Download Eliminating Overfishing in the Chesapeake Bay

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Eliminating Overfishing in
the Chesapeake Bay
Strategizing and Implementing Effective Policy-Making
Senior Seminar
04/22/2013
Susan R. Hockman
Much of the life in waters of the Chesapeake Bay is diminishing as a result of industrial
overfishing and pollution. Many species in waters elsewhere are also at risk of extinction
resulting from this constant overexploitation and degradation of ecosystems. Without many of
these species that are now endangered, negative effects on both the environment and
industry will in turn be immense. If no action is taken and overfishing continues at its current
rates, both aquatic habitats and fisheries will fail. Currently, we are facing a world without fish
in forty years. 90% of sea species have either been eliminated thus far or are facing threats of
endangerment. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to evaluate effectiveness of policy-making
and regulation of overfishing.
Introducing the Issue:
For many years, overfishing has been recognized as one of the planet’s major
environmental catastrophes. Accounts of fishing in history are vast, in turn making it a
popular and acceptable activity in today’s world. With years of fishing, industries
worldwide continue to maximize their benefits and profits by catching as much fish as
possible. Although this economic standpoint can be understood, overfishing is
extremely harmful to our oceans and has greatly contributed to the loss of marine life.
Ocean Sentry, an environmental site, says “if overfishing continues at this rate, certain
fish will have become extinct by the year 2048” (Ocean Sentry 2009). It is important to
immediately recognize the problems associated with overfishing in order to implement
effective policy-making; these problems and solutions reflect what is happening in the
Chesapeake Bay, as overfishing has become a significant issue there.
As vast amounts of species are declining in their natural habitats, we can
respectively place the blame on humanity. Industrialization and the development of
fisheries, as well as steady growth in human population can be held responsible for the
overfishing existing today. An article by Joe Satran assesses the latest stock of Bluefin
tuna, a species prevalent in the Chesapeake Bay. Satran says the stock assessment “pins
some of the blame for the precipitous decline of fishermen’s propensity for taking
juvenile tuna out of the water before they’ve had a chance to reproduce” (Satran 2013).
In addition, as population growth continues to increase in developing countries, the
reliance on fish as a staple food remains heavy. Nick Nuttall informs “fishing [as]
central to the livelihood of food security of 200 million people, especially in the
developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary
source of protein” (Nuttall 2012). Bluefin tuna stock assessment and the demand for
fish exemplify the underlying cause of overfishing: interference of environmentally
sound oceans brought on by humans.
Overfishing remains a challenging, presenting several problems to the world’s
environment and socio-economic stability. Among these are three issues: marine
environmental degradation and species endangerment/extinction, global fishery and
economic collapse, and reaching a societal equilibrium between environmentalists and
capitalists.
Marine Degradation:
The continuation of overfishing brings environmental degradation to many
aquatic ecosystems. Fisheries have not accounted for the vast numbers of aquatic
species and habitats destroyed from years of excessive fishing. The collapse of the
Atlantic Canadian cod fishery in the 1990s is a great example of what results after years
of overfishing. Although this collapse is “one of the most commonly cited examples in
the world of overfishing” (Fisheries & Oceans Canada 2009), it is still not utilized as a
role model or reflection of what to change for our oceans. Overfishing continues to be
ruthless, despite its history and downfalls. Recently, with technological innovation,
“advances in fishing equipment and methods and increasingly large vessels have made
it possible for commercial fishing operations to capture more fish [than ever]”
(Fisheries & Oceans Canada 2009). Not only have fisheries been destroying our marine
environment for almost one hundred years, overfishing is also now more prevalent than
ever.
The issue of the “tragedy of the commons” is widespread among fisheries
worldwide; fish, a commonly shared resource, are becoming owned commodities,
diminished in numbers and exploited daily. As property rights and migration patterns of
fish species are difficult to decipher, fish have in turn become a common property
resource. When fish are common property resources, it means they are owned and
managed collectively by industries. Because fish species are being depleted and
exhausted due to ownership, they have fallen victim to the tragedy of the commons.
Fishing industries such as the Omega Protein plant in Reedville, Virginia have
recently become increasingly successful and competitive. Greenpeace says “the Omega
Protein company has become the symbol of corporate greed and excess in the fishing
community” (Greenpeace 2013). The competitive game between fisheries such as
Omega Protein has distorted the important mindset to keep fish populations high and
intact. Greenpeace adds, since overfishing began taking tolls on the environment, “onethird of the world’s coral reefs are destroyed, 75 % of marine stocks are depleted and 90%
of predatory stocks between North American and the United Kingdom have declined”
(Greenpeace 2013).
Aside from global overfishing, the Chesapeake Bay region is also suffering from
resource exploitation. According to an article on overfishing of oysters, the Chesapeake
Bay “now has an estimated 1% of the former amount of oysters” (See the Sea 2004).
