It's not good, but there's been a slight improvement.

"STATE OF THE BAY 2010
President’s Message
Almost every day, I get asked how the Bay is doing. Recently, I started
responding with an answer that I’ve long wanted to give. There are some
encouraging signs of improvement. The index has increased three points
since it was last issued for 2008.
But make no mistake, the Bay is still a system dangerously out of balance—
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the Chesapeake and its
tidal tributaries as impaired. Health departments still caution people to stay
out of the water for 48 hours after a heavy rain. Fish consumption warnings
continue. Human health is at risk. And tens of thousands of jobs have been
lost in fishing and related industries alone.
A Bay Health Index of only 31 versus a score of 100 when Colonial
settlers arrived is a sad testament to how we have treated a National Treasure.
There is a great deal left to do.
For a moment, however, let’s celebrate the progress that has been made, even as
we rededicate
ourselves to a fight for the Bay’s future."

More at:

http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=596

On Dec 28, 9:55*am, John H wrote:
It's not good, but there's been a slight improvement.

"STATE OF THE BAY 2010
President s Message
Almost every day, I get asked how the Bay is doing. Recently, I started
responding with an answer that I ve long wanted to give. There are some
encouraging signs of improvement. The index has increased three points
since it was last issued for 2008.
But make no mistake, the Bay is still a system dangerously out of balance
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the Chesapeake and its
tidal tributaries as impaired. Health departments still caution people to stay
out of the water for 48 hours after a heavy rain. Fish consumption warnings
continue. Human health is at risk. And tens of thousands of jobs have been
lost in fishing and related industries alone.
A Bay Health Index of only 31 versus a score of 100 when Colonial
settlers arrived is a sad testament to how we have treated a National Treasure.
There is a great deal left to do.
For a moment, however, let s celebrate the progress that has been made, even as
we rededicate
ourselves to a fight for the Bay s future."

More at:

http://www.cbf.org/Document.Doc?id=596

"And tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in fishing and related
industries alone. "

tens of thousands???

Now granted, I dont' live in the bay area, and I really know nothing
about the bay. Yes, I'm ignorant of the whole deal. But I know that
the Chesapeake is larger than any duck pond, but I'm having a hard
time either realizing or at least figureing out how 'tens of
thousands' of jobs were lost in the fishing industry in the bay
area....

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

I'm having a hard
time either realizing or at least figureing out how 'tens of
thousands' of jobs were lost in the fishing industry in the bay
area....

The Chesapeake is a vast body of water with many bays, tributaries and
neighboring towns. Also bear in mind that there is more to the
commercial fishing industry than the guys who go out in boats. For
every man on a boat there are probably 2 or 3 more working shoreside
in some capacity or other. Just for the sake of discussion lets
assume that there are at least 100 towns that border the Chesapeake,
and that every town had at least 100 people involved in the industry.
That works out to 10,000 jobs, and I have no doubt that the
assumptions are on the low side for both towns and people.

On Dec 29, 9:34*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

I'm having a hard
time either realizing or at least figureing out how 'tens of
thousands' of jobs were lost in the fishing industry in the bay
area....

The Chesapeake is a vast body of water with many bays, tributaries and
neighboring towns. * Also bear in mind that there is more to the
commercial fishing industry than the guys who go out in boats. For
every man on a boat there are probably 2 or 3 more working shoreside
in some capacity or other. * Just for the sake of discussion lets
assume that there are at least 100 towns that border the Chesapeake,
and that every town had at least 100 people involved in the industry.
That works out to 10,000 jobs, and I have no doubt that the
assumptions are on the low side for both towns and people.

Understood now, Thanks Wayne!!

On 12/30/10 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:34:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:55:18 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I'm having a hard
time either realizing or at least figureing out how 'tens of
thousands' of jobs were lost in the fishing industry in the bay
area....

The Chesapeake is a vast body of water with many bays, tributaries and
neighboring towns. Also bear in mind that there is more to the
commercial fishing industry than the guys who go out in boats. For
every man on a boat there are probably 2 or 3 more working shoreside
in some capacity or other. Just for the sake of discussion lets
assume that there are at least 100 towns that border the Chesapeake,
and that every town had at least 100 people involved in the industry.
That works out to 10,000 jobs, and I have no doubt that the
assumptions are on the low side for both towns and people.

I suppose it depends on how you define "fishing industry" but if you
include the people who serve the recreational fishing industry
(guides, bait shops etc) it is a conservative estimate but some of
that is also the economy. There are fewer people who have several
hundred bucks for a charter.

I have been away from it for a while but my mother's family were all
watermen (and water women) living on an island on the southern bay
since colonial times. That was tonging oysters in the winter, crabs in
the summer and fish all year long. Their business was already in
decline by the 70s and most were moving away or getting into the
charter business.


A goodly percentage of those who work at boat dealerships are there
because of the commercial and recreational fishing industry.

In article ,
says...

On 12/30/10 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:34:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:55:18 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I'm having a hard
time either realizing or at least figureing out how 'tens of
thousands' of jobs were lost in the fishing industry in the bay
area....

The Chesapeake is a vast body of water with many bays, tributaries and
neighboring towns. Also bear in mind that there is more to the
commercial fishing industry than the guys who go out in boats. For
every man on a boat there are probably 2 or 3 more working shoreside
in some capacity or other. Just for the sake of discussion lets
assume that there are at least 100 towns that border the Chesapeake,
and that every town had at least 100 people involved in the industry.
That works out to 10,000 jobs, and I have no doubt that the
assumptions are on the low side for both towns and people.

I suppose it depends on how you define "fishing industry" but if you
include the people who serve the recreational fishing industry
(guides, bait shops etc) it is a conservative estimate but some of
that is also the economy. There are fewer people who have several
hundred bucks for a charter.

I have been away from it for a while but my mother's family were all
watermen (and water women) living on an island on the southern bay
since colonial times. That was tonging oysters in the winter, crabs in
the summer and fish all year long. Their business was already in
decline by the 70s and most were moving away or getting into the
charter business.


A goodly percentage of those who work at boat dealerships are there
because of the commercial and recreational fishing industry.

Wow, another profound statement by the spoofer. I'm sure that no one but
you could figure that out.....