Tidal Fish Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was at the hearing . Every politician there spoke against it. All but 1 that spoke were against the dredging and that young lady just confused the hell out of me. I believe that was her plan. If everyone was against this and it still passes then we must hold all politicians and the persons that hold appointed positions accountable . If this doesn't pass we must be thankful for those that are supporting us. My fear is that it is a done deed and all we will hear is that those in elected positions tried their best. Well it won't be good enough for me and don't let it be for you either. Please save ManOWar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,114 Posts
It was indeed a good turnout Larry,from politicians,many MSSA members from several chapters, local fishermen, naturalists, environmentalists, and concerned citizens. All the speakers raised good points. We all hope they don't destroy one of the last, big, ancient, oyster shell beds in the upper Bay in hopes of rejuvenating oysters after allowing the oyster population to drop to an all time low of 1% . We've seen what has happened in the past with the leveling of other oyster shell beds in the Upper Bay.The marine life diminishes where the oyster shell beds once were.The natural oyster shell bottom is an important natural habitat for living marine life and should be left un disturbed . Many realize the long term hopes of an oyster rejuvenation are dismal without first correcting oyster diseases, pollution, dead zones, etc. These things should be first on the agenda. Once the millions of bushels of oyster shells are removed, the damage is irreversible. We all hope the right thing is done this time. Just leave it alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
There were many speakers that delivered good valid points why the project should not proceed. What was really a pleasent suprise to me was the opposition to the dredging by both the Baltimore County Watermans association and the Maryland Watermans Association.
Does anyone remember the name of the spokesman for DNR. Several people including myself noticed he spent most of his time with his attention on his cell phone (texting?, web browsing?, game playing?) if I miss read his action my apologies.
Hard to believe something that is opposed by all groups would continue. Someone unseen and unheard from must be gaining something.

One thing that stands out is that a bill was passed in 2009 in Annapolis that requires DNR to apply for a permit every year, meaning even if it stopped now it could come up again and again in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Why is there a meeting in Cambridge, what am I missing?. MOW is north of the bridge, why is it a interest for those south of the bridge? Can someone explain it for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
Why is there a meeting in Cambridge, what am I missing?. MOW is north of the bridge, why is it a interest for those south of the bridge? Can someone explain it for me.
There are commercial constituents there that stand to benefit by harvesting oysters on the dredged shell later in time--its an area where many of the MD citizens that want the shell are located--the waterman harvesters.

Politically from MD State perspective, this is at least in part an allocation conflict between recs and comms. Of course its much more complicated than that from an ecological and habitat conservation perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
One thing that stands out is that a bill was passed in 2009 in Annapolis that requires DNR to apply for a permit every year, meaning even if it stopped now it could come up again and again in the future.
The direct involvement/meddling by MD Legislature in an important ecological/environmental/natural resources issue in this case is analogous to VA State Legislature control over the menhaden fishery.

This is a recipe for natural resources to be managed by politicians with narrow constituent interests, limited knowledge of complex issues, and short attention spans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
There are commercial constituents there that stand to benefit by harvesting oysters on the dredged shell later in time--its an area where many of the MD citizens that want the shell are located--the waterman harvesters.