With fisheries under great financial pressure to catch as much as possible, our oceans,
coastal environments, communities, fisheries and businesses are facing collapse. Recent
studies reveal that large predatory fish such as Bluefin tuna, marlin, and bluesharks
(commonly found in the Bay) are nearly extinct. Satran addresses a recent assessment of
Bluefin tuna populations, indicating “that overfishing has pushed the stock of the giant
fish down by a shocking 96.4 percent” (Satran 2013). At this point, if we expect to save
fisheries and fish species, we cannot be fishing at these rates.
Consequences for Industry:
With the rapid growth and steady demand for fish, the importance of minimizing
fishing is overlooked. This constant business drive to catch and own as much fish as
possible is leading the global fish market and economy towards catastrophe. For many
years, fishing has been a crucial element of survival, offering primary sources of protein
as well as profit worldwide. According to the World Bank, “as fishing is often the
livelihood of last resort and fish often the only source of animal protein for the poor, the
state of the world’s fisheries can be critical in the fight against poverty in many parts of
the developing world” (The World Bank 2013). Fish provide the staple food in
developing countries. Africa, among other developing countries, holds heavy reliance
on fishing because alternate sustenance is extremely scarce. With the continuation of
overfishing, food supply for many individuals is threatened. Also, once fish species are
removed to the point of extinction, there will be nothing left for fisheries to fish.
A Balancing Act:
A major obstacle when working towards solving the overfishing issue is
reaching an agreement between environmentalists and entrepreneurs. Convincing
fisheries such as Omega Protein to limit fishing in the Chesapeake Bay and providing
understanding about the consequences of overfishing is challenging. Industry does not
want to reduce fishing, which would minimize profit. Although difficult, it is crucial to
inform fishermen and business about the problem, explaining that sustainability for our
oceans is necessary and long overdue; without reduction in fishing there will be nothing
left for fishermen to fish. The “balancing act” between satisfying the environment and
industry is a vital component when working towards ending overfishing.
The Bay is in Danger
Currently, the Chesapeake Bay located off the Atlantic Ocean is suffering from
overfishing. For example, recent research published in Marine Ecology Progress Series
reveals “the oyster population in the upper Chesapeake Bay has been estimated to be
0.3% of population levels of early 1800s due to overfishing” (Md Solomons 2011).
Oysters, among many other marine species in the Bay are continuing to decline in
numbers. The issues associated with overfishing will continue to affect the Chesapeake
Bay immensely if managing and regulation does not occur.
Reviewing Literature- Problems and Proposed Solutions:
There is scientific agreement that overfishing is causing a major decline in
aquatic habitats and species populations. Viewpoints on overfishing vary, ranging from
its history, problems and solutions.
Overfishing has been a serious issues occurring for years in water bodies
worldwide. In Historic Overfishing Led to Modern Ocean Problems, Cat Lazaroff
discusses the history of overfishing. Lazaroff identifies overfishing simply as “the cause,
historically and currently, of many of the problems facing coastal ecosystems today”
(Lazaroff 2001). The history of overfishing provides excellent context for current
restoration and management of wildlife, as it contributes a historical background that
structures the issue and offers further research towards policy-making. Years and years
of excessive fishing worldwide have drastically and negatively affected aquatic
ecosystems. In 2001, researchers from the Western Ecological Research Center linked
ecological extinctions of marine life. These extinctions revealed historic evidence of
fishing overtime, allowing for recognition of the current state of fisheries. Dr. Jeremy
Jackson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego shares, “every marine
ecosystem I have ever studied during my entire 30 year career looks unrecognizably
different from the way it used to be” (Lazaroff 2001). Studying ecosystems overtime
has led scientists to the assumption that overfishing is the cause of rapid degradation in
our existing aquatic environments. Today, “90% of the large fish that many of us love
to eat…have been fished out since large scale industrial fishing began in the 1950s”
(Greenpeace 2013).
In the journal article The Problem of Overfishing, Iain Murray and Roger Abbott
quote “Overfishing is international in scope, has been going on since the end of the
Second World War, and is generally caused by bad government policy” (Murray &
Abbott 2012). Many believe a potential solution to overfishing is to implement
government policy that brings positive results for the environment and industry. The
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) sees overfishing as an economic and environmental
obstacle, explaining, “Gathering as many fish as possible may say like a profitable
practice, but overfishing has serious consequences” (WWF 2013). Also according to the
WWF, “More than 85 percent of the world’s fisheries have been pushed to or beyond
their biological limits and are in need of strict management plans to restore them”
(WWF 2013). Individuals from the WWF agree that consequences from overfishing are
drastic and prolonging, placing a need for strict management and protection plans for
our oceans. Tim Lauck et. al explain, “the parsimonious assumption is, therefore, that
fishing decreased the resilience of these populations, rendering them more vulnerable to
environmental change” (Lauck et. al 1999). Lauck explains that despite natural changes
