[nnasnet] Re: Chesapeake Wildlife in Balance
- From: Frederick Atwood <fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "jennycra@xxxxxxxxx" <jennycra@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
I apologize Jenny
I did not mean to offend anyone nor to imply that people who disagree with this
interpretation of the data don't care about nature. It is good that you sent
the link so people can hear both sides of the story and make up their own
minds.
CCB does superb science and their conclusions are based on their science. This
post had appeared in at least two other birding list serves in VA today so I
was just passing it on.I also remember some laments on NNASnet about the poor
fledging rate of their ospreys the last few summers so thought this might shed
some light on that.
I will most likely keep my future posts to what I do best, birding reports.
Question to the list-serve managers: Was this the wrong forum to forward this
email to as Jenny says? It is hard to know what the different list-serves allow
and what they don't. I have seen other posts of a conservation-related nature
on this list-serve before, so I did not think it would be a problem to forward
this one.
All the best
Fred
Frederick D. Atwood fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx
Flint Hill School, 10409 Academic Dr, Oakton, VA 22124
703-242-1675
http://www.agpix.com/fredatwood
http://www.flinthill.org
http://tea.armadaproject.org/tea_atwoodfrontpage.html
________________________________
From: Jenny <jennycra@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx" <fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "nnasnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nnasnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:12 PM
Subject: [nnasnet] Re: Chesapeake Wildlife in Balance
Fred,
This is so inappropriate to send to nnasnet. It is opinion and not fact. If
you want the facts, check out this website. I care about wildlife and my
opinion is that 9 boats on the Cheapeake Bay are not a big threat.
http://www.omegaproteininc.com/sustainability/fact-and-fiction.aspx
Jenny Crandall
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Frederick Atwood <fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought you all might be interested in this message from the Center for
Conservation Biology
>
>
>OP/ED written by Bryan Watts as it appeared in
Richmond Times Dispatch Oct,19,2011
(http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/oct/19/tdopin02-watts-chesapeake-wildlife-in-the-balance-ar-1392188/)
>
>In November, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) will decide on the path forward for managing the
Atlantic menhaden fishery. At issue is whether to increase target
population levels, which would effectively reduce commercial harvests
of menhaden. At risk are populations of birds and other wildlife
enjoyed by millions of residents throughout the tidal reach of the
Chesapeake Bay.
>
>Menhaden, often called the "most important fish in
the sea," are the energy changers of bay waters. They filter plankton,
converting it into oil-rich tissues and making this vast energy reserve
available to consumers higher up on the food chain. Demand for this
energy-rich oil is at the heart of the conflict between commercial
menhaden fisheries on the Atlantic Coast and many recreational anglers
who claim that menhaden harvest levels have greatly compromised the
health of striped bass and other prized species that depend on menhaden
for food.
>
>But striped bass and commercial harvesters are not
the only ones chasing menhaden. Menhaden are critical prey for many of
our bird populations as well, including bald eagles, osprey, brown
pelicans, royal terns, and common loons — species that provide the
sights and sounds of the visible living fabric that we identify with
the Chesapeake Bay experience.
>
>The current ASMFC regulation allows for harvests
down to 8 percent of the projected unfished population (or conversely,
catching up to 92 percent of all menhaden in the bay and ocean). The
population is technically classified as overharvested if it is driven
below the 8 percent threshold. Even with this alarmingly generous
threshold, a recent scientific assessment has indicated that menhaden
have been overfished in 32 of the past 54 years. Allowing menhaden
stocks to be harvested to such low levels has implications for other
consumer communities.
>
>In 1971, during the height of the DDT era, Bob
Kennedy worked with breeding osprey in Mobjack Bay as a graduate
student at the College of William and Mary under Mitchell Byrd. Kennedy
determined that osprey pairs were producing chicks at a rate well below
that needed to maintain the population, largely because DDT in their
system made their eggshells too thin to be viable. Only one in four
eggs hatched due to DDT contamination, but of the chicks that hatched,
nearly eight of 10 survived to fledge.
>
>During the next few decades, three additional
William and Mary graduate students would work with osprey in Mobjack
Bay and provide a portrait of a changing population. The United States
ultimately banned DDT, and by the early 1980s osprey pairs were
producing more than twice as many chicks as in the early 1970s, and
their population was growing.
>
>Surprisingly, however, by 2006 osprey productivity
in Mobjack Bay had declined again back to levels not seen since the DDT
era. This time the underlying cause had changed.
>
>More than 35 years after DDT, graduate student
Andy Glass found that nine of every 10 eggs hatched, but only four of
every 10 chicks survived to fledge. Chicks were hatching, but they were
starving in the nest.
>
>Why? In the 1970s adult osprey were delivering
nearly three times more fish to nestlings than in 2006. In the 1980s
during the period of highest productivity, more than 70 percent of the
fish delivered to nests were menhaden. By 2006 menhaden represented
less than 27 percent of the diet. None of the other fish species in the
osprey's diet are equivalent to menhaden in energy content. So the
adults were providing fewer fish to their chicks, and the fish were of
poorer quality.
>
>Significantly, over the same four decades, the
menhaden population as measured by haul seines in Maryland had declined
by more than 90 percent.
>
>What is now before the ASMFC are proposals to make
no change, as well as one to increase the population threshold from 8
percent to 15 percent of unfished levels. Though that would represent a
modest change, it would be a welcome movement toward considering the
needs of fish, birds, marine mammals and the broader bay ecosystem.
>
>The Chesapeake Bay is a tremendous and shared
resource. We all have a voice in how that resource should be used for
the highest public good. Let ASMFC hear your voice.
>
>
>Bryan D. Watts is Mitchell A. Byrd Professor of
Conservation Biology and director of the Center for Conservation
Biology at the College of William and Mary and Virginia Commonwealth
University. Contact him at bdwatt@xxxxxxx Public comments on proposed
changes in harvest limits are being accepted by the commission through
Nov. 2. Express your view by visiting http://www.asmfc.org/.
>
>
>Frederick D. Atwood fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx
>Flint Hill School, 10409 Academic Dr, Oakton, VA 22124
>703-242-1675
>http://www.agpix.com/fredatwood
>http://www.flinthill.org
>http://tea.armadaproject.org/tea_atwoodfrontpage.html
Other related posts:
