CRAB SEASON: Scarcity fears loom over watermen

[horsefly]

Article published Apr 1, 2008
CRAB SEASON: Scarcity fears loom over watermen
By Kristen Wyatt
Associated Press Writer

ANNAPOLIS — The days are longer, the water's warming up and waterman Don Pierce is readying his crab rig in the yard, much as he has each spring since 1975, when he started plying the Chesapeake Bay for the estuary's trademark blue crabs.

But there's an edge to Pierce this spring as he repairs the cabin in the Bri-Steff, his 48-foot crab rig. Instead of looking forward to retirement, Pierce is considering a new job because of what is widely expected to be a lousy crab season on the Cheseapeake.

"I feel like crying in my beer," said Pierce, who planned to leave his Kent County home for the water today, the start of Maryland's commercial crab season.

The prognosis for the blue crab, the Chesapeake's hallmark seafood product, is bad.

Last year's catch was Maryland's second-lowest since 1945, and winter population surveys indicate this year's harvest may not be much better. Fishery regulators in Maryland and Virginia say the crab population is nearing dangerous lows.

Regulators are expected to reduce the harvest even further to save crabs.

"Where am I going to go to find a job at 59 years old?" Pierce said. He doesn't know yet what the restrictions will be this year, but he doubts they will be good. "This is going to be devastating to us. To everybody."

From Pierce's dock at the north end of the Chesapeake south to Virginia waters to the mouth of the Atlantic Ocean, watermen can't stop worrying about crabs.

Neither can the picking houses that pack crab meat for sale, or the dwindling number of restaurants that still serve Chesapeake blue crab instead of relying on cheaper, more reliable meat from the Gulf of Mexico or Asia.

The worry extends to government scientists who manage the crab fisheries in the Chesapeake.

Maryland and Virginia scientists say they've got one last shot to protect the crabs or they could face the collapse of one of the region's last viable fisheries.

Annual Maryland-Virginia surveys that project a census of the Chesapeake's crab population show crabs have been down — below 500 million estimated to be living in the Chesapeake — for 10 years straight.

As recently as 1993, the estimated crab population was more than 852 million. This year's survey isn't complete yet, but scientists working on it say there's little reason to believe it will show the crabs have bounced back.

Lynn Fegley, a fisheries biologist for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, spelled out possible restrictions to a crowd of skeptical crabbers who packed a church basement in Annapolis last month.

The options Fegley laid out were aimed at protecting adult female crabs — called "sooks." Few went over well.

The ideas include a possible 6.5-inch size limit on female crabs. A complete ban on catching female crabs could be imposed for recreational crabbers. There is also likely to be a requirement for crab pots to include an extra escape hatch for the smallest juvenile crabs to escape.

Fishery managers are trying to persuade crabbers that the Chesapeake's blue crabs can be saved — but only if everyone agrees to take a financial hit for a few years.

"We always give and give and give and never gotten nothin' back," said Sonny Norris of Baltimore County, a crabber who works out of Essex. He, like many crabbers, says poor water quality and habitat loss are to blame for the problem, not overharvesting.

"Anywhere there used to be grass, it's parking lots now. And all that stuff ends up in the Bay every time it rains," he said.

Regulators don't disagree, but say crabbers are the easiest targets in their efforts to increase crab numbers in the short term.

"We all take a measure of responsibility for this," Bull said. "But we're managing a fishery. We can't make the water any cleaner. We can't make the grass grow. But we can reduce the numbers of crabs we take out of the Bay."

Back in Kent County, Pierce isn't sure what to say when a supplier calls him asking how many crab pots he'll need for the fall.

"What am I supposed to tell him? That I have no idea what they're going to do to us by then?" Pierce asked. "I do realize that yes, we do have a problem. I realize that yes, it'd be nice to keep 200 million spawning females in the estuary. The problem is not the crabs, it's the human race."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[southswell]

Very chearful article yet again. Hoping to see the new regs b4 the end of April. Wish the comms some good luck this year, may they be able to continue on with better catches than predicted, and continue to provide for their families! L8ER

[madcrabber1113]

 

[Pinchy]

"Anywhere there used to be grass, it's parking lots now. And all that stuff ends up in the Bay every time it rains," he said.

Regulators don't disagree, but say crabbers are the easiest targets in their efforts to increase crab numbers in the short term.

The problem is not the crabs, it's the human race."

Nothing can be done about existing development in the regional watershed, but a moratorium could be effected on all further building on the Chesapeake itself. Now, if you present a local zoning board with the choice of preserving waterfront for the sake of the SAV, or more construction of multi-million dollar properties with the concomittant tax revenue increase - which outcome do you imagine? I highlighted "regulators" because these are the same people who have allowed the destructive development along most of the wetlands on the east coast.

[jack1747]

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/

[Sunpal]

It's outrageous that the attitude is "...we can't make the water any cleaner.  We can't make the grass grow..." Horsepucky!  The other statement, "...crabbers are the easiest target." sums it all up.  They know that it's easier to fight the common joe than take on industry.  At the end of the day they can ease their conscience by claiming, "we tried".  In the long run nothing will be gained by limiting the smallest problem regarding blue crabs, and ignoring the 800 lbs. gorrilla. 

[Pinchy]

In the long run nothing will be gained by limiting the smallest problem regarding blue crabs, and ignoring the 800 lbs. gorrilla. 

The solution is simple: Maryland should enact a gorilla season.

[Sunpal]

When did Maryland enact a gorilla season?

Yesterday: No females and only as many as you can fit in a bushel basket.

[tattoo]

 

[madcrabber1113]

Nothing can be done about existing development in the regional watershed, but a moratorium could be effected on all further building on the Chesapeake itself. Now, if you present a local zoning board with the choice of preserving waterfront for the sake of the SAV, or more construction of multimillionaire dollar properties with the concomitant tax revenue increase - which outcome do you imagine? I highlighted "regulators" because these are the same people who have allowed the destructive development along most of the wetlands on the east coast.

That's sounds wonderful but if nothing is done about the rampant use of fertilizers,pesticides etc. on the many farms in the watershed little will change.At least developers are forced to build sediment ponds etc. to contain sediment etc. on their site.Nothing is done on the farm land and every year millions of tons of manure ,man made fertilizer,pesticides,herbicides and sediment wash straight into the watershed.It is easy to blame the greedy developer because most think they are morally bankrupt but financially rich at the expense of the downtrodden.I can't think of many things that are produced in this or any other country that are intrinsically good for the environment even paper has nasty byproducts.We have land on a river and a creek.I have watched the creek go from 6 ft. deep to 1 ft. in 6 years with no development within 18 miles the only culprits are the many farms that go unchecked to pollute unabated.Everything every one of us does effects the environment none of us are without some culpability in this matter.

[jack1747]

one thing i dont understand is there is a 100 foot set back for building but fields can be plowed right up to the drainage ditch 

[horsefly]

That's sounds wonderful but if nothing is done about the rampant use of fertilizers,pesticides etc. on the many farms in the watershed little will change.At least developers are forced to build sediment ponds etc. to contain sediment etc. on their site.Nothing is done on the farm land and every year millions of tons of manure ,man made fertilizer,pesticides,herbicides and sediment wash straight into the watershed.It is easy to blame the greedy developer because most think they are morally bankrupt but financially rich at the expense of the downtrodden.I can't think of many things that are produced in this or any other country that are intrinsically good for the environment even paper has nasty byproducts.We have land on a river and a creek.I have watched the creek go from 6 ft. deep to 1 ft. in 6 years with no development within 18 miles the only culprits are the many farms that go unchecked to pollute unabated.Everything every one of us does effects the environment none of us are without some culpability in this matter.

EXACTLY  BTW,we have the same problem here too, hog farmers, chicken farmers(I think the run off or effluent is the worse from them) but then we got the guys who crop dust/spray starting in May, then in late June to/thru end of July. Then it rains within 3-5 days, 3 to 5 days after that, it gets sucked up into shedder system and we come in to crabs with claws up in surrender. Madcrabber, thanks, you just made me madder (no pun intended)

[madcrabber1113]

Sorry,just one of the myriad of reasons I'm a Madcrabber! 

[horsefly]

What would change the tone of this, would be crab reports From Recs, part timers, full timers etc, especially from guys middle bay upward. If it is good then, we wont be on this topic(maybe) and the place would look like if KC ran into a tractor trailer full of smilies

[Pinchy]

That's sounds wonderful but if nothing is done about the rampant use of fertilizers,pesticides etc. on the many farms in the watershed little will change.

This is correct. But it doesn't absolve shorefront and wetland development from the resulting destruction to SAV.

It is easy to blame the greedy developer because most think they are morally bankrupt but financially rich at the expense of the downtrodden.

This is a non sequitur - whether the developer is greedy or altruistic, morally bankrupt or scrupulously principled - shorefront and wetland development destroys SAV and aquatic breeding grounds and harms the reproductive capability of the Chesapeake.

[horsefly]

Pinchy, while you are on the aquatic growth subject, how would you or anyone else propose to bring back eel grasses etc that are so important for Blue Crabs and other species???

