On Apr 24, 2023, at 9:23 AM, James Balano <jamesbalano@yahoo.com> wrote to Dr. Robert Steneck at the Darling Marine Center.
Dear Dr. Steneck,
I’m a retired Merchant Marine captain who is raising oysters in a sub-tidal/intertidal area of Wheeler’s Bay St. George. I went offshore-lobstering with Bobby Brown on the Sea Fever in 1973. With that money I bought the 36-foot Freeda B and fished 600 traps off Monhegan. My father lobstered in Port Clyde when he came home from WWII after his ship, the Norlindo, was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-Boat in the Gulf of Mexico in 1942.
There’s been some recent pushback by clam diggers claiming that oysters have been displacing soft shell clams. They are pointing to the Damariscotta River area and claim that where there was once a robust soft shell clam industry there are now nothing but oysters. There is also pushback from a group in Frenchman’s Bay who were opposed to a large penned salmon project which was dealt with by DMR appropriately and denied before even reaching the completed application stage. So DMR is actually doing the job it’s supposed to be doing. The pushback appears aimed more at halting aquaculture than improving the permitting process. The motive is obscure. The thread seems to point to wealthy property owners and real estate investors.
A group hostile to aquaculture is trying to institute a moratorium on new aquaculture as well as a cap of five acres on lease size. They are trying to undercut DMR’s authority over leasing. They have introduced three bills before the legislature within the last three years that will essentially gum up the works and shift leasing authority from DMR to local communities. The first two bills were unanimously voted against by the Marine Resources Committee in 2021. The latest iteration is LD508 which came before the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on April 20th. It has not yet gone to a working session. The bill seeks to revisit the aquaculture permitting rules by establishing a study group of (17) “stakeholders” that will advise the process. Meanwhile, everything is to be on hold. The deck seems stacked in that there are only two slots on the study group for aquaculture.
Opponents to LD508 were blindsided and unable to mount a good opposition because the wording of the bill was kept confidential to the last minute and then amended once again just before the testimony portion of the process. Sebastian Bell and those of us who did testify in opposition were appalled by the misinformation and bad science that was presented in favor of the bill. Sebastian is preparing answers to over 30 pieces of disinformation to correct before the working session. We also intend to have DMR attend the working session because the strategy to place the bill before Environment and Natural Resources is seen clearly as an attempt at an end run around the process.
My immediate interest and question for you is about competition between soft shell clams and oysters. Have there been any studies and/or is there any evidence that oysters displace soft shell clams by, 1. Consuming soft shell clam larvae, 2. Robbing soft shell clams of nutrients by over-competing for available resources in the water column, and 3. Over-competing for available amounts of calcium carbonate?
I would be happy If you could point me to any research or articles that either support or refute these claims. So far all I’ve heard from anyone is that no studies have been done and that any claims one way or the other are anecdotal.
Best regards, Jim Balano, 43 McCoy Road, Spruce Head, ME 04859
Dr. Stenick Replies.
Hi Jim
Thank you for your email. Your concerns are well founded.
Maine’s maritime heritage is at risk at multiple fronts. As wild harvests decline, aquaculture interests grow. Some concerns are, in my opinion, overblown. The Belfast salmon project looks to be a NIMBY issue. Oceanographers determined that nitrogen waste is modest compared to natural tidal driven fluxes.
Your specific question about oyster aquaculture interfering with softshell clams lacks credibility from my perspective. First, consider the oceanographic requirements of oysters. They need warm water and good water flow so places like the Damariscotta River’s headwaters are where they thrive. Softshell clams are not similarly constrained. When you look at softshell landings in Maine you see a steady decline since the mid 1970s (the spatial and temporal pattern does not match at all oyster aquaculture). Oyster aquaculture was almost non-existent in the early 2000s (see second figure from DMR).
The reason for the softshell clam decline is now well established. It is green crab predation. Green crabs were introduced to the Gulf of Maine in the 1800s but were reproductively limited by Maine’s cold water. The first warming spike in the 1950s saw green crabs explode. DMR studied the problem but then when sea temperatures cooled, green crab abundances decline and softshell clams increased to the 1970s peak (this is all documented in scientific studies). Maine had NO intertidal crabs prior to the green crab introduction which is why a softshell clam could thrive (native Americans filled middens with softshelled clams long before the first Europeans arrived). However, oysters were already thriving in the warm upper reaches of the Damariscotta River as evidenced by Damariscotta's huge shell heaps that accumulated there for over 2000 years. If there was an oyster-softshell clam problem it would have shown itself millennia ago. Indian middens at the Darling Center (6 miles from the Damariscotta shell heaps) were loaded with softshelled clams.
