[nnasnet] Re: Chesapeake Wildlife in Balance
- From: Jenny Crandall <jennycra@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Frederick Atwood <fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx>, nnasnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:40:16 -0400
Fred,
Thank you for for your consideration. It seemed only fair to let the other
side be heard.
Hopefully, people will be interested in reading information from both
perspectives.
Other people have posted articles like yours on nnasnet about menhaden
fishing. I was wrong in saying it was inappropriate to put on nnasnet
because that is nothing more than my opinion. I was wrong about how this
site can be used.
Jenny Crandall
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Frederick Atwood <fredatwood@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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>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:
