Pollution is Our Problem
Debate #1 Group C
The Chesapeake Bay was once the glittering, shimmering crown jewel of the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Native Americans, and surely many early European settlers, learned to make their livelihoods from its wealth of resources. There was an apparently endless supply of fish and shellfish in the Bay at the time. However, as time and technology advanced hand-in-hand, the Bay’s creatures started disappearing. Overfishing led to a decline in native populations of many Bay inhabitants: among them was Crassostrea virginica, the Virginia Oyster. However, overfishing is merely a supplementary cause of the decline in the oyster population: topping the list are sedimentation and runoff from pollution.
A decreased population of native oysters is, superficially, a problem only for the few who make their living by selling them. However, this is false: oysters are extremely important filter feeders in the food web of the Chesapeake. Historically, there were enough oysters in the Bay to filter its entire volume of water every 3-4 days. Today’s oyster population, between 1/100 and 1/50 of the abovementioned historic levels, takes almost a year to filter the entire body of water. A healthy oyster population equates to a healthier Bay.
There are steps to creating a healthy oyster population. There are a significant number of people that would support the full introduction of C. ariakensis, or the Asian oyster, as a viable option. They argue that the Asian oysters are genetically superior to the Bay’s native oysters. It is true that the ariakensis variety is resistant to two diseases that have had a large impact on the virginica population (MSX and Dermo). However, it is also true that in areas protected from oyster harvesting, the native strain was able to resist and overcome pressure from both diseases. Thus, halting or reducing the harvest of oysters in the Chesapeake would result in resurgence of the population of native oysters. The fact that introduction of the Asian oyster is unnecessary is supplemented by the fact that it is extremely risky. Some scientists equate the likely results from such an introduction to the infestation of kudzu in the American southeast or the parasitic nature of Zebra Mussels in the Great Lakes.
Even if the Asian Oyster were introduced, it is likely that the pollution levels in the Bay would prohibit their propagation. Indeed it will be difficult for even the already established native oysters to survive with current pollution remaining as it is. Nitrogen that enters the Bay or one of its tributaries comes from one of many places: emissions from vehicles, factories, etc accounts for a third of all nitrogen in the Bay. Nabbing the second place trophy is runoff from fertilizers used for agricultural purposes: 26% of the Bay’s nitrogen comes from this source. From 1990-1992, 600 million pounds of nitrogen runoff entered the Bay. That unfathomable rate of pollution is a major problem for the oysters in the bay. High nitrogen levels fuel the growth of algae; this results in a drop in dissolved oxygen levels. When DO levels drop, it becomes difficult for aquatic animals (including oysters) to survive. Some of the algae are consumed by filter feeders; if there is a surplus, it dies and sinks to the bottom. Oysters are bottom dwellers, and are thus often covered in the excess algae, making it even more difficult for them to respire.
Steps must be taken to reduce the runoff from farmland into the Chesapeake Bay. Many farmers use harmful nitrogen based fertilizers because they are the most efficient and cheapest available. It would be very difficult to convince farmers to change these practices. However, there are several things that can be done. Research and development of novel, less harmful fertilizers would be extremely beneficial to the Bay’s health. Subsidizing the use of alternatives would also help. Through these methods, it is possible to reduce the amount of harmful nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay.
Besides reducing the pollution flowing into the Bay, steps should be taken to eliminate what pollution is already in the water. One of the best ways to do this would be taking fundamental action on restoring the oyster population. For too long, the watermen have complained about the decrepit native oyster population and yet have continued to harvest them. This hypocritical behavior is a main reason for the lack of oysters in the Bay. If harder restrictions, or even a moratorium, were placed on the harvesting of oysters in Maryland and Virginia, for even a short period of time (5-10 years), the recovery of the native oyster population would be incredible.
Through a combined, comprehensive approach the native oyster population can be effectively restored. Perhaps the historical levels of abundance seem unattainable at the moment. Nevertheless, each pound of nitrogen kept out of the Bay, and each native oyster left in the Bay, is a step towards that abundance. If the waterway that so many people love and make their livelihoods from is rejuvenated, the world will know that it is possible to reverse the detriments we enact upon our surroundings.
References:
http://www.thechesapeakebay.com/article/408/chesapeake
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/nitrogen.aspx?menuitem=19412
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;325/5944/1124?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://michelledonahue.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/debate-continues-on-asian-oysters-in-the-chesapeake/
Group C argues that the endangering of the native oyster is merely a consequence of a bigger problem: bay pollution. The bay used to be a beautiful, pristine, and abundant force in the Chesapeake area. Now, however, it is succumbing to over-fishing, sedimentation, and pollution runoff. They address the debate between native or exotic oysters, stating the pros and cons of each. Although it is agreed that both the Asian oyster, and the native oyster (assuming resurgence in population) can both filter the bay, neither can expect to thrive in the current polluted state of the bay. Therefore, until bay health improves the debate between the native and alien oyster is pointless. In order to improve the condition of the bay, two steps must be taken: first reduce and filter the current pollution from the bay, then prevent any new waste from entering. Taking these steps, along with reducing harmful nitrogen levels, encouraging responsible farming, and eliminating hypocrisy all can help restore the bay to its beauty.
ReplyDeleteI think this group presents a strong argument, and I like the idea that the depletion of native oysters is a microcosm of the bigger picture of which is pollution.
i agree with your point of view! you can't fill in a pothole if at first the road isn't paved...
Group C argued that instead of focusing on introducing exotic oysters into the Chesapeake Bay or not, the real topic of focus involves the pollution and habitat destruction problems rising up along the coast. However, they did not mention how in implement such a movement of change and how long it would take. Would the oysters be extinct before any real changes were made? Perhaps a better solution would be to fix the problem with the Asian oysters in the short term, but then in the long term focus on educating the watermen, the public and the local government of the dangers pollution and urbanization are causing to the Chesapeake ecosystem and the long term negative effects it is and will continue to reap.
ReplyDeleteThe position of Group C is that the problem does not lie with native nor exotic species, but rather with pollution and habitat destruction. They provide background information on both the native and exotic oyster to create a better idea of the situation at hand, but shift to the fact that the true problem is elsewhere. Group C’s explanation of pollution and oyster population destruction resulting from agricultural runoff and human development is well supported with facts that they provide. Additionally, it is only logical that the drastic decline of native oysters is yet another result of human pollution.
ReplyDeleteTeam C’s position was that the real problem in the Chesapeake is not native or exotic oysters but too much pollution and habitat destruction caused by urbanization and agriculture. In their paper they state that when the Native Americans fished out of the Chesapeake Bay there was an abundance of fish and shellfish but as technology became more advanced resources became scarcer and scarcer. The team states that some view the depletion of the native oysters as only a problem to those who make their living off of harvesting them is a myth. I defiantly agree with this statement. They then go on to explain that the oysters are filter feeders that help clean the bay. According to the group there were once enough oysters in the bay to completely clean the water ever 3 to 4 days. To me, this is amazing! I can’t believe that we have wasted such a valuable resource. It’s like having a vacuum cleaner that works all by itself. It would even know when things start to get dirty…and who wouldn’t want that? In their argument they expressed the need to eliminate the pollution that is already in the water. They also state that the reduction of runoff from farmland into the Chesapeake Bay. This runoff contains harmful chemicals that kill the wildlife and damage the quality of the water. I very much agree that both of these steps must be taken if we hope to help the Bay. The main point of their paper is that the best way to accomplish the goals is by taking action to restore the oyster population. From what I have read there has been some work in this feel but with little success. This group had a fairly strong argument, but I feel like they should have focused more on other cleanup efforts that could be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteGroup C suggests that problems seen in the bay are merely symptoms of the greater disorder, land use decisions and practices. Anthropogenic land use within the massive watershed of the bay is causing the serious problems. From my background in natural resources, I agree fully with group C. I also add that harvest of the native oyster should be halted for a period of years to see if it is able to make any recovery efforts on its own.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that the introduction of the Asian Oyster would not be necessary if regulations on the harvesting of native oysters were stricter and the runoff of minerals was controlled. This argument shows how if given the chance the bay might naturally heal itself if it were not for the constant interference of humans and the degradation of water quality caused by runoff. However their argument also fails to describe the economic failure that many industries would face if harvesting oysters in the bay was shut down for even a short period of time. Also the cost of reducing runoff from farms along the rivers flowing into the Chesapeake would be huge and would raise the prices of agricultural products. Overall this policy would destroy the economy of the Bay and the region due to increased prices and decreased profit.
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues would be creating the political will to enact the above-mentioned moratorium. Indeed, this has been the only thing standing in the way of such action for years. The waterman's lobby is traditionally strong in the Bay area because they have been able to appeal to their congressperson's interests quite effectively.
ReplyDeleteMore to come in the debate on Thursday. I (and my teammates) look forward to your questions.
