been described as important to Connecticut since the first settlements as the first legislative “fisheries” report issued by the General Assembly regarding Connecticut River Fisheries was in 1867. It recommended then that factories not pollute the Connecticut River with toxins and suggested building fish ladders over dams. A century before Connecticut salted shad fed Washington’s troops held up at Valley Forge. Some of the observations and recommendations of the general assembly 1867 report are still valid today regarding shad. This report commissioned by the Connecticut Legislature in 1865 was the result of diminished shad runs. Although salmon was mentioned, and the number of dams blocking salmon from spawning habitats but was uncertain for Shad.
Shad numbers seemed to be large one year and low the next giving the appearance of over fishing but most likely reflected diminished habitat capacity years before. Another bias in the report reflects a lack of knowledge about long term habitat quality trends – mostly climate related. This is an excerpt which describes some of the concerns in 1867.
The gentle Connecticut is precisely suited to their nature (Shad), as is well by the way in which they hold out in that river, despite a multitude of gill nets at its mouth, and the dams that have stopped their free migrations. Nevertheless, they too have decrease in numbers seriously. Three quarters of a century ago they were so abundant as to be thought of little value, and were taken in large quantities in weirs. As many as two thousand were sometimes caught by one haul of the seine at Hadley Falls. There has been no such fishing in recent years, except in 1849, when the fish were headed off by the closing of Holyoke Dam, and two thousand one hundred were then taken by one sweep of the seine. Ever since the building of that dam there has been a perceptible diminution of shad. Thus, in 1853, (not a remarkable year), between forty and fifty thousand were caught at Hadley Falls; during the past season (1866), (which was a remarkable one); the catch has been only about thirty-five thousands, indicating a decrease of one fourth in twelve years. On both rivers, the number of fishing places abandoned, because no longer profitable is very great. There were probably three times as many places thirty years ago than now are on any given part of these rivers” (page 16-17) Report of the Commissioners concerning the Protection of Fish In The Connecticut River To The General Assembly, May Session 1867.
Habitat Reclamation / Restoration
Interest increased in the late 1970s in fish restoration especially anadromous fisheries – some questions were how large were these shad fisheries, what types of fishing gear did they use – what happened to these gear types? Since full size representations were not suited to workshops or lectures. Models could however illustrates fishing gears and understand some of the habitat constraints of their use.
In 1985 the first fishing gear models were created for use in the Connecticut River Museum Shad programs. In following years different types added for additional displays. It is possible with the help of very old net plan manuals to represent some of the most elaborate gear types and demonstrate what made them work for shad, alewife and other fisheries in the Connecticut River. For many plans I have relied upon an old copy of the Linen Thread Company, 200 Hudson Street, New York which has gone of business.
Why Little Remains from the Last Century
Most of the gear types of the past century used natural twines (cotton, linen, manila) and materials such as wood hoops for the fykes. To maintain the gear, dips and salting by fishers tried to prevent bacterial damage to natural fiber webbing and but very few fyke and haul seine examples survived to our times. Manila, linen and cotton twines quickly rotted in the marine environment (bacteria) requiring constant drying and dipping in metal salt solutions. This is where the Linen Thread Company (sole selling agent for the American Net and Twine Company established in 1842) 