|
by Laurie Schreiber
At a DMR meeting earlier this month, the consensus among about two dozen harvesters present was that the overall health of the bay is fine, and that any plan will only end up driving out harvesters of worms, clams, hand-dug mussels, and other commercially viable species. They said problems with water quality are due to shoreside development, not to age-old fisheries. The harvesters went on to say that any downturn in species population is part of the natural cycle, which, in effect, regulates the industry. Harvesters wanted to know why Taunton Bay was being “picked on” when it was in relatively good shape compared with other, more developed parts of the coast. They said ”special interest groups” were cozied up to legislators to create this situation, which they referred to as a “cloak and dagger” operation and a ”conspiracy.” “I want to know who the enemy is here,” said one man. DMR scientist John Sowles was exasperated toward the end of the session. “I’m really trying to get your input, whether you believe it or not,” Sowles said. Harvesters zeroed in on the prospect of closures and quotas as the target of their anger. Basically, they said there is no need for closures or quotas, the fishery regulates itself, and that any “test” closure could be done in an existing closed area. “I don’t deny that closures are being considered by people, including myself,” Sowles said. But he wanted to know if there were any type of rotational, area or time closure that would benefit the fishery and, therefore, the industry. He said a test closure of a small area would allow scientists to begin to determine whether degraded marine populations or ecosystem is due to pollution, and what type of pollution. Or is the population decline due to overharvesting or natural cycles. “Anything the government gets involved in has made a mess,” said one man, echoing the general sentiment. “When closures and quotas come into play, it means there’s a problem. Taunton Bay doesn’t have a problem. It’s Friends of Taunton Bay pushing this.” Sowles stressed the state is required to press on with a plan. But the DMR, he said, is committed to making it as flexible as possible; the process is new, he pointed out, and must accommodate the ability to fix problems as they arise. “Worm diggers have said for years now, just leave us alone,” said one man. “There’s enough mud here to support everybody,” another said. Co-hosted by Sowles, consultant Barbara Arter, and Friends of Taunton Bay, the meeting was designed to discuss options being considered for a Taunton Bay Comprehensive Resource Management Plan, due to the Legislature in early 2007. The legislative mandate is an outgrowth of a 2003 governor’s task force on planning for aquaculture; the task force found the shared use of Maine’s bays as a public resource was a complex subject demanding further consideration. Subsequent legislation included a charge to the state to study bay management. That study, thus far, resulted in pilot projects in Taunton and Muscongus bays, designed to allow all stakeholders to discuss land and water uses. After an initial meeting for all stakeholders last January, hosted by the DMR and State Planning Office, it was decided to hold separate meetings for fishery and non-fishery interests, due to the importance of harvesters in the area. The main reason Taunton was selected as a pilot study, said Sowles, was because of an existing situation that needed to be looked at anyway—a five-year moratorium on dragging that had been extended but was due to expire. The bay also has areas closed to harvesting due to septic leachate. And environmentalists have expressed concern regarding the health of the ecosystem and water quality, including the effects of harvesting. Sowles said the goal was to have the process run as much as possible by stakeholders, with as little legislative oversight as possible. The goals of the plan thus far, he said, were to support human and biological communities, sustainable fisheries and natural resource harvesting, a fully functioning ecosystem, and existing and degraded areas. “The bottom line is, it’s got to be practical,” he said of the plan. “And that’s going to be the real challenge.” Worms, clams, and hand-dug mussels were the main harvest interests at the meeting. There are also five or six lobster fishermen in the bay. Sowles emphasized it was not the state’s position that Taunton Bay is unhealthy. However, he said, there appear to be certain indications of problems; for example, he said, eelgrass, an important nursery and feeding environment, suffered a 90 percent decline in 2001. No blood worms or adult clam worms were found in 20 samples from Hog Bay in October 2005. Sandpiper populations, which were in the thousands 20 years ago, are now down to a few hundred. E. coli contamination closed eight shellfish beds in 2005. There is increasing bank erosion. Harvesters said much of that was part of the natural cycle. “She comes and goes,” one man said of the eelgrass. Sowles pointed out there are also a lot more people living around and using the bay, just in the past decade. And shorefront access has become a problem; right now, getting to the water depends on the good will of private property owners. It’s possible, he said, that towns would be more willing to develop access if there were a plan that would ensure the bay wouldn’t be degraded. But harvesters said their own conservation-minded practices already constitute assurance that the bay will continue to remain healthy. Swings, such as when the worms disappear from one flat or another, are natural, they said; when that happens the wormers go to other flats, and the worms in the first area come back. Laws attempting to regulate the fishery, which must flow with these natural swings, would only end up putting diggers out of business, they said. Closures would put too much pressure on open areas, they said. “The bay has been very sustainable,” said one man. “Conservation happens through free will and nature’s cycle,” said another. Sowles pointed out that a management plan could help work on outside factors, such as shoreside pesticides and fertilizers, that affect the flats. Harvesters agreed pollution should be looked at, and asked for a study, in particular, of the mud off the Franklin aquaculture facility, which they said was “nasty black.” “Water quality is what affects the bay, so if you take care of water quality, that will take care of the bay,” said one man. “Harvesting is not affecting water quality. What is going into the bay, is the question.” Sowles also said Taunton Bay once had thriving fisheries, such as urchins and scallops, which are now out of commission due to over harvesting. “The plan is not targeting harvesters,” he said. “It’s an opportunity.” He asked harvesters to consider releasing landings data so a baseline could be drawn up, which would allow trends to be tracked into the future. Harvesters resisted the request. But one man suggested the industry could release landings for a certain short period of time. In keeping with the goal to have stakeholders guide the process, Sowles asked for volunteers for a review or governance board to oversee the plan, should it be implemented. “The goal is to come up with a balance that won’t put anyone out of business and at the same time protects the bay,” said Sowles. By early October, Sowles said, he plans to have a draft plan read for review at a public meeting before Thanksgiving. The finalized report will go to the legislature. Sowles said he welcomes input; he may be reached at 633-9518. |