In fact, there is no proof that the alien oysters can “clean up” the Bay; rather it is more important to focus on cleaning the bay to regenerate the oyster population. The disappearing of native oysters is a side effect from bigger issues in the Bay, specifically sedimentation and runoff from pollution. Even with the introduction of Asian oysters, the excessive nitrogen and fertilizer run off fuels algae growth and causes dissolved oxygen levels. These dissolved oxygen levels prohibit the aquatic growth, including oysters. A solution to this problem would be to enforce the use less harmful fertilizers and focus on preventing nitrogen from entering the bay. Also, by restricting the overharvesting of oysters and allow them time to repopulate and filter the polluted Bay. I believe this is the most important aspect of protecting the Bay. Not only are we trying to help the fisheries and oysters, but aiming to improve the Bay will reap many other benefits as well.
ReplyDeleteGroup C argues that the real problem in the Chesapeake is not native or exotic oysters, but too much pollution and habitat destruction caused by urbanization and agriculture. The current health level of the Chesapeake Bay are very low and granted that the addition of Asian oysters could help since the oysters filter pollutants in the ecosystem, there are still unknown risks involved. The Bay is way too populated and we should focus on reducing the pollution which will help the overall habitats of the Bay and everything living in it.
ReplyDeleteTeam C makes several other good points. How much research has been done to prove that the oysters will maintain this growth rate in heavily polluted areas? I agree that the first step that should be taken to reduce pollution and see how the outcome effects the native oysters. At the same time releasing oysters into the bay would speed up the process of cleaning out the bay. It comes down to the choice of having exotic oysters in the bay for a speedy clean up or a slower reestablishment of the native species. The group makes several good points towards trying to clean up the bay by ourselves. Many years ago the oysters could filter the bay in 3 to 4 days. Therefore we know the native species are capable. This is a great paper supporting the cleaning up of pollution in order to restore the native oyster populations.
ReplyDelete- Jacob Estienne
Group C argues that the real problems facing the Chesapeake Bay are pollution and resource management. The Bay used to be a beautiful and have abundant wildlife. Now it is polluted and all the species that once thrived in it are disappearing. I agree that stronger restrictions on harvesting and on pollution controls would aide the Virginia Oyster in repopulating the Bay, but it would not help the people who depend on this fishery to make a living. With an issue like this, many sides must be considered, including the organisms in the Bay and the people who are supported by them. But whatever the plan is to save the Virginia Oyster and the Chesapeake's health, pollution control and restrictions on harvesting oysters should definitely be included.
ReplyDeleteGroup C’s argument states that the main problem is the pollution in the bay and that it is hard to regenerate a native population or introduce a new one under these conditions. I agree that this is a problem and that part of the solution should be finding a way to reduce the amount of pollution that finds its way to the bay. Instead of trying to invent a new less harmful fertilizer I think that having more of a riparian zone along tributaries that lead to the bay would have a profound effect on the amount of runoff coming from farm land.
ReplyDeleteGroup C brings up some valid points that show how the Chesapeake Bay is declining not because of the lack of native oysters, but effects of pollution and over harvesting. Group C’s arguments on pollution seemed relatively weak. Is a reduction in runoff in an already polluted system, which lacks filter organisms, really going to increase the health of that system? Pollution going into the system won’t stop completely, so the re-growth of the native oyster population will still be incredibly slow. With that being said, slowing pollution, and harvesting less, is still definitely a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteGroup C has done a good job with bringing the points about pollution together as a whole but also remembering what it affects. They entered a lot of good points about how pollution is affecting the bay and that nothing really can stop it. Yes, the oysters do filter out the waters but not to the extent to keep the waters clean at all times. I agree with Group C’s position on bringing exotic species into the bay, because really it doesn’t matter the damage has been done. Their ideas of the decrease in pollution are very strong and are backed up by key points. I would like to see from this group how the oyster population can affect pollution rates. What if we spent millions of dollars on the replenishment of oysters in the bay, would it matter? We do know that the oysters filter the water of toxins, but do we know by going to the extent of controlling population rates will help the decrease in pollution?
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing group C’s position, it seems to me that they offered only one real solution to a very complex and integrated problem. Their solution is for scientists to develop a low/non-nitrogen fertilizer. I do not believe that inventing a new fertilizer that ultimately reduces the amount of nitrogen in the bay will solve the problem. They need to provide possible solutions to the other sources of pollutions (motor vehicle, industry, and water crafts), as well as offer ways to eliminate the pollution in the bay.
