I am a lifelong Republican, as was my father before me, but I am now working hard to elect Jesse Colvin, the Democratic candidate for Congress in the First Congressional District of Maryland.

I have decided it is time to place Country before Party in the First District race. For nearly eight years, I have been baffled and disillusioned by the policy positions, votes, behavior and affiliations of Rep. Harris. The list is endless: His membership in the Freedom Caucus that has been obstructionist rather than helpful; his support for foreign leaders who are not America’s friends; his positions and statements on the Bay, the environment, healthcare reform, the truthfulness of the media, trade, immigration, aid for natural catastrophes and gun violence; his lack of leadership in the Congress, where he is held in such lack of regard that no one has made him a Committee leader; and his lack of any major legislative initiative during his entire tenure.

I am bothered by Rep. Harris’ invisibility to his constituents, either in person or in communications. He seems scared of us. I have met, seen or spoken to eight American presidents – Democrats and Republicans – in my public affairs career. But I never see Rep. Harris, who seems almost never to leave his office, particularly to visit the Eastern Shore. And his communications to his constituents is either non-existent or baffling.

So I have now decided it is time to put Country before Party as far as my Congressman is concerned. I have also decided it is time to begin to vote for individuals who are committed to public service, rather than their own self-interest, regardless of what race, gender, background and political party they belong to.

Which brings me to Jesse Colvin, with whom I have spent several hours, in person, in give and take sessions with his future constituents, and on the telephone chatting about policy and issues. I like what I see.

First, I like Jesse’s background. He graduated from a top and tough school – Duke University – which is a very competitive place in which to succeed. He decided not to chase the big corporate dollars and did what few Duke graduates do, entering the U.S. Army and a life of service to his country, doing four tours in Afghanistan as an Army Ranger officer fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. He returned to Columbia University to learn how policies are made, and then investigated fraud and other illegal activity on Wall Street.

Second, I like Jesse’s innate and engrained leadership traits and his sense of service. As an Army veteran, I understand what serving with others from all backgrounds in sometimes dangerous situations is like. It is a transforming experience that builds leaders. We need more young veterans in Congress. They have “the right stuff”.

Third, I like Jesse’s attributes. He is modest with self-deprecating humor. He is smart as a whip, incisive in his thinking. He listens to you before he talks. He cares about your problems and issues. He is a moderate person, as are most of my Republican, Democratic and Independent friends in the First District. He believes in compromise and getting things done. While he is running as a Democrat, he is really running as a non-partisan American.

Fourth, I like Jesse’s values. He has learned to run at the problem, not away from it. He is action- and results-oriented. He is not focused on criticism or ideology, but on finding solutions that help his constituents and help his country. He will lead with strength and compassion, something you learn when you are at war. He is honest and truthful. He is a family man, smart enough to marry a Republican woman who is a leader in her own right, and now a young father, with a big stake in assuring the next generation enjoys America’s freedoms and opportunities.

I am finding many disenchanted Republicans and Independents, who are joining me in supporting Jesse Colvin, a candidate many have called a Servant Leader, one who will serve his constituents and his country through enlightened non-partisan leadership, not self-interest. I encourage my First District neighbors to join us.

Philip J. Webster of St. Michaels has been the Eastern Shore Chairman, Trustee or Committee Chair of the Avalon Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum, Mid-Shore Community Foundation, Sultana Education Foundation, Aspen Wye Fellows, Christ Church – St. Michaels, Aspen Institute Wye River Campus, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, Miles River Yacht Club Foundation, Chesapeake Music and ShoreRivers. He was an officer of three New York Stock Exchange-listed companies and two international consulting firms.

We are SOS

We are the moms.

And the dads.

We are citizens concerned for the economic future of our County.

We are parents fighting for the best possible education for our children.

We are SOS.

We came together in 2015, a small group of parents who decided to ask if our County could be doing better—to put its best foot forward, to make the most of present opportunities, to optimize economic growth, and to invest in the schools responsible for educating its future.

