The main issue underlying the state of the oyster in Maryland is and will be the availability of oyster shell for hatcheries, a nascent aquaculture industry, restoration (sanctuaries) and replenishment (public oyster fishery). Oyster larvae prefer clean oyster shell for landing on in order to grow into spat. CCA and MSSA claimed that the sediment plume from the shell dredge operation in the upper Bay inhibited the spawning rockfish in the Susquehanna Flats. The sport and recreation fishing lobby is well funded and can raise quite a ruckus, using over the top half-truths to trumpet their cause. The outcry got so loud that the DNR conducted its own investigation and discovered no real evidence either way to refute or reinforce the hysterical claims of the sports fishermen. The young of the year indexes for rock fish during the years of the dredge operation indicate no serious lowering of rock fish numbers.Gov. Ehrlich told the department that he did not want to hear one more word about it and walked away. Oddly enough the very same people that complained about the dredge operation benefited from the rockfish they were able to catch near its operation. With no shell available for the seed and shell programs the upper bay oyster industry eventually ground to a halt. Oyster bars then suffered from a variety of other events. The tropical storms of Irene and Lee, hurricanes Isabel, and Sandy were the most destructive. These events alone accounted for oyster bar mortalities of 90% in the upper bay. Not only are natural recruitment and disease events lower in fresher waters, but too much fresh water can weaken and eventually kill oysters. The opening of Conowingo flood gates to discharge the rising flood waters and turned the Bay into a coffee colored morass of sediment, debris, and toxic filth. Satellite imagery provided by both NASA and NOAA showed the extant of the plume. When the DNR was asked by Delegate Jay Jacobs if it would allow the watermen to dredge up the oysters from the bay bars and deposit them in less polluted waters the state replied it would think about it. It is a good thing that such events are not all that common. Otherwise upper Bay oysters would never stand a chance for any type of restoration or replenishment.
Experimental mega sanctuaries saw harvest reserves confiscated by the state until county oyster committees reminded Sec. Griffin that the oysters on those bars were paid for in part through their surcharges, bushel taxes and were there in part because of their labors. A short harvest session was implemented in order for the men to gather the fruits of their labor, and then the bars were taken again. No longer were the waters of the Chester River plied by hand-tongers. Hand tonging is the least damaging and least efficient form of oystering. Hand tongs are known as “stupid sticks or widow makers”. Nor were watermen from Rock Hall able to go out in front and make a living in nearby waters.
In 2006 all state sanctioned “status quo” public oyster fishery programs were drastically reduced or stopped. There was no shell dredging and no plantings of hatchery seed on public bars. In 2006 the state of Maryland abandoned its successful programs of harvest reserves, gear type restrictions, rotational openings and closings of industry bars in favor of the experimental mega sanctuaries. (Virginia using those very same protocols has a good solid public fishery that supports a stable oyster industry.) Watermen now have to Eastern Bay, and all the way down to Tangier Sound, staying in Crisfield or Hooper’s Island, or driving their catch home every day to sell to buyers in their home towns. Maryland oystermen needed something closer to home. Around 2007 the unrestricted expansion of power dredging became one of the major legislative issues for watermen and the state. It was and in some parts of the bay is still seen as the cure-all for their woes. Unfortunately, nothing is so simple. Conditions in the Bay are not universally the same making it important that there be case by case reviews. The power dredge discussion needed a common sense dialogue between watermen, who needed to reimagine the oyster conversation, and the O’Malley/Griffin DNR, who more often than not, walked away from the table In 2010 Mother Nature (not the state programs) gave the Bay a wonderful mixture of rain, temperatures, wind, tides to create a perfect storm of natural recruitment of oysters in Eastern Bay and the lower bay. Such opportunities are a double edged sword. Harvest reports for the years since then are good but the increased harvest pressure on the oysters is showing a gradual decline. There is good proof that bars harvested using power dredges have consistently cleaner shell that enhances the effects of natural recruitment. Not all oyster bars should be power dredged. Some areas would not survive such an efficient protocol. Many areas would benefit from such a cleansing. Some would benefit from the use of the dredges as a cultivator and then be planted with seed on shell. Despite the efficiency of power dredges, not all oysters are allowed to be harvested. The 3” law prevents the total harvesting of everything. That is not to say that all oystermen are law abiding angels. Poaching is not rampant as some reporters and opinion editorial writers would have you believe. Apparently it is this overemphasis about a very small percentage of watermen that apparently sells papers. Today’s shell, rocks, “boxes”, which are dead oysters, brought up by any gear type must go over back on to the bar from which it came. Shell from picking houses becomes the property of the highest bidder to the shucking houses and restaurants. It mainly goes to the state and the hatcheries where a majority of it is relegated to sanctuaries, never to be reused again or cultivated for better spat enhancement. Maryland seems to have lost control of its shell that went out of state. Many assume it was because the state did not want to offend out of state buyers by placing a tax on it that would have the shell returned. Virginia’s successful aquaculture industry is based mainly on Maryland shell.