The specific concerns about oysters filtering clam larvae has no support (again, it would have shown itself prior to European arrival) but also wild oysters are now thriving in the Damariscotta River for the first time in 50 years and they must have resulted from oyster larvae reproducing and developing to the point they could settle on the seafloor without getting consumed by aquaculture reared oysters.
I wish I could be optimistic that a strong scientific argument would settle this dispute. It seems it never works that way. Once battle lines are drawn, they stick to them. The best hope is that DMR stands its ground.
Good luck with it all. Cheers, Bob
Robert S. Steneck, Ph.D
Professor of Oceanography, Marine Biology and Marine Policy
Green crab predation, not oysters, are the reason for the clam decline.
The claim of clam larvae filtering is unsupported, and contradicted by the presence of wild oysters.
A neighbor and friend who is a graduate of MIT and a respected engineer and scientist had the following to say:
“Something that needs to be said in writing, and verbally:
Because the marine biology facts here are so clear, are so conclusive that oysters pose no threat to clams, and have been publicly presented so often to the objectors the question has to be asked "Why is this resistance being mounted? By whom? And for what purpose?""
This has not been an honest informed investigation of a potential problem by those opposing oyster aquaculture. This is clearly an overt attempt to kill in the cradle a form of aquaculture which will be critical in the near future to individual lobstermen and others trying to adjust to the risk of losing their livelihood due to climate change. The combination of proposed delay and bureaucratic entanglement is simply a hatchet job wrapped in a thin (but transparent) veneer of very experienced politically-connected public relations
This paralyzing reflexive obstruction has to be looked at as its own problem in Maine.”
On Apr 24, 2023, at 9:23 AM, James Balano <jamesbalano@yahoo.com> wrote to Dr. Robert Steneck at the Darling Marine Center.
Dear Dr. Steneck,
I’m a retired Merchant Marine captain who is raising oysters in a sub-tidal/intertidal area of Wheeler’s Bay St. George. I went offshore-lobstering with Bobby Brown on the Sea Fever in 1973. With that money I bought the 36-foot Freeda B and fished 600 traps off Monhegan. My father lobstered in Port Clyde when he came home from WWII after his ship, the Norlindo, was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-Boat in the Gulf of Mexico in 1942.
There’s been some recent pushback by clam diggers claiming that oysters have been displacing soft shell clams. They are pointing to the Damariscotta River area and claim that where there was once a robust soft shell clam industry there are now nothing but oysters. There is also pushback from a group in Frenchman’s Bay who were opposed to a large penned salmon project which was dealt with by DMR appropriately and denied before even reaching the completed application stage. So DMR is actually doing the job it’s supposed to be doing. The pushback appears aimed more at halting aquaculture than improving the permitting process. The motive is obscure. The thread seems to point to wealthy property owners and real estate investors.
A group hostile to aquaculture is trying to institute a moratorium on new aquaculture as well as a cap of five acres on lease size. They are trying to undercut DMR’s authority over leasing. They have introduced three bills before the legislature within the last three years that will essentially gum up the works and shift leasing authority from DMR to local communities. The first two bills were unanimously voted against by the Marine Resources Committee in 2021. The latest iteration is LD508 which came before the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on April 20th. It has not yet gone to a working session. The bill seeks to revisit the aquaculture permitting rules by establishing a study group of (17) “stakeholders” that will advise the process. Meanwhile, everything is to be on hold. The deck seems stacked in that there are only two slots on the study group for aquaculture.
Opponents to LD508 were blindsided and unable to mount a good opposition because the wording of the bill was kept confidential to the last minute and then amended once again just before the testimony portion of the process. Sebastian Bell and those of us who did testify in opposition were appalled by the misinformation and bad science that was presented in favor of the bill. Sebastian is preparing answers to over 30 pieces of disinformation to correct before the working session. We also intend to have DMR attend the working session because the strategy to place the bill before Environment and Natural Resources is seen clearly as an attempt at an end run around the process.
My immediate interest and question for you is about competition between soft shell clams and oysters. Have there been any studies and/or is there any evidence that oysters displace soft shell clams by, 1. Consuming soft shell clam larvae, 2. Robbing soft shell clams of nutrients by over-competing for available resources in the water column, and 3. Over-competing for available amounts of calcium carbonate?
