George Steer once wrote,” A journalist is not a simple purveyor of news, whether sensational or controversial, or well written, or merely funny. He (she) is a historian of every day’s events…and as a historian must be filled with the most passionate and most critical attachment to the truth, so must the journalist, with the great power that he wields, see that truth prevails.”
We, the public, need to demand less advocacy and more reportage from our news services. Owners and editors need to encourage reporters to be more journalists and less advocates. Those writers, who express themselves in opinion/editorial pieces, whether they are newly on the scene or are coasting on past laurels, are just putting out their opinions with self -supportive cherry picked facts while occasionally indulging in spurious innuendoes. It is important that the readership be able to differentiate between op-eds and reportage.
A lot of journalists don’t just want to report the news; they want to be players and affect policy. A recent “article” in the Bay Journal, titled, Tred Avon oyster restoration resumes; is a case in point. It is burdened with numerous editorializing opinions masquerading as factual reporting. I will use just a handful to illustrate. The writer claims that the recent state sanctuary survey indicates a thriving oyster sanctuary in the Choptank River system. While there are some signs of early productivity, there is just not enough information on this six-year-old sanctuary movement to justify any substantive claims of success.
Thriving might be a simple overstatement, but such verbal techniques are the favorites of many writers. 90% of Harris Creek was as put into sanctuary. It was already a thriving series of oyster bars. It did not need to be buried under tons of questionable substrate and then planted on. Piggy backing the project on a good set of bars guaranteed a level of success. He states that 2 billion baby oysters were planted in Harris Creek. What he fails to say is that 60 to 80% of them die in the first 6 to 8 weeks, and that there is more mortality over the next two years. Oysters would not be the issue if all of the billions of oysters that have ever been planted survived. Water quality, disease, natural and harvest mortality are factors that force the need for constant restoration and replenishment. Dr. L. Hamilton (IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs) writes, “The media today is less objective, more ideological and much showier than it once was. What you see can be eye catching-both the graphics and personalities-BUT it is also brash relentlessly self-promoting.”
The study is only a 5 year update on planted oysters, artificial substrate effectiveness and hopeful signs of the, “far-field effect” (also known as larval dispersal). Of course any early numbers will look good. If the writer had read all of the reports as I have he would have noticed the several acknowledgements that there is not yet enough information to claim substantial success. In point of fact one of the real indicators is what will be left after a major disease incident. We have been very lucky that Maryland has not had such an event in recent years. Mother Nature has also blessed us with a cyclical low disease incidence, and good to fair natural oyster recruitment. We are currently seeing the tail end of the strong spat sets of 2010 and 2012. Not one of the mega sanctuaries was then in place to have been able to provide the, as yet to be scientifically proven benefit of larval dispersal.
These strong spat sets were natural events not man- made. Natural mortality numbers for the sanctuaries are not yet verified. More time is needed before anyone involved in this discussion can make claims for either failure or success. Is it too much for the writer to wait because there has not been enough time for a more realistic assessment to be made? Who takes the blame when sanctuary performance does not meet the inflated expectations built up by advocacy writers who should be more professional in their reporting? Will the writers, or the Federal and State administrative architects of the program, or the scientists? The obvious target of choice so far has been watermen. It would seem journalists are in such a hurry to blame Gov. Hogan and watermen for various oyster woes, when the situation is more complex than is reported (opinionated). Would these writers be just as fast to cry,” The oyster sky is falling”, if the governor was a Democrat?
The author described a delegation of disgruntled watermen berating the Lt. Governor about sanctuaries. Two independent watermen do not make a delegation that could be described as representative of the general consensus of the industry. This pair used fuzzy math (although mistakenly it was discovered) to try and make the case about the sanctuaries lack of cost effectiveness and systemic failure. Again, I must say that there has not been enough time for either side to make any such judgements. There are a few overly loud watermen that need to realize that such talk is not productive. We have a new governor who has brought watermen back the table from which they were excluded for the 8 years of the previous administration. Watermen are but one part of a very long value chain that is the Maryland sea food industry, as well as oysters for the good of the Bay. As long as there are some journalists that are advocates and not reporters, watermen will be vilified as disgruntled, angry, put upon and quaintly out of touch. After 20 something years I am still looking for a writer that is fair, balanced, and informed. Where are the Eric Sevareids, T.H. Whites, and George Steers of today?
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson,” if you don’t read newspapers you are uninformed. If all you do is read newspapers, then you misinformed”. The reporter described the recent reformation of the O’Malley Blue Ribbon Oyster Advisory Commission as “industry laden.” The previous commission was an incredibly unbalanced juggernaut of environmentalists, real estate magnates, scientists and ecologists with only two watermen out of its 20 members. I attended nine years of commission meetings and watched the oyster industry limited to a few seconds of public comment at the end of the meetings. The commission now has a much better-balanced split that advances discussions and introduction of ideas from all sides. That is not a laden industry commission.
It is unfortunate that the standard of responsible journalism is not fashionable anymore. Reporters who were reasonably objective, independent of outside groups and even independent of their company’s owners are no longer the current reality. The reporter makes the claim for the USACoE and NOAA and EPA that they cannot do the proper restoration on any acreage less than 147 acres in the Tred Avon. Who decided that? Where is the science to back up such a claim that 147 acres are essential? Why not 100 acres, or 75? Could that do the job just as well and not have such a burdensome impact on watermen and other user groups? Why must the Corps meet this unproven acreage need by planting in shallow water? Shallow water projects risk navigational issues (boat damage) and impacts on trotliners.