We gathered questions and sought answers. We did our research, poring over budgets, comparing Kent County’s spending practices and priorities to those of other counties, talking directly with members of the School Board, and appealing directly to our County Commissioners to explain their thinking—all in the interest of gaining a clear and transparent understanding of how our county conducts its business.

Our conclusion was that, as much as Kent County is doing well, there are definite areas in which we could be doing better. It has been the mission of SOS to serve as an information and advocacy resource for others who are interested in knowing how our county functions—and how certain targeted changes might propel us toward an even brighter future.

There is considerable interest in the issues we have explored and the information we provide.

After 2 short years, our Facebook group is 1,400 members strong. Our members are parents, grandparents, teachers, administrators, former teachers, former students, and anyone else with an interest in the positive promotion of Kent County Public Schools. We strive to be a reliable source for anyone in search of accurate information—from school policies to annual budgets to what time school ends on an early dismissal day. We have spent countless hours over the last few years providing answers to specific questions, connecting people to resources, informing the community about important meetings and events, sharing stories of student success, and promoting our schools to new families.

We do this every day. Because our schools are run by people who care deeply about the children of this county, and they deserve the best support we can offer.

But that is not all we do…

We have designed, printed, and distributed materials for realtors to use for promoting our schools to families considering a move to Kent County.

We have raised more than $9,000 in two years through our Random Acts of Kindness campaign—funds that help fill unfortunate gaps in school funding. Additionally, we promote the fundraisers our County’s teachers’ must run in order to purchase the supplies they need to meet their students educational needs.

We have spearheaded a parent letter-writing campaign to Governor Hogan in support of our Board of Education’s request for gap funding for our schools.

During last year’s bus crisis, we created the Facebook equivalent of a phone tree that parents could use to safely and securely share information about what time their child had been picked up and when the next house could expect the bus. We provided this service for every school in our County, every morning and afternoon for several weeks until the bus issues were resolved.

One of our founders is a team leader for Strong Schools Maryland, a grassroots State advocacy group that meets with State representatives and promotes the importance of the Kirwan Commission findings.

Another of our founders is a parent representative for SECAC, the Special Education Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Having a special needs child gives her the experience and knowledge needed to be a powerful advocate for parents of special needs children throughout our district.

Another of our founders is running for a seat on the Kent County Board of Education—motivated by a desire to contribute her data-minded approach to the decision-making process that will determine the future of our schools (and the future of our children).

We attend County Commissioner meetings whenever we’re not busy attending soccer games or helping our kids with homework or running our small businesses. We bring our kids with us sometimes if we can’t get a sitter. We have created a video archive of these meetings so that anyone who wants to be a part of our county government process by staying informed can view them.

We go to Board of Ed meetings and learn about all the incredibly positive things that our schools and students are doing and share that information with our Facebook community. We also share the struggles that our schools are facing without adequate funding, so that people can vividly understand the liabilities of our Commissioners’ current funding priorities.

We do not get paid to do any of this. We do this because we care. We do this because the need is urgent. We do this because we see a way forward that includes a well-funded, prosperous school system. We do this because good schools benefit not just our families, but because an educated community benefits everyone that lives in it. And because a thriving (and well-regarded) public school system is an instrumental component to putting Kent County’s foot forward as we endeavor to stimulate business growth, attract new families, and thrive in decades to come.

If you have ever been a parent who would never miss an opportunity to do what was best for your kids and your community, then you are SOS, too.

Jodi Bortz is a board member of SOS and the Support Our Schools Initiative. For more informatione please visit our website www.kcpssos.com or Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/kentcountyschooldistrictparents/

Here are some short and to the point facts that need to be printed on Marc Castelli’s Spy op-ed article regarding Man O’War Shoals:

1. The writer of this article evidently does not know the difference between fake news and what he has presented as intentional deception. It appears the majority of his comments have been taken way out of context.

2. The area that he refers to at Man O’War Shoals is only a small portion of the bar and will not affect the sanctuary portion or the so-called planted area of that bar.

