THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, December 7, 1994 TAG: 9412060008
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By JOSEPH H. MAROON and WILLIAM GOLDSBOROUGH
LENGTH: Medium: 68 lines
The politics of fishing was demonstrated recently when the Virginia Marine Resources Commission considered a proposal for a scientific study of the food web of Chesapeake Bay.
The study was proposed under the sponsorship of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to explore the repercussions for other fish species of the commercial harvest of menhaden in the Bay.
This kind of multispecies interaction is widely recognized as an area needing further study, and it was assumed that such a study would be useful to decision-makers who manage Virginia's Bay fisheries.
Nevertheless, the proposal was turned down by the commission, primarily as a result of opposition by the menhaden industry. This controversy is a case study of how shortsighted thinking can undermine effective, long-term fisheries management.
The commercial menhaden fishery takes more than 200 million pounds of menhaden annually from Virginia Bay waters, more than 20 times the catch of all other finfish species combined.
A catch of this magnitude from a relatively small geographical area is highly significant when one considers that menhaden are the key food source for many other commercially and recreationally valuable species including striped bass, bluefish and weakfish.
The proposed study would examine these interactions by constructing a computer model of the portion of the food web centered on menhaden.
The model would provide a first-cut analysis of the food web, indicate whether this area warranted further study and suggest directions for additional research. The objective of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in sponsoring the study was to advance scientific understanding of the Bay system.
Apparently the menhaden industry did not share this objective, because it lobbied hard to block the proposed study. It claimed the study would be biased science and an attack on the industry.
Neither is true. In fact, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has always been guided by the principles of good science and independent representation of the Bay's interests.
Furthermore, a respected institution with similar guiding principles, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, supported the study. The industry's intent to kill the study rather than provide constructive criticism became clear when its representative admitted that he could not foresee ever supporting a study of this nature.
VMRC Commissioner William Pruitt and others on the commission, to their credit, indicated that they felt it would be a good study and would not be biased. The reason given for turning down the proposal was concern about the future of the proposed source of funding, the Saltwater Fishing License Fund, if it became embroiled in a controversy. While on one level this might seem reasonable, the decision meant that a ``created'' controversy deprived the commission of much-needed scientific data.
The menhaden industry clearly overreacted to a proposal that was not and was never intended to be a threat to it. The industry itself depends on a healthy Bay food web, and ultimately the ability to maintain this system depends on having the best information possible about how it works. Studies like the one proposed must be undertaken to provide that information. MEMO: Mr. Maroon is Virginia executive director of Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Mr. Goldsborough is fisheries scientist with CBF.
by CNB