ReplyDeleteGroup C serves a very valid point. That regardless to whether the Asian oyster is introduced or not is not important until the health of the bay has improved. Despite which oyster is the dominant oyster is not important because neither oyster would be able to sustain in the environment. I like the way this is organized and served.
ReplyDeleteGroup C claims that the real problem in the Chesapeake Bay is the pollution. The efforts to restore an oyster population are in no way the answer. The group says that regulating farmers waste is what will make the difference. The group makes no reference to the pollution added to the Bay by urban life and development, which is a large part of the immediate Chesapeake Bay watershed. The group also seems to revert back on itself and say that the oyster does need to be reintroduced to clean the bay from within. They also do not talk about any of the economic problems with regulating pollution or with the loss of oysters in the Bay.
ReplyDeleteGroup C believes that the main focus should be on the amount of pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, the native oysters are declining. However, bringing in the non-native Asian oyster might not have the effects ecologists are expecting to see. This is because the pollution problem has not been diminished. Oysters are filter feeders. Therefore, if pollution and sediments are still being deposited into the Chesapeake Bay then no oyster population will be able to prosper. In order to implement a management plan the problem has to be assessed first. The amount of nitrogen that has runoff into the Chesapeake Bay is one of the critical issues. Nitrogen is one of the determining factors of plant growth. The more nitrogen that is added to the water the more algae grows. Not only does algae cause problems for oysters but to fish as well because it decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen.
ReplyDeleteGroup C was set out to focus their argument on the pollution constraints on the Chesapeake Bay. It seems as if their argument could have been a bit stronger. A more in depth approach in the critique of the Chesapeake Bay’s health would have been a more apt way of getting their point across. The position paper went a bit off topic by stating facts about the native and Asian oyster populations. Pollution is a huge factor in why the Chesapeake is so murky and ecological foul. Developing a more precise argument targeting sources of pollution, its affects, and solutions could have helped this paper out tremendously.
ReplyDeleteGroup C had a very well written paper making clear, sensible points that deemed introduction of the Asian oyster unnecessary. Their strongest point is that the native oysters, when studied in a habitat that did not have the pressure of overharvesting, was resistant to both diseases that were so detrimental to their population. This proves that if we restored the health of the bay and reduced our harvest of oysters, the health of the oyster population could also be restored.
ReplyDeleteThe position of Group C is that “pollution is the problem,” however, from a careful reading of their position paper, it seems to me that they are also on the side of group A (do not introduce the Asian oyster). True, they want to focus on reducing pollution, but as a method of bringing back the native oyster. I agree with the statement that pollution is the problem, and many of the arguments were extremely well articulated, except for the suggestion that we halt fishing for 5-10 years. That is impractical for the livelihoods of fishermen.
ReplyDeleteI agree that pollution is indeed the problem. But what about over fishing and consumption of the original oysters? With the growing population of the Chesapeake Bay area, even if we cleaned up the pollution, and the oysters returned (which are both questionable if they can happen at all), would we not just over fish the oysters once they returned? Just food for thought...
ReplyDeleteGroup C’s position is that the main problem in the Chesapeake Bay is existing pollution. They feel that cleaning up the Bay will help increase oyster populations and improve the overall function of the Bay. They present impressive evidence showing how extensively the Bay is polluted, and even acknowledge that increased oyster populations would help clean up the Chesapeake Bay waters. The biggest issue I have with their proposal is their solution to restoring oyster populations. Closing down oyster harvesting for 5-10 years would have a significant impact on the economic structure of the Bay. When considering such options I think the social and economic impact needs to be addressed as well as the environmental effects. Unemployment will just add stress to an already struggling economy. From the information presented though it seems like whether you choose to introduce non-native oysters or not, that a decrease in pollution and runoff is necessary.
