O'Donnell, Cullen should rethink position on oyster dredging bill

Friday, March 20, 2009

Consequently, the Maryland legislature and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources must manage the use and exploitation of these resources to the greatest good and welfare of all Marylanders. When laws and regulations are enacted that are favorable to a few and not for the overall good, that causes a great deal of conflict and sows the seeds of political discontent.

A section of the Patuxent River was protected from oyster dredging for years and now proposed legislation HB 584 sponsored by two of Southern Maryland's elected representatives, Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell and Del. Sue Kullen, threatens to undo years of sanctuary and survival by old-growth oysters.

I ask Dels. O'Donnell and Kullen to what good do they aspire with this proposed legislation? Why will future Marylanders be served by wiping out old-growth oysters, and is this legislation really to the overall good of all Marylanders, or even to the majority of their own constituents?

My position is that opening oyster sanctuaries to commercial harvest is not a good idea. The reasons in support of my position are numerous, but I am not alone in my reasoning. Three notable stakeholders in this upcoming decision are on record to also be in opposition and their reasoning should not be ignored.

Those opposing HB 584 at the first hearings were the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Maryland Coastal Conservation Association, as well as a host of individual conservationists. These three organizations are actively working hard to restore oysters into Chesapeake Bay and the CCA has piloted a "grow your own oysters" program in the tributaries of the Patuxent River to replenish oysters, which result in improved water quality.

Those in support of the proposed legislation are the Maryland Watermen's Association, Calvert County Watermen's Association and a few individual local oystermen.

There is another group of supporters, lurking in the background waiting for the opening of this sanctuary. Remembering that once the sanctuary is open to commercial waterman, nearly every oysterman within a hundred miles of the middle Patuxent River awaits their turn to catch their limit.

Oysters are valuable to Maryland as seafood but more importantly as filter-feeding organisms, capable of filtering hundreds of thousands of gallons of river water throughout their natural lifetimes. The longer that they live, the more capable they become.

Of course, if dredged and harvested, their filtration ends abruptly and this ruins the recovery of the Patuxent River.

The interests of the commercial oyster industry have historically been balanced against two conflicting considerations. Firstly, there is the need to manage a resource in a way to assure natural reproduction will replace the oysters that are harvested. And second there is the disease factor; that dermo and MSX is wiping out our natural stocks, and so old-growth oysters that might still exist because of their resistance to these killers will be removed from the reproductive process.

And lastly, any student of natural resources management will recognize the lunacy of authorizing the commercial dredging of a protected area set aside previously to protect those old-growth stocks.

I urge Dels. O'Donnell and Kullen to rethink their positions on HB 584. Many folks up and down the Patuxent River living in Calvert and St Mary's counties are raising oysters under their own piers in the tributaries and later releasing these mature filter feeders into main river sanctuaries as their contribution to help clean up Patuxent River.

Are the efforts of their constituents to be thwarted by the short-term economic benefits of oystermen determined to wipe out what oyster stocks we have remaining?

Brady Bounds, Lexington Park