3. Do state that 5 million bushels is insignificant in Oyster restoration is absolutely ludicrous. At the present time our money in the industry is being spent on under a hundred thousand bushels a year from Virginia, with some excellent seed from Virginia and also some not so favorable spat on shell from local producers here in Maryland. This may be a five-year project, but one has to start somewhere and modification will occur on this permit through the course of dredging. So to downplay the five million bushels appears to all of us that the writer has other intentions of where the money should be spent.

4. For the writer to say that the MWA and the MOA have supported this dredging program since 2006 is not truthful. First of all the MOA was not established until 2007. I know this because myself, and 3 other gentlemen from Kent County and a lobbyist from Annapolis met in the back room of PE Pruett’s restaurant in Rock Hall to start this organization. I never remember seeing the writer at any of these meetings. And most important of all, the MWA does not support the dredging of man o war Shoals and has stated this in public meetings and in public comment. Every other watermen’s group around the state and specifically on the Eastern Shore firmly support the dredging of man o war Shoals. Even the largest group on the Eastern Shore Talbot County used the non-support of MWA on Man O War Shoals as the main reason they are no longer affiliated with them.

5. To say that DFA piggybacks on the success of MWA and MOA is another comment made by the writer of purposeful deception. DFA is comprised of leaders not followers, and has set the bar on many occasions over the past several years on issues concerning the Chesapeake Bay and the seafood industry. This is only been met with opposition both publicly and behind curtains from both of these organizations. One must ask themselves where are they on all the current issues of Bay health and the seafood industry. We hear hardly anything out of them. Many Waterman don’t even know who the MOA is or what they do. The DFA attends meetings such as the ASMFC, MID ATLANTIC COUNCIL,G.I.T. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM, AND ALL THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING OF THE BAY COMMISSION.

We hardly ever see anybody from these two groups at these meetings, and specifically have never seen the MOA at any of these meetings. So how can one piggyback on these associations when they have no back at all??

6. The one thing that the writer of this article does accomplish is that he drives a wedge of division between all user groups in Maryland through this article. At DFA we understand it is very important for all of us to work together on issues concerning the seafood industry in Maryland and the health of the Chesapeake Bay. To have this writer, once again set forth his wedge driving comments is disgusting. Once again purposeful deception is being used. The MWA recently had a vote among their executive board to have nothing to do with DFA. On many occasions DFA is extended the olive branch over the past years to this group only to have it returned with bad news all over it.

We still stand firm in saying that we all must work together, but as proven recently on an issue in the st. Mary’s River, this group continues to undermine everything that DFA does with its members to benefit the commercial Seafood industry in Maryland. DFA still hopes that all of us can join together as one common voice, and this is evident by the information that we put out not only on our website but to other organizations involved in the seafood industry in Maryland.

In summary, it is easy enough to say that we all must work together and stop listening to these people that want to drive a wedge of division amongst us for their own personal gain. Maybe this writer of this article should make his living working with the seafood industry full time and put down his brushes and stop painting his dirty picture of our industry and those that are working to make it better.

Robert Newberry is the chair of Delmarva Fisheries Association Inc.

Non-aligned journalism is even more important in these days of “fake-news” and presidentially personal news services. Recently a Maryland television station, WBOC, allowed itself to be used by several organizations for their own purposes of self-promotion.

The article/segment was about the watermen trumpeting a hard-won decades-long victory in winning the rights to dredge for oyster shell on Man O War Shoals in the upper Bay. The piece featured a fair amount of false information, outright manufactured news and blatantly misleading self-promotion.

The world of news is increasingly fast-paced these days. Social media has made fact-checking time consuming which makes accurate reporting difficult. But that should never be an excuse for not exercising due diligence when reporting. The segment that was in dire need of fact-checking by the all too trusting reporter included some alarming misdirections. I will list the errors in the video segment below.

The oyster bar known as Man O War shoals is not just a sanctuary. Only a portion of that shoal is a sanctuary. The implication that watermen will now be allowed to dredge shell from a sanctuary is dangerously misleading and to do so is illegal.

