gain
access to the New York resource (MacK-
enzie, 1992a).
From 1946 to 1961, in the New Jersey
portion of Raritan Bay, about 20 boats
harvested quahogs with rocking-chair
dredges. The beds were in deep water,
6–8 m, which were not being exploited
by the rakers. Each boat had a captain
and two deckhands. Crews towed
their dredges for about 10 min before
retrieving and emptying them. Each
tow collected 2.5–4 bu of cherrystones
and chowders. The deckhands usually
worked steadily, picking quahogs off
the decks and bagging them. Each boat
harvested about 40 bu of quahogs per
trip. Dredging operations were confi ned
to November through February because
at other times the dredging forced sedi-
ment into the quahogs that were open
and pumping water and this reduced
their marketability. This dredge fi shery
in Raritan Bay continued through 1961,
when New Jersey temporarily banned all

64(3) 25
Figure 39. — Unloading harvest of quahogs at Great Kills, Staten Island, N.Y., 1939.
Photograph by A. Lanza. Courtesy of Staten Island Historical Society, Richmond-
town Restoration, Staten Island, N.Y.
quahoging in the bay because of pollution
(MacKenzie, 1992a).
Available fi gures on quahog produc-
tion from Raritan Bay are intermittent.
In the late 1870’s, annual production of
quahogs from the bay was estimated
at 150,000 bu (Ingersoll, 1887). In
1897, quahog landings from Richmond
County, N.Y., (mostly Raritan Bay)
were about 12,000 bu, and, in 1898,
10,000 bu (Townsend, 1901). From
1897 to 1938, quahog landings from
Monmouth County, N.J., (mostly Rari-
tan Bay) ranged from 6,026 to 141,167
bu (Townsend, 1901; Fiedler, 1940).
From 1885 to 1940, landed prices of
quahogs ranged from about $1.10 to
$1.50/bu. Before the late 1930’s, New
Jersey hand rakers temporarily stored
their daily catches of quahogs in fl oat-
ing wooden cars in Keyport Harbor and
Port Monmouth-Belford. Every week or
so, they shipped the quahogs on freight
boats, market sloops, and passenger-
freight ferries to New York City markets.
The sail dredgers sold their quahogs to
market sloops which sailed from New
York City to Raritan Bay about twice
a week (Ingersoll, 1887). Transfers of
quahogs from the dredging sloops to the
market sloops took place in the bay and
they continued into the late 1930’s; after
that trucks took over the transport.
Before World War II, there were not
any contamination problems with qua-
hogs in the New Jersey half of Raritan
Bay. But in 1942 and thereafter, areas
of the bay were closed to quahoging
because the waters had high bacterial
counts. In June 1961, the entire bay
was closed to harvesting when some
people contracted infectious hepatitis
from eating quahogs taken from the
bay. For brief periods in the 1960’s and
early 1970’s, New Jersey authorities
opened Sandy Hook Bay to harvesting
for the direct marketing of quahogs, but
only a few part-time sail-dredging boats
and 10–15 hand rakers were harvesting
quahogs. Sandy Hook Bay remained
open until 1974, but the entire bay has
been closed to the direct harvesting of
quahogs ever since. Sail dredging for
quahogs which had lasted for about a
century ended with this closure (MacK-
enzie, 1992a).
The quahog beds off Staten Island
and in the eastern part of the bay were
reopened for harvesting when plants for
depurating quahogs were constructed.
The fi rst plant began operating in Great
Kills Harbor, Staten Island, in 1979.
Each day, about 20 men dug quahogs
in an area extending south of Great
Kills Harbor to Prince’s Bay to sell to
the plant. In December 1983, the plant
closed because it was unprofi table, and
quahoging ended in New York waters for
the time being.
Fishermen did not harvest any quahogs
in the New Jersey waters of the bay from
1974 until 1983, when a quahog depura-
tion plant began operations in Highlands,
N.J. State authorities restricted quahog
harvesting areas to the southeastern part
of Raritan Bay and the Navesink River,
where the waters were the least polluted.
The two sections below describe how the
States of New York and New Jersey re-
stored the quahog fi sheries in polluted
Raritan Bay.
The New York Side of Raritan Bay
In 1989 the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation developed
a plan to allow bull rakers to harvest
quahogs from the New York waters of
Raritan Bay and have them depurated
by relaying them to certifi ed waters on
Long Island. The harvesting season has
since been open from about 20 April to
10 October each year, the precise dates
being dependent upon water tempera-
tures, which must exceed 10°C for the
quahogs to properly depurate in natural
waters. Private companies truck the qua-
hogs to certifi ed waters in eastern Long
Island, such as Peconic Bay, where they
are held for at least 21 days before being
reharvested and sold. The diggers can
work from Monday through Friday. Most
live on Long Island, where they used to
harvest mostly in Great South Bay until
the quahogs became scarce there in the
last two decades.
On typical days in 1998, 70–80 New
York quahoging boats were present on
Raritan Bay. Each had a digger and an
additional man, termed a “roper,” who
pulled up the fi lled rake with a rope and
then culled and bagged the quahogs
(Fig. 40). Pulling up a full rake is the
most tiresome aspect of harvesting qua-
hogs with a bull rake. By hiring ropers,
diggers can rake longer hours and the
older men (ages from 50 to 70) can rake

26 Marine Fisheries Review
a full day. State regulations require each
boat must have a culling grate with 1-
inch (25.4-mm) openings attached to its
side and positioned to ensure the seed
fall overboard rather than into the boat
as the quahogs are culled. This ensures
that no seed is taken from the bay. To
keep their boats moving with the tidal
current while raking, especially when
the wind blows in the opposite direc-
tion from the current, the diggers place a
“tide sheet” made of plastic in the water
so the current will have more drag on
their boat (Fig. 41). This contrasts with
New Jersey diggers who usually hoist a
sail under such conditions while some
use tide sheets. In 2001, the sails used
lasted 6 months and were bright blue.
The diggers usually began raking about
sunrise and continued until about 1
p.m. In 1989, 80 boats landed 55,639
bu of quahogs, while by 1998 a similar
number harvested 76,000 bu, the highest
total ever (Barnes
25
).
The water depth where most diggers
rake is about 3.7–4.6 m, but it ranges
from 2.4 to 9 m. The bottoms where
they rake is almost entirely mud-like sed-
iments or this sediment mixed with sand
and most contain considerable quantities
of shells of oysters and softshell clams,
M. arenaria.
New York authorities maintain rigid
control over the harvesting. The two
critical violations would be: 1) landing
quahogs and selling them directly to
customers before they are depurated and
2) harvesting in grossly polluted waters
(class IV) in far western Raritan Bay. The
diggers have to be on the water in discrete
crews or groups of no more than 9 boats,
with the boats in each remaining within
300 yards of one another. Each crew is
under the watch of a crew chief who
helps to ensure no quahogs are landed
outside of the program. Each crew also
has with them a “monitor” (Fig. 42), i.e.
a person hired by a private company to
remain on the crew chief’s boat all day
to guard against violations. Since about
80 boats were harvesting daily in 1998,
9 monitors were on the bay watching
25
Barnes, D. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, East Setauket.
Personal commun., 1999.
them. Overseeing all the boats is a crew
of two state employees aboard the state
boat Alosa (Fig. 43). This crew deter-
mines which fi shermen are digging each
day, ensures all the rules are followed,
and, when the diggers return to their ports
to unload, they go ashore with them to
make sure the monitors watch that all
bags of quahogs are loaded onto state-
approved trucks.
While harvesting, each digger rakes
for 3–4 min to fi ll his rake, and then the
“roper” pulls it up as the digger guides the
handle. After washing out the mud-like
sediment and sand by pushing the rake
back and forth a few times in the surface
water, the digger empties the quahogs
into a basket and then returns the rake
to the bottom to resume digging. The
“roper” meanwhile empties the basket
onto the culling grate and picks out the
legal-sized quahogs and puts them in bas-
kets by size. In this program, “littlenecks”
comprise littlenecks and topnecks, and
“cherrystones” comprise cherrystones
and chowders. By state regulation, the
quahogs have to be packed in green onion
sacks and have a red tag on them which
states “for cleansing only.”
The rakers harvest the most quahogs
when the wind and current move in the
same direction, because then the boats
drift consistently away from the pull of
the rakes. On such days, each digger har-
vests about 8 bu of “littlenecks” and 6 bu
of “cherrystones.” When the current and
wind are in opposite directions, the dig-
gers have to push their boats away from
the rakes and their harvests are from 50
to 66% as large. In 1998, the diggers re-
ceived $65/bu for “littlenecks” and $10/
bu for “cherrystones.” The diggers pay
their “ropers” $10/bu for “littlenecks”
and $1/bu for “cherrystones.” On good
days, each digger may gross almost
$600. After paying the roper, this leaves
him with about $500 a day before other
expenses are taken out. The many diggers
who live on Long Island, about 100–125
km away, have high expenses. Besides
the ownership and upkeep of their boat
and engine and a dockage fee, most live
in nearby motels 4 nights a week and eat
in restaurants, while the others who travel
back and forth to Long Island every day
have high transportation costs.
At the end of a harvesting day, the
boats in each crew must return to their
ports together. The bags of quahogs are
loaded into refrigerated trucks, while
their drivers, who are bonded, keep
track of the number of bags of each size
grouping from each digger (Fig. 44). At
around 2 p.m., when the trucks are full
(about 300 bags), their rear doors are
closed, locked, and then sealed (Fig. 45).
The truckers afterward drive for about 3
hr to their homes at locations about mid
way on Long Island and park the trucks
overnight. The following morning, they
drive to the sites where the quahogs
will be unloaded and placed in certifi ed
waters. Most quahogs are placed in trays,
while some are spread on the bottom. The
truckers then drive back to Staten Island,
arriving by 1 p.m. to pick up that day’s
harvest of quahogs.
This program, which had a landed
value to the diggers of about $2.75
million in 1997, has been profitable
for all concerned — the diggers, ropers,
truckers, and buyers — and there is little
temptation to violate the rules to increase
incomes. All participants involved want
everyone else to follow the rules so the
state will not close the program.
During the off-season, October–April,
many diggers, i.e. the “gypsies of the bay,”
harvest quahogs in other locations. Many
trailer their boats and gear to the north
shore of Long Island to harvest quahogs
in Oyster Bay, Huntington Bay, or Port
Jefferson Harbor. If a town controlling a
section of Great South Bay opens a pre-
viously uncertifi ed section of bottom for
winter digging, some go there to harvest.
Others dig in New Jersey waters and sell
their quahogs to the depuration plants.
Still others have trailered their boats to
Florida to harvest quahogs in the Indian
River Lagoon.
The New Jersey Side of Raritan Bay
In 1983, after urging by the fi shermen,
the State of New Jersey established a
system for some diggers to relay their
quahogs to certifi ed leased beds in Bar-
negat Bay for depuration. The fi shermen
each gathered 5–8 bu of quahogs a day
to relay to their leases. They had to land
their quahogs at a marina in Sea Bright
by noon each day, put them in the cab

64(3) 27
Figure 40. — Raking quahogs in Raritan Bay, N.Y. In fore-
ground, the “roper” is hauling up rake while the raker guides
the handle. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 41. — Tide sheet used to pull quahog boat away from
rake, Raritan Bay, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C. L. Mac -
Kenzie, Jr.
Figure 42. — Quahog raking boat, Raritan Bay,
N.Y. State monitor is at bow, raker is in middle, and
“roper” is near the stern, 1998. Photograph by C. L.
MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 43. — State of New York boat Alosa and crew which over-
sees quahog harvesting in Raritan Bay, N.Y., 1998. Photograph by
C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 44. — Loading quahogs from harvesting boat onto truck, Tottenville,
N.Y., 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 45. — Lock and seal on the cab of
a truck used to relay quahogs from Sea
Bright, N.J., to Barnegat Bay shore, 1998.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.

28 Marine Fisheries Review
(covered cargo bed) of their truck that was
locked and then sealed by a state conser-
vation offi cer, then travel to Barnegat Bay
and arrive there by about 2 p.m. In Bar-
negat Bay, each digger had three 0.5-acre
leases on which to depurate the quahogs.
At the Barnegat Bay shore, a conserva-
tion offi cer removed the seals and then
watched the diggers plant the quahogs
on appropriate leases. The quahogs had
to remain on the leases for at least 30 days
at temperatures at least as high as 10°C
before they could be marketed.
The water depth over most Barnegat
Bay leases is about 2 meters. The dig-
gers have boats and rakes in Barnegat Bay
similar to those in Raritan Bay, except
that the rake handles are about 3.7 m long.
About 1 day a week, during the months
when water temperatures are above 10°C,
instead of harvesting in Raritan Bay, each
harvests about 30 bu of quahogs from his
lease. A few diggers spread their quahogs
on tarpaulins in 60–90 cm of water and
harvest them with toothless tongs.
In 1990, about 15 New Jersey “relay-
ers” were raking daily in southeastern
Raritan Bay. Quahog abundance was
limited to small areas and the fi shermen
attempted to hide any small concentra-
tions they had found from one another.
But during the 1990’s, the abundance
of market-sized quahogs erupted over
hundreds of acres in all soft bottoms.
Similarly to the situation in Connecticut
at the same time, the starfi sh population
which had been abundant during the
early 1980’s had crashed (MacKenzie
and Pikanowski, 2000).
A large increase in quahog fi shermen
and landings followed. By 1991 the
number of rakers had increased to 30, all
of whom were relayers. In 1992, a depura-
tion plant with a daily capacity of 120 bu
opened in Sea Bright, N.J., and, in 1995,
a second depuration plant with a daily
capacity of 240 bu opened in Highlands,
N.J. State authorities allowed the plants
to operate under the condition that televi-
sion cameras monitor the tanks 24 hours
a day so State of New Jersey personnel in
offi ces in its Nacote Creek Field Station
and in the main offi ce in Trenton could
monitor water temperatures, oxygen con-
centrations, and fl ow rates, and watch for
violations such as short depuration times.
Both plants have run at full capacity. By
1999, the number of diggers who were
harvesting during every good-weather
day had increased to about 100; 60 sold
their quahogs to the 2 depuration plants,
while 30–40 relayed their quahogs to
Barnegat Bay (Harry
26
).
Since the capacity of the 2 plants is
a total of 360 bu of quahogs/day, each
fi sherman selling to them has been put
on a limit of 4–8 bu/day; the number of
bushels/man depended on the number of
fi shermen who arrived to dig each morn-
ing. The relayers can land an unlimited
quantity each day. The plants sort the
diggers’ quahogs by size and pay them
according to the quantity of each size
they harvest. The diggers who sell to
the plants and some relayers harvest
quahogs year-round. The relayers who
plant quahogs on their leases during
the winter cannot harvest from them
until the following April and May when
water temperatures have risen rise above
10°C for 30 days.
The depuration plants sell their qua-
hogs to outlets in New Jersey and nearby
states. During the warm months, about
66% are sold wholesale to fi sh markets
in states as far away as Ohio, and the
remainder are sold retail to nearly 500
restaurants within the New Jersey area.
In the winter, more quahogs are sold
wholesale in New York City than to the
summer outlets (Harry
26
).
The 30–40 relay fi shermen (Fig. 46,
47) in New Jersey land their quahogs at
the site of the depuration plant operated
by Brooks Seafood in Sea Bright and
truck them to Barnegat Bay each day,
where they spread them on their leases.
Figure 46. — Fishermen in Raritan Bay, N.J. aim their rake handles
high into the air as they retrieve their rakes from the bottom, 1998.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 47. — When rake is near water surface, the fi shermen
lower the cross-bar and styrofoam fl oat at the end of the
handle to the water. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
26
Harry, J. Relay quahog fi sherman, Raritan
Bay and Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, and Presi-
dent of the New Jersey clam relayers. Personal
commun., 1999.

64(3) 29
The relayers have a slight monetary
advantage over those who sell to the
depuration plants because they obtain
full market prices for their quahogs
(usually about $0.20 for each littleneck)
whereas those who sell to the depura-
tion plants were paid less ($0.14 for
each littleneck) in 1998. Each fi sherman
usually harvests about 4–7 bu for a total
of about 90–150 bu/day by the relayers
1998. A typical relayer harvests quahogs
about 100–110 days/yr in Raritan Bay,
whereas a typical fi sherman who sells to
the depuration plants harvests about 200
days/yr in Raritan Bay. The State of New
Jersey and the plants allow the diggers
more days to rake, but strong winds, an
occasional engine breakdown, harvesting
from relay leases nearly once a week, and
personal business, including visits to doc-
tors, reduces the number of days they can
harvest. The relayers can harvest from
sunup until 1 p.m. on Mondays through
Fridays, while the diggers who sell to the
plants can harvest from sunup until 4 p.m.
on Mondays through Saturdays.
The diggers toss back most of the
chowders they rake because they can
sell them for only about $3/bu, but they
retain the littlenecks, topnecks, and cher-
rystones to gain as much money as they
can. They believe returning the chowders
maintains an adequate spawning stock
in the bay. The state allows a maximum
of 3% of their catch to be undersized
quahogs; a 1-in (25.4 mm) width is the
minimum size allowed. The program is
tightly controlled by the state and has
been running well with no problems of
contaminated quahogs getting to market.
State wardens watch the diggers from the
shore to ensure they do not land and sell
quahogs anywhere but at the sites of the
depuration plants.
The diggers have various types of
expenses. One is a dockage fee of
$1,200/yr for their boats. Another is a
$75 annual state harvest license. The
diggers are charged $5 for each bushel
they land: $2 pays for the State of New
Jersey law enforcement team, $1 for the
diggers’ lawyer, $1 for dues in their as-
sociation, and $1 for workers to carry
the quahogs from the shore a distance
of about 45 m to the plant. The relayers
are charged only $4/bu because they put
the quahogs on their trucks themselves.
Additional costs to the diggers include
engine fuel and upkeep of equipment. It
costs $400 to obtain a lease in Barnegat
Bay and have it surveyed, and $5/yr for
lease renewals.
Trip on a Quahog Raking Boat:
Raritan Bay, N.J., 11 August 1998
The fisherman, a relayer, 57 years
old, docked his boat in a slip at a dock
belonging to Brooks Seafood about 60 m
from Hwy 36 in Sea Bright, N.J. About
30 other quahog raking boats were also
moored there. The depuration plant was
situated between the dock and the high-
way. On this day, the fi sherman raked
in the southeastern part of Raritan Bay
in a bed where the water depth was 7.5
meters. Diggers have diffi culty working
there when the current and wind are in
opposite directions, because the rake
consistently goes underneath the boat
no matter on which side of it they rake.
Using their sail (Fig. 48) does not help
unless the wind is unusually strong, so the
diggers may move to beds farther west
where conditions will be better. The
current, by itself, can pose a problem if
it runs for an hour or so in one direction
along the bottom and in the opposite di-
rection near the surface. It messes up the
rake handle and makes raking diffi cult.
The equipment on this fi sherman’s
boat consisted of a stainless steel suitcase
rake that was 70 cm wide with teeth 7.6
cm long, four 3.65-m sections of handle
to be used with the rake, a 2-layered sort-
ing box in the center of the boat near the
bow, a winch on the port rail next to his
raking position, and a blue plastic sail on
the starboard side. The winch was turned
by a 1-hp electric motor powered by a
battery, whose power lasted 2 days. The
digger had 2 batteries, one in use and
the other being charged at home to be
switched with this one every second day.
In 7.5 m of water, he used all 4 sections of
handle to make a 14-m handle (Fig. 49).
The state allows the diggers to hoist their
rakes by power. A 6-mm diameter nylon
line was attached to the rake (Fig. 50),
and when the digger wanted to lift it, he
ran the end of the line around the winch
and stepped on a fl oor pedal and then the
rake full of quahogs and soft sediment
rose to the surface in about 30 seconds
as he guided the handle.
His sorting box measured 75 × 90
cm (Fig. 51). Its upper grate had spaces
wide enough to allow seed, littlenecks,
and topnecks to fall through, withhold-
ing cherrystones and chowders. Its lower
grate with 1-in (25.4-mm) spaces held the
littlenecks and topnecks, letting the seed
fall through. The two grates were hinged
at opposite ends of the box. The digger
emptied his rakefull of quahogs onto the
upper grate, shook it, and then lifted its
left side so the larger quahogs would fall
off into a basket or onto the deck of the
boat. He later discarded them overboard.
He then shook the lower grate and the
seed fell through into a basket and the
seed was also discarded overboard. He
then lifted the right side and the little-
necks and topnecks fell through a funnel
into a burlap bag resting on the deck.
The digger usually harvested 4–7 bu of
littlenecks and topnecks/day, or about 22
bu/week. On this summer day we left the
dock at 6:30 a.m., and he began raking at
6:50 a.m. and fi nished at 9:02 a.m. During
one typical raking, he jerked (pulled) the
rake 60 times before retrieving it. He said
he usually jerks it about 50 times when
the quahogs are abundant and as many
as 150 times when they are scarce before
retrieving it. He made 38 rakings. His
harvest was 5 bu comprising about 2,250
littlenecks and topnecks, or an average of
about 59 keeper quahogs/raking.
At the shore (Fig. 52), he put his bags
of quahogs in the cab of his truck, locked
the cab and it was sealed by a state law en-
forcement offi cer. For the next 2–4 hr, he
and the other 15–20 relayers got together
in groups of 4–6 individuals, and stood
by or sat in their trucks or on a bench,
relaxing and talking together about the
day’s conditions for raking, good periods
of harvesting in the past, how many more
years harvesting quahogs will last in the
bay, and they criticized and made fun of
one another’s methods and gear. They
appeared to relish this period of sharing
observations every day, which contrasted
with the hours of solitude they spent driv-
ing from home to Sea Bright, raking, and
then driving alone for 50 min to a site on
the shore of Barnegat Bay, and then home
again. At 1 p.m., a train of 12 fi shermens’

30 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 48. — Pushing boat away from rake in light wind. The sail is only
partially effective in doing this in such a wind, Raritan Bay, N.J., 1998. Pho-
tograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 49. — Typical raking position of
quahog fi sherman in Raritan Bay, N.J. Note
Styrofoam fl oat on rake handle and rope
and hauler used to retrieve the rake. Photo-
graph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 50. — Raker washing his quahog catch before dump-
ing them onto his culling table (sorting box), in Raritan Bay,
N.J., 1998. Note rope and hauler used to bring rake to sur-
face. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 51. — Rakeful of salable quahogs on
sorting box of raking boat after upper grate, at
right, was lifted and chowders slid off onto the
fl oor, Raritan Bay, N.J., 1998. Photograph by
C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 52. — Raritan Bay quahoger with his
daily catch, Sea Bright, N.J., 1998. Photograph
by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.

64(3) 31
pickup trucks left the parking lot and then
followed the state law-enforcement ve-
hicle for the drive to Barnegat Bay. Once
there, the state offi cer removed the seals
from the cabs and the fi shermen put the
quahogs in their boats, drove to their
leases, and spent 10 min spreading the
quahogs over them.
The fi sherman had 125,000 littlenecks
and topnecks on his lease. When prices
were around $0.20 for each quahog he
sold some, but when they dropped to
$0.15 to 0.17 each or less, he left them
on the lease. They were like money in
the bank. In contrast, the fi shermen who
sold to the depuration plants had to accept
what the plants were paying for quahogs
each day they harvested.
New Jersey’s Coastal
Bays and Delaware Bay
Quahogs grow in the three largest
coastal bays (Barnegat Bay, Little Egg
Harbor, and Great Bay), small coastal
bays to their south, and lower Delaware
Bay in New Jersey (Kennish et al., 1984;
McCloy and Joseph, 1985; Joseph, 1989)
(Fig. 37). The fi rst reference to quahog
harvests in the coastal bays was by Smith
(1690), who said, “We have a store of
clams (quahogs), esteemed much better
than oysters; on festivals the Indians feast
with them; there are shallops (scallops),
Figure 54. — Peddler with cart for selling quahogs
and fi sh, Barnegat, N.J., 1920’s (from Sim, 1949).
Figure 53. — Fishermen in Tuckerton, N.J., rigged an abandoned
railroad fl atcar with a mast and “sailed” their quahogs and fi sh on
an abandoned spur from docks at the shore to the main rail line in
the town in 1892. This sailcar was operated on the rail spur until
1915. When there was no wind, the fi shermen pulled it or used a
horse to pull it. It was eventually wrecked by teenage pranksters
on a Halloween night. Original pen and ink illustration by Sheila
Mickle Kierce, Asbury Park Press newspaper.
but in no great plenty.” The second such
reference was by Barber and Howe
(1844), who described people supply-
ing quahogs to soldiers fi ghting in the
American Revolution in the 1770’s:
“The aged people in (Cape May County
in Dennis Township) can recollect that in
the dark days of the Revolution when the
army was barefoot and provisions were
extremely scarce their people boiled
out, dried, and strung large quantities of
clams and transported them to the army.
No doubt, they were esteemed as a luxury
by the half-starved soldiers.”
Ingersoll (1887) estimated quahog
production from the coastal bays was
about 240,000 bu in 1880. The quahogs
bought the fi shermen $0.60/bu. Quahog
production from the entire state, includ-
ing Raritan Bay, peaked at nearly 600,000
bu in 1900, it declined and fell to its
lowest historical ebb in the mid 1920’s
(Fig. 53, 54), but rose afterward. Many
of the quahogs landed in the 1930’s and
1940’s were chowders that were sold to
canning companies. State production
afterward rose unevenly into the mid
1950’s. By the late 1950’s, the canning
companies purchased surfclams instead
of quahogs and the demand for the chow-
ders fell substantially (Ford, 1997).
During the 1950’s, about 250 fi sh-
ermen were harvesting quahogs in
Barnegat Bay during the summer
(Jenks
27
); many were high school and
college students (Chadwick
28
). Most
fi shermen used tongs and short rakes for
harvesting, while some used bull rakes
and some treaded (Jenks
27
). After the
1950’s, quahog abundance declined in
the coastal bays, especially in Barnegat
Bay and Little Egg Harbor.
McCay and Jenks (1997) described
an exceptional heavy set on the Goose
Bar in Little Egg Harbor that occurred
in 1972. Local fi shermen harvested the
seed, which they termed “buttons,” with
rakes, put some on their leases, and sold
the remainder to other leaseholders. One
leaseholder was able to plant 350,000
“buttons” on each of 2 leases. The qua-
hogs became a fi nancial bonanza for him
and several other leaseholders when they
sold them as littlenecks 2 years later.
By the early 1990’s, during the spring
and autumn, about 45 commercial fi sher-
men were digging quahogs, while in the
summer the daily number rose to 130.
In 1990, the average daily harvest for
full-time fi shermen was 900 quahogs.
27
Jenks, W. III. Retired shellfi sherman, 134
South Beverly Drive, Brick, New Jersey. Per-
sonal commun., 1998.
28
Chadwick, J. Quahog fi sherman, Barnegat,
New Jersey. Personal commun., 1998.

32 Marine Fisheries Review
Most were harvested with bull rakes,
while some were taken by treading
(Ford, 1997). The numbers of commer-
cial fi shermen continued to decline and,
by 1998, only about 14 were digging
quahogs during the spring and autumn,
while about 30 (8 in Barnegat Bay, 12–18
in Great Bay; 7–8 in Little Bay) were
digging in the summer. The diggers saw
little seed in the beds (Lauer
29
).
During the late 1990’s, the meats of
some quahogs in Barnegat Bay and Little
Egg Harbor were dark gray: The mantles,
gills, and soft parts of the quahog bodies,
but not the foot, were so colored, and they
become darker when cooked. Besides, the
meats were thinner than normal quahogs.
The occurrence of the “black” quahogs
was spotty. In one bed, nearly all the qua-
hogs were black, while in another nearly
all quahogs were normal. Littlenecks had
the least blackness, while cherries and
chowders had the most (Lauer
29
). One
local dealer (Lauer
30
) estimated perhaps
10% of the quahogs in the two bays were
“black.” In 1998 and 1999, the “black” in
the meats had spread southward to Great
Bay also. The condition slowed quahog
sales (Lauer
29
).
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, hatchery
production of quahogs in the coastal
bays developed successfully. In the
1990’s, 7 hatcheries were operating, and
an estimated 33% of the quahog harvest
from New Jersey waters came from their
seed (Ford, 1997). Each year, the largest
hatchery has raised 20–50 million seed
quahogs and sells them to the growers,
while another hatchery has raised 10–20
million seed quahogs and produces
200,000–300,000 littlenecks from the
seed it raised. In 1990’s, however, brown
tides, caused by A. anophagefferens, were
reducing their anticipated production by
preventing growth of the quahogs during
blooms (Bates, 1999), and there was a
threat of the meats becoming “black” in
Hammock Cove (Harry
26
).
About 50 former and part-time quahog
harvesters and some coastal residents ob-
tained leases, each around 2 acres in size,
29
Lauer, R. Quahog dealer, Barnegat, New
Jersey. Personal commun. 1999.
30
Lauer, P. Shellfi sh Dealer, Barnegat, New
Jersey. Personal commun., 1999.
from the state to grow the hatchery seed
to littleneck size and then market them.
Nearly all the leases are located in Ham-
mock Cove, locally called “Dry Bay.”
The cove, which is nearly 1 km long,
and located about 1.2 km south of Great
Bay, is shallow and goes nearly bare at
low tide. At low tide, most leases are in
thigh to waist-deep water. During such
tides, the growers can spread their seed
quahogs and then lay screens over them
for protection against blue crab preda-
tion. The screens collect biotic growth
which has to be manually scrubbed off
by the growers about once a week during
the warm months and less frequently
during the winter or the quahogs will
suffocate and die. The scrubbing is the
only maintenance the quahog plantings
require except for killing an occasional
blue crab that gets under a screen, but
the scrubbing is rather laborious (Fenton,
2001).
In the early 1990’s, Hammock Cove
was only partially planted with quahogs,
and they grew to market size in 1.5 to 2
years. By 2001, the bay has been entirely
planted with them and, consequently,
the quahogs grow more slowly: It now
requires 3 to 4 years for a quahog to
grow to market size. This has placed
an extra burden on the growers because
they have to clean their screens for 3 to
4 years to obtain a quahog crop. The
growers recently have been “making
a living” by working their leases, but
do not make any money beyond that
(Fenton, 2001).
New Jersey’s coastal bays support
a large recreational quahog fi shery. In
1996, 7,558 recreational licenses were
issued. The recreational fi shermen can
legally harvest as many as 150 quahogs/
day for their personal use. Most harvest
at wading depths using short rakes. This
fi shery accounted for about 20% of the
total quahog harvest from the bays (Ford,
1997).
In lower Delaware Bay, quahogs at
times are harvested with oyster dredges
constructed with extra long teeth. The
only statistics available on landings from
the bay are for the period from 1941 to
1965. A total of 470,000 bu, or an aver-
age of about 20,000 bu/yr, were harvested
(Ford, 1997).
Trip on a Quahog Raking Boat:
Barnegat Bay, 15 October 1998
A trip was taken with a 70-year-old
bull raker in Barnegat Bay opposite the
town of Barnegat near the southern end
of the bay. His wooden boat, 6.7 m long,
had a 235-hp automobile engine that was
14 years old. He had a plastic sail aboard
to help move the boat when he raked on
the days with little wind. He harvested
quahogs with a 22-tooth bubble rake that
had a 6.7-m handle. The locations of the
beds in which he harvests were all about
2 m deep.
The mainland to the west of the bay is
fl at and low. To the east is Long Beach
Island, a low, narrow strip of land be-
tween the bay and the Atlantic Ocean.
No hills can be seen when one looks
shoreward in either direction from the
water. Since the early 1960’s, a great
many summer homes and condomini-
ums have been built and now on both
coasts they cover about 80% of the
bay’s shorelines, much of which has
been bulkheaded. The only relatively
pristine shores are two wildlife refuges
and Island Beach State Park which is
along the east side of the bay.
Except for 2 years in the armed ser-
vices, 1943–45, the digger had harvested
quahogs nearly year-round in the bay for
60 consecutive years beginning when he
was 10 years old. During his fi rst 2–3
summers, he bull raked alongside his
father in their boat; his father retrieved
and emptied his rake after he fi lled it.
His face was weathered and his arms and
hands were thin and sinewy (Fig. 55).
He related the following observations
about quahoging in the bay:
1) Quahogs burrow more deeply
and catches decline if fi shermen rake a
bed for several days. Leave it alone for
2–3 weeks and they come up again. The
harder the bottom, the “touchier” it is.
Sand bottom is really “touchy.” The small
quahogs go down fi rst. Years ago, when a
fi sherman started in a bed, if he harvested
2,000 necks and 600 big quahogs a day,
after a week or so he’d get 1,000 necks
and 600 big ones a day.
2) Quahogs also burrow deeply in hot
weather. They come up in the fall and go
deeper again in the winter.

64(3) 33
3) It’s diffi cult harvesting in the bay
during windy periods, because the sur-
rounding land is so low. Years ago, one
could dig near a shoreline, but now the
state has closed all those nearshore areas
during the warm months due to pollution.
Winter harvesting is diffi cult because it
is windier more often.
4) In 1972, he and his brother took
350,000 seed from the Goose Bar and
planted them on a public bottom, intend-
ing to harvest them when they grew to
littleneck size. But 2 years later, when
they had become littlenecks, he was ill
for part of the year, and other fi shermen
harvested the littlenecks by treading,
leaving none for him.
5) From the 1960’s to the mid 1970’s,
Barnegat Bay had 40–50 regular quahog-
ers; in the 1960’s, they got from $0.025
to $0.03 for each quahog. Each harvested
2,000–2,500 quahogs of all sizes each
day and seed appeared plentiful. When-
ever the harvesting was really good, he
got as many as 1,000 quahogs/hr.
In recent days, the digger’s harvests
have diminished because the quahogs
have moved deeper into the sediments
as the water has become cooler. In the
summer of 1998, he harvested an aver-
age of about 150 quahogs/hr, but in the
fall and winter he harvests about 100
quahogs/hr. During a year, he sees only
small quantities of seed in the bay.
Two weeks ago, he tried raking qua-
hogs at an experimental site established
2.5 km east of his dock, by the National
Marine Fisheries Service and Rutgers
University. Broken surfclam shells had
been spread over plots in two concen-
trations: 300 bu/acre and 1,000 bu/acre.
Quahog setting has since been light, but
the more heavily shelled plots had 6 times
more quahogs than the unshelled control
plots. The fi sherman said the shells were
too abundant to allow harvesting of qua-
hogs with bull rakes. The quahogs could
be harvested some day with tongs that
cover less area. In using tongs, fi shermen
would drop the shells back in place and
they would continue to have their enhanc-
ing effect.
The previous day (October 14), he
had found a productive location and har-
vested 500 littlenecks and cherrystones,
far above his usual catches. He and four
other quahog diggers tie their boats at
the same docking site, and they know
the quantities each other harvests each
day. This raker did not want the other four
to fi nd his good spot, and so he had to go
to a different location this day.
We left the dock at 8:10 a.m. (Fig. 56)
and arrived at a raking spot 2 km from his
dock at 8:20 a.m. The bottom was hard
muddy-sand. The wind was blowing at
15–18 kn from the northwest, and so he
put out a weight that dragged along the
bottom to slow the movement of the boat.
The air temperature was in the 40’s.
The bay was lonely at this time of year.
When we arrived, no other quahogers
were in sight. But during summer days
in the 1990’s, dozens of sail and motor
boats could be seen whenever a quahoger
glanced around.
Several minutes after he began raking,
the digger glanced toward the western
shore and said, “Look, here they come.”
Three other diggers were coming toward
us, hoping it was his good spot. They
came close and raked around us but found
the harvests relatively poor and they left
after about 20 min. The digger was able to
keep his good location known to himself
for another day.
He moved his rake with rapid jerks
(pulls), each probably moving his rake
about 25 mm through the bottom. He
raked for 3–5 min each time before pull-
ing up the rake. In one typical raking, he
jerked the rake 380 times before retriev-
ing it (far more times than fi shermen
jerked their rakes between lifts in other
bays where sediments are softer) (Fig.
57). He picked the quahogs from the rake
by hand, because he caught too few to
empty it onto his sorting grate (Fig. 58).
The digger quit working at 9:00 a.m.
because the cold wind now was blowing
over 20 kn and his fi ngers had become
stiff and they ached. He had made 7 rak-
ings and had only 47 quahogs (range,
2–11/raking). He did not collect any
seed in his rake. This harvest was too
small to sell to the dealer whose shop
was 50 steps from his dock (Fig. 59).
Instead, his wife will make a pie with
them: chopped quahog meats, diced
potato, onion, and bay leaves and salt
for taste under a crust.
The digger believes his harvests will
increase after 1 November, when state
authorities will open some grounds close
to shore for harvesting. The state closes
them from 1 April to 31 October each
year when the waters have high bacte-
rial counts. The diggers get their highest
catches in those areas in March when the
quahogs come up near the surface of the
sediments.
Maryland
In Maryland, quahogs are harvested
commercially in its coastal bays (As-
sawoman Bay, Isle of Wight Bay, Sine-
puxent Bay, Newport Bay, and Chin-
coteague Bay) and in Tangier Sound
within Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 60). The
state’s regulations for quahogs are as
follows: The open season runs from
mid September to the end of May, the
maximum number of quahogs a boat can
land in a day is 8,000, and the minimum
quahog width is
7
/8 in (22 mm).
In the coastal bays, the highest quahog
densities are present in shell-sand sub-
strates; lower densities are found in sand
substrates (Boynton, 1970; Homer
31
).
Between 1940 and 1968, commercial
catches ranged between 60,000 and
250,000 lb of meat (7,500 and 31,250
bu)/yr. During the mid 1950’s, fi shermen
were allowed to use bull rakes, and, in
1967, hydraulic escalator dredges were
introduced. In recent decades, though,
quahogs have been harvested only by
escalator harvesters (Fig. 61). In the
1968–69 season, state quahog harvest-
ing totaled 3,505 boat-days, and, of these,
1,157 boat-days had the maximum allow-
able catch of 8,000 quahogs. The twenty
most active hydraulic dredges had their
maximum allowable catches about 60%
of the time (Boynton, 1970). From then
until the early 1970’s, between 40 and 50
boats harvested quahogs in the coastal
bays, but in 1975, only 2 escalator har-
vesters operated in the bay; after that,
the number increased to 6–12 escalator
harvesters and in 1998 there were 22
escalator harvesters (Homer
31
).
The annual harvest of the industry is
somewhat limited by bad weather, when
31
Homer, M. Fisheries Division, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Solomons.
Personal commun., 1999.

34 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 55. — In 1998, this fi sherman had
raked quahogs year-round in Barnegat Bay,
N.J., for nearly 60 years. Photograph by C.
L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 56. — A type of docking facility for quahogers in Barnegat Bay, N.J.,
1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 57. — Raking
quahogs in Barnegat
Bay, N.J., 1998. Pho-
tograph by C. L. Mac-
Kenzie, Jr.
Figure 58. — In recent years, quahogs
have been scarce in Barnegat Bay, N.J.,
1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie,
Jr.
Figure 59. — Small-scale buyer sort-
ing quahogs in Barnegat, N.J., 1998.
Note shipping tags on wall at right.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.

64(3) 35
Figure 60. — Section of coastlines of Maryland and Virginia showing locations
mentioned in text.
Figure 61. — Harvesting quahogs using hydraulic escalator harvester, Chincoteague
Bay, Md., 1990’s. Photograph by M. Homer.
fi shermen cannot operate their hydraulic
escalator rigs. A record of harvesting days
for January, 1970, revealed the fi shermen
were able to operate their rigs for only
4–5 days. In the early fall and spring,
good weather conditions permitted
more activity, usually amounting to 3–4
good quahoging days a week (Boynton,
1970).
In 1994 and 1995, the coastal bays had
large quahog sets, predacious blue crabs
afterward were relatively scarce, and the
result was a mini-boom in quahog land-
ings. In 1998, the harvesters each landed
a full limit of quahogs/day during the
fi rst 3 months of the season though later
catches fell. Maryland quahog landings
that year were worth nearly $1 million,
the highest since the early 1970’s. Recre-
ationalists harvest quahogs in the coastal
bays using short rakes (Homer
31
).
In Tangier Sound, 8–12 boats harvest
quahogs with patent tongs because by law
hydraulic escalator dredges are excluded
from oyster bars in Chesapeake Bay.
Fishermen find the quahogs primar-
ily around the edges of oyster bars.
Each boat usually lands 4,000–5,000
quahogs/day and sells them for an aver-
age of $0.08–0.09 each (Homer
31
).
Virginia
Virginia’s quahogs grow in the lower
(high salinity) sections of Chesapeake
Bay’s tributary rivers and in bays on the
eastern shore (Fig. 60). In the 1950’s and
1960’s, about 33% of the state’s quahogs
were produced in the bay, while the east-
ern shore produced about 66% (Castagna
and Haven, 1972). In Chesapeake Bay,
quahogs once were harvested with short
rakes at wading depths and with patent
tongs in deeper waters. Short raking is
no longer practiced because the quahogs
are scarce in shallow waters, but patent
tonging continues as the only harvesting
method employed. Some boats are fi tted
with Loran plotters to help fi shermen
relocate the densest beds (MacKenzie,
1997b). The quahogs from Hampton
Roads, a polluted area, have been sold
to shellfi sh dealers who have depurated
them in large fl oats or directly on the
bottom.
During the 1950’s and 1960’s, buyers
usually sent a truck to pick up quahog

36 Marine Fisheries Review
landings once a day throughout most
of the year. They did not compete
with each other and prices did not vary
much between buyers. If necessary, the
buyers stored the quahogs temporarily
in a cool, dark room. Their shipping
trucks often were cooled with ice but
seldom refrigerated. During the same
period, one successful entrepreneur on
the eastern shore purchased quahogs
from fi shermen in the warm months and
held some until winter, when prices for
quahogs rose because few were being
harvested in New York, Rhode Island,
and Massachusetts. He had them stored
on intertidal fl ats or in fl oats, and later
gathered them from the fl ats with quahog
rakes, sawed off potato rakes, and picks,
and from the fl oats with shovels (Cast-
agna and Haven, 1972). The fi shermen
in those northern states had shifted from
quahoging to harvesting bay scallops, a
higher priced crop than quahogs, from
September into December and sometimes
later depending on the size of the scal-
lop crop. In addition, bays in those states
were subjected to wind storms or froze
over briefl y during December, January,
and February, making quahoging im-
possible. The Virginia entrepreneur sold
about 30,000 bu of quahogs/month (Fig.
62, 63, 64, 65). The J. H. West Company
on the eastern shore currently continues
this practice of selling quahogs during
the winter and sells 6–7 million quahogs
(15,000–20,000 bu)/yr (West
32
).
Patent tongers continue to harvest qua-
hogs in certifi ed and restricted waters, the
latter for depuration. In 1999, about 100
boats using patent tongs were harvesting
quahogs in the entire state. Most of the
fl eet was harvesting them in uncertifi ed
waters, during an open season that ran
from 1 May to 15 August. The fl eet was
concentrated in Hampton Roads where
about 70 boats worked nearly 8 hr/day,
5 days/week during good weather. Each
double-rigged boat (using 2 patent tongs,
1 on each side) harvested about 5,000
littlenecks and 400 cherrystones/day
and each single-rigged boat harvested
about half that total. The fi shermen re-
turned the chowders to the beds. They
32
West, J. H. J. H. West Company. Eastern Shore,
Virginia. Personal commun., 1999.
received $0.12/littleneck if harvested in
uncertifi ed waters and $0.17/littleneck
if harvested in certifi ed waters. Fisher-
men bagged the quahogs, took them
to a state-designated landing site, put
them onto trucks whose cabs were then
locked and sealed by Virginia Marine
Resources Commission officers, and
then the quahogs were taken to various
certified waters for replanting. They
were placed in submerged trays with
covers (Fig. 66) that were locked shut
and then sealed by a state offi cer, or
planted on sections of bottom marked
with yellow fl ags. The quahogs had to
remain in the clean waters for at least
15 days of depuration. Conservation
officers afterward removed the seals
of the cages and the quahogs could be
marketed (West
32
).
Haven et al. (1975) stated relayed
quahogs were not able to withstand en-
vironmental stress such as low salinities,
as well as quahogs native to the areas.
In one instance, water runoff from a
tropical storm led to from 33 to 100%
mortalities in tray and bottom-planted
quahogs, while mortality in native qua-
hogs was 5%.
In eastern shore bays, fishermen
harvest most quahogs by treading and
using short rakes at wading depths, or
by digging with 2-tine picks on bare
fl ats. From 100 to 125 treaders and dig-
gers harvest quahogs year-round, each
harvesting 250–1,000 quahogs/day. In
addition, 2 boats are rigged with patent
tongs for harvesting quahogs in channels
(MacKenzie, 1997b).
The eastern shore has some large
quahog hatchery-growout farms; the
farms are located on the ocean side and
bay side of the peninsula. Quahog larvae
are reared in fi ve hatcheries. The seed
is grown fi rst in screen-covered trays
and then in intertidal fl ats or shallow
waters with screens covering them. The
hatcheries grow some of the seed to
market size themselves, and they have
agreements with other leaseholders
who take the seed from the hatcheries,
grow them to market size, sell them, and
then share the profi ts about 50:50 with
the hatcheries. About 150 people work
in the hatcheries and on the farms. In
1997, they produced about 75 million
market-sized quahogs (75,000–100,000
bu) (West
32
). Since then, the quahog
farms have been growing somewhat in
number and production.
North Carolina
North Carolina (Fig. 67) was the
leading quahog producer in the South
Atlantic region until Florida surpassed
it in the 1990’s. Quahog landings have
been reported in North Carolina since
1880 (Chestnut, 1953). From before
1900 until 1978, total annual production
averaged between 250,000 and 350,000
lb of meats (30,000–40,000 bu). But
between 1979 and the mid 1980’s land-
ings increased to an annual average of
around 1,125,000 lb of meats (135,000
bu). Production had increased because
the demand for quahogs increased and
mechanized equipment was introduced
for harvesting them (Rhodes et al., 1977;
Guthrie and Lewis, 1982). A decline af-
terward is attributed to a decrease in the
size of the mechanical harvesting fl eet
and the closure of many harvesting areas
due to a red tide in 1988.
Annual landings values of quahogs
since 1990 have ranged from $3.6 million
to $6.5 million and average $4.7 million.
The prices fi shermen have received for
quahogs has risen during the past few
decades, ranging from $0.01/quahog in
1971 to as much as $0.18 for littlenecks
and $0.08 for cherrystones and $0.08 for
chowders during the mid 1990’s (Taylor,
1995). A study of the North Carolina
quahog market showed consumers’ dis-
posable incomes rather than the sizes of
landings was the more important factor
in determining the dockside value of
quahogs (Hsiao et al., 1986).
The quahogs have been harvested from
high-salinity areas just inside the barrier
islands from Ocracoke southward to the
South Carolina border, a 285-km stretch.
In addition, beginning in 1960, about 12
shrimp trawlers using rocking-chair
dredges harvested southern quahogs in
9–12 m of water in the Atlantic Ocean be-
tween Cape Lookout and Beaufort Inlet,
North Carolina. That fi shery continued
through 1962 when the resource became
scarce (Porter and Chestnut, 1962).
The State’s minimum legal size limit
for quahogs is 1 in (25.4 mm) thick

64(3) 37
Figure 62. — Gathering quahogs on a hold-
ing lease, Chincoteague, Va., 1948. From A.
Aubrey Bodine collection, courtesy of The
Mariners’ Museum, Newport News, Va.
Figure 63. — Removing quahogs from a fl oat, Chincoteague, Va., 1948. From
A. Aubrey Bodine collection, courtesy of The Mariners’ Museum, Newport
News, Va.
Figure 64. — Packing quahogs for
sale, Chincoteague, Va., 1948. From
A. Aubrey Bodine collection, courtesy
of The Mariners’ Museum, Newport
News, Va.
Figure 65. — Loading quahogs onto a
truck bound for northern markets, Chin-
coteague, Va., 1948. From A. Aubrey
Bodine collection, courtesy of The
Mariners’ Museum, Newport News, Va.

38 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 66. — Trays for holding qua-
hogs for depuration, Menchville,
Va., 1995. Photograph by C. L.
MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 67. — Coastline and counties in North Carolina with locations mentioned in
text.
with the exception of quahogs from
aquaculture or hatchery operations,
which can be marketed at any size. The
daily maximum harvest limit is 6,250
quahogs (about 12–20 bu depending
on size) per fi shing operation, while the
noncommercial harvest limit for people
without a commercial shellfi sh license is
100 quahogs/person/day, not to exceed
200 quahogs/boat/day. It is unlawful to
take quahogs by any method other than
using hand tongs, hand rakes, or hands in
any bed of live oysters, or in any bed of
submerged aquatic vegetation. There are
no seasonal restrictions for hand harvest-
ers; harvesting is allowed year-round. In
recent decades, the Division of Marine
Fisheries sold 7,198 shellfi shing licenses
in 1976, 15,709 in 1982, and 7,910 in
1993. This license allows a fi sherman to
harvest commercial quantities of oysters,
quahogs, and bay scallops. The state has
not tallied the numbers of active quahog-
ers during typical days in any season. In
addition, about 157 fi shermen hold leases
for planting and harvesting oysters and
quahogs.
Many fishermen harvest quahogs
nearly full-time and make a living using
hand gear: tongs, bull rakes, short rakes,
and “pea diggers.” Some of the others are
retirees, students, and people with other
jobs who harvest quahogs to supplement
their incomes. The mechanical quahog
harvesters are opportunistic, adaptive
fi shermen who go shrimping and crab
potting in the summer and go beach
seining for mullet, quahoging, and bay
scalloping in the fall and winter. About
80% of quahog landings are from Carteret
County, with the remainder from Onslow
and Pender Counties (Taylor, 1995).
In the mid 1990’s, the gross annual
income from quahoging for those who
did not have a lease was nearly $2,200,
while the income of those who had a
lease was almost $8,200. The average
gross income/quahoger averaged $2,366
(range, $145–$48,366). The more income
fi shermen receive from quahoging, the
less they are dependent on other fi sher-
ies. Those without leases derive about
26% of their total fi shing income from
quahoging, while leaseholders are far
more dependent, receiving 70% of their
total fi shing income from them (Taylor,
1995). Hsiao et al. (1986) estimated the
total annual operating costs for North
Carolina boats using hand gear at $808,
for those using hydraulic dredges at
$2,080, and for the kickers at $3,000 in
1967 dollars.
Fishermen harvest quahogs by hand
(treading) and with short (hand) rakes at
wading depths, and with hand tongs and
bull rakes in deeper waters. The treaders
(stompers) wear sheets of rubber tire
tubes or neoprene booties on their feet
while harvesting. Besides fi nding qua-
hogs with their feet, treaders sometimes
get on all fours and search through the
bottom sediments for quahogs with their
hands. Hand harvesting is done year-
round, but is most active from spring
through fall when water temperatures
are comfortable.
Hand raking was the only type of har-
vesting with tools practiced before the

64(3) 39
mid 1940’s. The hand rakes include “pea
diggers” (Fig. 68) and lightweight alumi-
num-handled models with stainless-steel
tines. In the mid 1970’s, New England
and New York fi shermen introduced bull
rakes to North Carolina fi shermen, and
they have since used them to harvest
quahogs in the deeper waters of the In-
tracoastal Waterway that extends along
coastal North Carolina. Each hand raker
harvests about 700 quahogs/day, while
each bull raker harvests about 1,100
quahogs/day.
The two mechanical harvesting gears
employed are the kick boat and the hy-
draulic escalator dredge boat (Fig. 69).
Towed dredges and patent tongs currently
are not being used. In 1970 about 30 boats
were involved in quahog kicking, during
the 1986–87 mechanical harvest season
350 mechanical kicking and dredging
permits were issued, but by 1998–99 the
number declined to 144 permits. The
number of permits issued, however, is a
somewhat misleading indicator of effort.
As examples, during the 1988–89 season,
348 kick boats were issued permits to
operate, but the highest daily number
actually working was 174 (on the second
day of the season); and in the 1992–93
season, aerial surveys counted a high of
65 boats working on one day, although
174 permits had been issued. The number
of hydraulic escalator dredgers working
has fallen from 22 in the mid 1980’s to
10 in 1999.
Figure 68. — Using pea diggers to harvest quahogs in
shelly intertidal bed, Carteret County, N.C. Photograph by
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Morehead City.
In areas where quahogs are relatively
scarce in shallow waters, kicking is the
only practical method for harvesting
them because the boats cover much
bottom. In 1998, each kick boat harvested
about 6–8 bags/day (250 quahogs/bag) at
the beginning of the season and 4–5 bags
by mid season. Quahog abundances in
the kicking areas have declined over the
years (Taylor, 1995).
From 1979 to 1993, hand harvesters
landed about 70% of total quahog pro-
duction. But in 1994, mechanical har-
vesting surpassed hand harvesting with
a production of over 700,000 lb of meats
(82,000 bu), or 54% of the total.
Confl icts have arisen over the lim-
ited quahog resources being sought
by more harvesters and consisted of
user allocation effects and perceived
adverse environmental effects. During
the early 1990’s, allocation confl icts
arose when hand harvesters and me-
chanical harvesters worked in the
same areas. Hand quahogers blamed
the stock declines on the mechanical
harvesters. They believe the mechani-
cal harvesting causes destruction of 1)
the quahog habitat, 2) the young qua-
hogs by burying them, and 3) the grass
beds. They also object to the trenches
left by mechanical tools. The Division
of Marine Fisheries was tasked with
mediating the disputes and trying to
allocate productive bottoms among the
hand and mechanical harvesters.
In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s,
as areas became increasingly depleted
of quahogs, or as seagrass beds spread
naturally and put areas out of bounds,
the mechanical harvesters demanded
that the state open more harvesting areas
to them. Existing rules prohibit the open-
ing of any areas other than those that have
been opened since January 1977. Crite-
ria have not been formally adopted for
opening areas, but bottom type, depth,
presence of vegetation, historical use,
and social considerations are evaluated
in the decision. Few additional areas have
been opened and the confl ict of a decade
ago has largely subsided. The other broad
category of confl ict concerns the real and
imagined environmental effects of me-
chanical harvesting, which does degrade
beds of vegetation and oysters (Peterson
et al., 1987). This is why sensitive areas
are off limits to mechanical harvesting.
Hatchery production (Fig. 70, 71)
is not yet important in North Carolina,
in part because people feel one group
should not have control over a bottom that
would otherwise be used for harvesting
by rakers. North Carolina has six quahog
hatcheries. They rear some of their own
seed and sell some to fi shermen who
grow it on their leases. The state allows
leasing of some bottoms that have less
than 2 quahogs/m
2
.
Nearly all quahogs landed in North
Carolina are sold through licensed
wholesale dealers. In fi scal year 1994–95,
Figure 69. — Hydraulic escalator dredge for quahogs
attached to boat. Anterior end has been raised to water
surface (State of North Carolina). Photograph by C. L. Mac-
Kenzie, Jr.

40 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 70. — A quahog and oyster
hatchery, Harkers Island, N.C., 1999.
Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
Figure 71. — Tubs with screen bot-
toms for growing seed quahogs,
Harkers Island, N.C., 1999. Photo-
graph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
81 dealers handled the North Carolina
quahog harvest. Of these, 23 were from
Carteret County, 20 from Brunswick
County, 14 from New Hanover County,
12 from Onslow County, 7 from Pender
County, while 4 were from Craven, Hyde,
and Dare Counties combined. The dealers
grade the quahogs by size, pack them in
burlap bags, and ship most to northern
markets such as Baltimore, Philadelphia,
New York, and Boston (Taylor, 1995).
Many fishermen are critical of the
state’s failure to enhance the depleted
quahog resources. They suggest a
state-operated hatchery producing seed
quahogs or a relaying of polluted stocks
to public bottoms would help the situa-
tion. Using large hatchery seed quahogs
(14–22 mm), a late fall planting time to
avoid some predation, a sparse planting
density of 1 quahog/m
2
, and choosing
shelly bottoms in traditionally produc-
tive areas may provide a feasible means
of stocking quahogs on public bottoms
(Peterson et al., 1995; Taylor, 1995).
Pollution, based on coliform bacte-
ria counts, has closed 48,480 acres out
of North Carolina’s 813,000 acres of
quahog bottoms to harvesting. The clo-
sures are in areas with the most human
population growth. Domestic pollution
(treated municipal sewage, septic tanks,
marinas, and nonpoint agricultural pol-
lution run-off) accounts for nearly all
such closures. Some of the state’s rich-
est shellfi sh beds have been affected, a
trend that will probably continue as the
human population and coastline develop-
ment increase (Taylor, 1995).
In November 1987, the first docu-
mented red tide in coastal North Carolina
forced the closure of 99% of the state’s
quahoging areas. The red tide devastated
the industry. The tide persisted for about
3 months and shellfi shermen collectively
lost millions of dollars in income. Red
tides are caused by blooms of a single-
celled phytoplankton Ptychodiscus breve
(Tester et al., 1988). Quahog landings
for 1987 were 1.2 million lb of meats
(144,000 bu), but dropped to 925,000 lb
of meats (109,000 bu) in 1988 (Taylor,
1995).
During each spring, private leasehold-
ers relay quahogs from polluted waters to
their leases for later harvest. The polluted
areas from which relaying is allowed
are regulated by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and by the North
Carolina State-controlled Shellfi sh Sani-
tation Section. The Division of Marine
Fisheries’ enforcement group oversees
the harvest and guards the leases while
quahog depuration occurs. The Marine
Patrol guards the leases which contain
the contaminated quahogs for at least
a 2-week purging period. The quahog
concentrations make a tempting target
for poachers (Taylor, 1995).
Recreational quahog harvests are not
reported, and the size of the recreational
fi shery is unknown. Many recreational
fi shermen also harvest quahogs commer-
cially part-time, using hand methods in
shallow waters.
South Carolina
Most of the quahog fi shery in South
Carolina (Fig. 72) is based on wild
stocks, and it now is the most valuable
molluscan fishery in South Carolina,
having supplanted the oyster fi shery in
1982 (Low
33
). Before 1973, all quahogs
were taken by hand harvesters using bull
rakes, various other rakes, tongs, or seed
forks, and from time to time, by small
box dredges pulled behind power boats
(Ashley
34
; Carson
35
; Keith
36
). From 1974
to 1980 mechanical harvests dominated
landings. Increased landings in the 1970’s
generated a market for quahogs, and this
encouraged more hand harvesters to enter
the fi shery; they now are responsible
for most of the production. Currently,
Charleston County leads in quahog
landings, owing to the concentration of
aquaculture activities in and around Folly
Beach and the wild harvest in the McClel-
lanville area. The wildstock landings in
pounds of meats (bushels) were 351,920
(40,000) in Charleston County; 35,836
(4,000) in Beaufort County; 15,272
(1,745) in Georgetown County; and none
in Horry County in 1998 (Low
33
).
Quahogs were used by aboriginal
tribes for food and the shells for tools
33
Low, R. A. Marine Resources Division.
South Carolina Natural Resources Department,
Charleston. Personal commun., 1998.
34
Ashley, E. Owner, Ashley Seafood. McClellan-
ville, South Carolina. Personal commun., 1998.
35
Carson, W. Z. Head, Marine Licensing Offi ce.
South Carolina Natural Resources Department,
Charleston. Personal commun., 1998.
36
Keith, W. J. Shellfi sh Management Section.
South Carolina Natural Resources Department,
Charleston. Personal commun. 1998.

64(3) 41
Figure 72. — Coastline of South Carolina showing locations mentioned in text.
and trade items as early as 4,000 years
ago (Burrell, 1997). While not addressing
specifi c shellfi sh species, laws address-
ing waterway pollution were in place in
South Carolina as early as 1726 (Heaton,
1972). Quahog landings were small when
fi rst reported in 1880. South Carolina’s
major commercial fishery from the
1800’s until after World War II centered
on the eastern oyster (Lunz, 1944, 1949,
1963). But in 1902, buyers from North
Carolina created a demand for quahogs
and landings soon exceeded 225,000
lb of meats (26,000 bu). The next year
landings fell again and remained below
100,000 lb (11,000 bu)/yr until 1958, but
landings probably were under-reported
because an organized market was not
in place. Hugh McGinn
37
, an early resi-
dent of Little River, S.C., recalls several
buyers around the area shipping quahogs
to Wilmington, N.C., on the converted
purse seiner Prince in the early 1920’s.
He said this boat brought freight back
to Little River, but had it not had the
income from transporting the quahogs
north this would not have been a profi t-
able venture.
In the early 1920’s, North Carolina
buyers competed with a local buyer at
Little River and a confl ict between the
parties led to the pursuit of a legislative
solution. Possibly as a result of this,
the South Carolina legislature in 1924
outlawed out-of-state shipments of
quahog shell stock, restricted harvests
to state residents, and outlawed the use
of dredges in less than 12 ft (3.7 m) of
water (Coastal Fisheries Act, 1924). This
led to an almost complete lack of reported
harvests until the restriction of ship-
ping out-of-state was removed in 1959
(Coastal Fisheries Laws, 1959; Lunz,
1960). Before World War II, the quahog
fi shery was plied almost exclusively in
Horry and Georgetown Counties, the two
northernmost counties in the state (S.C.
State Board of Fisheries, 1926, 1934).
This fi shery was closed in one or both
counties for several years and this further
decreased reported production (S.C. State
Board of Fisheries, 1927, 1931).
37
McGinn, H. T. 4410 Mineola Ave., Little River,
South Carolina. Personal commun., 1998.
Once quahogs were again permitted to
be shipped out of state in the shell, interest
in harvesting picked up, but until the early
1970’s landings remained low. In 1972,
the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department (SCWMRD), now
the South Carolina Natural Resources
Department (SCNRD), began a survey
of the state’s quahog resources (Anderson
et al., 1978). This survey identifi ed dense
beds of quahogs in the lower Santee
River. The beds were in three fairly dis-
tinct locations: North Santee Bay, North
Santee River, and South Santee River.
The beds were opened to harvesting by
boats using hydraulic escalator dredges
in 1973 (Gracy et al., 1978). From 4 to
10 boats harvested from the beds for 15
years under SCWMRD permits (Haven
et al., 1979; MacPhail, 1961).
Fishermen were allowed to harvest 2
days/week during a season, which lasted
2–5 months usually beginning in January
and ending in April (Anderson and Keith,
undated). Beds were surveyed each year
before the season using an escalator har-
vester dredge to estimate the quantity of
quahogs present. With this information,
in 1978, the SCWMRD began to restrict
harvests to 1–2 beds each year, permit-
ting stocks in the closed areas to rebuild
(Rhodes et al., 1977). The most effi cient
operators landed around 20 bags/hr at the
beginning of a season, but this dropped
to less than 3 bags/hr by the end of the
season. The bags contained about 250
ungraded quahogs (Gracy et al., 1978;
SCWMRD, 1980; Low, 1998). In 1982
a little over 500,000 lb in meat weight
(57,000 bu) valued at about $1,000,000
were landed in the state (SCWMRD,
1984).
Drainage from the Santee watershed
was diverted to Charleston Harbor in
1942 but was rediverted back into the
lower Santee channel to relieve silt ac-
cumulations in Charleston Harbor in
1985 (SCWMRD, 1986). Two dry years
allowed the Santee quahog fi shery to
continue, but freshwater intrusions fol-
lowed and the beds were closed to direct
harvest in 1988, thus ending a well-man-
aged and productive fi shery (SCWMRD,
1988). Over 37 million quahogs (nearly
100,000 bu) had been harvested from the
beds in those years.
The peak number of hydraulic escala-
tor dredges used in South Carolina was
10 in the mid 1970’s. Hurricane Hugo
destroyed several dredges, and 4–6 now

42 Marine Fisheries Review
remain in use in restricted areas for har-
vesting quahogs to be depurated on leased
bottoms, and to transplant seed oysters
and shell to leased areas (Ashley
34
;
Keith
36
; Anderson
38
; Baldwin
39
).
Restricted shellfi sh areas periodically
are opened by the SCNRD and by the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (DHEC) to
harvest quahogs for depuration. Crews
using hydraulic escalator dredges usu-
ally do the harvesting. In previous
years, quahogs were processed in fi ve
coastal depuration plants supervised
by the DHEC and harvesting by both
the DHEC and SCNRD. The plants
used ultraviolet-treated water, and the
quahogs had to be submerged for least
48 hours in a recirculating system; the
capacities of the plants ranged from 77
to 153 bu/cycle (Newell
40
). In 1983, the
plants closed owing to irregular quahog
supplies and poor profi ts. Since then,
quahogs have been relayed by truck to
certifi ed beds in Virginia for depuration.
The DHEC supervises this operation at
the shipping point and Virginia Health
offi cials control it at the receiving end
(Coker
41
; Leland
42
).
The modern quahog harvest season
runs from 15 September to 15 May, but
it may be extended or curtailed by the
SCNRD or DHEC (SCMRD, 1996).
Most South Carolina quahog harvesting
occurs after the fi rst of January because
nearly all the fi shermen are still working
on shrimp boats or are involved in the
oyster fi shery. Some women and children
in the Awendaw area pick quahogs in the
fall, harvesting them with rakes and forks
in the intertidal zone in creeks and along
the shore in the intracoastal waterway.
38
Anderson, W. South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 12559, Charleston.
Personal commun., 1998.
39
Baldwin, R. Shellfi sh culturist and escalator
harvester operator. P. O. Box 262, McClellan-
ville, South Carolina. Personal commun., 1998.
40
Newell, C. L. South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, 1705 Oak
Street Plaza Suite, Myrtle Beach. Personal
commun., 1998.
41
Coker, M. M. Shellfi sh Supervisor. South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmen-
tal Control, 1362 McMillan, North Charleston.
Personal commun., 1998.
42
Leland, R. III. Carolina Seafood, P.O. Box 285.
McClellanville, SC. Personal commun., 1998.
Working at low tide, they average around
400 quahogs per day. While most of the
quahog harvest is still trucked to northern
markets, an increasingly larger quantity is
being sold locally (Leland
42
). A state law
requires wild-harvest quahogs measure
at least 1 inch in thickness, but cultured
quahogs may be smaller.
The number of people employed in the
South Carolina quahog industry cannot
be well estimated. Licensing laws are
complicated and records are difficult
to interpret. A person quahoging com-
mercially on state shellfi sh grounds must
have a shellfi sh license, a “land-and-sell”
license, a boat license (if used), and a
permit for the specifi c gear used, i.e.
rake or tongs. If several members of a
family are working together, only one of
them is required to have a land-and-sell
license. Those working leased beds are
required to have only a boat license (if
using a boat) and a gear license. Those
who work both state and private beds
need all licenses. Many shellfi shermen
land oysters at one time of the year and
quahogs at another time, but due to recent
oyster die-offs more effort is being put
into quahog harvesting. A decline in
gear licenses probably refl ects reduced
participation in the oyster fi shery.
Each recreational fi sherman must have
a state saltwater fi shing stamp to gather
oysters and quahogs. In 1997, 94,000
stamps were purchased, and, of those
holders, 20% were estimated to have
gathered oysters or quahogs. Extrapolat-
ing from a survey of stamp purchasers,
we estimate 30% of the quahog landings
are by recreational fi shermen (Langely,
1998; Waltz
43
).
A program to determine the feasibil-
ity of developing commercially viable
methods for quahog culture was begun
in 1979 at the South Carolina Marine Re-
sources Research Institute (SCWMRD,
1978). Quahogs were selected as a spe-
cies to concentrate on because of their
hardiness, high value at an early age, a
ready market, and availability of growout
areas (Burrell, 1977; Manzi et al., 1981).
Growth rates and seed survival studies
43
Waltz, W. South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 12559, Charleston.
Personal commun., 1998.
in subtidal and intertidal trays were high
enough to promise good results (Eldridge
et al., 1976, 1979).
In 1981, a study began to assess the
feasibility of intensive aquaculture. One
project to select for enhanced growth in
quahog broodstock resulted in superior
lines which mariculture operators now
used as parents of their seed. Geographic
crosses and good brood lines are main-
tained (Dillon and Manzi, 1987, 1988;
Hadley et al., 1991; Manzi et al., 1991;
Eversole et al., 1996). Another project,
which lasted for three years, incorporated
a 3-step program: 1) nursery, 2) primary
fi eld growout, and 3) secondary growout.
Land-based raceways were used to grow
seed quahogs (1–6 mm) imported from
commercial hatcheries to about 10 mil-
limeters. The seed then were placed in
protected trays on leases and grown to
25 millimeters. These were relayed in
other trays at lower densities for grow-
out to harvest size. Up-flow nursery
systems eventually replaced raceways
because they were easier to keep clean,
they required less space, and the quahogs
were easier to handle (Manzi et al., 1981;
SCWMRD, 1982). This program was a
cooperative effort involving the S.C.
Marine Resources Research Institute, a
commercial entity (Trident Sea Farms),
and the Sea Grant Program. Although this
project did not result in a viable commer-
cial quahog mariculture operation, it did
develop the technology to enable quahog
mariculture to have a promising future in
South Carolina (Hadley et al., 1997).
Florida
Florida’s quahog production (Fig.
73) has surged in the past two decades.
Before the 1980’s, landings from
the Indian River Lagoon, in Brevard
County, Fla., averaged less than 12,500
bu/yr (Adams, 1988). But beginning in
1981 dense sets of quahogs occurred in
the lagoon, survival was good, growth
rate was rapid (Jones et al., 1990), and
a commercial fi shery soon developed.
Although Ryther (1988) suggested the
sets resulted from above-normal rainfall
during 1982–84, it is more likely several
years of below-normal rainfall before
1982 provided good salinities for suc-
cessful quahog recruitment and growth.

64(3) 43
Figure 73. — Coastline of Florida showing locations mentioned in text.
In response to the increased quahog
supply, the number of fishermen in-
creased rapidly, and by 1984 they landed
at least 175,000 bu valued at $4.4 million.
Those landings represented over 80% of
Florida quahog landings (Barile, 1988)
and at least 10% of the United States total
(Pratt, 1988). The fi shery was productive
but short-lived. Landings peaked in 1985
at 475,000 bu valued at $8.1 million, but
production declined thereafter in re-
sponse to massive quahog mortalities
caused by freshwater fl owing into the
beds from fl ood-control canals (Barile
and Rathjen, 1986).
The economic success of quahoging
in the lagoon attracted fi shermen from
some northern states, and much of that
immigration was solicited by local
processors who, eager to exploit this
fi shery, advertised in northern newspa-
pers to attract experienced quahogers.
A daily earnings potential of $300 per
person attracted quahogers from Mas-
sachusetts, Rhode Island, New York,
and North Carolina. Florida did not
the have a residency law (as did many
northern states), and so nonresident qua-
hogers had free access to the quahogs.
Although some quahogers remained in
Florida after the fi shery collapsed in the
late 1980’s, most returned home to beds
in the northern states (Busby, 1988).
However, the northern fishermen left
behind the knowledge and technology
(mainly modern bull rakes, Fig. 74) for
continued Florida quahoging (Barile,
1988). Some Indian River quahogers
are using stilts that enable them to walk
across the bottom while raking (Fig. 75,
76), thus covering more ground than they
otherwise would if restricted to their boat,
and many Indian River quahogers have
set aside their bull rakes and have begun
using scuba or surface-supplied air sourc-
es that enable them to work directly on
the bottom of the lagoon.
The influx of northern quahogers
placed heavy burdens on the Florida
Marine Patrol, the enforcement branch of
the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. With a limited number of of-
fi cers to patrol the extensive Indian River
Lagoon quahog beds, and with over 1,000
quahogers on the water on any given day,
the Marine Patrol had diffi culty moni-
toring open-water quahog operations
(Fig. 77) and overseeing quahog relay
operations.
The establishment of quahog depura-
tion plants contributed substantially to
the expansion and continuation of the
Indian River Lagoon quahog fishery.
The fi shermen could harvest quahogs
in uncertifi ed waters after the loss of
the large quahog beds in the southern
lagoon (due to freshwater inputs) and
have them depurated so they could be
marketed. The quahogers also became
aware of other areas with large quahog
resources in the lagoon. The depuration
option and additional harvesting grounds
in the northern lagoon allowed several
hundred quahogers to remain employed
in the lagoon through the late 1980’s and
early 1990’s.
During 1990–91, a second major
quahog set occurred, this time in the
northern part of the river. Harvesting
of these quahogs began in 1992 and
lasted through 1996, when again low sa-
linities on the beds caused large quahog
mortalities followed by substantially
smaller landings. During the peak of
this fi shery, as many as 1,200 licensed
fi shermen landed about $8 million worth
of quahogs. Experience gained during
the early 1980’s in the southern lagoon
minimized both quahoger-quahoger and
quahoger-regulator confl icts. In addition,
a preexisting license requirement reduced
the numbers of immigrant quahogers.
But a new confl ict arose between wild
quahogers and aquaculturists. It was cen-
tered on space, as aquaculturists leased
and occupied space previously available
for open-water quahoging. The develop-
ment and application of regulations that
prohibit aquaculture leases in naturally
productive quahog areas has since mini-
mized this confl ict.
Scuba picking has become a common
harvest method in the Indian River
Lagoon, because of year-round warm
water and soft sediments. Diving pickers
can remain in the water for a few hours

44 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 74. — The narrower rake is used to harvest quahogs in hard bottoms, while
the wider rake is used to harvest them in mud bottoms, Indian River Lagoon, Fla.,
1997. Photograph by W. S. Arnold.
Figure 75. — Stilts and type of rake
fi shermen use to harvest quahogs in
Indian River Lagoon, Fla. Note posi-
tion of cross-head. Photograph by
W. S. Arnold.
Figure 76. — Raking quahogs in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon while standing on
stilts. Cross-head is fastened near middle of handle instead of its end. Photograph
by W. S. Arnold.
Figure 77. — Raking quahogs in Florida’s
Indian River Lagoon. Photograph by W. S.
Arnold.

64(3) 45
a day and rarely need to surface if they
use a “surface-supply” air system rather
than scuba. As in Narragansett Bay, scuba
picking is controversial. The rakers feel
scuba pickers take quahogs from them,
because they cover larger areas. Since the
pickers cannot be easily observed from
the surface, they are diffi cult for wardens
to oversee. Divers who harvest quahogs
illegally at night are nearly impossible to
observe and control, and even during the
day it is diffi cult to monitor the catch be-
cause the diver may simply leave the qua-
hogs on the bottom for later retrieval. In
the late 1990’s, quahogs became scarcer
in the Indian River Lagoon. The rakers
blamed large harvests by the divers,
whose numbers reached about 200, for
the decline.
Quahog culture in Florida began
in the late 1970’s when fi shermen in
the Indian River Lagoon area began
investigating it because their wild
quahog harvests fl uctuated too widely.
But during the 1990’s, quahog farming
surged in Florida, especially on its west
coast. It developed as a means to employ
fi shermen displaced from oystering and
net fi nfi shing. When the Food and Drug
Administration closed Suwannee Sound
to oyster harvesting due to pollution,
the oyster fi shermen were forced out
of work, the area became economically
depressed, and alternative employment
was unavailable. To alleviate the situ-
ation, a plan was set forth to have the
fi shermen become quahog farmers. The
Florida Department of Labor funded
Project OCEAN (the Oyster and Clam
Educational Aquaculture Network), and
$3 million was procured through the Job
Training Partnership Act. The Harbor
Branch Oceanographic Institution in
Fort Pierce was contracted to train the
fi shermen. The county commissioners
granted culture leases in their near-
shore waters and they administrated the
project, which was based in Cedar Key.
About 138 people received the training,
and each acquired a 4-acre lease to grow
the quahogs. The leases are on sandy bot-
toms and most are 450–600 m offshore
in 60 cm–2.4 m of water. The program
was successful and a new industry on
Florida’s west coast was launched (Stur-
mer et al., 1997).
In 1994, the State Legislature dealt
a severe blow to the Florida fi nfi shing
industry when it banned the use of gill
and entanglement nets in coastal waters.
The success of Project OCEAN led dis-
placed net fi shermen on the west coast
to learn quahog culture through Project
WAVE (Withlacoochee Aquaculture
Vocational Education), which was also
headquartered in Cedar Key. In 1996,
49 fishermen each received 2-acre
leases and 76 fi shermen were trained in
land-based nursery techniques. An exten-
sion to Project WAVE ran through mid
1997 and retrained and placed 100 net
fi shermen in quahog culturing (Sturmer
et al., 1997).
The Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution provides about half of the
quahog seed to the farmers, while
several small private hatcheries operat-
ing throughout the state provide the
remainder. Seed from the hatcheries is
grown fi rst in nurseries, which consist of
3-tiered raceways lined with plastic or
epoxy and wellers which can be placed
temporarily inside a raceway tray. The
60 nurseries in the state rear 1-mm seed
to 5–6 mm, the minimum fi eld-planting
size, in 8–12 weeks. The seed is grown
in polyester mesh bags, which serve as
predator protection and when on the
bottom accumulate sediments which
serve as a substrate for the quahogs.
About 1,000 quahogs are held in each
bag. They grow to littleneck size (about
2 inches long) in 10–14 months. Farmers
harvest the quahogs by lifting and empty-
ing the bags (Sturmer et al., 1997).
Several factors converged to make
quahog culture successful for displaced
fi shermen on Florida’s west coast: 1)
relatively low-level technology, 2) inex-
pensive start-up and operating costs, 3)
no natural or wild fi shery, and 4) ready
markets. The quahog farming allowed
fi shermen to continue their independent
way of life on the water (Sturmer et al.,
1997).
The quahog farmers in the state in-
creased in numbers from 41 in 1991 to
318 in 1997, while their seed plantings
increased from 37 million to 306 million,
their harvests of littlenecks from 8.8
million to 99 million, and dollar value
of sales from 1.2 million to 10 million
during the same period. The leaseholders
occupy 950 acres of submerged bottoms
(Colson and Sturmer, 2000). Production
in 1998 fell, probably because poor envi-
ronmental conditions caused by El Nino
and La Nina led to low salinities and
high water temperatures. The result was
substantial losses of seed and marketable
quahogs, but by the year 2000 production
recovered.
Gulf States
Southern quahogs, M. campechiensis,
have not been important commercially
in the United States, except for several
years in Florida in the early part of this
century. They are relatively scarce, and
a drawback to them as a product is their
short shelf-life which lasts only a few
days; they gape readily when out of
water. Southern quahogs unfortunately
grow relatively fast (up to 5 cm in their
fi rst year) and few high-value littlenecks
and cherrystones are ever found (Dugas,
1980).
Southern quahogs grow in all U.S.
Gulf states: Florida, Alabama, Missis-
sippi, Louisiana, and Texas (Fig. 78).
They occur in bays or sounds where
salinities range from 15–40‰ but not
in the Gulf of Mexico. In Alabama, they
are rare throughout the southern half of
Mobile Bay. In Mississippi, they are rare
throughout St. Louis Bay and Mississippi
Sound. In Louisiana, they are rare in Ter-
rebonne, Timbalier, and Barataria Bays,
and rare in most of Breton and Chan-
deleur Sounds, but common in eastern
Chandeleur Sound. In Texas, they are
common in Corpus Christi Bay, Aransas
Bay, and in southwestern Matagorda
Bay, but rare in San Antonio Bay, most
of Matagorda Bay, and Galveston Bay
(Anonymous, 1992).
Southern quahogs live in sand and
silt-sand bottoms, and sometimes along
the edges of seagrass meadows. Nearly
all are large, mostly 75–100 mm long but
range up to 150 mm long. According to
Dugas (1980), the quahogs probably
grow that much in 3–6 years, but most
are probably much older and had attained
their maximum sizes.
In 1904, some large beds of southern
quahogs were discovered near the Chan-
deleur Islands, which form the eastern

46 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 78. — Coastline of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Texas through Alabama, show-
ing locations mentioned text.
border of Chandeleur Sound. Five beds,
all having quahogs nearly uniform in size,
were present over a distance of about 75
kilometers. On one bed, the quahogs were
all about 15 cm long, while on others they
were about half that size. No small qua-
hogs and only a few small quahog shells
were found (Spaulding, 1906).
Schroeder (1924) described another
huge bed of southern quahogs in the Ten
Thousand Islands area off the southwest
coast of Florida. The bed was about 65
km long and 8 km wide. The quahogs av-
eraged about 1 lb each (100 fi lled a bushel
basket) and some weighed at least 2 lb
Along this coast, the shore slopes gradu-
ally into the Gulf of Mexico. At 1.5 km
offshore, the depth varies from 1.2–2 m at
low tide, and from there to the 8 km line
the slope is about 60 cm/1.5 kilometers.
Seagrass thrived in nearly all the places
where the quahogs were abundant. In
most places where this grass was absent,
few or no quahogs were present.
Fishery
Schroeder (1924) said the quahogs off
the southwest coast of Florida were being
harvested by hand diggers and two dredg-
ing boats. Hand diggers located the qua-
hogs with their feet and removed them
from the mud with 2-tined forks (picks)
having 15-cm handles. Each digger had
a small flat-bottom boat to hold the
quahogs as they were dug. From 1919
to 1922, 10–15 diggers were employed.
Each dug 10–20 5-peck basketfuls/day
and were paid $0.40/basketful. They
worked close to shore during high tides
and moved out as the tides fell. When
a boat became loaded, the fishermen
unloaded it in shallow water near shore.
They made several daily trips to shore
with their quahogs. A “run” boat took the
quahogs to canneries.
One quahog dredging vessel was 27
m long, 6 m wide, and had 2 stories; it
resembled a houseboat. Its digging ap-
paratus was situated in its middle and
was 1.8 m wide. The machinery and
tool room was at one end, and storage
space for the quahogs was at the other
end. The second story was devoted to
sleeping quarters and a mess room.
The quahogs were conveyed to the
surface where 1–4 men removed them
and put them in baskets. The dredge
boat moved slowly, i.e. about 30 m in
1.5 hr, harvesting 100–150 bu/run and
440–560 bu/day. During 1918, the vessel
dug about 35,000 bushels. In 1919, it dug
43,000 bu and the hand diggers harvested
5,000 bu. In 1922, 2 dredging boats and
the hand diggers combined to harvest a
total of 206,000 bu of quahogs, nearly
all of which were sold to 2 canner-
ies. The larger cannery had an annual
production of 100,000 cases of quahog
meats and quahog juices (Fig. 79). The
fi shery, extant from 1905 to 1947, was
extremely productive, with peak daily
landings of 1,800 bu of mostly chowder-
size southern quahogs (Schroeder, 1924;
Godcharles and Jaap, 1973).
Figure 79. — The dock at Marco quahog cannery in Florida and freight boat ready
to leave for Key West with cargo of canned quahog products. At Key West, the cases
of quahogs were placed aboard a steamship for delivery to New York, N.Y., 1920’s
(from Schroeder, 1924).

64(3) 47
Figure 80. — Coastline of Mexico showing locations mentioned in text where south-
ern quahogs are reported to occur. The arrows point to specifi c beds of southern
quahogs; additional locations undoubtedly exist.
In 1976, the State of Louisiana Depart-
ment of Wildlife and Fisheries surveyed
Breton Sound and found a sufficient
quantity of southern quahogs to encour-
age a company to begin harvesting them
in 1977. The company harvested 9,742
bu of chowder-size quahogs, but gave
up late that year because the demand
was small.
In recent years, nearly everywhere
along the U.S. Gulf, southern quahogs
have been too sparsely distributed to sup-
port a commercial fi shery. There recently
has been a small commercial fi shery for
them in Texas by people of southeast
Asian descent, and, on a small scale, the
quahogs are harvested by recreational
fi shermen who usually fi nd them with
their feet.
Mexico
Southern quahogs are present in
high-salinity lagoons that are conflu-
ent with the Gulf of Mexico from the
Mexican States of Tamaulipas in the
north through Campeche in southeastern
Mexico (Baqueiro, 1997) (Fig. 80). The
specifi c name of southern quahogs, i.e.
campechiensis, is derived from the name
of the State of Campeche. The quahogs
occur in Laguna Madre, Tamaulipas
(Antoli and Garcia-Cubas, 1985); Laguna
Tampamachoco in Veracruz (Garcia-
Cubas and Reguero, 1990; Reguero
and Garcia-Cubas, 1991; Reguero et
al., 1991); Lagunas el Carmen (Antoli
and Garcia-Cubas, 1985), Tupilco, and
Mecoacan in Tabasco; and Laguna
de Terminos and near Isla Arena in
Campeche; and probably others. In
Laguna de Terminos, their distribution is
restricted and localized on the shoals of
Punta Gorda (Garcia-Cubas, 1981). Qua-
hogs are not found in Lagunas Pueblo
Viejo, Camaronera, or de Alvarado
(Reguero and Garcia-Cubas, 1989, 1991,
1993). The southeasternmost location in
Mexico where southern quahogs have
been harvested is by Isla Arena near the
town of Celestun, Campeche, close to
the Yucatan border. The harvesting there
is sporadic; none occurred in 1999. Cas-
tillo et al. (1988) suggested the quahog
could be a potential fi shing resource in
Campeche and Yucatan. They estimated
that 7.3 t might be harvested annually and
they recommended a minimum harvest
length of 73 mm.
Southern quahogs are one of several
clam species harvested in lagoons along
Mexico’s east coast. The Mexican Gov-
ernment has not established a harvest
season or minimum size for quahogs.
Together the clams contribute about 7%
of the nation’s total seafood production.
Quahogs have been harvested for many
years according to local residents, but
the fi shery is small because the stocks
are small and market demand is low. No
historical accounts exist of this fi shery.
Quahogs are harvested on a commercial
scale mainly in Laguna del Carmen. In
other lagoons, such as Laguna Madre,
where quahogs are present in its lower
portion, the harvesting is sporadic and is
mostly for personal consumption. In the
lagoons, the fi shermen intersperse qua-
hoging with catching shrimp, oysters,

48 Marine Fisheries Review
and fi sh, with shrimping and oystering
being the most important. The quahogs
are sold whole and are shipped by truck
on a small scale to various cities.
Clam Landing Statistics
Mexico’s Federal Government offi cial
fi shery statistics lump all clam species
(Anonymous, 1997) and, therefore,
landings of southern quahogs are not
recorded. In 1997, clam landings (all
species) in Mexico totaled 6,941 metric
tons (t) (whole weight), of which the Pa-
cifi c coast contributed 6,075 t, and the
Gulf of Mexico coast contributed 866 t.
In the Gulf of Mexico states, landings
were: Veracruz, 834 t; Tamaulipas, 15
t; and Tabasco, 6 t (Anonymous, 1997).
The Veracruz landings were mostly
Rangia sp., but in Tabasco, they were
mostly southern quahogs with annual
landings ranging from 4.2 to 10.5 t
(7.5 t, average).
Harvesting Methods
Quahogs can be harvested by anyone
who has a fi shing license issued by the
Mexican Government. The quahog fi sh-
ermen, all of whom are males with low
incomes, live within walking distances of
their boats. Harvesting in all lagoons is
at wading depths. In Laguna del Carmen,
which supports the largest fi shery, about
20 fi shermen harvest southern quahogs.
They get to the beds in fi berglass boats
that are about 7.6 m long and propelled by
15 hp outboard motors. Each boat carries
as many as 9 fi shermen who share boat
expenses (Fig. 81). Fishermen leave the
boats and wade in water, feeling for qua-
hogs with their feet and collecting them
by hand (Fig. 82). Fishermen tie pieces of
cloth onto their feet to protect against cuts
from oyster shells and some wear gloves,
and, if in relatively deep water, a face
mask. They place the quahogs in plastic
boxes which have empty soda bottles or
Styrofoam attached for fl otation (Fig.
83). Oyster fi shermen using tongs oc-
casionally harvest small quantities of
quahogs with the oysters.
Individual fi shermen harvest quahogs
in Laguna del Carmen no more than 4–5
days a week, the effort being governed by
market demand and availability of shrimp
and oysters in the lagoon. The fi shermen
often switch from one fi shery to another,
going to the one that brings them the most
money. The harvesting days can be in-
frequent during the rainy season from
October through December when rivers
fl ood and water levels rise in the lagoon.
Fishermen usually harvest quahogs for
about 4 hr (10 a.m.–2 p.m.), and each
gathers 200–250 quahogs/day (Fig. 84).
Individual harvests can be lower during
periods of low demand (Zapata
44
). In
some other locations, such as in the
Laguna de Terminos (harvests are near
Isla La Arena), where the harvesting is
sporadic, the fi shermen bring the quahogs
home to eat or to sell to their neighbors
(Calderon
45
; Baqueiro
46
).
Markets and Marketing
Consumption of quahogs is limited
due to the small supplies and Mexicans
having little tradition of eating them. Most
quahogs landed in Laguna del Carmen
are not marketed in the State of Tabasco,
but rather in the cities of Oaxaca (about
400 km away) and Mexico City (about
700 km away) (Vidal
47
). The remainder
are sold mostly in the cities of Paraiso,
Coatzacoalcos, and Villahermosa.
Quahogs are sold whole, some
by weight, and some by the piece.
In 1998, buyers paid fishermen 4.00
pesos (US$0.47)/kg. The price for
individual quahogs varied according
to their size. Buyers paid fishermen
0.40 pesos(US$0.047)/quahog 60 mm
long (i.e. littleneck-topneck size for M.
mercenaria), and 0.60 pesos(US$0.071)/
quahog 80 mm long (i.e. cherrystone
size for M. mercenaria) (Zapata
44
). The
fi shermen each earn 100 to 150 pesos
(US$10.75 to $16)/day.
Quahogs are sold in a few fi sh markets
and outdoor markets wherever fi sh are
sold, but sales are small. A fi sh market
in Coatzacoalcos sold them by the piece
for prices between 1.00 and 2.00 pesos
(US$0.12–$0.235) each (Perez
48
). A
market in Villahermosa sold them for
2.00 pesos each.
A restaurant in El Bellote, Tabasco,
serves about 3,000 quahogs a week,
paying dealers 0.60 pesos (US$0.071)
each for them, and charges 25 pesos
(US$2.94) for a cocktail with 20 qua-
hogs and 20 pesos (US$2.35) for a serv-
ing of 16 boiled or broiled quahog meats
(Vasquez
49
). The meats are boiled with
steam vapor, or broiled in fi re using dried
coconut branches as fuel. For broiling,
the quahogs are placed on a grill and the
smoke from the burning branches makes
the shells black (Fig. 85); the local people
call them “smoked quahogs” (Fig. 86).
Local Quahog Consumption
Fishermen take some quahogs home
to their families, eating them about
twice a week. The quahogs are usually
prepared in three ways: 1) in cocktails,
boiled quahog meats are combined in a
glass with lemon juice, onion, chili, oil,
salt, ketchup, hot pepper, and coriander;
2) cooked in soups with blue crabs, Cal-
linectes sp.; shrimp; and oysters, or with
rice (Fig. 87); and 3) served in their shells
after being boiled; lemon juice, onion,
chili, oil, salt, and ketchup are added to
the meat (Torres
50
) (Fig. 88).
Aquaculture Prospects
Attempts to culture quahogs are being
initiated in Campeche. Researchers are
testing seed production methods to gener-
ate a reliable quahog supply for a local
canning company which sells clam soup.
The company now has to import quahog
meats (Baqueiro
46
).
Government Regulations
In Canada, quahog harvests are regu-
lated by various divisions in the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In
the United States, they are regulated by
44
Zapata, R. Quahog fi sherman, Sanchez Mag-
allanes, Tabasco, Mexico. Personal commun.,
1998.
45
Calderon, A. Fisherman, Isla Aguada, Cam-
peche, Mexico. Personal commun., 1998.
46
Baqueiro, E. Researcher, Centro regional de
Investigacion Pesquera, Campeche, Mexico.
Personal commun., 1998.
47
Vidal, R. Chief, SEMARNAP offi ce, San-
chez Magallanez, Tabasco, Mexico. Personal
commun., 1998.
48
Perez, D. Saleswoman in fi sh market, Coat-
zacoalcos, Veracruz, Mexico. Personal commun.,
1998.
49
Va squez, R. Restaurant owner, El Bellote,
Tabasco, Mexico. Personal commun., 1998.
50
Torres, M. Technician, SEMARNAP, San-
chez Mag allanez, Tabasco, Mexico. Personal
commun., 1998.

64(3) 49
Figure 81. — Treading southern quahogs in
Laguna el Carmen, Tabasco Mexico, 1998.
Photograph by A. Wakida-Kusunoki.
Figure 82. — Treading southern quahogs in
Laguna el Carmen, Tabasco, Mexico, 1998.
Photograph by A. Wakida-Kusunoki.
Figure 83. — Treading southern qua-
hogs in Laguna el Carmen, Tabasco,
Mexico, 1998. Photograph by A.
Wakida-Kusunoki.
Figure 84. — Southern quahog harvest from
Laguna el Carmen, Tabasco, Mexico, 1998.
Photograph by A. Wakida-Kusunoki.

50 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 85. — Broiling quahogs with fl ames from dry coco-
nut branches. The result is called “smoked quahogs.” Ciudad
del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico, 1998. Photograph by A.
Wakida-Kusunoki.
Figure 86. — Quahogs broiled with dry coconut branches
(smoked quahogs). They are eaten after adding chili, onion,
and lemon in Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico, 1998.
Photograph by A. Wakida-Kusunoki.
Figure 87. — Soup with quahogs, shrimp, fi sh, and oysters
in Ciudad del Carmen restaurant, Campeche, Mexico, 1998.
Photograph by A. Wakida-Kusunoki.
Figure 88. — Serving of boiled quahogs with condiments
nearby in Ciudad del Carmen restaurant, Campeche,
Mexico, 1998. Photograph by A. Wakida-Kusunoki.
individual states. In some locations, the
first regulations were imposed in the
late 1800’s or early 1900’s. In Mexico,
where the fi shery is largely unregulated,
the Mexican Federal Government has
jurisdiction over it.
No attempt will be made here to de-
scribe the histories of regulations in each
country, province, and state. Instead, their
early history in Massachusetts as de-
scribed in Chapter 3 — Laws in Belding
(1912) will serve as an example:
“Little direct quahog legislation has
been passed as the quahog usually has
been included in general laws with other
commercial shellfi sh. Previous to 1904
the quahog, with the softshell clam, oyster
and scallop, came in the general acts under
the term shellfi sh. The general acts were
of several kinds: (1) town regulation; 2)
permits; 3) seizure in boats; and 4) protec-
tion of the shellfi sheries by limiting the
catch, place, and time of taking.
“In 1874 occurs the fi rst mention of
the word quahaug [sic] in a legislative
act “to regulate the shellfisheries in
the waters of Mount Hope Bay and its
tributaries,” whereby the selectmen of
the towns bordering on Mount Hope
Bay were permitted to grant licenses for
the cultivation of clams, quahogs, scal-
lops and other shellfi sh to any inhabitant.

64(3) 51
It seems strange such an advanced and
benefi cial act should have been passed
at that early period, since it was clearly
before its time, as is shown by its repeal
the following year.
“In 1880 the word quahog again
appears in a general act whereby the
Commonwealth gave to the towns and
cities their present oversight and power
‘to control and regulate the taking of eels,
clams, quahogs, and scallops.’ This act
was later amended by the Acts of 1889,
but the general terms were not changed,
and the present law differs but slightly.
“In 1900 occurred the first special
quahog legislation, in the form of an act
forbidding in the towns of Swansea and
Somerset the capture of quahogs less
than 1.5 inches across the widest part
(Fig. 89). Since that time several other
laws, both general and special, relating
to the quahog fi shery have been enacted,
especially in connection with the shell-
fi sheries of Plymouth and Barnstable
Counties. The following features are
illustrated by these laws.
“The capture of quahogs under 1.5
inches across the widest part was for-
bidden by law in 1900 in the towns of
Swansea and Somerset, in 1901 in Berk-
ley, in 1903 in Edgartown, and in 1904
in Eastham, Orleans and Wellfl eet. This
law has also been adopted by other towns
under the regulation of the selectmen, and
is to be commended for the protection
afforded to the local industries, as the
gain for leaving the small quahogs for
one year is approximately 5 bu for every
bushel left.
51
“Permits: In Eastham, Orleans, and
Wellfl eet the selectmen are empowered
to issue permits for the capture of the
quahog, while in other towns permits
are issued for shellfi sh in general. Often
the towns are slack about the enforcement
of the law requiring permits, although
Edgartown is to be commended for
the excellent manner of regulating, by
inspectors, her shellfi sh permits. These
permits are given at the discretion of the
Figure 89. — Measuring a northern
quahog to determine whether it is
of legal size, Prince Edward Island,
Canada, 1998. Photograph by A.
Morrison.
51
This statement suggests Massachusetts authori-
ties ordered small quahogs be left in beds to grow
so they would yield more. It was not that they
wanted them to spawn at least once, or that the
market wanted the larger quahogs.
selectmen, and usually require 6 months
residence in the town. Different prices
are charged for these permits: e.g. in
Edgartown, $2, and in Wellfl eet, $1. The
provisions of the Edgartown permit limit
the catch to 4 bu from sunrise to sunset,
no more than 2 of which can be ‘little
necks.’ The Wellfl eet permits limit the
daily catch to 4 barrels per man.
“Bedding Quahogs. In Eastham,
Orleans, and Wellfleet the selectmen
may give, for a period of not over 2
years, under such conditions as they
may deem proper, to any inhabitant
of the respective towns, license to bed
quahogs in any waters, fl ats, or creeks
where there is no natural quahog bed, not
covering more than 75 ft square in area,
and not impairing the private rights of
any person or materially obstructing any
navigable waters. The object of this law
was to enable the quahog to take advan-
tage of a favorable market. Undoubtedly
the originators of this act did not foresee
in this way they had taken the fi rst step
toward quahog farming, as the success of
bedding quahogs has demonstrated the
practical benefi ts which would be derived
from quahaug culture.
“Biological Investigation: In 1905 the
commissioners on Fisheries and Game
were empowered to make a biological
investigation and report as to the best
methods, conditions, and localities for
the propagation of quahogs. The results
of that investigation are embodied in a
report published in 1910.
“Planting, Cultivation, and Bedding of
Quahogs: In 1909 the selectmen of towns
or the mayor or aldermen of cities, pro-
vided the act was approved by the city
council or by the voters of the town at
an annual special town meeting, were
empowered to issue written licenses for
the purpose of planting and cultivating
quahogs upon and in the fl ats and creeks
below mean low-water mark, for a term
of not more than 10 and not less than 5
years. The fact that up to the present time
little advantage has been taken of that,
which permits practical quahog culture
being carried on, is another proof of the
inability of the coast towns to properly
adjust their point of view toward the
practical means not only of preserving
their natural supply from extinction but
also of building up profi table business for
the inhabitants.
“Contaminated Waters: In 1901 it
was enacted that the Commissioners on
Inland Fisheries and Game (now the Di-
vision of Fisheries and Game), whenever
so requested in writing by the Depart-
ment of Public Health, should prohibit
the taking of oysters, clams, scallops,
and quahogs from the tidal waters or
fl ats of any part of the Commonwealth
for such period of time as the Depart-
ment of Public Health might determine.
Unfortunately the benefi cial effect of
this law, namely, the protection of public
health by the closing of sewage-polluted
areas, was rendered void by the passage
of a bill of 1907 permitting the taking of
shellfi sh from these areas for bait, upon
securing permits from the local board of
health. Effective enforcement was impos-
sible on account of the ease with which
proofs are destroyed by the violator and
the diffi culty of tracing any lot of polluted
shellfi sh to their ultimate destination as
human food. In the Acushnet River,
where seed quahogs were abundant, a
means was found to permit the sale of
quahogs for planting purposes by the

52 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 90. — As the demand for quahogs has grown in the late 1990’s, the sizes
within established categories have become larger. In a Red Bank, N.J., supermarket,
large chowder-sized quahogs are labeled as cherrystones and are priced the same as
littlenecks, 1998. Photograph by C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.
passage of special regulations for the
town of Fairhaven and the city of New
Bedford. Transplanted to pure water,
quahogs readily purify themselves from
contamination.”
Changes in Quahog
Trade Sizes
In the 1970’s, the quahog dealers in
Long Island, N.Y., increased the prices
of quahogs by fi rst adding a new trade
name, “topneck,” for a new size cat-
egory they created between littleneck
and cherrystone, and they dropped the
name “medium.” They next adjusted the
size categories used in the trade (Table
1). The topnecks are about the size of
the original cherrystones, and the cher-
rystones are about the size of the original
mediums. The trade then raised the prices
of quahogs: The littlenecks were sold at a
higher price, the topnecks were sold at the
original littleneck prices and what used
to be mediums at the original cherrystone
prices. In the 1990’s, as a consequence of
a strong demand for quahogs, the sizes
within each category have been increas-
ing, and today some retail markets are
selling “chowders” as “cherrystones”
and selling them at cherrystone, and
even littleneck, prices (Fig. 90).
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, cultured qua-
hogs were often sold at smaller sizes than
littlenecks to specialty markets because
of different legal restrictions that apply
to them, i.e. pasta necks, from
5
/8 to
3
/4
in (16–19 mm) wide; petite necks,
7
/8 in
(22 mm) wide; and littlenecks, 1 in (25.4
mm) wide (Batey
52
). But the size ranges
vary considerably depending upon local
tradition and conditions and on market
demand.
The Quahog Fishermen
Many quahog fi shermen are the sons of
fi shermen. If not quahogers, they would
likely fi sh for other species or else be
tradesman or laborers if they worked on
land (Moonsammy et al., 1987; Gates,
1991). They are physically strong men
who have to work hard to make a good
Table 1. — Approximate size ranges (in inches) of vari-
ous categories of quahogs used in the trade during the
1910’s, mid 1990’s, and late 1990’s.
1910’s
1
Mid 1990’s
2
Late 1990’s
3
Littleneck 1
1
/2–2
1
/4 1
7
/8–2 1
7
/8–2
To pneck 2–2
3
/8 2–2
3
/8
Cherrystone 2
1
/4–3 2
1
/2–3
1
/8 2
3
/8–3
3
/4
Medium 3–3
3
/4
Chowder >3
3
/4 >3
1
/8 >3
3
/4
1
Data from Belding, 1912.
2
Data from Hadley et al., 1997.
3
Data from New Jersey dealers.
52
Batey, C. Husbandry Supervisor. Sea Perfect.
2107 Folly Road, Charleston, SC 29412. Per-
sonal commun., 1998.
day’s pay. Ingersoll’s (1887) description
of coastal people who do not participate
in harvesting quahogs remains apt today,
“Women and children cannot do much at
it because of lack of strength; lazy men
will not attempt it because it involves too
much exertion and steady diligence.”
Most quahogers entered the fi shery
when they were in their teens and twen-
ties during periods when quahogs were
abundant, because the pay was relatively
good, the training was minimal, and the
initial investment in a small boat and
rake was low. Some quahogers harvest
between alternative seasonal jobs, and,
in many localities, quahoging is a con-
venient summer job for high school and
college boys. Because fi shermen may
have little training for other jobs, many
remain in the fishery for many years
even when quahog abundances are low
and their income is minimal. Some leave
the fi shery by age 40 because work be-
comes too hard or if the quahog stocks
become scarce.
Gatewood and McCay (1990) reported
on job satisfaction among quahog fi sh-
ermen. They said quahogers enjoy the
healthfulness, peace of mind, opportu-
nity to be one’s own boss and to come
and go as one pleases, doing something
worthwhile, being on the water, and the
challenge of pitting their skills against
nature in their work. Quahogers have the
same satisfactions that farmers have from
producing a commodity, while they are
least satisfi ed about the lack of predict-
ability of their earnings.
Quahogers are relatively poor. Most
rake quahogs just hard enough to support
their families minimally, to avoid becom-
ing overly tired and aging prematurely.
They naturally oppose government regu-
lations that would reduce their harvesting
efforts and incomes. They have different
priorities than do resource managers,
asserting that the objective of manage-
ment should be to ensure good harvests
rather than the maintenance of the quahog
resource. Nevertheless, many fi shermen
now appreciate the positive relationship
between maintaining the resource and en-
suring a good day’s pay. For example, in
Florida’s Indian River Lagoon, quahogers
realize their vocation can provide a steady
income if the resource is conserved and
maintained. In an attempt to achieve
that goal, the quahogers requested and

64(3) 53
Figure 91. — Local governments try to support their fi sheries, such as the blue crab
and clam (quahog) fi sheries, in Ocean County, N.J.
were granted a license that limits entry
into the fi shery and provides funds for
government and private industry research
relating to quahog conservation and en-
hancement.
Quahogers have been active in man-
agement in other locations as well. Those
who harvested in Great South Bay, N.Y.,
during the 1960’s and 1970’s were per-
ceived as an important political force and
were extremely vocal in their opinions
regarding management of the quahog
resource. Local governments in that area
saw them as a major constituency and
many politicians felt the fi shermen knew
what was best for the bay and resource
(Anonymous, 1985). Elected offi cials
rarely implemented any proposals by
shellfi sh managers and researchers that
lacked the popular support of the quahog
rakers and dealers (Kassner, 1988).
Fishermen remain critical of govern-
ment agencies if they fail to enhance de-
pleted quahog resources. An action they
have supported is transplanting quahogs
from uncertifi ed beds to certifi ed beds.
When proposals are made that further
their interests, quahogers want immedi-
ate action. They commonly are skepti-
cal of the need for additional scientifi c
research, because they have seen too few
practical results from it. They are suspi-
cious or hostile to any action that would
place research before practical action
(McCay, 1988).
A reason fi shermen often challenge
management decisions is they believe
they understand the causes for declines
in quahog abundances and other features
on the beds that affect their livelihood and
believe management authorities are igno-
rant of bed conditions when they make
decisions. Sometimes the fi shermens’
assessments of conditions are correct,
and sometimes they are incorrect.
Poaching of quahogs by fi shermen in
uncertifi ed or closed beds where quahogs
may be more abundant than in certifi ed
beds has been a problem in the quahog
fi shery. The fi shermen, who knowingly
violate laws designed to protect public
health and the long-term health of the
fi shery, do so because the income po-
tential is high. Those fi shermen threaten
the continued existence of the entire
shellfi shing industry.
Community Views of Industry
Coastal communities are aware qua-
hoging involves more heavy labor and
can be a less reliable money-earner than
most jobs. Nonetheless, in localities
where quahog fi shing supports a large
number of fi shermen, citizens view the
fi shery as a major supplier of jobs and
income both directly to the fi shermen
and indirectly to those who supply the
support structure for those fi shermen.
Some are also aware it is a continuation
of one of America’s fi rst industries and
thus view it warmly. The communities
obviously want the fi shery to support
as many people as possible in a stable,
prosperous condition (Fig. 91).
As in any fishery, the “multiplier
effect” is an important consideration
in this fi shery. For example, in Rhode
Island, the economic multiplier for the
shellfi shing industry is 4.5, the highest of
any state industry (Kadri, 1991). When a
quahoger earns money, he spends most of
it in the local economy on fi shing equip-
ment, food, and real estate. The quahogs
are purchased by dealers who sell to local
restaurants where many tourists eat, and
the profi ts of shellfi sh dealers and restau-
rant owners pump more money into the
regional economy.
Quahog harvesting effort tends to
respond inversely to changes in commu-
nity unemployment rates. For example, in
Rhode Island, from 1945 to 1970, the cor-
relation between the number of quahog
licenses issued and the unemployment
rate was about 0.8 (Gates, 1991). The
fi shery acted as a “sponge” to soak up
unemployed workers and provide them
with employment. Of course, this effect
is ultimately limited by the availability
of quahogs and markets.
Relation of Quahoging
to Other Fisheries
Seasonal Employment
As mentioned, in only a few areas have
fi shermen earned their entire livelihoods
from harvesting quahogs. Examples of
work in mixed fi sheries are numerous.
In the Maritime Provinces of Canada,
many fi shermen harvest quahogs during
the spring and summer and harvest oys-
ters from September through December.
Although some are unemployed during
winter, many trap rainbow smelts,
Osmerus mordax, to generate income.

54 Marine Fisheries Review
In southern Massachusetts and Rhode
Island, fi shermen once dug quahogs in
the spring and summer and then shifted
to harvesting bay scallops in the fall and
winter (Fig. 92). But in recent years, with
the demise of bay scallop populations in
many bays, fi shermen have ceased fi sh-
ing entirely during the fall and winter
months.
In New York and New Jersey, many
fishermen once harvested quahogs
part-time. But in recent years, most of
the Great South Bay fishermen, now
numbering only 100–150, harvest qua-
hogs throughout the year although a
few harvest the channeled whelk in the
spring. From about 1825 to 1925, many
Raritan Bay fi shermen dredged season-
ally for quahogs, oysters, and blue crabs.
During the spring and summer, they har-
vested quahogs, then from September
into January they dredged for oysters,
and during the late winter they dredged
for blue crabs. From 1946 through 1961,
the Raritan Bay fi shermen who harvested
quahogs with rocking-chair dredges
during the cold months shifted to scup,
Stenotomus chrysops, fi shing with otter
trawls in the summer, while fi shermen
who operated pound nets in the spring
and early summer shifted to sail dredg-
ing for quahogs during late summer and
then dredged for blue crabs in the winter
(MacKenzie, 1992a). McCay (1984)
noted the relatively predictable abundance
of quahogs in Raritan Bay, coupled with
the minimal capital and technology re-
quired to harvest that resource, provided
an effective buffer against downturns in
other fi sheries and the general economy.
Quahoging, like crabbing and at one time
oystering, provided a good fi shing oppor-
tunity for part of the year. She also said
the ability to turn to quahoging and other
low investment activities also meant fi sh-
ermen who worked for owners of pound
nets and Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia
tyrannus, seiners had some control over
the conditions of their labor, because they
had alternative fi sheries to which they
could turn if necessary. Many New York
and New Jersey fi shermen now harvest
quahogs nearly full-time.
In the coastal areas from Delaware Bay
to North Carolina, fi shermen harvest qua-
hogs primarily during the summer and
Figure 92. — Fishermen harvesting bay scallops, Argopecten irradians, Katama
Bay, Mass., in December, 1950’s. They used the boats when harvesting quahogs
with short rakes, basket rakes, and bull rakes on the same grounds during the
summer months.
fall. During the winter and spring, many
fi shermen once shifted to oystering, while
others fi sh for blue crabs or beach seine
for striped mullet, Mugil cephalis, and
white mullet, M. curema. In North Caro-
lina, quahog “kicking” (washing quahogs
from the sediments with propellers) is a
wintertime occupation.
In South Carolina, the harvesting of
wild quahogs is restricted to a season
open from 15 September until 15 May or
1 June. In the off-season, many quahogers
work on shrimp boats so they often do not
begin harvesting quahogs until around the
fi rst of the year when shrimping ends.
In some areas around Awendaw, S.C.,
women and children harvest quahogs in
the fall. The escalator dredges that har-
vest from restricted areas must wait until
the water warms where the quahogs are
to be relayed. This confi nes the harvest
time to spring as most of those involved
in this fi shery are shrimping in the fall
when temperatures are also suitable for
depuration (Leland
42
).
In Florida, especially in the Indian
River Lagoon, quahog fi shing proceeds
year-round. Because quahog production
in northern states is often down in the
winter, the demand for and value of
Florida quahogs peaks then. The Florida
quahogers then must share the resource
with seasonal participants migrating
into the fi shery from Florida and coastal
states to the north, though, in recent
years, seasonal participation in the Indian
River Lagoon quahog fi shery has been
restricted because licensing requirements
mitigate against the large infl ux of out-of-
state quahogers previously experienced
(Chapters 94-419 and amendments, Laws
of Florida). But during hard times (e.g.
low quahog abundance or low price),
even the most dedicated quahogers must
fi nd alternative work. Before 1995, net
fi shing for striped and white mullet and
spotted trout, Cynosion nebulosus, was
a common alternative, but the constitu-
tional net ban in Florida (Chapter 370,
Florida Statutes) has severely restricted
that activity. Many quahogers now shift to
blue crabbing or land-based work, while
others try to develop successful quahog
aquaculture ventures as a supplement to
or as a substitute for the wild quahog
fi shery.

64(3) 55
Effect of Surfclam Fishery
Large quantities of surfclams, S. solid-
issima, began to be landed in the eastern
United States after the mid 1940’s, when
beds were discovered on the inner Conti-
nental Shelf off New Jersey and the Del-
marva Peninsula. Soup companies soon
replaced chowder quahog meats with
surfclam meats in canned New England
and Manhattan style chowders, bringing
a loss of much of the market for chowder
quahogs. The fi shermen afterward did not
retain as many chowder quahogs when
they were harvested with littlenecks and
cherrystones, because the market demand
became minimal and their price low. But
in recent years, more chowder-sized
quahogs have been landed. Retailers
dice them and make them into stuffed
quahogs or quahog chowders, and sell
some as cherrystones.
Effect of Aquaculture Development
In the 1970’s, limited wild stocks
of quahogs in bays along the eastern
seaboard of the United States, coupled
with a sharply increased demand and
prices for littlenecks and the develop-
ment of methods for culturing quahogs,
stimulated the development of a quahog
culture industry. Several states from Mas-
sachusetts to Florida now are producing
large quantities of littlenecks, by growing
hatchery-reared seed on their grounds.
Public-ground quahogers have been
uneasy about the development of the
hatchery-growout quahog culture,
because private leasing of grounds re-
moves some of their harvesting areas
and cultured quahogs compete with
their quahogs in markets. For example,
in the early 1990’s the price of littleneck
quahogs fell by a few cents apiece and
open-water quahogers blamed the infl ux
of cultured quahogs for that price depres-
sion. But Hsiao et al. (1986) found the
disposable income of consumers was
the most important factor in determin-
ing the dockside value of quahogs and
not quahog availability. In the late 1990’s,
demand usually exceeded quahog supply,
at least during the summer months, and
landed prices were high due to a strong
U.S. economy. The allocation of quahog
grounds may be a more substantial
long-term source of conflict between
open-access diggers and aquaculturists.
In Florida, careful allocation of bottoms
to aquaculture based upon past patterns
of quahog production may alleviate this
problem to some extent.
Quahog Management Programs
State agencies and local town gov-
ernments have tried to manage quahog
fi sheries to protect the resource from
depletion while providing optimum
economic benefi t to the fi shery. These
goals require wise planning if they are
to be met. Management generally falls
in fi ve categories: gear restrictions, size
limits, daily limits, closed seasons, and
transplanting. Other programs have been
environmental enhancement and hatch-
ery-growout production.
A universal rule in every state and
province mandates seed quahogs be left
in the public beds. Quahogs once had to
be at least 2 inches in greatest length to
be taken. The rule satisfi ed the market’s
needs for littlenecks to be about 2–2
1
/3
inches long and, besides, the male and
female quahogs could spawn at least
one summer before being harvested,
and a larger volume of quahogs would be
harvested. In recent years, the universal
minimum size has been lowered to a 1-in
width (1.5-in length). Both sexes can still
spawn during at least one summer.
In addition, some states have imposed
daily limits on each fi sherman’s harvest.
For instance, during the 1950’s at least,
the fi sherman’s daily limit was a total
of 4 bu of quahogs with no more than
2 bu of littlenecks taken in the town of
Edgartown, Mass.; similar restrictions
continue.
North Carolina’s primary management
goals are to provide appropriate access to
all user groups, protect critical habitats
from destructive harvesting practices,
and still maintain a viable fi shery. Man-
agement regulations include a daily bag
limit per person or boat, and potentially
a limited entry system.
In Florida, a limited entry system has
been established for the Indian River
Lagoon fi shery. New quahog licenses are
not granted until the number of licensed
quahogers falls below 500, after which
no more than 500 licenses will be as-
signed at any time. Quahogers currently
holding licenses may keep them, but they
must be renewed every three years, and
renewal requires a certifi cate of comple-
tion of a quahog education course. The
requirement severely restricts the license
availability for itinerant quahogers. Such
a program will mean more stable sup-
plies available in the beds for the fi sh-
ermen and more stable production for
markets.
Through the years, quahog stocks on
beds sometimes have become scarce
forcing the fi shermen to seek different
employment. The means to maintain ad-
equate stocks on the beds was unavailable
to communities in the 1800’s and early
1900’s. Two researchers, David Belding
(1912) and William Kellogg (1917) sug-
gested planting quahog seed in beds. The
seed would be raked from shallow public
beds and planted on shallow plots. But
when tried, this was rarely successful be-
cause the abundance of wild quahog seed
usually is too sparse to collect in quantity.
The following parts of this section de-
scribe the steps that have since been taken
to enhance quahog abundances.
Transplanting Quahogs
The transplanting of seed and market-
sized quahogs on a large scale has taken
place for many years. In the 1930’s, lease-
holders in Barnegat and Chincoteague
Bays purchased seed from harvesters
in Raritan Bay and perhaps other loca-
tions to plant on their leases for subse-
quent growth and harvest (MacKenzie,
1992a). The practice of planting seed
on leases in intertidal or shallow areas
in Chincoteague Bay continued into the
1950’s (but the seed did not come from
Raritan Bay after the mid 1930’s). An-
other practice which Chincoteague Bay
quahog shippers used was to purchase
market-sized quahogs from local harvest-
ers during the warm months, plant them
on intertidal fl ats or in fl oats, and rehar-
vest them during the winter when the
market demand and prices were highest
(Boynton, 1970; Castagna, 1985).
In several states, seed and adult qua-
hogs have been harvested from polluted
areas and planted in clean waters for
depuration, growth, spawning, and sub-
sequent harvesting. Transplants in Rhode

56 Marine Fisheries Review
Island, which involved moving quahogs
from polluted grounds to state public
grounds in certifi ed waters, totalled an
average of 25,825 bu/yr from the Provi-
dence River to Greenwich Bay and coves
in Narragansett Bay between 1954 and
1968. The transplants ended after 1968
due to a lack of funding. In 1978 the
program was revived and has continued
ever since, but the quantities are smaller:
About 2,500 bu were transplanted from
coves off Greenwich Bay each year. The
fi shermen who carried out the transplant-
ing were paid $0.10/lb for the work (Pratt,
1988). The program expanded after 1995,
and increased to 8,000 bu in 1998 and to
15,000 bu in 1999 (Ganz et al., 1999).
This Rhode Island program was initially
conceived as a “put and take” operation
in which quahogs were planted in the late
summer or fall, to be cleansed and har-
vested during the winter fi shing season.
In 1981 the program was restructured so
the bulk of the transplanting was carried
out in the spring so the quahogs could
spawn before being harvested (Pratt et
al., 1992).
In other states, the primary purpose of
transplanting was depuration. Quahog
transplanting in Connecticut usually has
been done by companies which move
quahogs from polluted grounds to certi-
fi ed grounds for cleansing. In the past,
the Tallmadge Company of Norwalk has
transplanted quahogs using hydraulic
dredges from upper Norwalk Harbor and
New Haven Harbor to certifi ed grounds
for depuration. And in Oyster Bay, N.Y.,
the F. M. Flower Co. has transplanted
quahogs, using hydraulic dredges, from
polluted grounds also for depuration.
Management practices in North
Carolina include relaying quahogs from
closed waters to public bottoms by State-
owned boats and private fi shermen. In the
future, the use of locked steel cages and
the necessity of constant enforcement
surveillance may be incorporated to
reduce the risk of theft. The cages are
superior to direct on-bottom relaying in
terms of ease of recovery, reduced mor-
tality, and reduction of grit in the meats
(Taylor, 1995).
In Indian River Lagoon, Fla., fi sher-
men harvest quahogs from restricted
shellfi shing waters for planting on pri-
vate leases. After a minimum of 2 weeks,
the quahogs can be reharvested for sale.
Fishermen also bring quahogs to depura-
tion facilities for a minimum 72-hr stay.
When doing so, they receive less money
per quahog than the leaseholders receive,
but obtain it immediately and do not need
a lease. In 1999, most depuration plants in
the Indian River Lagoon were closed due
to a lack of demand. The relay activities
led to the discovery of new quahog beds
throughout the Indian River Lagoon and
to increased efforts by the state to reclas-
sify the areas for quahog harvesting.
Spreading Shell and Oysters
South Carolina shellfi shermen have
found a combination of oyster shells
and seed oysters spread over bottoms
enhances quahog abundances. The
method consists of covering an area
having a history of good quahog sets
with a layer of seed oysters and shell
to about 5 cm thickness. It appears the
combination of the two yields far more
quahogs than just bare shell (Ashley
34
).
Mine tailings with high lime content are
added in some areas, and this seems to
enhance recruitment. The market-sized
oysters and quahogs in the beds are taken
up by escalator harvesters 2 years after
the oyster seed and shell are spread. The
seed oysters and shell are returned to the
bottom, and the beds continue to produce
quahogs in subsequent years (Ashley
34
;
Baldwin
39
).
No one has ever tried to enhance qua-
hog seed abundance by planting clean
sand, a good substrate for larvae setting.
This is analogous to the oyster industry
planting clean shell as cultch for oyster
larvae.
Hatchery Production
Some of the most substantial advance-
ments in quahog propagation consist of
rearing quahog larvae in hatcheries and
then growing the seed in nurseries and
fi nally in growout beds to market size.
The germination of the idea for quahog
hatcheries could be said to have begun
in the 1870’s, when Brooks (1879) de-
veloped the method of artifi cial fertiliza-
tion of American oyster eggs, and later in
1894, when an act of the Rhode Island
legislature permitted the planting of shell-
fi sh in Narragansett Bay. At the time, land
farming comprised a major part of the
U.S. economy and fi sh hatcheries had
been constructed to stock ponds and
streams. Nothing materialized in Rhode
Island because the law was repealed the
following year, but, in 1904, a special law
permitted the bedding of quahogs in three
towns on Cape Cod, Mass.
In 1906, Julius Nelson in New Jersey
described his experiments designed
to propagate oysters in hatcheries.
He stated, “The ultimate aim of our
experiments is to make it possible to
raise oysters by artifi cial fertilization in
hatcheries, just as is now done with fi sh”
(Stafford, 1912). In 1909, a Massachu-
setts law was passed which gave towns
the option of giving grants to citizens.
This “bedding” act was given for the pur-
pose of holding quahogs for market and
for growing purposes (Belding, 1912).
Belding (1912) in Massachusetts said
people such as William Kellogg (1901,
1910) were discussing the farming of
softshell clams (M. arenaria), and he
suggested they consider farming of
quahogs also, because quahogs were
far more hardy than softshells and the
beds were carrying far below their capac-
ity of this species. Belding (1912) was
able to spawn quahogs, rear their larvae
to setting size and beyond, and describe
the anatomy of the developing stages.
But methods for obtaining quahog seed
by spawning and rearing the larvae to
settlement sizes for planting were not yet
developed for commercial-scale opera-
tions. William Wells (1927) and Herbert
Prytherch (1924) on Long Island, N.Y.,
did rear some oyster and quahog larvae
to setting size, but their equipment was
primitive and foods for the larvae were
not consistently good.
In the 1940’s and 1950’s, a goal of
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
(now the National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice) Biological Laboratory at Milford,
Conn., was to develop reliable methods
for spawning quahogs and growing their
larvae to setting size consistently so com-
mercial hatcheries and farms could be es-
tablished. An important observation was
oysters (and later quahogs) held in winter
at summer temperatures would develop
their gonads and spawn (Loosanoff,

64(3) 57
1945). During those years, the laboratory
improved and aggressively publicized the
methods of rearing quahogs and oysters
(Loosanoff and Davis, 1963). One such
publicity paper (Loosanoff, 1959) in
The Progressive Fish-Culturist was
titled, “You, too, can now hatch clams.”
The Milford Laboratory also founded a
program termed “Operation Baby Clam,”
that consisted of the laboratory produc-
ing thousands of seed quahogs to a size
of 10–15 mm and then shipping batches
of 3,000–4,000 seed to United States and
European researchers to grow. Its purpose
was to encourage those researchers to
construct pilot hatcheries to produce
quahog seed; the pilot hatcheries would
be prototypes which local companies
could use to construct commercial-scale
hatcheries to produce quahog seed for
their beds (Davis, 1969).
Va rious researchers and commercial
hatcheries have since refi ned the Milford
Laboratory larval-rearing techniques,
mainly by improving equipment and
foods. But predation, mainly by crabs,
throttled efforts to make commercial
operations feasible. Few seed planted in
any unprotected beds survived the preda-
tors. In 1977, Castagna and Kraeuter
showed when gravel and crushed stone
was spread over quahog seed in beds its
survival to market size was suffi ciently
high to permit commercial-scale farming.
A huge improvement over stone was the
use of monofi lament mesh screens spread
over the quahog seed plantings to protect
them from predators; the idea for substi-
tuting screens for gravel and stones came
from a commercial grower, named Rich-
ard Crema, in New Jersey (Kraeuter and
Castagna, 1998). The screens are avail-
able in ample quantities, they are easy to
use in contrast to gravel and stones, and
now are used by almost all quahog farm-
ers from Cape Cod to South Carolina.
Castagna and Kraeuter (1981), Manzi
and Castagna (1989), and Hadley et
al. (1997) have since published rear-
ing manuals to be used by commercial
quahog farms. They describe methods for
spawning, rearing, and growing quahogs
on beds. In recent years, quahog farms
using hatchery-reared seed have been
expanding in number and size in several
states from Massachusetts to Florida as
the market demand for quahogs, espe-
cially littlenecks, has grown (MacKenzie
and Burrell, 1997).
South Carolina has a “state-of-the-art”
quahog mariculture facility in operation
(Fig. 93, 94). Its culture regime is as
follows:
Quahogs to be spawned are condi-
tioned for 6–8 weeks at 18°C. They then
are temperature shocked at 25°–28°C,
and if ripe they spawn. As they spawn
the females are isolated, and after 2 hr
eggs are collected in a bucket and sperm
are added. About 150,000,000 fertilized
eggs are placed in a 3,000 L tank; the
density of eggs is about 50/ml. After 24
hours, the tanks are drained and veligers
are restocked at 6/ml. They remain in the
larval culture system for 7 days. Each day
the cultures are drained down on increas-
ingly larger mesh screens. On day seven,
all larvae retained on a 125µ sieve are
transferred to the post-set system. Larvae
smaller than 125µ are discarded.
The post-set system is a downweller
which is drained down every day and re-
placed with fresh seawater (Fig. 95, 96).
The larvae are sieved once a week. They
remain in the post-set system 30–45 days
until they are retained on a 790µ screen
(1-mm quahog). The 1-mm quahogs are
moved to an upweller system and are fed
ambient food (Fig. 97). Heretofore, the
larvae had been fed cultured algae (Fig.
98–100). The quahogs in the upwellers
are cleaned about 3 times a week. When
they reach 2.4 mm they are moved to out-
side upwellers (Fig. 101). They remain
in this system until they reach 4–8 mm
(about 8–12 weeks old, depending
on season) and then are put in a fi eld
nursery system.
The field nursery system in warm
months is made up of either one or
two systems. One consists of 1 × 3-foot
plastic mesh bags, stocked 5,000 seed
per bag. The bags are placed in the in-
tertidal zone in 150-bag strings. The other
fi eld nursery system consists of 8-foot
circular trays constructed of PVC pipe
draped with vinyl mesh to form sides and
bottom and covered with monofi lament
mesh (Fig. 102, 103). Quahogs remain in
the systems until they reach 12–15 mm.
This takes 2–6 months according to the
time of year.
The 12–15 mm seed then are placed
on the bottom and covered with 6-mm
monofi lament mesh in 3 × 15-m units.
They are stocked at about 700/m
2
and
then left for 20–24 months until they
reach harvest size and can be harvested
with hand rakes. Before shipping, the
quahogs are run through a fi lter system
of ultraviolet-treated water for at least 24
hours to ensure the meats are certifi ed.
Most are sold to wholesale distributors,
but some go to retail outlets (Batey
52
).
The quahogs are graded (Fig. 104)
and sold in 3 sizes: pasta neck,
5
/8–
3
/4 in
thick; petite neck,
7
/8 in thick; and little-
neck, 1 in thick. Package sizes run from
12 to 250 count, and most are trucked
or air freighted out of the area (Batey
52
;
Grant
53
). Aquaculture production esti-
mates are confi dential (Moran
54
), but
a newspaper quoting authorities at the
major aquaculture facility said about 10
million market sized quahogs and over
200 million 1-mm seed are produced
annually (Langley, 1998).
One entrepreneur is using a tidal-pow-
ered upwelling apparatus to raise seed
quahogs from 1 to 6 mm size. The seed
are purchased from a hatchery in Maine
and raised in this system and then sold to
quahog farmers for growout. The appa-
ratus consists of a raft that has a scoop to
bring in water and pass it through caged
seed similarly to a shore-based upweller
(Fig. 105). The raft is moored so that the
scoop end always faces the current. Loca-
tion is the prime requisite for a successful
operation, i.e. suffi cient depth, current,
available food, and enough area to allow
360° swings in the tide are required
(Baldwin et al., 1995; Baldwin
39
).
Recommendations
for the Quahog Industry
Our broad historical overview of the
quahog industry in Canada, the United
States, and Mexico has made it possible
for us to suggest ways to enhance it. We
have examined environmental features
53
Grant, K. General Manager, Sea Perfect, 2107
Folly Road, Charleston, South Carolina. Per-
sonal commun., 1998.
54
Moran, J. 1998. Head, Fisheries Statistics Sec-
tion, South Carolina Marine Resources Depart-
ment, P. O. Box 12559, Charleston. Personal
commun., 1998.

58 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 93. — Experimental tray studies of quahog growth
and survival in ponds at the Waddell Mariculture Center,
Bluffton, S.C., 1998. Photograph by V. G. Burrell, Jr.
Figure 94. — Preset larval culture tanks. Quahogs are grown
until they are retained on a 125
µ
screen, Sea Perfect hatch-
ery, Folly Beach, S.C., 1998. Photograph by V. G. Burrell, Jr.
Figure 95. — Down-
wellers carry post set
quahogs to 1 mil -
limeters. Sea Per-
fect hatchery, Folly
Beach, S.C., 1998.
Photograph by V. G.
Burrell, Jr.
Figure 96. — An ar-
ray of downwel lers.
Sea Perfect hatch -
ery, Folly Beach,
S.C., 1998. Photo-
graph by V. G. Bur-
rell, Jr.
Figure 97. — Upwel-
ler tanks used to grow
qua-hogs from 1-2.4
millimeters. Sea Per-
fect hatchery, Folly
Beach, S.C. Photo-
graph by V. G. Bur-
rell, Jr.
Figure 98. — Algae culture system.
Carboys are inoculated with selected
species of algae. Sea Perfect hatch-
ery, Folly Beach, S.C. Photograph by
V. G. Burrell, Jr.

64(3) 59
Figure 99. — Algae culture system. Calwell tanks are seeded
from carboys. Sea Perfect hatchery, Folly Beach, S.C. Pho-
tograph by V. G. Burrell, Jr.
Figure 100. — Algae culture system. Final batches are pro-
duced in 3,000 l tanks which are then fed to quahogs. Sea
Perfect hatchery, Folly Beach, S.C. Photograph by V. G.
Burrell, Jr.
Figure 101. — Upwellers used to grow quahogs from 2.5-5
or 6 millimeters. Sea Perfect hatchery, Folly Beach, S.C.
Photograph by V. G. Burrell, Jr.
Figure 102. — Quahog growout pens at ebb tide, Folly
Beach, S.C. Photograph by Loren Coen.
Figure 103. — Quahog pens deployed on intertidal fl ats,
Folly Beach, S.C. Photograph by Loren Coen.
Figure 104. — Quahog grader where quahogs are sorted for
packing and shipping Sea Perfect hatchery. Photograph by
V. G. Burrell, Jr.

60 Marine Fisheries Review
Figure 105. — A fl oating nursery upweller system that is tidally operated (S.C. Sea
Grant illustration).
of the bays where quahogs have been
abundant and scarce. In addition, we
have studied various management and
culture operations, as well as the species’
biology and ecology. Aside from modest
shell and oyster plantings for enhance-
ment in South Carolina, little has been
done to modify the habitats of natural
beds to enhance quahog abundances
such as spreading shells to collect spat
and controlling predacious starfi sh and
oyster drills, practices that have been
successful with oysters. About the only
feature common to oyster and quahog
management has been transplanting
stocks among beds, the oysters being
cheaper to transplant because they dwell
on rather than under the bed surface. To
enhance the quahog industry, we recom-
mend two new actions: 1) certain inlets
should be enlarged and 2) starfi sh should
be controlled.
Enlarge Inlets
To our knowledge, no one has ever
created inlets or enlarged the sizes of
existing inlets between bays and the
ocean for the purpose of enhancing
abundances of quahogs or any other
shellfi sh. But during the 1980’s, authori-
ties in Prince Edward Island widened
the inlet across the West (Eliot) River
to relieve a eutrophic condition that
had developed in it every summer. The
eutrophic condition afterward did not
occur and oysters became much more
abundant. Most other enlargements or
maintenance dredging have been done
to provide passageways for boats. Nev-
ertheless, we suggest enlarging inlets, or
at least digging large channels through
the deltas inside inlets, such as Great
South Bay and the coastal bays of New
Jersey to allow a greater exchange of bay
and ocean waters. This should enhance
quahog abundance and the quahog fi sh-
eries in those bays. The purpose would
be to relieve the eutrophic conditions in
the bays and return the natural algae to
their waters. If done, the quahogs would
likely become much more abundant
and match their earlier high densities
and their meats would not become
“black.” The general “health” of the
bays would improve, the invertebrates
associated with quahogs would increase
in abundance, and sportfi sh would likely
become more abundant.
A restoration of quahog production
in Great South Bay to a level of about
350,000 bu/yr, or half its peak pro-
duction in 1976 would have a current
landed value of about $20 million/yr
(using a conservative value of $60/bu).
This amount would seem to justify the
costs involved in enlarging the bay inlets,
which would range between $2 million
and $4 million. Unfortunately for the
quahoging industry, the shorefront
residential property along the mainland
shores of Great South Bay and Barnegat
Bay is highly valuable and larger inlets
might make it more vulnerable to storm
damage. Perhaps the designs of larger
inlets could be made in such a way that
the potential for storm damage would be
minimized. For instance, a stone wall,
perhaps 1.0 km long, could be installed
in the bays opposite the widened inlet to
protect the mainland property from storm
damage yet allow currents and vessels to
pass freely by it. Construction of a stone
wall would add to the cost of such a res-
toration project.
Control Starfi sh
MacKenzie and Pikanowski (2000)
observed a negative correlation between
starfi sh and quahog abundances in Rari-
tan Bay and Long Island Sound (Con-
necticut). During the 1990’s, the starfi sh
became scarce and the quahogs became
abundant in both locations. Starfi sh are
a quahog predator and it seems likely the
absence of starfi sh led to the increases
in quahog abundances. Starfi sh could be
removed from beds with mops if they
were to increase in abundance and were
reducing quahog abundances. The use of
mops to remove starfi sh from oyster beds
by oyster growers in Long Island Sound
was fi rst recorded by Ingersoll (1881),
and they have been used for this purpose
ever since.
Other actions
Other types of management actions
being used such as transplants and
hatchery seed planting for enhancement
of stocks are highly recommended.
Control of harvesting effort has helped
to stabilize the earnings and employment
for local fi shermen in some areas.
Deliberate actions to protect spawn-
ing stocks appear to be unnecessary be-
cause fi shermen always leave adequate
quantities of spawners in beds when the
harvesting becomes unprofi table to con-
tinue. The number of quahogs that set is
likely independent of the sizes of spawn-
ing stocks. A relatively small number of
spawners can provide large sets to beds
when environmental conditions are
good for spawning, larval development

64(3) 61
and setting, and seed survival. Another
unnecessary action may be stock assess-
ments, except to determine the quantities
available in polluted beds for planning
transplanting operations. A rough mea-
sure of stock distribution and size in certi-
fi ed beds can be assessed by interviewing
fi shermen. The information determined
by any earlier assessments has not had
any practical value, except in the case of
South Carolina to determine the opening
of beds for harvest in the Santee River
estuary (Rhodes et al., 1977).
Acknowledgments
This paper has benefi ted from the con-
tributions of many people. John Harvey
in Rhode Island, Larry Williams in Con-
necticut, Dave Relyea and Joe Zatilla in
Oyster Bay, N.Y., Craig Strong in Great
South Bay, N.Y., and John Chadwick
in Barnegat Bay informed us about the
quahog fi sheries in their localities while
taking us out on their boats to observe
their harvesting of quahogs. Most of the
people who contributed verbal and writ-
ten information are listed in the personal
communications; others not listed are
Indian River Lagoon quahogers Peter
Barile, Artie Feldman, Nick Hill, Bill
Leeming, and Doug Telgen. April Val-
liere, State of Rhode Island Coastal
Fisheries Laboratory, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Manage-
ment, Wakefi eld, R. I., supplied histori-
cal landings of Quahogs in Rhode Island.
Randy Clark and Dave Whittaker, Mas-
sachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries,
Pocasset, provided material about quahog
harvesting in Massachusetts. Dexter S.
Haven, retired shellfi sh biologist, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, supplied printed materials about
the use of wampum by the Powatan Indi-
ans in Virginia. Martha Norris, Fisheries
Dependent Monitoring section, Florida
Marine Research Institute, provided land-
ings data and insights into the collection
and availability of those data. Barbara
O’Bannon, NMFS Fisheries Statistics
and Economics Division, Silver Spring,
MD, provided landings data from several
states. Christopher Dungan provided ma-
terials on bivalve diseases. Ron Dugas,
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries, sent materials regarding
southern quahogs in Louisiana. Jo-Ann
McLean, Nassau County Garvies Point
Museum and Preserve, Glen Cove, N.Y.,
provided several references on wampum
and also reviewed the wampum section.
Walter Blogoslawski, NMFS Laboratory,
Milford, CT, provided useful comments
on an earlier draft. Willis L. Hobart,
Chief, NMFS Scientific Publications
Offi ce, Seattle, WA, suggested we write
this paper.
Literature Cited
Adams, C. 1988. No title. In D. Busby (Editor),
An overview of the Indian River clamming
industry and the Indian River Lagoon, p.
7–8 . Fla, Sea Grant Extension Program Tech.
Pap. 44.
Anderson, W. D., and W. J. Keith. Undated.
Management of a hard clam escalator har-
vester fi shery. Unpub. Draft. S.C. Wildl. Mar.
Resour. Dep., 20 p.
________ , W. J. Keith, F. H. Mills, M. E.
Bailey, and J. L. Steinmeyer. 1978. A survey
of South Carolina’s hard clam resource. S.C.
Wildl. Mar. Resour. Dep. Tech. Rep. 32: 17
p. + app.
Anonymous. 1985. Suffolk County’s hard
quahog industry: an overview and an analysis
of management objectives. Mar. Sci. Res.
Cent., SUNY. Stony Brook. Spec. Rep. 63,
374 p.
________ . 1987. L. I. Green Seal Inc. Final
report on a project to improve the market-
ing and public image of L. I. hard quahogs.
In Collection of reports prepared under sub-
contract with the Suffolk County Planning
Department pursuant to a grant (NA-84-EA-
D-00062) awarded to the County of Suffolk,
Offi ce the County Executive, by the NMFS
under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1954.
Suffolk County Planning Dep., Happauge,
NY. 9 p. + 10 addendum pages.
________ . 1992. Distribution and Abundance
of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries, Volume I: Data Summaries.
NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assess-
ments Division, Rockville, Md.
________ . 1997. Anuario estadistico de pesca.
SEMARNAP (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente
Recursos Naturales y Pesca). Mexico City,
p. 241.
Antoli, F. V., and A. Garcia-Cubas, A. 1985.
Sistematica y ecologia de moluscos en
las lagunas costeras Carmen y Machona,
Tabasco, Mexico. An. Inst. Cienc. Del Mar.
Y Limnol. Univ. Nat. Auton. Mexico 12(1):
145–198.
Baldwin, R. B., W. Mook, N. H. Hadley, R. J.
Rhodes, and R. J. Devoe. 1995. Construction
and operations manual for a tidal powered
upweller nursery system. S.C. Sea Grant
Cons., Charleston, 44 p.
Baqueiro, E. 1997. The molluscan fi sheries
of Mexico. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G.
Burrell, Jr., A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L. Hobart
(Editors), The history, present condition, and
future of the molluscan fi sheries of North and
Central America and Europe. Vol. 2, Pacifi c
coast and supplemental topics, p. 1–17. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. 128.
Barber, J. W., and H. Howe. 1844. Historical col-
lections of the State of New Jersey. Publ. by
Benjamin Olds, New Haven, Conn., 520 p.
Barile, D. D. 1988. History of the Indian River
Lagoon. In D. Busby (Editor), An overview of
the Indian River quahoging industry and the
Indian River Lagoon, p. 7–8. Fla. Sea Grant
Ext. Prog. Tech. Pap. 44.
________ and W. Rathjen. 1986. Report on the
rainfall event of September and October 1985
and the impact of storm discharge on salin-
ity and the quahog population (Mercenaria
mercenaria) of the Indian River lagoon. Mar.
Resour. Counc., Fla. Inst. Tech., Melbourne,
Fla., 171 p.
Bates, T. 1999. Heat wave helps clams. Asbury
Park Press, July 9.
Belding, D. L. 1912. The quahog fi shery of Mas-
sachusetts, including the natural history of the
quahog and a discussion of quahog farming.
Commonw. Mass., Mar. Fish. Ser. 2, 41 p.
________ . 1931. The quahog fi shery of Mas-
sachusetts. Mass. Dep. Conserv., Div. Fish.
Game, Mar. Fish. Serv. 2, 41 p.
Black, J. A., and J. Kassner. 1988. Small forms
and brown tides. The Dolphin, p. 4–5.
Boyd, J. R. 1991. The Narragansett Bay shellfi sh
industry: A historical perspective and an over-
view of problems in the 1990s. In M. A. Rice,
M. Grady, and M. L. Schwartz (Editors), Pro-
ceedings of the fi rst Rhode Island shellfi sher-
ies conference, p. 171–185. R.I. Sea Grant.
Boynton, W. 1970. The commercial fi sheries of
Chincoteague Bay — past, present and future.
In Assateague Ecological Studies, Part J, p.
357–374. Nat. Resour. Inst., Univ. Maryland,
Coll. Park, Contr. 446.
Brooks, W. K. 1879. The development of the
American oyster. Stud. Biol. Lab., Johns
Hopkins Univ. IV:1–104.
Burrell, V. G., Jr. 1977. Mortalities of oysters
and hard clams associated with heavy runoff
in the Santee River system, South Carolina
in the spring of 1975. Proc. Natl. Shellfi sh.
Assoc. 67:35–43.
________ . 1997. Molluscan shellfi sheries of the
South Atlantic region of the United States.
In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, Jr.,
A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L. Hobart (Editors),
The history, present condition and future of
the molluscan fi sheries of North and Central
America and Europe. Vol. 1, Atlantic and
Gulf coasts, p. 171–185. U. S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 127.
Busby, D. S. 1988. Overview of the industry. In
D. Busby (Editor), An overview of the Indian
River quahoging industry and the Indian
River Lagoon, p. 1–6. Fla. Sea Grant Ext.
Prog., Tech. Pap. 44.
Caddy, J. F., and R. A. Chandler. 1976. Historical
statistics of landings of inshore species in the
Maritime Provinces 1947–1973. Fish. Mar.
Serv., Environ. Can., Tech. Rep. 639, 240 p.
Castagna, M. 1985. Farming of the northern hard
clam Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne) in Va. J.
Shellfi sh Res. 5(1):33 (Abstract).
________ and D. S. Haven. 1972. The hard
clam industry. In V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. Cast-
agna, and R. K. Dias (Editors), A study of
the commercial and recreational fi sheries of
the eastern shore of Virginia, Accomack and
Northampton Counties, p. 64–82. Spec. Rep.
Appl. Mar. Sci. and Ocean Eng. 20. Va. Inst.
Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point.
________ and J. Kraeuter. 1977. Mercenaria cul-
ture using stone aggregate for predator protec-
tion. Proc. Natl. Shellfi sh. Assoc. 67:1–6.

62 Marine Fisheries Review
________ and ________ . 1981. A manual for
growing the hard clam, Mercenaria. In Spec.
Rep., Appl. Mar. Sci. Ocean Engr. 249. Va.
Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point, 107 p.
Castillo, C., E. Baqueiro, M. M. Huchin, and M.
C. Medina. 1988. Historia actual y situation
actual de las pesquerias de almeja en Golfo de
Mexico. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Los
Recursos Pesqueros del Pais, p. 391–397.
Chestnut, A. F. 1953. Studies of the North Caro-
lina clam industry. Natl. Shellfi sh. Assoc.
1951 Convention Addresses, p. 85–88.
Coastal Fisheries Act. 1924. Act No. 623. Code
of laws of South Carolina 1016–1043.
Coastal Fisheries Laws. 1959. Act No. 259. Stat-
utes at large of South Carolina. 439–440.
Colson, S., and L. N. Sturmer. 2000. One shining
moment known as Clamelot: the Cedar Key
story. J. Shellfi sh. Res. 19(1):477–480.
Darling, W. S. 1984. Quahoging out of Rock
Harbor 1890–1930. Privately printed by
author. Thompson’s Printing Co., Orleans,
Mass., 60 p.
Davis, H. C. 1969. Shellfi sh hatcheries — present
and future. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98(4):743–
750.
Desbonnet, A., and V. Lee. 1991. Historical
trends: Water quality and fi sheries, Narra-
gansett Bay. Univ. R.I. Coast. Resour. Cent.,
Contrib. 100, and Natl. Sea Grant Publ. RIU-
T-91-001, 101 p.
Dillon, R. T., Jr., and J. J. Manzi. 1987. Hard
clam, Mercenaria mercenaria brood stocks:
Genetic drift and loss of rare alleles without
reduction in heterozygosity. Aquaculture 60:
99–105.
________ and ________ . 1988. Enzyme hetero-
zygosity and growth rate in nursery popula-
tions of Mercenaria mercenaria. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 116:79–86.
Dugas, R. J. 1980. A status report on commercial
clamming efforts in Louisiana. Louisiana
Dep. Wildl. Fish., Tech. Bull. 31:23–32.
Eldridge, P. J., W. Waltz, R. C. Gracy, and H. H.
Hunt. 1976. Growth mortality rates of hatch-
ery seed clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, in
protected trays in waters of South Carolina.
Proc. Natl. Shellfi sh. Assoc. 66:13–20.
________ , A. G. Eversole, and J. M. Whetstone.
1979. Comparative survival and growth
rates of hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria,
planted in trays subtidally and intertidally at
varying densities in a South Carolina estuary.
Proc. Natl. Shelf. Assoc. 69:30–39.
Eversole, A. G., C. J. Kempton, N. H. Halley, and
W. R. Buzzi. 1996. Comparison of growth,
survival and reproductive success of diploid
and triploid Mercenaria mercenaria. J. Shell-
fi sh Res. 15(3):69
Fenton, R. 2001. New Jersey shellfi sh culture.
Talk presented at Shellfi sh Culture and the
Environment Symposium. Cumberland Col-
lege, Vineland, N.J.
Fiedler, R. H. 1940. Fisheries industries of the
United States 1938. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish
Wildl. Serv., Admin. Rep. 37, p. 169–554.
Fleet, S. 1992. R. I. 89-694. Quahog diggers
demand ban on commercial diving. Commer.
Fishing News, Mar.:27A.
Ford, S. E. 1997. History and present status of
molluscan fi sheries from Barnegat Bay to
Delaware Bay. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G.
Burrell, Jr., A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L. Hobart
(Editors), The history, present condition, and
future of the molluscan fi sheries of North and
Central America and Europe, Vol. 1, Atlan-
tic and Gulf coasts, p. 119–140. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 127.
Freeman, J. 1807. A description of Dukes County
in 1807. Mass. Hist. Soc.
Ganz, A., A. Valliere, M. Gibson, and N. Lazar.
1999. Narragansett Bay quahaug manage-
ment plan. R.I. Dep. Environ. Manage., Div.
Fish Wildl., Coastal Fish. Lab., Wakefi eld, 93
p.+ appendix.
Garcia-Cubas, A. 1981. Moluscos de un sistema
lagunar tropical en el sur del Golfo de Mexico
(Laguna de Terminos, Campeche). An. Inst.
Cienc. Del Mar y Limnol. Univ. Nat. Auton.
Mexico. Publ. Esp. 294:1–182.
________ and M. Reguero. 1990. Moluscos del
sistema lagunar Tupilco-Ostion, Tabasco,
Mexico: Sistematica y ecologia. An. Inst.
Cienc. Del Mar y Limnol. Univ. Nat. Auton.
Mexico 17(2):309–343.
Gates, J. M. 1991. Quahog market trends. In M.
A. Rice, M. Grady, and M. L. Swartz (Edi-
tors), Proceedings of the fi rst Rhode Island
shellfi sheries conference, p. 93–103. Univ.
R.I. Sea Grant Prog., Narragansett.
Gatewood, J. B., and B. J. McCay. 1990. Com-
parison of job satisfaction in six New Jersey
fi sheries: implications for management. Hum.
Organ. 49(1):14–25.
Glancy, J. 1943. Untitled. The Fishing Gazette
60(13):34–35, 88.
Godcharles, M. F., and W. C. Jaap, 1973. Explor-
atory quahog survey of Florida nearshore and
estuarine waters with commercial hydraulic
dredging gear. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar.
Res. Lab., Prof. Pap. Ser. 21, 77 p.
Gracy, R. C., W. J. Keith, and R. J. Rhodes. 1978.
Management and development of the shellfi sh
industry in South Carolina. S.C. Wildl. Mar.
Resour. Dep. Tech. Rep. 28, 23 p.
Guthrie, J. F., and C. W. Lewis. 1982. The
quahog-kicking fi shery of North Carolina.
Mar. Fish. Rev. 44(1):16–21.
Hadley, N. H., R. T. Dillon, Jr., and J. J. Manzi.
1991. Realized heritability of growth rate in
the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria. Aqua-
culture 93:109–119.
________ , J. J. Manzi, A. G. Eversole, R. T.
Dillon, C. E. Battey, and N. M. Peacock.
1997. A manual for the culture of the hard
clam Mercenaria spp. in South Carolina. S.C.
Sea Grant Consort., Charleston, 135 p.
Haven, D. S., W. J. Hargis, Jr., J. G. Loesch, and
J. P. Whitcomb. 1975. The effect of Tropical
Storm Agnes on oysters, hard clams, soft
clams and oyster drills. Chesapeake Res.
Consort. Publ. 34: D170–D208.
________ , J. P. Whitcomb, and O. C. Davis.
1979. A mechanical escalator for live oysters
and shell. Mar. Fish. Rev. 41(12):17–20.
Heaton, C. J. E. 1972. South Carolina early laws
and statutes pertaining to game, fi sh, wildlife
and conservation. Manu. Spec. Collection
Clemson Univ. Library #346976, 131 p.
Hickey, J. M. 1983. Assessment of quahog
stocks in contaminated waters of southeast-
ern Massachusetts. Mass. Dep. Fish., Wildl.
Rec. Vehicles Publ. 13636-92-50-6-84-C.R.
Boston, Mass., 31 p.
Hsiao, Y., T. Johnson, and J. E. Easley. 1986. An
economic analysis of a potential overfi shing
problem: the North Carolina hard quahog fi sh-
ery. UNC Sea Grant Publ. UNC-SG-86-11.
Ingersoll, E. 1881. The oyster industry. In G.
Brown Goode (Editor), The history and pres-
ent condition of the fi shery industries, U.S.
Gov. Print. Off., Wash., 251 p.
________ . 1887. The oyster, scallop, quahog,
mussel, and abalone industries. In G. B.
Goode and a staff of Associates (Editors), The
fi sheries and fi shery industries of the United
States. Sect. II, p. 507–626. U.S. Gov. Print
Off., Wash.
Jenkins, J. B., A. Morrison, and C. L. MacKen-
zie, Jr. 1997. The molluscan fi sheries of the
Canadian Maritimes. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.,
V. G. Burrell, Jr., A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L.
Hobart (Editors), The history, present condi-
tion, and future of the molluscan fi sheries of
North and Central America and Europe, Vol.
1, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, p. 15–44. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS
127.
Jones, D. S., I. R. Quitmyer, W. S. Arnold, and
D. C. Marelli. 1990. Annual shell banding,
age, and growth rate of hard clams (Merce-
naria spp.) from Florida. J. Shellfi sh Res. 9:
215–225.
Joseph, J. W. 1989. Inventory of New Jersey’s
estuarine shellfi sh resources. N.J. Dep.
Environ. Protect., Div. Fish, Game, Wildl.
Completion Rep. to NOAA, NMFS, Trenton,
N.J., 75 p.
Kadri, J. 1991. A raw deal: combined sewer
outfl ow pollution in Narragansett Bay. In M.
A. Rice, M. Grady, and M. L. Swartz (Edi-
tors), Proceedings of the fi rst Rhode Island
shellfi sheries conference, p. 43–57. R.I. Sea
Grant, Narragansett.
Kassner, J. 1988. The consequence of baymen:
the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria Linne)
management situation in Great South Bay,
New York. J. Shellfi sh Res. 7(2):289–293.
________ and J. A. Black. 1982. Efforts to stabi-
lize a coastal inlet: A case study of Moriches
Inlet, New York. Shore and Beach, April:
21–29.
Kellogg, J. L. 1901. Clam and scallop industries
of New York State. Univ. State N.Y., Albany.
N.Y. State Mus. Bull. 43 (8):605–629.
________ . 1910. The clam problem and clam
culture. The Fishing Gazette 27(30).
________ . 1917. Artifi cial culture of the clam
said to be full of possibilities. The Fishing
Gazette 34(30):929–930.
Kennish, M. J., M. B. Roche, and T. R. Tatham.
1984. Anthropogenic effects on aquatic com-
munities. In M. J. Kennish, and R. A. Lutz
(Editors), Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New
Jersey, p. 318–338. Springer-Verlag, N.Y.
Kerswill, C. J. 1949. Effects of water circulation
on quahogs and oysters. J. Fish. Res. Board
Can. 7(9):545–551.
Kobbe, G. 1982. New Jersey Coast and Pines.
Reprint of 1889 edition. P.O. Box 352. New
Yo rk, Walker News, Inc.
Kraeuter, J. N., and M. Castagna. 1998. A cen-
tury of fi sh culture: The rise of commercial
clam culture. Convention Address, World
Aquaculture Society meeting. Feb.15–19,
1998. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Langley, L. 1998. Shrimping outshines oysters,
clam season. Post Courier. Charleston, S.C.
Sept. 11, 1998, p. 3b.
Leonard, T. H. 1923. From Indian trail to electric
rail. Atl. Highlands [N.J.] Historical Soc.,
665 p.
Loosanoff, V. L. 1945. Precocious gonad devel-
opment in oysters induced in midwinter
by high temperature. Science (Wash.) 102:
124–125.
________ . 1959. You, too, can now hatch clams.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 21(1):35.
________ and H. C. Davis. 1963. Rearing of
bivalve mollusks. In F. S. Russell (Editor),

64(3) 63
Advances in Marine Biology, p. 1–36. Acad.
Press, N.Y.
Low, R. A. 1998. South Carolina Marine Fish-
eries, 1996. S.C. Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar.
Resour. Div., Off. Fish. Manage., Data Rep.
27, 78 p.
Lunz, G. R. 1944. Special study of the marine
fi sheries resources of South Carolina. S.C.
State Plan. Board Bull. 14, 61 p.
________ . 1949. The clam situation in South
Carolina. Contr. Bears Bluff Lab. Wadmalaw
Island 6, 4 p.
________ . 1960. Report of South Carolina Wild-
life Resources Department. Div. Commer.
Fish. FY 1959–1960, p. 58–60.
________ . 1963. Annual Report Division Com-
mercial Fisheries. Annual Rep. S.C. Wildl.
Res. Dep. 1962–1963:78–81.
MacBride, E. W. 1912. Oyster culture and clam
fi shing, Prince Edward Island. In Contribu-
tions to Canadian biology, being studies from
the Marine Biological Stations of Canada
1906–1910, p. 217–220. C. H. Parmelee,
Printer, Ottawa.
MacKenzie, C. L., Jr. 1977. Predation on hard
clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) populations.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 106:530–537.
________ . 1992a. The fi sheries of Raritan Bay.
Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, N.J.,
304 p.
________ . 1992b. Shellfi sheries on Martha’s
Vineyard. The Dukes County Intelligencer
[Dukes county Hist. Soc., Mass.] 34(1):1–34.
________ . 1997a. The molluscan fi sheries from
Massachusetts Bay through Raritan Bay. In C.
L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, Jr., A. Rosen-
fi eld, and W. L. Hobart (Editors), The history,
present condition, and future of the molluscan
fi sheries of North and Central America and
Europe. Vol. 1, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, p.
87–117. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.
Rep. NMFS 127.
________ . 1997b. The molluscan fi sheries of
Chesapeake Bay. In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr.,
V. G. Burrell, Jr., A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L.
Hobart (Editors), The history, present condi-
tion, and future of the molluscan fi sheries of
North and Central America and Europe, Vol.
1, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, p. 141–169. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS
127.
________ and V. G. Burrell, Jr. 1997. Trends and
status of molluscan fi sheries on North and
Central America and Europe — a synopsis.
In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, Jr.,
A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L. Hobart (Editors),
The history, present condition, and future of
the molluscan fi sheries of North and Central
America and Europe, Vol. 1, Atlantic and Gulf
coasts, p. 1–14. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Rep. NMFS 127.
________ and R. Pikanowski. 2000. Quahog
populations explode after starfi sh populations
crash. Shellfi sh World 1(4):6–7.
________ , A. Morrison, D. L. Taylor, V. G.
Burrell, Jr., W. S. Arnold, and A. T. Wakida-
Kusunoki. 2002. Quahogs in eastern North
America: part I, biology, ecology, and histori-
cal uses. Mar. Fish. Rev. 64(2):1–55.
MacPhail, J. S. 1961. A hydraulic escalator har-
vester. Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull. 128, 24 p.
Manzi, J. J., V. G. Burrell, Jr., and H. Q. M.
Clawson. 1981. Commercialization of hard
clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) aquaculture in
South Carolina: preliminary report. J. World
Maricul. Soc. 12:181–195.
________ and M. Castagna (Editors). 1989.
Clam culture in North America. Elsevier Sci.
N.Y., 447 p.
________ , N. H. Halley, and R. T. Dillon. 1991.
Hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, brood
stocks: growth of selected hatchery stocks
and their reciprocal crosses. Aquaculture V
94:17–26.
McCay, B. J. 1984. The pirates of Piscary: Eth-
nohistory of illegal fi shing in New Jersey.
Ethnohistory 31(1):17–37.
________ . 1988. Muddling through the clam
beds: cooperative management of New
Jersey’s hard clam spawner sanctuaries. J.
Shellfi sh Res. 7(2):327–340.
________ and W. P. Jenks, III. 1997. The impor-
tance of shellfi sheries to coastal communities.
In C. L. MacKenzie, Jr., V. G. Burrell, Jr.,
A. Rosenfi eld, and W. L. Hobart (Editors),
The history, present condition, and future of
the molluscan fi sheries of North and Central
America and Europe. Vol. 2, Pacifi c Coast and
supplemental topics, p. 145–155. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 127.
McCloy, T. W., and J. W. Joseph. 1985. Inventory
of New Jersey’s estuarine shellfi sh resources.
N.J. Dep. Environ. Prot., Div. Fish, Game,
Wildl. Completion Rep. to NOAA, NMFS,
Trenton, N.J., 28 p.
McHugh, J. L. 1991. The hard clam fi shery past
and present. In J. R. Shubel, T. M. Bell, and H.
H. Carter (Editors), The Great South Bay, p.
55–63. State Univ. N.Y. Press, Albany.
Moonsammy, R. Z., D. S. Cohen, and M. T.
Hufford. 1987. Living with the landscape:
Folklife in the environmental subregions of
the Pinelands. In R. Z. Moonsammy, R. Z.,
D. S. Cohen, and L. E. Williams (Editors),
Pinelands Folklife, p. 65–230. Rutgers Univ.
Press, New Brunswick, N.J.
Peterson, C. H., H.C. Summerson, and S. R.
Fegley. 1987. Ecological consequences of
mechanical harvesting of clams. Fish. Bull.
86:281–298.
Porter, H. J., and A. F. Chestnut. 1962. The off-
shore clam fi shery of North Carolina. Proc.
Natl. Shellfi sh. Assoc. 51:67–73.
Pratt, S. D. 1988. Status of the hard quahog fi sh-
ery in Narragansett Bay. Final Rep. NBP-88-
07 for Narragansett Bay Project. Grad. School
Oceanogr. Univ. R.I., Narragansett, 89 p.
________ , M. A. Rice, and A. R. Ganz. 1992.
Species profi le of the quahog in Rhode Island.
R.I. Sea Grant, Univ. R.I., Narragansett, 117 p.
Prytherch, H. F. 1924. Experiments in the artifi -
cial propagation of oysters. App. 11 to Rep.
U.S. Fish. for 1923, 1–14.
Red Bank Register. 1935. October 17.
Reguero, M., and A. Garcia-Cubas. 1989. Molus-
cos de la Laguna de Alvarado, Veracruz,
Mexico: sistematica y ecologia. An. Inst.
Cienc. Del Mar y Limnol. Univ. Nat. Auton.
Mexico 16(2):279–306.
________ and ________ . 1991. Moluscos de
la Laguna Camaronera, Veracruz, Mexico:
Sistematica y ecologia. An. Inst. Cienc. Del
Mar y Limnol. Iniv. Nat. Auton. Mexico
18(1):289–328.
________ and ________ . 1993. Moluscos de la
Laguna de Pueblo Viejo, Veracruz, Mexico:
Sistematica y ecologia. An Inst. Cienc. Del
Mar y Limnol. Univ. Nat. Auton. Mexico
20(1):77–104.
________ , ________ , and G. Zuniga. 1991.
Moluscos de la Laguna Tampamachoco,
Ve racruz, Mexico: Sistematica y ecologia.
An Inst. Cienc. Del Mar y Limnol. Univ. Nat.
Auton. Mexico 18(2):289–328.
Rhodes, R. J., W. J. Keith, P. J. Eldridge, and V.
G. Burrell, Jr. 1977. An empirical evaluation
of the Leslie-Delury method to estimating
hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, abun-
dance in the Santee River estuary, South
Carolina. Proc. Natl. Shellfi sh. Assoc. 67:
44–52.
Rice, M. A., A. Valliere, and A. Caporelli. 2000.
A review of shellfi sh restoration and manage-
ment projects in Rhode Island. J. Shellfi sh
Res. 19(1):401–408.
Ropes, J. W., and C. E. Martin. 1960. The abun-
dance and distribution of hard clams in Nan-
tucket Sound, Massachusetts, 1958. U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.-Fish. 354:1–11.
Ryther, J. H. 1988. Untitled. In D. Busby (Editor),
An overview of the Indian River quahoging
industry and the Indian River Lagoon, p. 14.
Fla. Sea Grant Ext. Prog., Tech. Pap. 44.
S.C. Mar. Res. Div. 1996. Marine fi sheries and
related laws (reprinted from the code of laws
of South Carolina). Charleston, 93 p.
S.C. State Board of Fisheries. 1926. Annual
report. Columbia, 11 p.
________ . 1927. 21st annual report. Year ending
31st December 1927, 18 p.
________ . 1931. 25th annual report. Year ending
31st December 1931, 18 p.
________ . 1934. 28th Annual Report for the
year ending 30 June 1934. Columbia, 20 p.
S.C. Wildl. Mar. Resour. Dep. 1978. Report for
the fi scal year July 1, 1977–June 30, 1978.
Columbia, 113 p.
________ . 1980. Report of the South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
for Fiscal year 1980. Columbia, 113 p.
________ . 1982. Report for fi scal year July 1,
1981–June 30, 1982. Columbia, 109 p.
________ . 1984. Report for the fi scal year July
1, 1983–June 30, 1984. Columbia, 87 p.
________ . 1986. Report of the South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
Rep. FY July 1, 1985–June 30, 1986, Colum-
bia, 88 p.
________ . 1988. Report of the South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
Rep. FY July 1, 1987–June 30, 1988, Colum-
bia, 88 p.
Schroeder, W. C. 1924. Fisheries of Key West
and the clam industry of southern Florida.
U.S. Bur. Fish. Doc. 962, 74 p.
Sim, R. J. 1949. Pages from the past of rural New
Jersey. N.J. Agric. Soc. Trenton, 121 p.
Smith, S. 1690. The colonial history of New
Jersey. William S. Sharp, Trenton, p.
167–189.
Spaulding, M. H. 1906. A preliminary report on
the distribution of the scallops and clams in
the Chandeleur Island Regions, Louisiana.
Bull. Gulf Biol. Sta. 6:29–43.
Stafford, J. 1912. Conservation of the oyster. In
Sea-fi sheries of eastern Canada, p. 25–49.
Commiss. Conserv., Can., Printed by The
Mortimer Co., Ottawa.
Sturmer, L. N., E. Quesenberry, and D. E.
Vaughan. 1997. Development of hard clam
aquaculture on Florida’s west coast: from
training to production to a sustainable indus-
try (Abstract). World Aquacult. Soc. Book of
Abstr., p. 443–444.
Taylor, D. L. 1995. North Carolina Fishery Man-
agement Plan hard clam. Unpubl. Rep., N.C.
Dep. Environ., Health, Nat. Resour., Div. Mar.
Fish., Morehead City, 38 p.
Tester, P. A., R. P. Stumpf, and P. K. Fowler.
1988. Red tide, the fi rst occurrence in North
Carolina waters: An overview. Proc. Oceans

64 Marine Fisheries Review
88 Conf. Baltimore, Md., Oct 31–Nov. 2,
1988.
Townsend, C. H. 1901. Statistics of the fi sheries
of the middle Atlantic states. U.S. Comm.
Fish Fish., Part XXVI, Rep. Comm. 1900:
195–310.
Tressler, D. K., and J. M. Lemon. 1951. Marine
products of commerce. Reinhold Publ. Corp.,
N.Y., 782 p.
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan,
E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P.
M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper,
G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G.
Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Wil-
liams. 1998. Common and scientifi c names of
aquatic invertebrates from the United States
and Canada: Mollusks. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec.
Publ. 26, 2nd ed., 526 p.
Wells, W. F. 1927. Report of the experimental
shellfi sh station. Rep. N.Y. State Conserv.
Dep. No. 16:1–22.
Errata
The abstract in Part I of this quahog article, mis-
stated the Mexican State that leads in quahog
production. It is the Tabasco, not Campeche.