Politically from MD State perspective, this is at least in part an allocation conflict between recs and comms. Of course its much more complicated than that from an ecological and habitat conservation perspective.
At least at this hearing both Balto. Co. Watermens ass. And the MWA spoke against the dredging so if the rec. fishing community and the Watermans association are both against why is it being pushed. To quote a saying "There is something rotten in Denmark"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
I was there and had a terrible time hearing anybody. The sound system was terrible. The young lady, who was the only yes, represented an organization
called CCE. Who are they? I was also there in 1985 when they tried to do this. If my memory recalls, there was an issue of the dredger keeping 75% of the material and the State acquiring 25%. The state had the right to keep the shells or sell them back to the dredger. Also no impact studies were done. How much will this cost and how will the monies be acquired? I read, that presently, the price of a bushel of shells has went through the roof and the state has to compete with the aqua-culture guys. I was not surprised that the DNR representative directed the speakers to only address the Man O War issue. It would have been a great time to ask the MDE why they don't address the sewage spills in the Patapsco River. There is a big lesson to be learned from Flint, Michigan to all concerned, commercial, recs, and the general public. They can't hide it forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,871 Posts
IMPORTANT INFO: if you attended and didn't speak, your opinion was not registered.
I'm going to repeat this in a new thread in an attempt to reach as many as possible. Many thanks to all of those who attended the meeting Tuesday evening. It dawned on me the next morning, and I confirmed this with an appropriate and reliable source, that those who attended but did not speak at the meeting will have no bearing on the how the Corp and DNR proceed in this matter. Comments made were put into the record. Mailed and e-mailed comments will also be entered into the record and have some degree of influence on the decision making process. But the fact is that applause and moral support from the audience who those who spoke against strip mining Man-O-War, and the number of attendees at the meeting has no bearing whatsoever in the decision making. So, if you attended, and if you are against the dredging, and if you did not take the microphone and have not sent an email or a letter, your opinion was not registered.
What to do? Write or e-mail before Feb 18. Include your name, address, and appropriate contact info in case they need to contact you) and state that you are against dredging Man-O-War shoal. You can add any details, arguments, or particular concerns which they will read (I have no idea how much influence those comments carry), but the important thing is that you register your "yea" or "nay". So if you want to wax eloquent, go for it. If you don't know what to say or how to say it, just send the message "I'm against the proposed dredging of Man-O-War shoal".
Send it to:
Ms. Abbie Hopkins
ATTN: CENAB-OPR-M
Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Phone: 410-962-6080
Email: [email protected]


Be sure to include the ATTN: CENAB-OPR-M piece in the title or text. Make your attendance count. Thanks for your attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I was there and had a terrible time hearing anybody. The sound system was terrible. The young lady, who was the only yes, represented an organization
called CCE. Who are they? I was also there in 1985 when they tried to do this. If my memory recalls, there was an issue of the dredger keeping 75% of the material and the State acquiring 25%. The state had the right to keep the shells or sell them back to the dredger. Also no impact studies were done. How much will this cost and how will the monies be acquired? I read, that presently, the price of a bushel of shells has went through the roof and the state has to compete with the aqua-culture guys. I was not surprised that the DNR representative directed the speakers to only address the Man O War issue. It would have been a great time to ask the MDE why they don't address the sewage spills in the Patapsco River. There is a big lesson to be learned from Flint, Michigan to all concerned, commercial, recs, and the general public. They can't hide it forever.
I could hardly hear a word from the young lady that spoke in support of project CCE? I did not even catch that. Anyone know who they? Most of the other speakers came through lound and clear

- - - Updated - - -

Did anyone here attend the Cambridge meeting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I was there and had a terrible time hearing anybody. The sound system was terrible. The young lady, who was the only yes, represented an organization
called CCE. Who are they? I was also there in 1985 when they tried to do this. If my memory recalls, there was an issue of the dredger keeping 75% of the material and the State acquiring 25%. The state had the right to keep the shells or sell them back to the dredger. Also no impact studies were done. How much will this cost and how will the monies be acquired? I read, that presently, the price of a bushel of shells has went through the roof and the state has to compete with the aqua-culture guys. I was not surprised that the DNR representative directed the speakers to only address the Man O War issue. It would have been a great time to ask the MDE why they don't address the sewage spills in the Patapsco River. There is a big lesson to be learned from Flint, Michigan to all concerned, commercial, recs, and the general public. They can't hide it forever.
What is CCA stance on the dredging? Was the young Lady possibly representing them? She talked so low I did not hear the CCE statement nor can I find any information on the organization.
 

·
Tidal Fish Super Subscriber - I rock!
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
I have sent them an email

also I sent a copy of the information to all of my fishing buddies, for them to do the same.

Everyone on this board should do the same, lets get the word out!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
The CCC (Clean Chesapeake Coalition) is a coalition of 7counties (see http://www.cleanchesapeakecoalition.com/our-members/)* generally opposed to spending their own funds as required by state or federal regs to clean the Bay. Instead, they have a list of alternatives. Some make sense, while some do not. If you click to get more info, their recommendation #3 specifies that oyster "restoration" is a priority and specifically advocated taking of fossil shell to do this. They say they are are all about fiscal responsibility and not wasting taxpayers' money.

On the surface, it appears that they are really concerned with cleaning up the Chesapeake, but there is another, very cleverly hidden agenda here. Perhaps we can alter their thinking on the shell dredging.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top