The public needs to realize that the 5 million bushels of shell that will be dredged as a short-term 5-year experiment is not a lot of shell. This is even more apparent when that amount is to be divided up among sanctuaries, aquaculture, and the oyster industry.The spokesman for the newcomer organization, “Delmarva Fisheries Association” (DFA), Mr. Tom Bradshaw made the “victory” sound as if it was solely the result of his organization’s “decades-long” hard work.

DFA has been around for a little over three years. The struggle for renewing a shell dredge permit was started by Delegate Tony O’Donnell in 2006 at an Oyster Advisory Commission meeting, with the full support of the Maryland Waterman’s Association (MWA), and the Maryland Oystermen Association (MOA). For those two organizations, it has been a long struggle. Not by any definition a decades-long fight. The state legislature mandated the permit application; it is the law. It has been pared down by many environmental stakeholders to its current incarnation of a 5-year study to record the effects of shell dredging. It is not a permit for widespread dredging of shell from Man O War or any other bar in perpetuity.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s assertion that the process is not cost effective is reveals that CBF will complain as loudly as the media will allow when it feels that any funding not coming its way is misspent. The funding for the Man O War shell dredge experiment comes from several sources of which only a portion is from the Obama mandated Chesapeake Restoration Bill. Information that comes from the experiment fits the need for restoring the bay.

The CBF’s assertion that their plan of concrete balls for oyster bar restoration is the best technique for alternate substrates is not the solution. It is at best a cynical plan to deny any bar that has such devices planted on it to be permanently removed from any future active management plan that might be better and more cost effective.
The images of successful concrete oyster bar restoration are misleading. Using photos to survey an oyster bar is at best subjective. It can be an exercise in smoke and mirrors. The business that performs the surveys needs to explain to the public how it conducts the surveys and how “scientific” they actually are.

I will address the errors in the written portion below.

Despite assertions made to the contrary, no shell will be dredged from either sanctuary portions or from planted areas.

The erroneous self-promotion by DFA expressed in the video segment was also repeated in the written article accompanying the video. DFA has not been around for decades. It piggybacked its “success” on the many years of efforts carried out by MWA. and the MOA. It is unfortunate that all the hard and steady efforts of the MWA. and the MOA were purposefully ignored by the DFA. Restoring the oyster industry is an effort carried on by many organizations and will need to be so for many years to come.

The dredge permit approval is only for a five year scientifically monitored experiment with very limited dredging allowed.

The seed and shell programs erroneously credited to the watermen by the DFA. have been state programs that were conducted with the industry’s co-operation along with the use of industry gear and boats. Those programs were halted in 2006 with CBF, CCA. approval and backed up by the past O’Malley/Griffin administration.

Once again, CBF oversimplified the costs effectiveness of the project. The funding is multi-sourced. A majority of the shell will go to the sanctuaries, as that protocol is the most funded. I have a hard time imagining anyone would object to increasing the already large amount of scientific information about the effects of shell dredging. This is even more obvious when with some more in-depth journalism the public would see that the project has been planned and reviewed many times to reduce the amount of any envisaged damages.

For more information, please refer to the D.N.R. 72-page explanation of the permit.

http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/oysters/permit-applications.aspx
http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Attachment_1-Man_O_War_Application_revFeb2017.pdf

The 2017 February review is the most recent. You will find all of the known science, maps, and the many missing facts from the article/video and in the CBF statements about the project. It’s all there for foundations, stakeholders, and citizens to read and for journalists to be better able to inform the public. I am constantly puzzled by the media’s lack of effort to get the facts from as many sources as possible. The reporter in this instance should have gone to the DNR for cross-checking the information presented by the CBF and DFA.

Marc Castelli is an artist who lives on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Addendum 

This column is a more detailed piece about the Man O War issue as it was presented to the state legislature during the last session in Annapolis. It deals with the apparent willingness of two specific groups to ignore the facts when presenting testimony to the House Environmental Matters and Education Committee. Most alarming is the ready acceptance of the legislators to just let the falsehoods slide without questioning their sources.

