Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
In his account, Saville-Kent reported that by 1890, as a result of the depletion
of the earliest-harvested pearl-shell beds, the largest shells - weighing 8 lb per pair
- that were once found commonly throughout Torres Strait had become scarce.
Saville-Kent acknowledged that the harvest of pearl-shell included very small
pearl oysters. Describing the yields obtained by the fishery, he stated that a typical
harvest was from 600 to 700 pairs of pearl shells per boat in one month: that
represented approximately one ton in weight, although he acknowledged that,
under very favourable conditions, 1,200-1,800 pairs of shells could be harvested,
and that the owners of stations and boats awarded bonuses to divers and crews if
they harvested over 1,000 pairs. One standard pair of shells was defined as 3 lb of
pearl-shell and, although divers were encouraged to collect the largest shells, they
were also able to obtain their bonuses by collecting very small pairs of shells if those
amounted to the same weight; as a result, no incentive existed to preserve stocks
of immature pearl-shell oysters. Consequently, Saville-Kent (1890a, pp727-8)
reported 'a very considerable quantity of shell is brought in weighing from 1 lb to so
little as 5 or 6 oz only per pair', which represented as many as 6,000 pairs of shells
per ton. Furthermore, Saville-Kent acknowledged that the supply of pearl-shell was
geographically variable, and that the most accessible beds had been depleted to a
far greater extent than others.
Although Saville-Kent's report described the depletion occurring in Torres
Strait, it is likely that similar depletion affected the northern Great Barrier Reef,
since those pearling grounds were also used by the Queensland fishery. He argued
that the depletion of the pearl-shell required immediate restriction and regulation of
the industry. The decline in the average size of the pearl-shell harvested had reduced
the value of the product; Saville-Kent (1890a, p729) stated that, because previously
'the price for shell of good quality ranged as high as £200 per ton, the shell itself was
more readily accessible and […] the profits in the trade were consequently much
more considerable'. By 1890, however, the price of good quality shell had fallen
to around £135 per ton. Saville-Kent (1890a, pp729, 734) reported that industry
support for restrictions in the pearl-shell fishery had strengthened, and a trade body
representing 73 boats had voted to accept a size limit of either seven inches from
the front lip to the hinge overall, or of six inches across the diameter of the nacre;
the latter measurement was preferable since the width of the surrounding border was
highly variable, and that was the restriction that came into force.
These officials of the Queensland Government were not the only authorities
to report on the decline of pearl-shell resources. In 1908, the Royal Commission
investigation into the Queensland pearl-shell and
bêche-de-mer
fisheries
acknowledged that, as old and full-grown pearl-shell had become scarce, the
industry had adapted in an attempt to sustain yields: size limits had been imposed,
pump-diving had been introduced, the average vessel size had increased and shore-
station systems and pearling fleets had appeared (Mackay, 1908, pp. xlvi-xlvii).
From 1890-1893, the statistics of the industry changed in the following ways:
the number of boats increased from 92 to 210, the gross take of pearl-shell take
increased from 632 to 1,214 tons, but the available catch per boat decreased from
Search WWH ::
Custom Search