The struggle to allow the widespread use of power dredges became one fought with misinformation, on both sides. Watermen in Eastern Bay and the upper bay in the last three years have learned to better present their cause. They incorporated the fact that it is necessary to plant on bars that have been harvested by dredging. They argued that being allowed to cultivate the bars using power dredges would enhance natural recruitment and make for a better surface on which to plant spat on shell. They argued that in light of the recent natural events, the upper bay bars were in need of cultivating and planting. The state countered that the watermen were still mindlessly chanting the mantra that power dredging alone would bring back the oysters. For unknown reasons, many opposition associations, foundations and departments refused and still refuse to face the reality that watermen are actually learning how to speak better to the issues. In the early fight to get approval for the Swan Point project, the state kept arguing that any harvesting with power dredging would take the very small number of large oysters that were providing for the very same spat set it was claiming did not exist in the upper bay. The state kept reducing the size of the project for which the watermen were asking. It then stipulated that the area power dredged would not be allowed to be planted on. Then it required that any areas cleansed by power dredging would be left alone for further studies on natural recruitment (already known to be low). These stipulations built in a guaranteed failure factor. It became obvious that the O’Malley/Griffin DNR did not want to see the politically charged expansion of power dredging. The Swan point project became a smoke screen for the state to distract from such an expansion. The only solution was to go back to the legislature, hire a lobbyist, and fight for a reworked bill that would emphasize the dire need for the oyster industry in the upper Bay to be given a chance for revival. In 2014 Delegate Jay Jacobs, and a handful of other delegates, led the fight in the House. Senator Dyson sponsored the bill in the senate. Senator Joan Carter Conway enabled a fair and balanced conversation in the senate. For the industry there was the Maryland Oystermen Association, Maryland Watermen Association, various county oyster committees, a few county commissioners and a handful of private citizens. Arrayed against the bill were the usual suspects, the CBF, the DNR, CCA, MSSA, the hatchery at Horn Point and some River Keepers. The hearings were contentious at times with various CCA and DNR personalities caught in disingenuous moments. The chance of success in the bleak conditions for oysters in the upper Bay made the project a win-win for everyone. The legislature realized that there would be no foul- no harm, especially so when it became apparent the watermen were going to cultivate the bars, do the planting, with seed on shell, at their own expense. Some in the DNR still believe that the watermen were not asking for the chance to plant but were still demanding the expansion of power dredging for its own sake. After the Battle of Little Big Horn women from the various nations involved roamed the battlefield. When they discovered Gen. Custer’s body they used their bone needles to pierce his ear drums so that he could hear and listen better in the afterworld. Such deafness became apparent to the legislature when the then fishery director was caught in an outright misrepresentation of the scientific facts. He had stated to the legislators at the hearing that power dredging in the upper bay was not necessary because oyster larvae will successfully attach onto oyster shell covered in a minimum of ¼ inch of sediment. When asked if that was true the DNR fishery director smugly passed the question on to “his” scientist. The representative from Horn Point refused to follow the lead and stated unequivocally that oyster larvae cannot successfully attach themselves to shell covered in a minimum of ¼ inch of sediment. Ultimately the legislature voted in favor of the Swan Project with amendments such as proof of a continuing co-operative dialogue between the MWA, MOA and the DNR. Such conversations eventually produced a workable project that is now in its second of a 3 year plan.
Because the Horn Point hatchery had problems with their larvae production oysters were planted late last summer (2014).Rather than spend time, wear and tear on gear by power dredging in April for the natural recruitment and cultivation in advance of the planting that was not going to occur on schedule, the state and the oyster committees agreed to plant when the seed became available. Kent County Oyster Committee bought their seed from Shop Cove Aquaculture after taking bids from other hatcheries. Baltimore County Oyster Committee has also purchased seed from another hatchery for their part of the project. Several million oyster spat on shell were planted last year and the planting continues this year. This despite yet another shorter termed larvae production set back at the Horn Point hatchery from which Shop Cove purchases the larvae they put on shell. These larvae setbacks seem to be experienced by hatcheries all up and down the Atlantic coast. No real common cause has been found yet.