Oyster shell. Who knew? It once was used for driveways, ornamental garden borders and many other purposes that denoted its lack of importance in the grand scheme of things. Shell is now an obvious finite resource. It is the best substrate for any oyster projects, replenishment or restoration, for the combined reasons that oyster larvae prefer it to other substrates on which to strike or attach, and it is a natural material that matches the composition of every oyster bar in Maryland. Now it is a resource being fought over by all stake holders. Much has been made of this issue in the media, and in testimony before the legislature.

I hope to clear the waters by writing about the continuing misinformation about the dredging of shell from Man O War Shoals.

Why should the truth be important in the contentious arena of oyster politics?  Few subjects can bring out the hyperbole like oysters. Why should the public care if the most visible apex environmental foundation consistently mispresents the facts about oysters when testifying before the house Environment and Educational Matters Committee, as long as the rhetoric tickles the ear?  How is it that those Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) policy makers with PhDs are openly indifferent to the facts?

Why should the public care when one of the most heavily funded national sports fishing associations Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) backs its Maryland chapter and allows it to castigate the public fishery in testimony about Maryland’s resource issue? Why should voters be concerned that many delegates on that committee apparently don’t care they are being misled? Oyster issues are not as simple as the CBF and CCA would like you to believe. When simplifying issues, it becomes easier to overlook many connected aspects, of which one important part is the human cost. Over the years the CBF has sought to simplify the issues into “silos” for its members and the public. This is a great disservice to its membership and to the interested public. It seems the phony war is now over and the policy directors along with other groups are waging war on watermen. CBF policy pays lip service about respecting the lives, industry and culture of the commercial fishery as represented by watermen. That voice is now silent.

This bill to prohibit shell dredging did not get out of committee and failed to pass. That doesn’t excuse those who testified with falsehoods. Facts are hard things and do not go away. This bill’s sole intent was to stop a legally mandated project to grant a permit to further understand what happens to an oyster bar when shell dredging is done to it. There is already an abundance of information on this subject. If shell is the driving issue for the oyster issues in Maryland such knowledge is tantamount to solving the problem of dwindling amounts of shell.

So, I will go over the purposefully misrepresented testimony from CBF and CCA for HB1455 that would have prohibited the legally mandated dredging of oyster shell.

All arguments about dredging for shell, pro or con at this point are mostly academic. Yes, there are informed studies and if the proponents of the bill had bothered to read them, as I have, they might have decided to let what is in reality a 5-year controlled experiment continue. This bill is the last remnant of a series of events that started with the end of the longstanding shell program in 2006 due to special interest group opposition based on uninformed rhetoric, followed by a DNR resistant to restarting the program, that then resulted in Del O’Donnell submitting a bill to force the O’Malley/Griffin/Oyster Committee DNR to apply for a permit to restart the program, which now has resulted in HB1455 seeking to end it all again. That started in 2009 at an Oyster Advisory Commission (OAC) meeting. It has eventually been distilled to just dredging for shell on Man O War in a five-year experiment. DNR, in my view, is only doing its legally bound duty in standing by this permit renewal. The reluctance is probably based on the fact that such shell dredging is at best a short-term solution. The department answered over 40 very detailed Corps of Engineer questions. Much of the information requested by the Corps was just not available. When the first set of questions were answered as best as possible the Corps came back with even more questions and again many were as equally unanswerable. DNR persisted, as seen in the summaries of various Oyster Advisory Commission meetings. Clearing the way for the permit to dredge will provide the means to have solid evidence about the effectiveness of shell dredging and how such a procedure affects an oyster bar. Till we have such evidence any discussion will be fraught with hyperbole, half-truths and falsehoods. Wouldn’t it be better to be able to move ahead with fact based constructive conversations that can produce workable programs?

The bill in its entirety can be found in the state archives. All testimony is available in the video archives also. I will first present the claims made in testimony by the CBF and CCA and then the verifiable facts about Man O War. My comments are in Italics.

