Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The scientists had failed to grasp that conserving the oyster also meant conserving
the waterman and his culture: the two were part of one system. A solution that tried
to conserve the oyster at the expense of the waterman's culture was no solution, as
long as the watermen held political power. This historical episode is typically seen
as a classic case of the “tragedy of the commons”, whereby greedy resource users
(the watermen) exploited the commons, the Chesapeake oyster beds, and eventually
destroyed the resource on which they depended (e.g., Wennersten 2001 ). Keiner
suggests that the reality is more complicated. Indeed, scientists were forced to
acknowledge the watermen's arguments, but she perceived this cross-cultural dialogue
as a positive step. Solutions were developed based on replenishing and reseeding
the oyster beds, and watermen themselves took part in these conservation efforts,
while not sacrifi cing their sense of independence and their cultural values. Scientists,
watermen, and policymakers ended up working together to create a unique
system, which turned into a well-managed commons. This system, although not
perfect, was a reasonable compromise that worked for several decades.
While not romanticizing the watermen as model conservationists, Keiner seeks
to correct the perception that they were enemies of nature. Watermen valued conser-
vation and contributed an understanding of the bay that may not have been couched
in the language of science but was nonetheless grounded in their experience on the
water. As Keiner suggests, “The ways in which oystermen and their legislative
allies crafted a viable alternative to private cultivation can be seen as a case of
co-management,” and she argues that we need more historical analysis of natural
resource management regimes in which “local knowledge played a greater role than
elite scientifi c expertise” (Keiner 2009 , p. 10). She further cautions that we should
avoid looking back on this long debate and concluding that because the watermen
resisted the scientifi c advice, therefore science was compromised and conservation
efforts failed. Moreover, we cannot be sure that the solution advocated by scientists
until the mid-twentieth century - private cultivation and enclosure of the commons -
would have solved the problem. Her case study was the fi rst to give full weight to
the Chesapeake watermen's perspective.
Ultimately the oyster population did crash, but late-twentieth century population
declines must be attributed to many changes in the region. High population densities
were producing signifi cant levels of stress on the ecosystem and transforming the
watershed. One consequence was that during a period of prolonged drought, possibly
linked to human-caused climate change in the 1980s, conditions favored the spread
of lethal parasites that devastated the oyster populations. Understanding the many
causes contributing to extreme weather conditions requires a broad understanding
of modern industrial society, including what is occurring globally, not just in the
immediate Chesapeake region. Likewise casting environmental problems in terms of
the remorseless logic of arguments like the “tragedy of the commons” oversimplifi es
and distorts the reality. Keiner also insists that the oyster question cannot be removed
from its political context or be seen as a purely scientifi c problem.
Arriving at a method of co-management that combines the perspectives of sci-
entists and resource users requires a degree of trust between these different
stakeholders. Today scientists and watermen work together, although distrust
Search WWH ::




Custom Search