The oysters will be planted in areas adjacent to the previous year’s plantings for at least three years. They then will be mixed together by power dredging in order to hopefully create a multi-generation oyster bar. Further plantings will have to continue on a yet to be determined schedule. The harvesting will be based on a series of protocols involving bushel limits, short term season and rotation of areas. Watermen now realize that it is important to look further down the road than to just what they can get the next day. It is their future for which they are now working. Now that there is a new governor who has moved around some of the O’Malley/Griffin Legacy standard bearers, watermen are better able to work with the state. The state now acknowledges some of its unrealistic stipulations for the Swan point project are obstacles to co-operation. The process can move along in a logical manner that has room for productive compromise. A meeting has been planned for mid- August to further develop the project into something other than a smoke screen used to deflate the expansion of power dredging. If you have been given lemons, learn how to make lemonade from them. It should become the model for the rejuvenation of the upper Bay oyster industry, and for replenishment projects Bay wide, that will ripple through the value chain of Maryland’s economy.
Marc Castelli is a world acclaimed artist and active waterman
Kate Livie says
Marc,
Can you enlighten me on one point that seems confusing in this whole piece? So, you point out that stormwater pulses of freshwater can detrimentally impact oyster populations north of the Bay Bridge- as you mention, up to 90% in some cases (or higher, in the example of Agnes). Unlike the Bay’s bottom, storms are not something we can directly control .
Power dredging aside, doesn’t that make the Upper Bay the most vulnerable location for oysters? Also, it doesn’t appear the Conowingo Dam is going to be dredged or remediated in the immediate future, either, so between stormwater and sedimentation, that’s another compelling reason against the Swan Point efforts. I understand the lowered salinity can reduce the incidence of disease, but in the modern Chesapeake, with increased storm activity, what’s the particular benefit of that location?
Thanks for your response!
Kate
Mr. Marc Castelli says
Ms. Livie;
Read your comment(s) last night and decided to sleep on them. After quite a restful sleep I went pound net fishing this morning with a couple of watermen who also oyster.While at the dock I read your comments to them. They can be very practical. That they initially agreed with you did no come as surprise.I see your points, but, I eventually discovered in them a rather calloused disregard for the lives of watermen and ultimately their traditions. I can understand but will not agree with your conclusions. While making our way out to the first pound net they started to provide more insightful comments.Among the comments made by the men were;Because there are no oysters in the upper bay it obvious she doesn’t have to get up in the o’dark thirty hours of the morning to drive 2.5 hours to Crisfield, then take the boat for a half hour or so ride to get to an oyster bar by sunrise in Tangier Sound, or Fishing Bay, work for most of the day (weather permitting)to hopefully harvest the boat’s limit of oysters ( not guaranteed), then ride back to Crisfield, put out the catch, load it into the truck they rode down in and then ride 2.5 hours back home to Kent County to sell their oysters and do this 5 days a week, from October 1st to the end of March. Or they thought that maybe she is rich enough to rent a room down in Crisfield, and sell her oysters there for a lower price.Then again maybe she doesn’t mind doing the same routine to oyster out of Tilghman, and drive an hour and a half each way.As the conversation developed it became apparent to them that she ultimately has no understanding or respect for their way of life as watermen in the upper bay.
I must take issue with your apparent disregard for the information presented in both parts of the column. It may seem to you that I painted a rather bleak picture of the oyster situation in the upper bay. It is not as bleak as you have cherry picked it to be. Yes the upper bay is difficult for oysters. Yet it has been the proving ground for several restoration and replenishment protocols until the O’Malley/Griffin DNR put a stop to them. It was during the past 50 or 60 so years that preceded those two ” gentlemen” that the state depended, as did the watermen,on the different waters of the upper bay for the survival of oysters and the oyster industry.From whom and where did the state and the oystermen go to get relief and to insure a future for their oysters when there were the widespread MSX and Dermo episodes during the early to mid 1990’s in Eastern Bay and the lower bay ? For the upper bay it was the oyster hatchery and shell dredge operations.. Are you so willing to throw proven methods of oyster restoration and industry replenishment under the wheels of your bus? The state has now started discussions to reinstate such protocols.And no, you can not put aside the issue of power dredging .It is the crucial element in rebuilding an industry in the upper bay.What tool would you prefer,from your year’s of hands on experience, they use to cultivate their bars? The upper bay oystermen have informed the state that they want to link planting with any power dredging.There will be no power dredge harvesting without the component of planting in the upper bay. It is their hard work and money.It is their chance to bring back an industry that enabled them to stay in their home waters for most for the season. And you ask why would they apparently be ready to throw away good money and effort on a project that has such odds against it? Nothing is easy about the bay. You seem to have misplaced any understanding you may have had about the watermen and their culture. Otherwise you would not have said what you did.