[madcrabber1113]

This is correct. But it doesn't absolve shorefront and wetland development from the resulting destruction to SAV.
 This is a non squirter - whether the developer is greedy or altruistic, morally bankrupt or scrupulously principled - shorefront and wetland development destroys SAV and aquatic breeding grounds and harms the reproductive capability of the Chesapeake.

Never said it didn't but there are many more culprits at work here.It's just easy to blame this group over another because of their perceived wealth and moral bankruptcy.That is my one and only point.Until such time as we get a hold on all of the perpetrators we will achieve nothing. 

[Pinchy]

Until such time as we get a hold on all of the perpetrators we will achieve nothing.

This is also a non sequitur. If we "get a hold" of 10% of the pollutants entering the Bay, that is much better than nothing. If we enact a building moratorium on 30% of shoreline development, that is also far better than nothing. We're not playing an all-or-nothing game. In practical politics, incremental steps can point to eventual significant gain. This is why special-interest groups demand "50," expect to realistically get "25," but are then pleased to finally achieve "15." After which the battle resumes; so will go the struggle to preserve what's left of the Chesapeake.

...on the aquatic growth subject, how would you or anyone else propose to bring back eel grasses etc that are so important for Blue Crabs and other species???

Horsefly, how to regain the SAV is a problem for far better minds than my own.

[madcrabber1113]

This is also a non sequitur. If we "get a hold" of 10% of the pollutants entering the Bay, that is much better than nothing. If we enact a building moratorium on 30% of shoreline development, that is also far better than nothing. We're not playing an all-or-nothing game. In practical politics, incremental steps can point to eventual significant gain. This is why special-interest groups demand "50," expect to realistically get "25," but are then pleased to finally achieve "15." After which the battle resumes; so will go the struggle to preserve what's left of the Chesapeake.

Horsefly, how to regain the SAV is a problem for far better minds than my own.

What pollutants are you referring to?I took a class offered by the state to teach how each of us can help reduce our impact on the bay.The number one polluter by far according to the state are farms.Development within the critical area has been haulted in my area.I know some people who applied for and got permits to build decks on their property that fell in the critical area.They built their decks and then some group came in sued the local county building department and had their permits overturned.Now these people who followed what they thought was the law have to at their expense remove their decks.Those decks would have zero impact on the bay or it's grasses.To just take away peoples property rights is unamerican.Towns,farms,sub-divisions etc. far from the water have just as much of an impact on the bay water quality.Everything ends up downstream.There is far more impervious surfaces,septic systems,sewage treatment plants away from the water for the simple fact that there is only so much real estate close to it.The only way to do anything about run off of any sort from any location is to find a way to somehow keep it from entering the water shed untreated.That is a task greater than I can conceive of.Stop baiting me or I will have to kick some cyber a--! 

[jack1747]

I saw a presentation awhile back about a very big pollution problem is the hobby horse farms..  They all have piles of manure that are open to the elements and most have small streams on the property.  The owners don't have the foggiest of how to handle the manure.

[Pinchy]

What pollutants are you referring to?I took a class offered by the state to teach how each of us can help reduce our impact on the bay.The number one polluter by far according to the state are farms...

Fertilizer runoff from farms is the primary pollutant to which I was referring. You know about fertilizer's impact (algae blooms, oxygen deprivation, the water becomes hypoxic and causes biota kill.) In addition, pesticides and herbicides take a heavy toll. A chemical doesn't have to be non-organic or toxic per se to act as a pollutant. Non of this excludes the primary damage inflicted by wetland development.

I saw a presentation awhile back about a very big pollution problem is the hobby horse farms..  They all have piles of manure that are open to the elements and most have small streams on the property.  The owners don't have the foggiest of how to handle the manure.

Similar situation exists on the Shrewsbury River in North NJ. At times you can see large islands of brown foam which have come off the surrounding horse farms. I didn't know what it was until PHILLY JOE explained it to me.

[madcrabber1113]

Fertilizer runoff from farms is the primary pollutant to which I was referring. You know about fertilizer's impact (algae blooms, oxygen deprivation, the water becomes hypoxic and causes biota kill.) In addition, pesticides and herbicides take a heavy toll. A chemical doesn't have to be non-organic or toxic per se to act as a pollutant. Non of this excludes the primary damage inflicted by wetland development.
 Similar situation exists on the Shrewsbury River in North NJ. At times you can see large islands of brown foam which have come off the surrounding horse farms. I didn't know what it was until PHILLY JOE explained it to me.

What is your definition of a wetland?That word used to mean something now it can encompass a dry ditch 5 miles from the water.Where is this rampant wetland development happening?I don't see it anywhere in my travels on the bay.I do see old cottages that were built 50 years ago being re-habbed or torn down to make way for a new house being built where the old one once stood.What do you do?Take the land from the people?