brought upon the environment in the past, certain species recently began collapsing
because of fishing.
In the article The Impact of Overfishing on Fish Population, the author describes
overfishing as “what takes take place in a mixed fisheries when the decline (through
fishing) of the originally abundant stocks is not fully compensated for by the
contemporary or subsequent increase of the biomass of other exploitable animals”
(Parven 2013). This idea is related to the tragedy of the commons, as a resource is
continuously exploited without being replenished or accounted for. Michael McCarthy
addresses this tragedy in his article Fishing Industry Falls Victim to the Tragedy of the
Commons. McCarthy states, “Fish are not like wheat; you cannot simply sow them each
year in the sea. Their population dynamics are complex and depend on a range of
factors, not least the age at which they start to breed” (McCarthy 2002). Fish species are
important to the environment; they require special attention to their reproduction rates
and growth size, factors interfered with by overfishing. An article released by the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) exposes statistics on the matter of disappearing sea
life. Collected data from marine scientists, biologists and environmentalists worldwide
infer that “87% of the world’s assessed fish stocks are at the breaking point, classified
as overexploited or fully exploited” (EDF 2013). Another source, environmental
correspondent for The Guardian Fiona Harvey, releases frightening information on
bluefin tuna, an endangered species found in the Northern Pacific and much of the
Chesapeake Bay. She says, “If current trends continue, the species will soon be
functionally extinct in the Pacific” (Harvey 2013).
Fishing is becoming more popular as it offers large profits for fishermen, and as
sources of fish are being depleted and exhausted, the importance of ceasing overfishing
for environmental and industrial benefits is omitted. Although many agree that we need
to end overfishing, many are in favor of keeping business thriving and accessing a main
source of food. To exemplify this concept, an article on The World Trade Organization
and global fisheries sustainability includes “there is, however, a catch: unilateral action
by individual countries is not attractive because fisheries in such countries will suffer
trade disadvantages” (Sumaila et. al 2007). Individual countries, especially those that
are developing, do not want to limit fishing. Limiting fishing would cause a decrease in
trade and sustenance for many of these nations. On the contrary, if overfishing does not
stop, there will be no remaining fisheries or seafood supply for nations that depend on it.
An article released by EcoMerge explains “Today overfishing remains a threat to the
social and economic welfare of many countries but none so more than in developing
island states” (EcoMerge 2013). Without proper interference with overfishing, the
results will affect the circle of life in oceans as well as the social and economic stability
of coastal communities who rely on fish.
After identifying these underlying issues of overfishing, scholars and
practitioners have different views of how to approach the matter. Lee Crockett of the
PEW Charitable Trusts voices his opinion on overfishing in the Chesapeake Bay. He
advocates for what should be enforced by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC). Crockett says, “the commission should embrace the strongest
rebuilding goal on the table: a fourfold increase in the population” (Crockett 2011).
With the help of ASMFC, populations of fish species could potentially be sustained and
revitalized. Subsequently, the ASMFC could relieve environmental stress that is
destroying the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding state waters. Mid-Atlantic ecosystems
support twelve species that are managed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery
Management Council.
An article compiled by a project team for the PEW Charitable Trusts includes,
“Many of the Mid-Atlantic’s depleted populations are making progress under critical
rebuilding plans, and managers need to stay the course” (PEW 2011). Environmental
agencies such as the EDF have recognized overfishing in the Chesapeake Bay,
beginning to construct protection plans, sustainable movements, and management of
aquatic species. The EDF is strategically working to rebuild fisheries “with the best
possible solutions that serve both fishermen and fish so that future generations can
enjoy sustainable seafood, fishermen can continue to fish profitably, and our seas are
healthy and abundant”, says John Mimikakis (Mimikakis 2013). This highlights the
importance of creating an effective, collaborative balance between fishermen and fish.
Curb Growth Overfishing:
In Karl Blankenship’s article Signs of ‘growth overfishing’ seen in Bay’s crab
population, he includes scientist Bill Goldsborough’s proposed solution. Goldsborough
of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) says, “a transition toward a fishery aimed at
curbing growth overfishing could be phased in over years, to prevent dramatic shortterm impacts on watermen” (Blankenship 1998). Those from the CBF believe that
overfishing should be heavily curbed, in turn restoring marine habitats and creating less
of a drastic change for fishermen who must adjust to regulation. By aiming for this
sustainable population goal overtime, Goldsborough theorizes that the effects of
reducing fishing may not be as intense for fisheries and populations relying on seafood.
Appropriately Assess Marine Stocks:
Others believe that by scientifically assessing fish stocks, the status of
overfishing can be evaluated, given the ability of a stock to produce a maximum
sustainable yield (MSY). By evaluating an appropriate number for allowable catch of
marine stocks, we can in turn monitor reproduction and population sizes for oceans.
This methodological evaluation will take years, but is an important equation while
researching solutions for overfishing. Steps towards appropriate numbers of allowable
catch prove that individuals are advocating for more research and monitoring of our
oceans. According to Kenneth Stump from The Ocean Foundation, this methodology
has been proved successful for assessing stocks. Stump states in his article Ignorance is
Not Bliss: New Study on the Status of Unassessed Fish Stocks Underscores Global
Threat Posed by Overfishing, “Using these conventional measures of fisheries
sustainability, Dr. Boris Worm et al. (2009) found that 63% of assessed fish stocks
worldwide have a breeding stock size (“biomass”, denoted as “B”) below the level that
is estimated to produce MSY (B/Bmsy < 0.1), while a separate study by the FAO (2010)
concluded that 32% of globally assessed stocks are overfished (B/Bmsy < 0.5)” (Stump
2012). This evidence given by Stump proves our ability to properly assess fish stocks,
thus moving towards sustainability and protection of marine life.
Open Blue Project:
Sam Schrader’s advocates a solution proposed by a company called “Open Blue”
in the journal article Sustainable Aquaculture: One Possible Solution to Overfishing.
Founded in 2007, Open Blue began breeding and housing fish in a healthier, safer way.
Aside from practicing their aquaculture in deeper waters than other breeders and using
larger pens to reduce stress among fish, “Open Blue also maintains a strong
commitment to providing a reliable and renewable source of healthy fish” (Schrader
2012). Open Blue is one company with a potential solution leading the way towards less
harmful and more sustainable fishing. Schrader says “Open Blue is quickly becoming a
game-changer in the world of aquaculture” (Schrader 2012). Research and assessment
of Open Blue reveals it to be an effective plan. As aquaculture pens are submerged
thirty feet below the surface, fish repopulate healthily, and waste has more room to
naturally disperse instead of collecting in shallow waters and harming species. Open
Blue is one strategy to naturally rebuild healthy and sustainable fish populations.
Catch Shares:
Another idea bringing stability and sustainability to fisheries is introducing catch
shares, a dedicated privilege for fishermen to harvest a specific percentage of a fishery’s
total allowable catch. Mimikakis, leader for the EDF’s ocean recovery program, finds
that after introduction of catch shares in the United States, “fishermen have more stable
and flexible businesses and fisheries are recovering from years of overfishing”
(Mimikakis 2013). Mimikakis’ involvement with fishermen over the years allows him
to recognize whether fisheries benefit from catch shares or not. “EDFish”, a marine sect
of the EDF, plans to achieve financially sustainable ocean conservation. In February of
this year, the “EDFish” organization released an article called Fishermen and Chefs
United: Keep Catch Shares on the Table. Author Matt Rand explains, “Catch shares
have been proven to recover fish populations, increase compliance with catch limits,
reduce waste, stabilize revenue and increase business efficiency” (Rand 2013).
Apparently, “The amount of fish allowed to be caught increased 19% over 10 years of
catch shares” (EDF 2013). Catch shares could significantly lower numbers of harmful
by-catch and waste and substantially increase fleet-wide revenues for fisheries. The
main goals of the EDF are to convince skeptical fishermen about the benefits followed
by using catch shares, to help these fishermen regulate and design programs to
accommodate their needs, to partner with local groups and spread awareness about
catch shares, and to improve the catch share model as a representation of how to end
overfishing internationally.
A scholarly article from Science Magazine asks, “Can catch shares prevent
fisheries collapse?” Christopher Costello et. al share, “To test whether catch-share
fishery reforms achieve these hypothetical benefits [associated], we have compiled a
global database of fisheries institutions and catch statistics in 11,135 fisheries from
1950 to 2003” (Costello et. al 2008). This database created understanding, describing
that implementation of catch shares “halts, and even reverses, the global trend toward
widespread collapse” (Costello et. al 2008). Researchers from the National Academy of
Sciences in the USA believe that catch shares “may provide stronger incentives for
ecological stewardship than conventional fisheries management” (Carpenter 2009).
After analyzing fisheries before and after the introduction of catch shares, positive
benefits from catch shares were seen among nations and ocean basins.
Among the following solutions, direction management, rebuilding plans,
curbing overfishing, assessing stocks, project “Open Blue” and catch shares, scientists
and researchers agree that direct management of fisheries is currently the most
promising option with immediate effects. In a Science journal article, authors Botsford,
Castilla and Peterson relay, “transforming the management process to reduce the
influence of pressure for greater harvest holds more immediate promise” (Botsford et. al
1997).
Environmental Agencies- What Action is Being Taken?
As overfishing remains a prominent issue in the Chesapeake Bay, agencies such
as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF) are persistently working to effectively manage, protect, and sustain
fisheries in the bay. These agencies can successfully be compared in their strategies,
progress, and effectiveness. This comparison is important because it can highlight
which organizations are making progress in solving the overfishing problem. In
particular, the ASMFC and CBF are greatly important to the Chesapeake Bay; without
them or replacements, the Bay would lose absolutely all protection also causing it to fail
as a working ecosystem.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:
Formed by fifteen Atlantic coast states in 1942, the ASMFC is an organization
serving as “a deliberative body, coordinating the conservation and management of the
states shared near shore fishery resources—for sustainable use” (ASMFC 2013). The
ASMFC manages fisheries throughout the states of ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA,
DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA and FL. Many believe that species native to the bay are the
sole responsibility of the ASMFC, as it manages and protects fish in these state waters.
The commission “serves as a forum for the states to collectively address fisheries issues
under the premise that as a group, using a cooperative approach, they can achieve more
than they could as individuals” (ASMFC 2013). By protecting particular states on the
East Coast, the overfishing problem in the Chesapeake Bay can be addressed
appropriately as a problem for the entire Atlantic coast. In 2012, the ASMFC created a
vision to create healthy, self-sustaining populations for all Atlantic coast fish species by
2015. Many of these species in the Chesapeake Bay are endangered, and will not be
sustained by 2015; it may take many more years for the ASMFC to reach a solution for
overfishing.
Although the ASMFC is currently working towards sustainability in our oceans,
it only started doing so in recent years. With the continuous spike of overfishing, the
ASMFC has finally recognized the need to address it. This issue is so contemporary,
and policy-making has been avoided for so long, that the problem with overfishing in
the Chesapeake Bay cannot be immediately corrected by the ASMFC. Governor of
Maryland, Martin O’Malley, releases a statement regarding a decision made by the
ASMFC; “‘Today, the most important fish in the sea—the Atlantic menhaden—
received the recognition it deserves” (O’Malley 2013). Meena Hussain reports in her
journal article on ASMFC Votes to Save Menhaden, “This victory been a long time
coming finally putting real limits on one of our last uncontrolled industrial fisheries”
(Hussain 2011). According to an article from the CCA-Maine Annual Meeting on the
menhaden species, “CCA has been fighting this for 20 years as Atlantic menhaden have
always been one of the most important species in the ocean to CCA” (CCA 2013).
These statements alone prove that overfishing has gone unmanaged for too long, and
species such as the endangered menhaden are receiving vital protection that can longer
be put on hold. Perhaps the reason for the ASMFC’s waiting period without taking
action was because overfishing was not as big of a threat to our environment as it has
been more recent years. The ASMFC could have recognized the importance of this
issue early on, preventing the current worsened quality of our marine environments.
Environmental organizations and are learning about marine species via research
and technology. One species in particular, the menhaden of the Atlantic Ocean, is one
among many being overfished in the Chesapeake Bay. Recently, the ASMFC has
implemented law enforcement (i.e. the Interstate Fisheries Management Program) and
amendments to deal with this issue on menhaden exploitation. Their drive and initiative
to sustain the menhaden population can also be applied to other endangered species.
According to the website for the ASMFC, addendums and amendments have been
added to the commission since 2006. In October 2006, “a five-year annual cap on
reduction fishery harvests in Chesapeake bay of 109,020 metric tons” (ASMFC 2013),
this number pulled from an average catch in harvests between 2001 and 2005. A ‘law
enforcement committee’ enforces laws and policies for the ASMFC. This committee is
“comprised of representatives from each of the Commission’s participating states and
the District of Columbia, as well as members of the NOAA Fisheries Service, the U.S.
Coast Guard and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
By studying harvesting practices over a four year span, the ASMFC has been
able to accurately place a cap on permitted catch allowance; this cap extended until
2010. ‘Addendum V’, implemented in November 2011, established a “new fishing
mortality threshold and target (based on maximum spawning potential or MSP)”
(ASMFC 2013). This threshold and target planned to increase stock abundance and
reproductive biomass of fish. After subtle improvements made by the ASMFC from
2006-2010, they were able to successfully create an amendment establishing an actual
number for total allowable catch (TAC); this establishes a “170,800 [metric tons]”
(ASMFC 2013) that are allowed to be harvested annually. Any fisheries that exceed the
TAC have to replenish these numbers during the following year of harvesting.
Decisions such as these allow for the ASMFC to successfully move towards halting
overfishing, also drawing fishermen away from fishing overages and exceeded TACs.
Environmentalists and other activists working to end overfishing are growing
exceedingly anxious about the ASMFC’s actions. A group called the “Menhaden
Defenders” reveals the announcement of the new stock assessment for menhaden in
2010. After reviewing this assessment for fishery stocks in the Atlantic Ocean, many
environmental advocates urged the ASMFC to halt overfishing. In 2011, the ASMFC
passed a movement to end overfishing, delaying action on actually implementing a
cutback in harvest amounts. Although the ASMFC made moves to end overfishing, they
have since been hesitant and cautious about regulation since it involves satisfying the
environmental and economic side. By 2012, the ASMFC found it increasingly difficult
to make decisions on how and when to cut back fishing. Challenges arise with
regulation on overfishing when jobs and profit in the fishing industry are lost. Therefore,
undecidedly, the ASMFC turned to the public by May 2012 for commentary and
opinion. These notions were then compiled and drafted into Amendment II to the