There is a spat set in the upper bay.It is not much.Some years are better than others. Fall surveys indicate mature market size oysters are present but not in any great numbers. Remember the dripping faucet analogy? It is not enough of a natural recruitment upon which to base an industry. It never was. Yet with all the hard work by the state and the watermen the upper bay became an important part of the state public shell fishery.Why begrudge these men the chance to power dredge the bars clean, enhance a natural spat set as a side benefit, while planting oysters on the areas from which they once made a living? I am sure that the occasional storms, freshets, and Conowingo gate emergency openings did not reach into your life and ruin your ability to make a living. No one, including myself, would say that such events are not extremely destructive to our bay.I am sure that you did not meet the rampant cynicism and arrogance that these men did when they went to the past administration’s DNR to get permission to try and rebuild a way of life that gave them meaning and value. Recently the state legislature understood that these men were eager, to do the work and at their own expense, to rebuild a very important component in the state’s public shell fishery. Who are you to say out loud that their efforts are wasted or misguided? What is your stake in this? I am sure that we can all agree that any oyster growing in the Chesapeake Bay is a good thing. Even the short term aquaculture triploid creature can function to cleanse various issues from their immediate waters.To have an industry that is willing to cultivate, harvest and recognizes the need to continue to plant more oysters is a good thing.It is not restoration.That is what the sanctuaries are about.If you would but open your eyes and see that it can be a cycle of replenishment that nourishes much more than just the men on their boats.
Mr.Marc Castelli
Pete Buxtun says
Wow. Was an answer to her reasonable question hidden amongst all the vitriol and personal attacks? Perhaps someone should stick to painting…
I’m pretty sure her question was related to the efficacy of spending money (tax money sometimes) artificially propping up an industry in an area that seems environmentally unsustainable. Sounds like state subsidized aquaculture to me… Perhaps if Mr. Castelli pushed his axe against the grindstone with a little less fervor he could see that perhaps, at least in the short term, that spending PUBLIC funds protecting a PUBLIC resource is best served and in the publics best interest when done according to the best available science, not to subsidize a lifestyle that is no longer viable out of Rock Hall.
Mr. Marc Castelli says
Mr Buxtum;
Wow…. The answers that neither you and Ms. Livie bothered to find were in both the column and the rebuttal. I can assume that because you do not want or believe in a successful commercial oyster fishery that you just stopped reading what was in front of you.It is quite clear you have not spent any real time in the world of the watermen. But as the men told me his morning there has never been a shortage of people such as yourself willing to comment in print or on air about the watermen. Having spent the better part of the last 20 years attempting to educate people about the issues facing watermen I have come to realize the true depth of the old saw,”you can take a horse to water but you can not make it drink”. The vitriol, as you called it, was nothing compared to the comments made by the men who have to make a living in a bay that no one has the guts to try and save. Please enlighten me as to what are the Public Funds about which you commented.There are no public funds being spent on what you have mistakenly labelled a Public Resource. You sir seem to have confused your public sanctuary/restoration oysters paid for with your’s and my taxes, with replenishment oysters that are the industry’s. Contact Delegate Jay Jacobs and he will set you straight as he did several persons, who complained just as you have, while testifying at a house hearing on this very project. If this is so important for you to make comment on it would follow that you are more than interested.Where were you during that session? These oysters are bought and paid for by the individual county oyster committees for the planting at their effort in their waters. Watermen use their annual oyster surcharge and the bushel taxes to pay in part for their oysters. The other funds are state allocated funds that have no bearing on yours or my taxes. These are funds allocated for the use of county oyster committees and also pay for state projects like annual surveys, disease research,the planting of oyster seed on sanctuaries and other research.The comment that it is your money that is to subsidizes a lifestyle that is no longer viable is vitriolic in the meanest sense of the word. In reality you have no investment in this project.I am curious about what is so important in your world for which you would put yourself out on the sharp end of the spear? If you were to tell me, and if I wanted to,maybe I would spend several months researching to be able to comment intelligently in the public forum. In other words I would actually care enough to learn something about which I am going to comment.Your ill informed comments did nothing to further the dialogue.