ReplyDeleteGroup C's position is that the problem of Chesapeake Bay cannot be solved with the introduction of Asian oysters. Instead they claim the culprit is pollution and overfishing. The y provide evidence of the amount of pollution (mainly nitrogen) than enters the waters of the Bay and gave detailed explanation of how this affects the dissolved oxygen and subsequently the oysters as well as direct effects of the increased nitrogen. They also gave several examples of how to decrease pollution and help the native oysters and clean up the Bay. I think the argument was very well detailed with lots of support, and I thought the part about the dissolved oxygen and the effects of the nitrogen and other pollutants had on the oysters was very clearly put with evidence backing it up. The only thing I thought they could have added was a bit more on how introducing Asian oysters would not help, as they only mentioned that pollution could possibly eradicate these oysters as well, but did not state that they would not help in cleaning up the bay.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the position of Group C concerning the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay and how it has declined so much the past 50 years. The introduction of a new non-native species such as the Asian oyster would seem like a good solution to this problem as it has faster growth rate and is immune to the two diseases that are plaguing the current native oyster population. But looking back at other results where a non-native species was introduced, such as kudzu in the Southeast United States or zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, this proposed solution would be too risky. Therefore, that leaves the idea of rebuilding the native oyster population by ways of cleaning the Bay. Most of the pollution that runs off into the Chesapeake Bay comes from fertilizers used for agriculture. This type of pollution creates excess algae that falls to the bottom and covers the bottom-dwelling oysters. Also, even though laws have been made to limit overharvesting of oysters in the Bay, much is still done today. So even though there has been some criticism to these approaches in that they take a lot of time since it’s been being done for the past 10-20 years, if the problems of pollution and overharvesting are addressed with a higher importance and more concern, then these issues in the Chesapeake Bay will see better results in a much shorter amount of time.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Evans
The position of Group C is that the real problem facing the Chesapeake Bay is not whether or not we should introduce an exotic species of oyster, but rather, the pollution of the region. They argue that in order to restore the native population we should not introduce a non-native species of oyster, which will likely not survive current conditions in the Bay, but that we should work on human behaviors that have detrimental effects on the water quality. By putting restrictions on oyster harvesting and the types and amounts of nitrogen runoffs from fertilizers that farmers use, they believe that the native oyster population will make a comeback. This multifaceted approach may work on preventing future detriment to the ecosystem, but I am unsure of whether or not the native oyster will repopulate without a little help in cleaning the water first. Also, what will the people who depend on oysters for income do for money during Group C’s 5-10 year suggested “short ban” on harvesting?
ReplyDeleteIn Group C's opinion it is not the native species, nor native-species that is the problem or the sollution, but pollution due to development and urbanization. I whole heartedly agree with their statement. No matter what kind of relief efforts one might try to impose for the native species, or the introduction of a new species will entirely save the bay. If further pollution through run off, and sedimentation continues no species will be able to thrive in the Bay. As the biological diversity declines, the ecological services that come with each species will falter and so will the interdependence with in the community. While I do agree that adding a non-native species could be beneficial I think that it will only help with the limitation of pollutants.
ReplyDelete--- Kirsten Dobson
Group C argues that the real problem in the Chesapeake Bay is not native or exotic oysters but too much pollution and habitat destruction caused by urbanization and agriculture. They state how the decline in the native oyster population has decreased the ability for them to filter the bay. The population used to be able to filter the entire water body in 3 to 4 days, now with the declined population this same task takes an entire year. The group also states that the introduction of the Asian Oyster is unnecessary and dangerous, as exampled by the introduction of the Zebra Mussels in the Great Lakes. They also state that the Asian Oysters may not be able to propagate in the terrible water quality of the Bay due to Nitrogen levels from agricultural runoff and other sources. Research should focus towards less harmful fertilizers and increasing the water quality with the already present Eastern Oyster. Although I think Group C takes a good approach towards avoiding the topic of whether or not to introduce the Asian Oyster, I feel as though they do not provide much insight on how to fix the current issue. They note that the current Eastern Oyster population should be increased and focused on, but don’t give any means as to how this should be done. This alone, is the main issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteGroup C shows both sides of the debate on whether or not the Asian oysters should be introduced into the Bay and builds nicely off of that. They showed a good series of events that could result from pollution and they used the example of algae growing too rapidly and decreasing the dissolved oxygen in the water, making it difficult for the oysters to undergo respiration. They also showed smart alternatives to help prevent pollution from fertilizers. However, the group did not speak of specific ways to clean the Bay and rid it of pollution. They only suggested that something should be done to clean the bay.
ReplyDeleteGroup C has a position of sedimentation and pollution run off being the main reason that the eastern oyster and the Chesapeake are in decline. They state that native or exotic doesn’t matter since it will be hard for either to survive in such a polluted environment. The vast number of nitrogen runoff into the bay creates so many algae either species would have difficulty respiring if covered by surplus algae. The solution is to clean up the bay, decrease nitrogen runoff from farms, and stop or greatly reduce commercial oyster fishing to one day restore the native oyster and the Chesapeake bay.
ReplyDelete