How was a quasi-conservation Association, the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), permitted to push through a bill (HB 1603) that was admittedly retribution against watermen and the State’s Department of Natural Resources for protecting Maryland’s natural oyster bars?
Remember, it was watermen that protested the dumping of questionable substrates on natural oyster bars in sanctuaries. Imagine that! Who would have thought watermen would be the ones exercising better stewardship than the hysterical Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), CCA, and the state’s Riverkeepers.
Because of overly loud misinformed outrage, the Corps of Engineers, rather petulantly, threatened, and did, take their money, only a small percentage, to Virginia. The media made it appear that the governor was anti-oyster restoration and because of the delay, the state was no longer going to restore the oysters in Maryland in spite of the federal mandate to do so. It was in Virginia that they ran into a problem.
For the Feds to enter into any state waters with budgeted programs, each state must match a percentage of the funds. Cash-strapped Virginia was unable to meet the required percentage. It was only when the Nature Conservancy stepped in and raised the requisite percentage that the Corps was able to “punish” Maryland by allowing the Corps to go elsewhere. The truth is that there are still several million dollars budgeted for the Corps to continue the federally mandated Maryland project. Cessation of restoration is just not a possibility. The only change is to stop dumping granite rocks on natural oyster bars and in shoal waters.
These changes should become permanent protocols for future tributary remediation. Remember that it was our governor who requests a delay, (only a delay) not a permanent cessation of further actions on 8 acres in the Tred Avon tributary. This “restoration” project is being carried out in our waters by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Corps of Engineers, CBF, the Oyster Recovery Partnership (ORP), and the DNR. The outright falsehoods that permeated the media about the delay raised an unnecessary ruckus. The outraged special interest groups turned myth into mantra, and the truth became buried in a fetid mess. From such a mess came HB 1603 and it became a cause celebre for the “restorationists” and conservationists”. The hearing is available online. I must warn you it is nearly 4 hours long.
Again, anything good for the Bay falls prey to politics.
The vote to pass was basically along party lines. This “stock assessment” bill based on an impractical New Jersey model and will now cost Maryland taxpayers $300,000. All of the supposedly missing information that this study is to supply is already available in the years of statistics in the DNR, ORP, and the University of Maryland archives. It just needs to be re-collated.
Artist and photographer Marc Castelli grew up in a military family enriched by travel and living in many places. This reflects his consuming need to talk to those who work on the water and photograph, sketch, draw, and paint them and their boats. These include watermen, lobstermen, their workboats, America’s Cup racers and their yachts, and the extended families that race their log canoes of the Chesapeake Bay’s Eastern Shore.
Below is my written testimony submitted the day of the bill’s hearing in the house. The statistics used are from the DNR and ORP archives:
This bill is not necessary because it mandates an action that is already underway. DNR and The University of Maryland already work together regarding fishery studies. For oysters, DNR and UMD have worked together for decades on restoration projects and are currently involved in the Oysters Futures Project where fishery management is being discussed and the future planned. CCA, CBF, MWA, MOA, and other stakeholder organizations are also participating. Additionally, the Oyster Advisory Commission is being reformed and can coordinate a review of the fishery and provide recommendations. Instead of using this bill to further interfere with the numerous programs already in place why not just let them continue to work?
This bill is not necessary because there is already a large scale program in place to help address fishing pressure (overfishing). CCA, CBF, NOAA, The Corps of Engineers, DNR and others created massive sanctuaries as a concerted effort to control and reduce harvesting and improve oyster sustainability. Sanctuaries exist to create the possibility of oysters restoring themselves. They were promoted as sources of larvae and new oysters to counterbalance harvest pressure, even create new oysters in harvest areas as larvae move there from sanctuaries. They were designed to address fishing mortality (control it and reduce it) by preventing harvesting in these large closed areas. They protect and create more oysters than are harvested. Before we reorient the public shell fishery, we should let the sanctuary programs play out.
This bill is flawed and should not be passed because of a distinct bias behind its origin and outcome. In the “whereas” statements of the bill, it was declared the fishery is overfished. Based on what? The bill targets watermen. You will hear how they have been over-harvesting and that the fishery has no future and should be ended. Some senators, during hearings on the bill, actually believe the time for the fishery has ended. Some researchers from the UMD, who are asking for $300,000.00 for this study and some from CCA, who aggressively support this bill, are also are also the ones saying the fishery is done. How can anyone expect unbiased results from such an agenda driven study?
The fact is the fishery is driven by natural spat set and when set is high; harvest is good for a few years later. When set is low, harvest declines, not due to overfishing but to low spat sets in prior years. As a result, the fishery cycles through high and low years. Why say the time of the fishery has ended? If spat sets keep it going, what is the issue? Is there a bias to end the fishery and turn over bottom to aquaculture? The bill should not be supported due to its biases and lack of understanding of the facts.
I ask you please to consider some math regarding the fishing pressure on oysters, in light of the large-scale sanctuary program designed to help address over harvest
First off the planting statistics are from the ORP website. The harvest statistics are from the DNR harvest reports. These facts are public knowledge.
Tributaries such as the Severn, Harris Ck. Little Choptank, Magothy (all sanctuaries) have had 2.5 billion hatchery oysters planted in them since 2000. Oyster mortality for planted oysters can be as low as 50% and as high as 80% within weeks after planting. That fact came from a Horn Point biologist’s presentation at a National Shellfish Conference a few years ago. So you have to ask, how many are alive? No one knows exactly, less than half for sure. Add to these planted oysters minus mortality, the number of naturally recruited oysters in sanctuaries where reproduction occurs and maybe the total is 1.5 billion oysters in the sanctuary program.
Regarding the fishery, reports indicate about 390,000 bushels were harvested for 2015, which is about 137 million oysters (The state standard is approx. 350 oysters per bushel). Compared to the assumed 1.5 billion oysters in sanctuaries the removal of 137 million oysters by watermen from fishery areas is 8% of the total theoretical oysters.
Looking at oysters over the past seven years, when some low points occurred, gives an annual average of about 89 million oysters harvested per year. Compared to the assumed 1.5 billion oysters in sanctuaries, the removal of 89 million oysters from fishery areas is 6% per year of the total theoretical oysters.
That is about the impact of watermen-6% to 8% have on the overall oyster population.
The question posed by this bill is framed incorrectly. It talks about the fishery being overfished when the question should be if the oyster population is being overfished. The bill, its writers, and its supporters seem to assume the fishery oysters are the only oysters in the State. The bill ignores the existence of the massive oyster sanctuaries and that most of the State’s oysters are protected. The bill’s sponsors and authors are uninformed and do not know what they are doing. They cannot even ask the right question. I cannot put it any plainer. Use the math above, ask yourself; does any of this sound like overfishing to you?
David Lloyd says
Talk about “outright falsehoods.” This article is so slanted I hardly know where to begin. Suffice to say that the writer represents the short-term commercial interests and not the long term interests of a healthy Bay.