Controversial oyster bill is aimed at helping, not hurting

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

First, the intent of HB 584 is not and never was to authorize the harvesting of oysters from established sanctuaries. The intent of the bill is to provide a means of harvesting oysters in an area of the Patuxent River currently open to harvesting by hand tongs only. Unfortunately, many of the bars in this section of the river are located in water depths that prohibit the use of hand tongs. As a result of the bars not being worked, they have become silted over from the sediment flow in the river created by the extensive development in the upper reaches of the Patuxent. Silted over bars do not provide an environment that fosters natural reproduction nor do they offer a habitat that will sustain the oyster population, as oysters are unable to breathe under layers of silt.

Second, to claim that the use of patent tongs is "the underwater equivalent of clear-cutting a forest" is such a gross misstatement of fact that it hardly warrants recognition. However, to set the record straight, the use of patent tongs in the Patuxent River has been authorized since the early 1960s. It is impossible to "wipe out the remaining stock of wild oysters" using any authorized gear type. What will wipe out the remaining stock of wild oysters is allowing the oyster bars to become silted over denying oysters a habitat that will sustain natural reproduction.

Third, it was very evident at the hearings on this bill that the "stakeholders" in opposition to the bill were not in opposition to dredging in the Patuxent, but rather they were opposed to dredging as a means to harvest oysters. During the hearing, they admitted support for the bar-cleaning operation by the use of oyster dredges that has been recently completed in the Patuxent. This effort, sponsored by the Oyster Recovery Project (ORP), was conducted earlier this month resulting in the removal of the silt and dead oysters from the bars, thus providing a healthy habitat to sustain oyster growth.

However, in view of the opposition to dredging in the Patuxent, the sponsors of the bill submitted an amendment during the hearing that replaced the use of power dredging with the use of patent tongs. Since the use of patent tongs is authorized in the Patuxent River, this amendment resulted in merely extending the authorized area for this gear type further up the river. As a result, oyster bars not reachable by hand tongs could be worked using patent tongs. Oyster bars that are not worked ultimately become non-productive due to the accumulation of silt.

Fourth, it is not the intent, as some organizations claim of watermen and especially members of the Calvert County Watermen's Association, to take the "last oyster" from the river without regard for the future of the oyster population or the river's health. Over the past three years, our association has expended more than $10,000 and countless volunteer man-hours to re-seed various bars in the Patuxent. In conjunction with the Morgan State University Estuarine Research Center, we have planted more than 11 million spat on shell at various locations in the Patuxent River. In conjunction with ORP, we have assisted with placing more than 70 million spat on shell at various locations in the Patuxent River. I truly believe that we exert a much greater effort in restoring the river and its oyster population than do many conservation organizations that dump a basket of shell overboard and then claim to be the stewards of the Bay and its tributaries.

Finally, I want to publicly thank the Delegates Tony O'Donnell (R-Calvert, St. Mary's) and Sue Kullen (D-Calvert) for their support of our efforts to "Save the Bay." Unlike many who react emotionally, they take an objective approach to restoring the Patuxent River to its former pristine condition and consider all the facts before making a decision to support any legislation concerning our natural resources.

Tommy Zinn, Lusby