Pete Buxtun says
Marc,
I’m going to respond against my better judgment, not because I think I’ll change your mind, but because it’s important to me that fallacious ideas such as yours don’t go unanswered. I want people to understand you speak in favor (as does Jay Jacobs) of the status quo, the behavior which got us to where we are today. Power dredging, moving shell (and disease) around the bay for personal profit, unsustainable practices in agriculture and development (not watermens fault obviously). We know that “harvests of native oysters are now 1% or less of historical levels due to harvesting, disease, changes in water quality, and other factors. Overall oyster populations and the ecosystem services they provide are similarly diminished.” This is from NOAA (using science and stuff).
“There are no public funds being spent on what you have mistakenly labeled a Public Resource. ” Do you really want to go on record saying that oysters in the bay are NOT a public resource?
” The vitriol, as you called it, was nothing compared to the comments made by the men who have to make a living in a bay that no one has the guts to try and save.” I thought you said that the poundnetters you spoke with agreed with Mrs. Livie. Did they not? Maryland has benefits available for watermen to apply for aquaculture leases that the average businessperson cannot apply for. Tell me again who isn’t trying to help them?
“Please enlighten me as to what are the Public Funds about which you commented.” Have you heard of these things called “taxes”? MD has spent over 2.3 Million dollars restoring the oyster population (this year). While I want watermen to continue to be employed as much as the next guy, I think dumping public money into the public fishery to support private individuals has a name; it’s called “welfare”. What is wrong with these most hardworking men and women from applying for leases? You can even lease bottom in a sanctuary! Win/win!
“These oysters are bought and paid for by the individual county oyster committees for the planting at their effort in their waters. Watermen use their annual oyster surcharge and the bushel taxes to pay in part for their oysters. ” Yeah, the money that oyster committees get to disburse is not “their own money”, it’s from taxes, surcharges, and fees; which belong to the government, which belongs to the people. AKA public funds.
“The other funds are state allocated funds that have no bearing on yours or my taxes. ” How do you figure that? Is it magic money?
“The comment that it is your money that is to subsidizes a lifestyle that is no longer viable is vitriolic in the meanest sense of the word.” I really meant no offense, but honestly, are there a lot of viable full time watermen out of rock hall nowadays?
“In other words I would actually care enough to learn something about which I am going to comment.” The point is Marc, I know you care. I know you care very much. You care so much in fact, that you have completely disregarded the other side of the coin. You have spent the last 20 years making money painting watermen and you seem to have spent little of it considering the idea that watermen are participating in the “tragedy of the commons” of our day. They aren’t malicious; they are self-interested. They are hard working and efficient, and they make their money using up the very last bit of a public resource. I certainly don’t begrudge them their careers, I begrudge people like you (not a waterman) speaking for them without knowing what you’re actually talking about.
Mike Johnson says
It is amazing to me how many people in Kent County claim to love the River and the Bay but are totally ignorant of the historical facts presented above. Most of us have heard about punks with licenses’ to harvest committing gross offenses of greed, but only those with broad exposure to the fishing community know these guys are a minority.The greatest percentage of watermen do all they can to manage the fisheries in a logical and sustainable manner. The vendetta of the O’Malley/ Griffin depicted above is no exaggeration. It certainly appeared to be a deliberate and focused attempt to remove waterman from the conversation on how to manage the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay. I am glad to see they are getting the opportunity to once again make oysters a sustainable fishery and I am confident they will succeed. Has the DNR, CBF, CCA or MSSA ever produced a shadow of what the waterman have accomplished ?