Don’t get me wrong about the importance of sanctuaries. I believe that they are probably the most efficacious tool for guaranteeing an oyster brood stock in Maryland. It is unfortunate that the restorationists in their exuberance have built up unreal expectations for them. Their creation is probably one of the most egregious moments of the past administration. Watermen were rightly concerned that the creation of mega sanctuaries would have a serious impact on their ability to make a living. When asked by the Griffin/O’Connell DNR if the industry would supply alternative sites, the industry in a rare moment of trust, provided a county by county list of such sites. The state then confiscated areas on both their list and the list provided by the industry, rather than working out a compromised exchange, it seemed easier than looking further to meet their need for 20 to 30% of oyster bottom. While sanctuaries were still “under discussion” the state went ahead and printed the oyster regulations for the upcoming oyster season and included the boundaries of the, still being discussed, sanctuaries. It had the appearance of an already done deal with little regard for the watermen.
No wonder sanctuaries are such a source of oystermen’s anger. But it is time to move on. Nothing takes a beating like a dead horse. Some as yet unidentified scientist made the claim that 20% to 30% of oyster bars need to be in sanctuaries. Not one journalist asked for the science to prove such a claim. It seems that reporters are willing to take what the scientific community puts out as fact without questioning. The restorationist laden OAC under O’Malley did not see fit to explain that requirement. It would seem that the then OAC chair, a CEO from the World Wildlife Federation, believed that 24% is the magic number. It is supported by reports for oceanic sanctuaries. But no one questioned why such a staggering percentage was necessary in the Chesapeake Bay, an estuary. To this date the Corps, NOAA or the EPA have not seen fit to scientifically justify their acreage requirements for the Chesapeake. The industry is still waiting to see the science.
Not all of the entire 24% of the habitat that was confiscated for sanctuaries is, as many watermen claim, useful to the industry. In that percentage, you will find the impaired polluted areas of the Severn River, Fort Carroll, and the Cambridge area. Among the six initial sanctuaries, you will find Strong Bay, Cook Point and one near Smith Island that has been there for years before the O’Malley land grab. In total, there are 51 sanctuaries. Many of which have seen little or no active restoration/management. In those sanctuaries lies the solution to flexible management that includes the public fishery. The public fishery is not as some portray it, a wild-west fishery with little or no regulation. It is a highly managed and in many areas a cultivated fishery. It is time for watermen to realize that the Big 3 (soon to be the Big 5) sanctuaries are sacrosanct: never to be available to the fishery again. The governor has made good on his promise that both the state and its oyster industry will be recognized as an active participant in the development of the two remaining areas, and in the management of other sanctuaries.
The OAC recommendation to move away from the use of large granite rocks for alternative substrate was a positive move in the right direction. While large rocks can and do perform they have liability issues that will not go away. By emphasizing the desirability of native oyster shell as first choice, the process can restrain the Corps from permanently changing natural oyster bottom. Planting on these bars is far more cost effective. Planting needs shell. The issue of shell availability was prophetically raised many years ago by Dr. Merritt, at an OAC meeting. It was then described as the one sole issue that will drive both restoration and replenishment. The parties in opposition to dredging for Maryland oyster shell have dredged themselves into a large and deep hole. On the one hand they pay lip service to oyster restoration, while strenuously objecting at every turn to granting permits to dredge shell in the bay. CCA recently crowed about their success in oyster habitat. They once claimed their concrete balls would be all that was necessary to restore habitat. They just quietly slipped in the fact they are also now using shell to supplement their concrete balls. While they clamor for shell for the hatcheries and restoration they forget who provides that shell every year to the restoration/replenishment factions.
I can tell you shell is not provided by any of the eco-environ-restoration factions. That tons of shell you see piled up in places like Crisfield, and Deal comes from shucking houses supplied with oysters by the industry. If you keep locking up this large amount of shell in sanctuaries and don’t dredge shell from known deposits to replace it, you are robbing all of the oyster user groups of their future effectiveness. A major percentage of such shell must go to the user group that provides shell. Looking to the future it is incumbent that each county must now spend its oyster funds to provide for its own oyster future by planting on their bars. The restorationists need to step back from constantly opposing shell dredge permits and licenses. It is time for both parties to come to the middle of the table and make some serious compromises.
Sanctuaries have always been the device with which the state protects its oyster brood stock. Protecting them, managing them correctly is paramount. All user groups should step back and realize that barring a mega-disease event, Maryland oyster futures are now safe. This, despite the grand assumption from the Bay’s elder author/columnist, that Maryland oysterman just cannot seem to refrain from poaching. He seems to always trot out the boogeymen when he doubts his facts.
Why is it up to private citizens to provide the facts that make up the other side of the story? Curious, skeptical journalists who point out inconsistencies, draw attention to mistakes, call out misleading statements and identify outright lies serve a larger purpose. Recent changes in journalism have encouraged readers and consumers to pay attention to the sources that reflect their own point of view. Properly done, journalism can bridge differences, help consensus emerge, improve the knowledge and judgment of voters and sharpen the performance of public officials and government as a whole.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.