It was claimed that the proposed area is a vital reef.  That is not accurate. Surveys on the area for proposed dredging showed ZERO oysters. Man O War isn’t a reef. Yet it was constantly referred to as a reef in testimony. A reef has a vigorous oyster population. A reef under the Bay Program is an area with at least 15 oysters per square meter. The Oyster Advisory Commission has discussed this definition and it is agreed upon by the CBF and the CCA, along with state and federal agencies. Man O War has ZERO oysters on the place proposed for shell dredging. Yet CBF and CCA when testifying at the hearing consistently called it a reef. These two parties have members on the OAC and should know better. The proposed area of Man O War is an underwater shoal of shells but is not a reef (a living entity).

It was stated that shells planted under the old program, 185 million bushels, are all gone. These would be shells planted on hundreds of places around the Bay. The loss of shells is only partly true. Many areas with old shells still have oysters and harvest and habitat. This means that shell planting is productive and has long term benefits.

CBF stated that if all of the shell went to industry plantings it would cover only 2% of public fishery bottom. By focusing only on fishery usage for the shells the CBF created an immediate negative bias. There was no mention of what statistic was used as the total acreage of fishery area used to run their calculations. Much of the acreage in fishery areas is not oyster bottom. It is actually sand and mud. Other fishery bottoms are shell but aren’t worked so they shouldn’t be included in the total area CBF used. These factors make for an inflated total acreage which would drive the percentage down and give an intentionally skewed picture. That is just CBF manipulating data for their own purposes. Also, all of the shell won’t go to the fishery. Most will go to sanctuaries, because that is where funding exists. When any shell goes into sanctuaries it is gone forever from any other active management purposes. The constant crowing by CCA and CBF about the many benefits of alternate substrates over shell leads me to conclude that sanctuaries shouldn’t receive any shells, but instead should focus on alternate materials, as long as long as the size and shape doesn’t prohibit future active management. Then the shells can be used for industry where it is crucially beneficial. Most shell comes from the industry to begin with and shucked shells used in sanctuaries come from oysters harvested by industry. Yet, these industry generated shells are mostly used for sanctuaries. Quite an insult when you think about all the hard work that went into shell from harvesting by watermen, only to be slapped in the face when having to watch it go into permanent exile in sanctuaries. If alternate substrates are so successful then all dredged shell could be divided up among oyster farmers and the public fishery. I also observe that the area of Man O’ War Shoals proposed for dredging is public fishery bottom, not sanctuary. So why are sanctuary interest groups saying that Man O’ War shells should be used mostly to help sanctuaries?

Shells last longer than 3 to 6 years, though testimony has said the value of shells is short term. It is proven that shells planted as far back as the 1990’s still have oysters and harvest occurring on them. The shorter time frame used for CBF, CCA testimony relates to Virginia oyster bars not Maryland. But CBF and other speakers did not provide that nuance or any information related to Maryland.

It was claimed by CBF that harvest off the planted shells would happen only twice. Then it was suggested the shells would be used up and useless for anything. This is totally incorrect and has no basis in fact. Shell plantings can produce oysters and harvest after two decades. The person who made the statement has never been out to see any old shell plantings in the company of people knowledgeable on the topic. Yet again, comments are made without any peer review or confirmation, and many legislative committee members appear to believe without question.

One of the speakers made it sound like the old shell program sent all the shell to VA. Some shells were sold to VA, a process approved by the MDBPW. Most shell stayed in MD. Oddly enough that policy of selling shell out of state was terminated two decades ago. So, the testimony was not even relevant to the proposed project. Again, manipulated testimony.

It would seem that the facts were so manipulated that legislators were purposefully misled about the Man O War five-year experiment. The alarming part is that few if any delegates questioned the facts, asked for any sources of information or asked about peer review of the CBF/ CCA testimony. CBF assumes because it is the loudest foundation that everything its speakers have to say will be swallowed whole sale without question. If a waterman tried to get away with that the CBF and CCA would be demand proof. His proof is in his years of verifiable experience. Now do not get me wrong. There are some watermen given to exaggeration which throws doubt on some aspects of given testimony. But not one waterman makes a “scientific claim”. There are harvest reports, annual surveys, and hands-on observed phenomenon that back up much of what they have to say.