Jay Jacobs says
Marc, I want to thank you for your article about the state of the bay oyster-a view from Swan Point. Your facts are very accurate and this issue has not been an easy one to get accomplished. First of all I want to let you know that my great grandfather, my grandfather and my father all harvested oysters on Swan Point believe it or not in a log canoe with hand tongs. Imagine that with the current and depth of the water on Swan Point. This issue is very near and dear to me as you my imagine to preserve the culture if nothing else. As you know we worked hard for 2 years in the Maryland Legislature to get an agreement to implement such a plan as you mentioned. After my first year as a delegate in Annapolis, I came home with basically a broken heart hearing how the watermen have been demonized by many of the groups that you mentioned in your article and the real ignorance by many of my fellow legislators. As you know, I started the Commercial Watermen’s Caucus in my second year to better educate legislators with an interest in the Chesapeake Bay and commercial fisheries. That Caucus has been very successful and many of my colleagues have verified information from the other side of the story which in the end has made them see the fishery in a different light. The Swan Point project began with a plan by the watermen to take the initial steps along with me as their legislator to introduce legislation to get something started to make Swan Point a productive oyster bar again. The State of Maryland had basically turned their back on the upper bay, so the plan was created. It took a couple of years to get to the point of agreement, but we did. The funds for this project came from Baltimore and Kent County Oyster Committees by way of oyster license surcharges, and mainly from a formula by the dredging of the Port of Baltimore that earmarks a certain portion of funds based on cubic yards of dredge material go back to the industry. By the way, as of last month, more then 95 million oyster spat have been planted in the upper bay. We all know that lower salinity areas of the bay have a lower oyster recruitment but given the history of Swan Point and the hundreds of thousands of bushels harvested over the decades, the juice was worth the squeeze. The upper bay has been ravaged by disease, storm events, Conowingo Dam effects, waste water plant overflows and runoff just to mention a few. In 2011 alone, an estimated 1 billion 400 million gallons of raw untreated sewage was discharged into the bay according to the list of documented overflows. As of now, according to Dr. Bosche of the University of Maryland on Environmental Science, the Conowingo Dam traps approximately 50 percent of the sediments, nutrients, etc. that come through the dam on any given day. 27 % of the phosphorus entering the main stem of the bay comes over the dam each day. If there is any significant storm event, a scouring effect takes place and even more rolls through the dam into the upper bay. So not only is the planting of oysters in the upper bay important to the sustainability of the oyster industry, but also the natural filters needed to help with the pollution.
Kate Livie says
Jay,
Thanks for answering my question. It was sincerely asked, and I appreciate your thoughtful response in kind.
The Bay’s oyster population and the industry it supports are both keystones of our Chesapeake way of life, its environment, and culture. It’s a fascinating topic, and one undergoing great change. It’s also one that inspires strong emotion and controversy, as the comments above clearly indicate. I believe that the best way forward for all stakeholders invested in Chesapeake oysters- whether watermen, environmentalists, oyster farmers, consumers or politicians- will be open dialogue based in civil discourse. Your response is a perfect illustration of how it can be done. Thanks for leading by example.
Kate
Pete Buxtun says
“As of now, according to Dr. Bosche of the University of Maryland on Environmental Science, the Conowingo Dam traps approximately 50 percent of the sediments, nutrients, etc. that come through the dam on any given day. 27 % of the phosphorus entering the main stem of the bay comes over the dam each day. If there is any significant storm event, a scouring effect takes place and even more rolls through the dam into the upper bay. So not only is the planting of oysters in the upper bay important to the sustainability of the oyster industry, but also the natural filters needed to help with the pollution.”
I think this is the question the OP asked. If an event like Agnes can wipe out all the oysters north of the bay bridge, why would anyone want to spend money trying to plant oysters in what, according to geology, biology, sedimentology, chemistry, and common sense dictate is a sup-par location? Would not the time, effort, and money be better served restoring whole tributaries further south where fresh water pulses won’t foil our efforts? Isn’t this what the state is doing now? I know it’s frustrating that much of the productive bottom has been placed into sanctuary, but anyone can apply for bottom or column leasing in a sanctuary (as long as it isn’t on a Yates bar).
Mr. Marc Castelli says
Some have made a series of comments that would lead me to believe that they are not fans of watermen. It would seem that there are no fresh arguments against the co-operative effort of the state and watermen to rebuild an oyster industry in the upper bay.
Are you willing to stand by your argument of better uses for “our” efforts when diseases return to decimate the oysters in the lower waters of the bay and tributaries? It is wrong to think that these halcyon days will go on forever just because Mother Nature has blessed us with perfect conditions for natural recruitment and for low rates of MSX and Dermo. These are conditions that cannot be controlled by man.
Disease is just as big and even more of an unpredictable threat as the many issues in the Upper Bay. It seems to be bad planning to put all the oyster replenishment and restoration efforts in places prone to disease decimation.
Why not have an up and running effort in the upper bay as a safe guard?
The specter of a “tragedy of the commons” is at best a weak argument when considering the Maryland oyster. The tragedy of the commons is simply put a concept that deals with the devastation of a common resource by user groups that do nothing to replenish the resource.
Many decades of effective state and industry partnerships dealing with the sustainability of oysters refutes the argument. To quote from “The Oyster Question:
“The history of the oyster commons has not been a simple conservation failure; to the contrary, it has served as a positive, if imperfect, model for a world undergoing increased corporate control of natural and cultural resources”.
Please to remember that the conversation is about Swan point. How many years has the oyster population been at or below the 1% historic high? Who created that number? Why has no one questioned it? What is that number? How many oysters will it take for any significant increase in population to become apparent? How much bottom is required to reach any amount of population increase?
My education is not as one sided as some would like the readers to think. I have spent hundreds of hours in conversations with scientists and biologists, reading their theses, and books they have recommended. I can tell you that they do not know the answers to those questions either. Partial answers to those questions may be coming from the surveys of the restoration efforts, that are currently underway as part of the five year sanctuary review plan. They just might indicate that such a ponderous effort by the Corps is not necessary. There is just not enough data to justify throwing out any projects such Swan point.
It is not just enough to take oyster bottom and place it all in an unproven experiment and then walk away. There are responsibilities that have to be met. The industry can not afford to wait for such answers. Restorations (sanctuaries) are not replenishment. This is especially so when proven methods already exist to replenish the oyster industry. It seems the conversation has now turned away from Swan Point to include the federally mandated oyster restoration project already under way in the southern tributaries.
I will briefly touch on the topic before I end my part in this discussion. You see, beating dead horses is something I find unproductive. It would seem that you agree with the out of balance focus on federal rather than state level initiatives to restore oysters. If you take a hard look at this effort in the tributaries you will find that behind the goals of restoration as mandated by the E.P.A.’s Chesapeake Bay Initiative, the Corps (USACoE) and the state are required to “restore” a specific amount of oyster bottom acreage.
The Corps has to spend the budgeted amount of money (or lose it) in doing so. In other words the O’Malley administration was more than ready to hand over the tributaries to the Corps. The U.S.A.C.o.E. is an agency that is apparently intent on permanently changing a large portion of the requisite amount of acreage (including good oyster bottom) with large pieces of granite, out of state shell, clam shell and other questionable substrates, in order to meet the acreage and budget requirements. The preferred substrate, as acknowledged even by the Corps, is oyster shell. A far less destructive and intrusive program would be to plant oyster seed on good oyster shell that has been recovered and placed in situ.
The Yates bars were mentioned. The Yates survey was and is to date the most extensive shell fish bar survey ever completed. When the surveys for those bars were done at the beginning of the last century the oyster bars were much larger. Now those oyster bars are not as large, and in some instances have not had oysters on them for years. But that is not to say that the Yates bars are not useful for restoration purposes. In many instances the bars include hard sand bottom where no oysters grow and is not too good for planting on but could take the dumping of large granite rocks as a substrate for planting. Some areas are mud and soft sand, any effort will not be cost effective. The 8% of the Yates bars the Corps wants to confiscate is in reality nearly 90% of the remaining natural oyster bottom (n.o.b). Why should Maryland give up any future options on such bottom by allowing the Corps to permanently change the bar by fulfilling its budget and acreage requirements? We, you and I, need to make sure no further harm is done to natural oyster bottom.
The Corps is currently applying for a permit to increase their acreage in the Tred Avon River in order to dump rock in shallow waters. There are so many reasons not to allow this to happen. More careful surveying in addition to side scan radar using tools like sounding poles, better patent tong and power dredge surveys would lessen the chance of allowing the Corps to do permanent damage to good bottom. You mention aquaculture in sanctuaries. Why would anyone in their right mind invest, take out loans, and spend effort on bottom that has been compromised or will be compromised by such federal actions? They would not be able to anyway because the Corps will never allow anyone back into an area in which they have spent their budgeted funding.
If any sanctuaries are to be opened to aquaculture then a 50-50 split with the industry of opened areas should be considered. There is no reason for aquaculture to supplant the public shell fishery in Maryland. There is enough room in our bay and tributaries for a nascent oyster farming industry and a public shell fishery.
Enough is enough.
Adieu,Dovidjena, Adios.