fishery management plan for menhaden. The ASMFC seems to be working diligently to
address this issue, but are lacking the ideas and motivation necessary to drive
sustainability. Hesitant about policy-making, the ASMFC’s turn to the public for
answers questions the validity and confidence of their approach.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation
By 1967, a group of businessmen, sailors, waterfowl hunters, and fishermen
collectively chartered the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to be a private sector working
strictly for the Chesapeake Bay. Since the start, the CBF has placed high value on
environmental education. Initially, public concern was also raised about the future of
the Bay, eventually allowing for a seven-year EPA Chesapeake Bay Study. According
to the CBF, this initial study “provided much of the scientific basis for the broad
interstate effort that continues today” (CBF 2013). The CBF utilized research methods
early on to create a seven-year case study for the Bay and its condition. Recognizing the
importance of overfishing, the CBF began to monitor levels of wastewater and
discharge under the new Clean Water Act created in 1972. By the 1990s, the CBF was
well established with educational and sustainability goals, participating in bay clean-up
efforts, pushing for implementation of policy, and more.
Since the CBF represents solely the Chesapeake Bay, they are persistently
working to better the overall life quality of the region. The Chesapeake Bay, considered
a national treasure, is said to be highly productive with proper measurement and
establishment of water quality standards. Aside from overfishing, pollution has also
negatively affected the Bay’s water quality. With strategies of effective management for
overfishing and protection of the water quality put into action, the Chesapeake Bay can
be rejuvenated to its healthy state prior to devastating overfishing. In relation to the
ASMFC, the CBF also set a goal to be achieved by 2015. The CBF hopes to have the
Clean Water Act fully enforced by then improving the bay’s watershed and its
environmental health and productivity. With the help of its Litigation Department, the
CBF uses “carefully chosen legal action as another tool for advancing the restoration
and protection of the Chesapeake Bay, its rivers, lakes, and streams” (CBF 2013).
According to the CBF, litigation is not only purposeful to protect and enforce laws, but
to also “bring about environmentally friendly change within our legal system” (CBF
2013).
The CBF has been fighting for protection of the bay since the 1960’s. Their
extensive drive to sustain the Chesapeake Bay and its inhabitants is exemplified on their
website. For example, the “Chesapeake Bay Foundation- Saving a National Treasure”
website includes a tab entitled ‘How We Save The Bay’. This tab includes methodology
and techniques used by the CBF to restore and maintain the bay; among them are ‘with
advocacy’, ‘in our communities’, ‘through restoration’, ‘with schools’, ‘in the
courtroom’, ‘the issues’, ‘programs and initiatives’, ‘the Chesapeake clean water
blueprint’. The ideas generated by the CBF on how to save the bay involve important
aspects about education, involvement within community, utmost restoration, policy
enforcement, etc. The CBF is working at “local, state, and federal levels for smart,
effective policy that will reduce pollution, restore vital natural systems, and encourage
smart growth in our communities” (CBF 2013). By planting trees and grasses
underwater to increase oyster populations, the CBF plans to restore the bay’s waters.
For the past thirty years, the CBF has offered students a fulfilled watershed education.
Their involvement with the law is also prevalent, as they generate and propose many
ideas and policies for the Chesapeake Bay in the courtroom.
Apart from their increasing active involvement with the bay and its communities,
the CBF is also introducing the possibility of catch shares; a notion previously
mentioned and enacted by the WWF proven to have positive outcomes. Included in the
Chesapeake Bay Journal is an article Maryland considers ‘catch share’ program for
blue crab fishery that explains a concept behind catch shares. “We find the science is
compelling that catch shares help to restore the ecosystems and get fisheries on a path to
profitability and sustainability” (Bay Journal 2010), says administrator for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If the CBF begins proposing catch shares for
the Bay to policy and lawmakers, the effects on the bay could be environmentally and
economically encouraging.
Comparing Efforts: ASMFC vs. CBF
The ASMFC has only recently begun implementing policies that still require
much attention. With plans such as the Interstate Fisheries Management Program
(ISFMP), the ASMFC has hoped to do a number of things; determine priorities for
fisheries, develop and review fishery management, and recommend management
measures to states, regional fisheries, and the federal government. Since 1994, “the
commission became responsible for implementing fishery management requirements
for all Atlantic coast interjurisdictional fisheries under the ISFMP” (ASMFC 2013).
Although intentions seem genuine, the ASMFC must continue working diligently, not
using so much time to recognize solutions for overfishing. Precious time has been
wasted over years; endangered species have limited time to be protected and saved.
Additionally, the ASMFC seems to implement specific policies (i.e. Amendment
II of the Menhaden Fishery Management Plan) without confidence, eventually deciding
to cut portions of policies, such as their suggested quotas and TACs for harvesting
stocks. Joshua Wrigley describes this in his article ASMFC Cuts Menhaden Quotas:
Hard Facts and Hard TACs for Industry, “Fishing pressure since 2008, according to the
ASMFC’s Amendment 2 of the Menhaden Fishery Management Plan, has reduced the
population to a mere 8% of its [MSP]” (Wrigley 2012). ASMFC formulates potentially
effective ideas; however concepts such as Amendment 2 fall short, leaving fisheries and
environmentalists skeptical and fearful.
Since 1967, the CBF has been strategizing diverse ideas, involving vast
individuals such as community members in their project to save the bay, aggressively
working to enforce vital protection laws for the Chesapeake Bay, and providing
education to many via their website, blogs, and more. In Deb Kiner’s article
Chesapeake Bay Foundation names new Pennsylvania director, she reveals the
announcement of Harry Campbell becoming the new executive director for the CBF
office in Pennsylvania. Campbell shares, “‘For decades, CBF and our Pennsylvania
partners and members have worked to improve and protect our waters by advocated for
science-based policies, spearheading efforts to provide assistance for farmers and
communities, providing educational opportunities for students and leaders, and
implementing on-the-ground restoration efforts…”’ (Kiner 2013). This reassuring note
from Harry Campbell excellently addresses attempts made by the CBF to end
overfishing. With the continuation of fully committed policy-making, involvement with
fisheries and environmentalists, educational efforts, and community projects, the CBF
may be able to restore the quality of the Bay that has worsened because of overfishing
and pollutants.
What is the Meaning of “Effective”?
The future of the Chesapeake Bay lies in the hands of organizations such as the
ASMFC and the CBF. Those who work towards bettering the overall quality of the bay
and surrounding waters understand the necessity for effective policy-making.
Realistically, when something is effective, it produces a desired or intended result. In
the dilemma of overfishing, the word “effective” is difficult to define. Overfishing and
species reduction has been occurring for years. Only in recent years, as the issue
reached its worst, has action been taken to mediate overfishing. In order to be effective,
actual changes must be made to the state of our aquatic ecosystems.
It is apparent that in order to save populations of vital species in waters such as
the Chesapeake Bay, policies must be implemented to reduce the number of allowed
annual catch of fish by fishermen. As environmental agencies such as the CBF work to
sustain the bay’s quality, involvement with law enforcement is crucial; the government
has underlying power to protect our oceans while keeping businessmen and fishermen
in mind. Once overfishing is reduced and fish populations are reproduced in large,
sustainable quantities, then effectiveness has been achieved. Once rapidly declined fish
species (menhaden, Bluefin, etc.) are replenished to an appropriate number based on
their habitat, then effectiveness has been achieved. Restoring marine habitats such as
those in the Chesapeake Bay is complex, as it will take years of monitoring and
protection; with excessive overfishing and no regulation measures in place until
recently, the expectation of completely revitalizing our oceans is low.
After reviewing literature on the problem, assessing possible solutions, and
comparing efforts contributed by the CBF and ASMFC, it is evident that there has not
been enough policy-making or environmental protection for overfishing. Although the
CBF is well aware of the issue, it is still in the process of brainstorming potential
resolutions. The ASMFC is also a vital organization for protection of the Chesapeake
Bay, as it focuses on managing waters on the East Coast. Like the CBF, the ASMFC is
aware of the tragic situation but still not doing enough to solve the equation. Effective
policy-making that produces positive results for the environment and industry can be
achieved by the CBF and ASMFC via persistence and immediate action. The problem
with overfishing can no longer be overlooked or ignored, and must be dealt with
properly and effectively if we expect to have fisheries in the future. Years down the line,
in hopes that policies have been implemented and aquatic life is thriving again, work of
the ASMFC and CBF will be considered effective.
Summary:
With the issue of overfishing underway, species continue to decline. With the
continuation of constant exploitation of marine life performed by large industries,
fisheries will eventually collapse in the near future. Once a fish species becomes extinct,
fisheries will transition to fishing others; fishermen will have nothing left to fish once
all marine species are extinct. The struggle between environmentalists and
entrepreneurs is persistent, resulting in dispute and disagreement. Environmentalists
fear for the harm to the environment, entrepreneurs fear for the collapse of industry, and
developing countries fear for the loss of a staple food supply. There are many aspects to
this complex complication that require exceptional attention and regard.
The Chesapeake Bay region, an area suffering from constant overfishing and
environmental degradation, is among many urgently calling for help. With no action
taken, the quality of the Chesapeake will continue to worsen, and in turn will affect
surrounding habitats nearby. Once one fishery fails, the reliance on the remainders
becomes heavier; fishermen seek out other locations to fish from and marine life around
the bay will continue to deplete. This domino effect of overfishing and destroying
natural ecosystems needs to be discontinued. By understanding how effectiveness
works, in which there is a preferred outcome for overfishing, the CBF and ASMFC
could become agencies responsible for saving the Chesapeake Bay. As the Chesapeake
Bay is managed primarily under the CBF and ASMFC, it is extremely important for
these organizations to take part in effectively reducing overfishing. With effective
policy-making that ensures the protection of species such as the menhaden and Bluefin
tuna, the Bay is offered a more promising future.
Works Cited:

"Overfishing- A global disaster." Overfishing.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2013.

"Threats: Overfishing." World Wildlife Fund. WWF, n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2013.

Sumaila, Ussif, Ahmed Khan, et al, and . "The World Trade Organization and
global fisheries sustainability." ScienceDirect. N.p., 31 Aug 2007. Web. 22 Apr
2013.

Lauck, Tim, Colin Clark, et al, and . "Implementing the Precautionary Principle
in Fisheries Management Through Marine Reserves." Ecological Society of
America. S72-S78 (1998): n. page. Print.

Murray, Iain, and Roger Abbott. "Give a Man a Fish."Competitive Enterprise
Institute. (2012): n. page. Print.

Parven, A., T. Haque, and et al. "The Impact of Overfishing on Fish Population:
The Concept of Overfishing, Types of Overfishing & How Do We Know
Overfishing Takes Place?." Aquafind. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr 2013.

EDF, . "Overfishing puts sea life on the brink." Environmental Defense Fund.
(2013): n. page. Print.

Harvey, Fiona. "Overfishing causes Pacific bluefin tuna numbers to drop
96%." TheGuardian. (2013): n. page. Print.

McCarthy, Michael. "Fishing Industry Falls Victim to the Tragedy of the
Commons." CommonDreams. (2002): n. page. Print.

EcoMerge, . "Economic and Social Effects."PortlandStateUniversity. (2013): n.
page. Print.

ASMFC, . "About Us." Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commision. (2013): n.
page. Print.

Crockett, Lee. "Overfishing 101: A Small Fish With Big Problems." PEW
Charitable Trusts. (2011): n. page. Print.

Blankenship, Karl. "Signs of 'growth overfishing' seen in Ba'ys crab
population." Bay Journal. (1998): n. page. Print.

Stump, Kenneth. "Ignorance is Not Bliss: New Study on the Status of
Unassessed Fish Stocks Underscores Global Threat Posed by
Overfishing." Ocean Foundation. (2012): n. page. Print.

Schrader, Sam. "Sustainable Aquaculture One Possible Solution to
Overfishing." Living Ocean. (2012): n. page. Print.

PEW, . "Campaign to End Overfishing in the Mid-Atlantic."the PEW Charitable
Trusts. (2011): n. page. Print.

Mimikakis, John. "Ending Overfishing is Vital to Our Future: A Reminder as
Congress Reviews the Magnuson-Stevens Act." EDFish. (2013): n. page. Print.

Rand, Matt. "Fisherman and Chefs United: Keep Catch Shares On The
Table." EDFish. (2013): n. page. Print.

O'Malley, Martin. "Statement for Maryland Governor O'Malley Regarding
ASMFC's Menhaden Decision."AIFRB. (2013): n. page. Print.

CCA Maine, . "(ASMFC)Menhaden Board voted to implement a 20% reduction
in menhaden harvest starting in 2013." CCA-Maine Annual Meeting. (2013): n.
page. Print.

Hussain, Meena. "ASMFC Votes to Save Menhaden."GreenPeace. (2011): n.
page. Print.

CBF, . "Our History." Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (2013): n. page. Print.

Kiner, Deb. "Chesapeake Bay Foundation names new Pennsylvania
director." CentralPA. (2013): n. page. Print.

Wrigley, Joshua. "ASMFC Cuts Menhaden Quotas: Hard Facts and Hard TACs
for Industry." (2012): n. page. Print.

Ocean Sentry, . "Overfishing: Oceans are Dying." Ocean Sentry. (2009): n.
page. Print.

Greenpeace, . "Overfishing." Greenpeace. (2013): n. page. Print.

Satran, Joe. "Pacific Bluefin Tuna Overfishing Has Led to 96 Percent Population
Reduction, Study Says."Huffington Post. (2013): n. page. Print.

Fisheries & Oceans Canada, . "Global Consequences of Overfishing." (2012): n.
page. Print.

See the Sea, . "Overfishing." SeetheSea.org. (2004): n. page. Print.

Solomons, Md. "Chesapeake Oyster Population Less Than One Percent of
Historic Levels- Overfishing, disease, and habitat loss have led to continued
declines in Maryland's portion of the Bay." Center for Environmental Science.
(2011): n. page. Print.

Costello, Christopher. "Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse." Science.
(2008): n. page. Print.

Essington, Timothy. "Ecological indicators display reduced variation in North
American catch share fisheries." Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science
of the United States of America. (2009): n. page. Print.

Botsford, Louis, Castilla, Juan, Peterson, Charles. "The Management of
Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems." Science. (2008): n. page. Print.