[V-Tinny]

.

What I do know is that I've been reviewing the Chesapeake Bay report card over the last two decades along with fisheries data and it's terrible.

Other then a "dip" on a 8 year average (twice), it seems as though the health is actually been improving, and it currently on an upswing.

Seems the records go back to 1986 when the bay actually got a lower score card. Over the past 36 years there have only been 6 years where the score was above 2021. Look at the chart to right in below link. Notice the pretty much steady rise since 2003. There were dips in 2003, 2010 and 2018, but it's overall an incline since 1986.

Bay Health | EcoHealth Report Cards

ecoreportcard.org

Most of the guys who are doom and gloom are comparing their success to the artificially inflated high back in early 1990's after the moratorium. There are a few guys who fished the 50's and 60's when it really was good, but not many here. I probably caught my 1st striper in the late 60's or early 1970. I can say that my success nowadays is much better then it was in the 70's in the upper bay. Maybe my spots still produce because I don't blast everything over social media. If I take someone out and they post, they don't get invited back.

I do agree with you on the "Conservation" organization. Most all are just lining pockets.

 

[V-Tinny]

I'm talking about the overall health of the Bay.

Scoring 50% is failing by all accounts. The chart I saw on the link you send it awful.

I will say that I like your positive attitude, but don't get fooled into thinking that the BILLIONS of dollars that have been spent did what it was supposed to or was promised.

Best I can tell most of the money was marketed under "restoration" and "conservation" but in reality was/is a job creation program and nothing else.

I'm not against job creation things, but let's all get real and call it what it is so those of us who are actually hopeful can adjust our expectations so we're not disappointed.

I've lived in California for over a decade, note I still have a place in Easton, and while California does some whacky things on both sides of the aisle, I'll say when they do conservation they really do it. The fisheries are hardcore on the long game, even if it hurts fishermen (all) in the short term. But you know what, there's fish year in and year out.

When it comes to land, it's conserved. Most people that visit us here in Half Moon Bay can't believe that San Francisco is 25 min away because it's so rural. It's rural because there is no development allowed. Long stories and fights about all this you can read about.

The way I see it from having been involved in the Chesapeake Bay for most of my life is the fisheries are mismanaged, but it's just as much about the pollution.

If you want to argue with me about fisheries then please let me know how many sturgeon were caught last year. How's the striped bass index doing? How about the flounder? How many of those were caught in Eastern Bay last year? How's menhaden doing? How's the oysters? Oh right, the oyster "restoration" "conservation" program is really a jobs program. It's a joke and I witnessed in public and behind closed doors at DNR.

The land conservation on Maryland's waterways is non-existent. Some of that is just history of how the whole east coast evolved from the original settlers. But, if you want that house on the water and a great looking green lawn, the ecosystem is going to pay, which it has.

I'll agree with you that the people at both ends of the spectrum are too extreme, the doom and gloom and the it's all fine. The reality exists somewhere in the middle and from all accounts it's on the it's a lot worse then on the mend.

Brandon

No argument from me. I was taking your original statement about the last 2 decades being "terrible" as you meaning there has been a decrease in the health of the bay over that time. All I am saying it that it has basically stayed the same, or possibly increased over that time period.