Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.