The bill’s presenters created the overall impression that all of Man O War is going to be dredged. In fact, only a small portion is in the proposal. The amount is 5 million bushels out of a surveyed 86 to 100 million bushels available. Cuts will be made around the perimeter of the shoal, leaving most of the shoal un-dredged.  Once more the legislators did not seem to want to question testimony.

Watermen are unrealistic in believing that the 5 million bushels will be the beginning of an oyster industry recovery. If the experiment gives the go ahead to dredging of more shell, it would only be for perhaps 50 million bushels. Not a serious amount. A more realistic appraisal would be to wait and see what the experiment will indicate in hard scientific terms. But even if the whole shoal was to be opened for dredging, (which it will not be) the amount of shell will not be the hoped for saving grace. While there are many sources for shell in the Bay all parties had best start the search for a more proactive alternative substrate.

CBF stated that the shoal is the last 3-d reef in the Bay. This is so completely false that I find it amazing that no one questioned it. First off, it is not a reef and most oyster bars have a 3-d shape. 3-D refers to a bar having enough shell to actually have not only an outer dimension but one of height and depth. Any nautical chart will prove this. It is a fact that Man O War has a distinct 3-D shape but it is by no means the last oyster bar to be characterized as 3-D.

CCA claimed that the fishing would be ruined by shell dredging. More manipulation. Past studies of shell dredged areas show fish actually stayed in the dredge cuts and along the cut edges. Many charter captains and sport fishermen would purposefully hang around the Langenfelter dredge operation in the upper bay because rockfish would be found around that site when it was in operation. The cuts attracted some species of recreational fish. In addition to the observed advantages of cuts the targeted dredging proposed around the perimeter will leave a majority of the shoal intact for fishing.

The oyster harvest was cited as over 900 bushels, which is accurate. However, the impression was that Man O War was a productive area that was going to be dredged away. What wasn’t revealed is that the 900 bushels came from seed plantings and not Man O War natural recruitment. None of that productive area is in the proposed dredge area. The area proposed for dredging has ZERO oysters based on a detailed survey of the bar. Saying that the dredging would ruin a productive harvest area is just more manipulative commentary.

CBF stated if all the shell went to industry plantings, it would cover 2% of fishery bottom. First, all shells won’t go to the fishery.  Most will likely go to sanctuaries because that is where most of the funding exists. CBF’s theoretical scenario isn’t based on facts. Second the scenario focused only on the industry, which many groups oppose anyway. By only focusing on a fishery use for the shells CBF created an immediate negative bias. Third there was no mention of what acreage comprises fishery bottom was used as the total acreage of fishery area used to run the math. Much of that acreage in fishery areas is not oyster bar. It is sand and mud which is not good for seed planting.  This inflated total acreage would drive the percentage down and give an intentionally skewed picture. Again, more manipulative commentary given by both CCA and CBF. The professor emeritus from U. of M. did not once try correct the falsehoods given as testimony when he sat on the panel before the committee.

There is a blatant misuse of available information without recrimination when testifying before our elected officials. Why?  Again, I must ask, what is the end game? It can no longer be cloaked in Saving the Bay or conserving fish just for sportsmen and recreational fishermen. When watermen speak they do so out of years of empirical experience in the industry. Their testimony speaks to their industry-based concerns. It would seem that many others are predisposed to believe the claims made by the when the environmental community. How did this happen? Where are the requests for science and peer reviews? Not once did I hear a delegate question the claims made by the CBF or CCA. Just a simple request for the science would suffice. Livelihoods are at stake. There is an interesting middle ground where all contentious stakeholders come together.  All involved believe that any increase in the oyster population is a good thing.

Science is not a substitute for common sense but is an extension of it. –Ormand  

If anyone has questions about the application for the permit you can go to the link below. Please make sure you go to the most recent version from Feb. 2017. It is a 72-page document and will back up the points made about testimony and has much more information than the points covered in my posting.

http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Attachment_1-Man_O_War_Application_revFeb2017.pdf