Maryland urges protection for crabs... in 1924!

[Oyster Man]

The following article is clipped from the Bay Weblog, operated by the Baltimore Sun. It's interesting that in 1910, Crisfield alone shipped more crabs than today's figure for adult crabs in the entire bay (estimated by DNR to be 120 million).

Crab protections "needed" - in 1924
By Tim Wheeler, Feb 6, 2009

The actions taken by Maryland and Virginia last fall to curtail the harvest of female blue crabs were suggested, it seems, by this state's top conservation official - 85 years ago.

Paul McCardell, ace librarian here at The Baltimore Sun, brought me a photocopy of a May 25, 1924, story quoting the state's conservation commissioner saying that "many young crabs are being killed annually because of inadequate protective legislation."

Swepson Earle, the commissioner, characterized the crab supply that spring as "normal," but he also said that the industry had declined in the previous 15 years. Back then, he noted, there were 75 crab houses in Crisfield alone - more than we have statewide now - and in 1910 they had reported shipping a total of 120 million soft crabs and 25 million hard crabs.

Crisfield was the seafood capital of Maryland then, if not the entire Chesapeake Bay. But those numbers are pretty staggering - particularly when you consider that scientists now are trying to get the crab population back up to 200 million adults for the entire bay.

Article continues at:
link

[flattyfrank]

The following article is clipped from the Bay Weblog, operated by the Baltimore Sun. It's interesting that in 1910, Crisfield alone shipped more crabs than today's figure for adult crabs in the entire bay (estimated by DNR to be 120 million).

Crab protections "needed" - in 1924
By Tim Wheeler, Feb 6, 2009



Back then, he noted, there were 75 crab houses in Crisfield alone - more than we have statewide now -
.[/INDENT]
Article continues at:
link

Seems like we have a crab house on almost every corner. way more than 75........unless he means picking house

[redbeard]

i wonder why the link doesn't take us to the complete original article from the sun achives from 1924? is it the actual report is not the intent of the exerts given. i only saythis because of the bias attitude of the sun and some of it's reporters.

[TBWheeler]

As the author of the Sun blog post, I can tell you I didn't post a link to the original article because it isn't available online, as far as I know. It had nothing to do with whatever bias Redbeard thinks Sun reporters have. Not sure whether he was directing that at me or not, but my only bent is toward listening to all sides, verifying what's verifiable and reporting what I see. Thanks for reading, and please feel free to comment directly on the blog if you have an observation or question. And yes, the "crab houses" referenced in the 1924 story were picking houses, not eateries.

Tim Wheeler
Baltimore Sun
"Bay & Environment" blog: Bay & Environment - Bay & Environment is The Sun’s blog devoted to news about Maryland’s environment - baltimoresun.com

[F6Forrest]

Here's a study that was proposed in 1933- Seems like they've been studying crabs for a long time.

[FishBonzs]

i wonder why the link doesn't take us to the complete original article from the sun achives from 1924? is it the actual report is not the intent of the exerts given. i only saythis because of the bias attitude of the sun and some of it's reporters.

No dog in this fight, but being from Va., I have read some of the articles written in the Sun, & I would have to agree with redbeard on the Sun being bias

[SteveL]

TBWheeler,

Thanks very much for publishing the historic article and information. The numer of crabs harvested out of Chrisfield back then is astonishing compared to depleted crab population in the Bay today; historic accounts document past conditions.

The current blue crab population is a small fraction of what it was then, and is very low compared to what the Bay could support today if we allowed the population to recover.

[redbeard]

SteveL, the problem is that we don't know what the bay will support in the condition it's in now. the bay was a very different place back then. i think if we could improve the bay by 50%, including the lost habitat, grasses pollution ect. the bay could hold tons more crabs.

[SteveL]

Redbeard,

I strongly agree, the habitat is degraded and the bay could hold more crabs if we improved habitat. Right now, since substantial water quality improvements will probably not occur over the near term, there seem to be several relevant questions for us to consider over the next few years, and of course we could debate these questions and the answers to them:

What is the current crab population and could it be increased substantially given the existing ecological (habitat and predator/prey) limitations? Scientific estimates suggest the population is substantially depressed relative to 10 to 15 years ago, and during that time the water quality has stayed relatively stable, not really improving or declining.

If we reduce harvest pressure, especialy on reproductive females, will the crab population rebound to the level at or above 10-15 years ago? VA closing the sponge crab winter dredge fishery last year was a historic event, and MD virtually eliminated the rec fishery for females and also placed limits on the commercial harvest of females. Protecting reproductive females is one of the simplest, most basic and fundamental concepts in fish and wildlife management, it has been used for at least a hundred years in a wide range of fish and wildlife species and is a proven, common sense management strategy. In my opinion these were very serious attempts by both states to help rebuild the crab population.

Withn the next few years we may have answers to these questions.

[redbeard]

Steve, i agree with most of what you say,reducing the sook harvest should show something by next year-2010 if it works. the WDS #s that are seen on the web clearly show up and down pop. #s, some to extremes ,in a relitivly short time span. i think the downward #s actully follow thye condition of the bay especially regarding dead water or oxegen depleted water due to nutrient run off that has definetly been inreasing over the last 10- 20 years due more people in the wastershed. so in summary i'd say the cuts to the sook harvest were going to happen, it's the only thing dnr has'nt tried, but in doing this they should have removed some other retrictions they had applied that did'nt work at all. it appears that the easiest thing to do is restrict comm. harvest instead of cleaning the bay,which would cost everyone alot of $.