[goose70]

Yes. It's whatever the taxpayers pay to deal with that portion of reduced water quality caused by the large reduction in filter feeders, plus the lost tax revenue from the Chesapeake falling well short of it's sportfishing destination potential due to the lack of forage for sportfish.

 

[goose70]

If a 34" Rockfish will eat a spikey 11" Yellow Perch (fact), or a 38" Rockfish will eat a 15" Hickory Shad (another fact), then I'm confident that any Rockfish over 30" will gladly consume the largest Menhaden. In fact, that would be better for it than burning energy to chase down many small Menhaden.

 

[goose70]

Junebug, don't Menhaden stay primarily near the surface? Or, at the very least, can't they easily cope with doing so if DO levels go down? If so, then I don't see how the dead zones would stop Menhaden from swimming north. In fact, Menhaden have regularly swam into even very bad dead zones that extended to the surface in some areas, as was evidenced by massive Menhaden die-offs in the 80s and even moderate one last Summer.

These dead zones are obviously a huge problem, but I do not think they are the reason for the lack of Menhaden in the Bay. Dead zones can kill Menhaden, but where is your evidence that the Menhaden come up the Bay in reduced numbers due to dead zones (or is this not your contention)? I believe that something else (i.e. - Omega) is keeping the Menhaden from coming up the Bay in historical numbers (by historical, I mean only 15-25 years ago).

Another point: You regularly blame increased Striped Bass stocks as causing Menhaden depletion in the Bay, yet have not, to my knowledge, reconciled this with (1) the huge stocks of mostly larger Striped Bass that patrol coastal waters, where the Menhaden stocks are supposedly healthy and (2) the fact that Bluefish were at record levels and Weakfish were much more numerous when the Striped Bass population was down in the 80s. Are you saying that these massive schools of chopper Blues didn't do AT LEAST as big a number on Menhaden as Striped Bass do today?

I think we all agree that increased populations of predators put increased strain on forage, and declining water quality further strains the entire ecosystem --the latter is a situation that MD, VA, PA and NY -- and every citizen thereof -- need to more seriously address, otherwise the Omega debate will soon be moot. However, that does not mean that, knowing all of the other stress factors on the Bay population, it is wise policy to say, “oh well, since there are many issues at play, let's just continue to allow 100,000 tons of critical forage to be removed from an already strained Bay forage base.”

 

[goose70]

Junebug, I agree 100% that by far the greatest effort and expense needs to be towards reducing nitrogen/phosphate input into the Bay. The problem is that even if a huge effort would begin immediately, it would likely not yield results for a decade or more. And realistically, this will be a slow process compounded by the continued massive influx of people into the watershed (which for misguided reasons, our gov't officials celebrate and encourage).

But once again, that doesn't mean that we sit by and don't tackle the smaller -- but also important -- issues simultaneously. Rudy Giuliani attacked NY City's crime/corruption by first tackling the little issues, like graffiti and squeegeemen, to show that a change for the better COULD happen. He found that eliminating those little things not only energized others to take on the bigger problems, but it actually made a noticeable difference, by itself, in the overall reduction in crime/corruption. When a company with seemingly insurmountable problems hires my firm to defend it and fix the problems internally, we immediately tackle the things that can be fixed quickly and cheaply, then move up the task list. By the time we reach the most difficult/expensive problem, it’s been isolated and often is no longer as critical and expensive as it once was. Unburdened by its smaller problems, the company is in better shape to deal with (and, in the meantime, endure) the bigger issues. I don’t see why the Bay isn’t fundamentally the same.

 

[goose70]

SUNDAWG, if the last few years have been so terrific, please explain Omega's steadily declining catch, which, according to its own documents, has been in a death spiral for some time.

Oh wait...I know the answers. Menhaden are cyclical and the now decade-long trend is all part of mother nature's way. Or, in the alternative, we now have too many Stripers -- imagine what sorry shape the Bay must have been in before people came along to keep the Striper population in a healthy balance.

Hmmm...or maybe, Omega has voluntarily (and covertly) reduced its catch steadily over the years. You folks must be true stewards of the Bay to risk a shareholder lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty just to ease pressure on the Menhaden. I take back every bad thought I've ever had about Omega. [grin]