I would be happy If you could point me to any research or articles that either support or refute these claims. So far all I’ve heard from anyone is that no studies have been done and that any claims one way or the other are anecdotal.
Best regards, Jim Balano, 43 McCoy Road, Spruce Head, ME 04859
Dr. Stenick Replies.
Hi Jim
Thank you for your email. Your concerns are well founded.
Maine’s maritime heritage is at risk at multiple fronts. As wild harvests decline, aquaculture interests grow. Some concerns are, in my opinion, overblown. The Belfast salmon project looks to be a NIMBY issue. Oceanographers determined that nitrogen waste is modest compared to natural tidal driven fluxes.
Your specific question about oyster aquaculture interfering with softshell clams lacks credibility from my perspective. First, consider the oceanographic requirements of oysters. They need warm water and good water flow so places like the Damariscotta River’s headwaters are where they thrive. Softshell clams are not similarly constrained. When you look at softshell landings in Maine you see a steady decline since the mid 1970s (the spatial and temporal pattern does not match at all oyster aquaculture). Oyster aquaculture was almost non-existent in the early 2000s (see second figure from DMR).
The reason for the softshell clam decline is now well established. It is green crab predation. Green crabs were introduced to the Gulf of Maine in the 1800s but were reproductively limited by Maine’s cold water. The first warming spike in the 1950s saw green crabs explode. DMR studied the problem but then when sea temperatures cooled, green crab abundances decline and softshell clams increased to the 1970s peak (this is all documented in scientific studies). Maine had NO intertidal crabs prior to the green crab introduction which is why a softshell clam could thrive (native Americans filled middens with softshelled clams long before the first Europeans arrived). However, oysters were already thriving in the warm upper reaches of the Damariscotta River as evidenced by Damariscotta's huge shell heaps that accumulated there for over 2000 years. If there was an oyster-softshell clam problem it would have shown itself millennia ago. Indian middens at the Darling Center (6 miles from the Damariscotta shell heaps) were loaded with softshelled clams.
The specific concerns about oysters filtering clam larvae has no support (again, it would have shown itself prior to European arrival) but also wild oysters are now thriving in the Damariscotta River for the first time in 50 years and they must have resulted from oyster larvae reproducing and developing to the point they could settle on the seafloor without getting consumed by aquaculture reared oysters.
I wish I could be optimistic that a strong scientific argument would settle this dispute. It seems it never works that way. Once battle lines are drawn, they stick to them. The best hope is that DMR stands its ground.
Good luck with it all. Cheers, Bob
Robert S. Steneck, Ph.D
Professor of Oceanography, Marine Biology and Marine Policy
School of Marine Sciences
University of Maine
Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation
Darling Marine Center
193 Clarks Cove Road
Walpole, Maine 04573
207 563 8315 (voice)
207 549 3062 (alternate office)
207 563 3119 (Fax)
steneck@maine.edu
Darling Marine Center: <http://www.dmc.umaine.edu/>
School of Marine Sciences: <https://umaine.edu/marine/faculty/robert-steneck/
To summarize, one can safely say the following:
Green crab predation, not oysters, are the reason for the clam decline.
The claim of clam larvae filtering is unsupported, and contradicted by the presence of wild oysters.
A neighbor and friend who is a graduate of MIT and a respected engineer and scientist had the following to say:
“Something that needs to be said in writing, and verbally:
Because the marine biology facts here are so clear, are so conclusive that oysters pose no threat to clams, and have been publicly presented so often to the objectors the question has to be asked "Why is this resistance being mounted? By whom? And for what purpose?""
This has not been an honest informed investigation of a potential problem by those opposing oyster aquaculture. This is clearly an overt attempt to kill in the cradle a form of aquaculture which will be critical in the near future to individual lobstermen and others trying to adjust to the risk of losing their livelihood due to climate change. The combination of proposed delay and bureaucratic entanglement is simply a hatchet job wrapped in a thin (but transparent) veneer of very experienced politically-connected public relations
This paralyzing reflexive obstruction has to be looked at as its own problem in Maine.”
Thank you Lincoln for shining a light on the shady underbelly of industrial aquaculture.
Thank you!!!
https://theqsjournal.substack.com/p/state-agencies-lobbyists-lead-opposition/comment/13772497?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android my comment here: