By Thomas Terry  

One of my favorite childhood pastimes was eel fishing on the Patuxent River on Mr. Vernon Arnold’s property.  Mr. Arnold lived a couple of miles to the east of our farm along the road that went by the Entzian’s property and cousin Walter Stewart’s portion of Grandpop Poula’s (my grandfather) old home place.

Eel fishing was something that we did ritualistically in the spring when the river started rising after a spring rain. This was the time that the eels were “biting” the best.  The excitement started when Grandpop agreed to take us down to the river.   We then began getting our gear together and gathering bait in a couple tin cans…we usually dug earthworms from behind the old out-house near the chicken yard fence. 

Grandpop Poula was a heavy-set man with noticeably bowed legs. He usually always had a smile but the smile was usually somewhat constrained due to the plug of Brown Mule chewing tobacco in his mouth.  He also had a vice-grip hand shake from the years of farming chores.

I’ll never forget his story-telling and his feelings for friends, animals, and all things alive.  He was a kind man who never hurt anyone or anything intentionally—unless they really deserved it.  Even though he used to be an active sportsman he always respected his quarry and he never was one to take his limit just to say he limited out.

Since Grandpop was rather stout and aging it was difficult for him to walk very far, so we always drove the old Chevrolet ’49 coup as far down Mr. Arnold’s woods road as possible towards the river.  Usually we had to stop at the top of the hill to check the road before we drove down the long steep grade through the woods. If the road was rutted out or too slick we parked at the top of the hill, otherwise we eased down the hill and stopped on the upper river ter­race in a small pasture. From there we walked through the woods down an old logging road to get to the narrow first ter­race of the river and the river bank.  The wooded area was comprised of large oak and beech trees and many smaller ironwood trees. .

Once we got half-way down the narrow logging road incline, about 50 yards from the river, we could begin to smell the damp earthy smell of the river bottom and  hear the water wash under logs and trees that had fallen into the river.  The excitement grew when we were only a few minutes away from throwing out our baited line.

“Wait up, wait up,” Grandpop would shout as we ran ahead to get to the river,   ”don’t go near the bank until I get there!”

As soon as all of us reached the river bank we would put a two-ounce sinker on our lines, a piece of earthworm on the hook, and cast out to the center of the river, being careful to position the lines so they didn’t go near fallen trees and snags.  Then we would cut a forked branch and push it in the ground so we could set the rods in the fork and watch the rod tip.  Sudden twitches of the rod tip meant something was trying to take the bait.  It usually was an eel but periodically it was a snapping turtle.

While we waited we enjoyed the smell of the river bottom, and the call of mourning doves cooing in the tall hardwood trees along the river as they rested in the shade after their morning feeding.  We listened and watched the lines so the baited hook did not get swept under logs with the current. Then it would happen; the rod tip would dip sharply and we quickly picked it up and waited for the repeated tugs that indicated the eel was hooked and trying to get away.  With one fast, hard upward sweep of the rod tip the hook was firmly set and the fight was on.  A big eel could make your heart pound and im­agination race as you quickly tried to get it to the surface to see how big it was.  Once we got it to the surface we wanted to get it to the bank before it got entangled in underwater limbs or tree roots.  Then we had to quickly lift it up the bank before it wrapped itself around the line to try to get off.

We always carried a burlap bag so we could drop the eel into the sack. Then we’d pull the line taunt, find the eel’s head, and squeeze the bag tight to hold it still.  This prevented us from getting eel slime all over our hands and it kept the eel from tangling up the line as it tried to coil its body around the line to pull the hook out of its mouth.  Once we had the head and writhing body in a tight grip we would partly open the top of the bag and use a pair of needle-nose pliers to extract the hook from its jaws or gut if the hook was swallowed. 

If we caught 3-4 nice eels we were a happy lot.  We rarely went home with an empty burlap sack.   When we were home we would skin and gut them, cut them in 4 inch pieces and soak them in salt water.  The next day Grandma Poula or Mom would fry them for supper. 

—————————— 

After I finished graduate school and years after Grandpop had passed away I made a sentimental walk back down to Mr. Arnold’s woods and down the woods road to the small wooded opening by the river bank.  The smells were the same, new generations of mourning doves still cooed and rested in the trees, and the river still flowed and rushed through downed trees and logs.

I sat down on the bank and thought what it would be like to spend one more after­noon watching the rod tips dip, hearing the eels thrash in the water, and listening to the stories Grandpop had to tell.  Then I walked back up the hill remembering the sound of the old Chevrolet straining, the tires spinning and throwing mud, and Grandpop saying,

“Come on Maggie,” Grandpop Poula’s nickname for the Chevy, “get up there,” as we roared up the hill toward home.

Note: Thomas Terry is a fourth generation resident of the Patuxent watershed where his family acquired “Ample Grange Farm” in 1886. The Farm continues under Terry ownership today located just South East of Bowie, MD.

Through a blog format, a variety of content will be posted on the website in the weeks and months ahead, such as discussions of the key challenges facing the Chesapeake Bay, announcements of upcoming public meetings and events, and documents required by the Executive Order. On September 9, the draft reports on how federal agencies will address topics including water pollution, climate change and public access will be available to the public and published on the website. By November 9, these reports will be incorporated into a draft strategy for restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay, which also will be available online.

Input from the public is critically important to the federal agencies as the various reports and overall strategy are created. When the draft strategy is released on November 9, the formal public comment period will begin. But until then, feedback can be posted on the website under the Provide Feedback section. The federal agencies will receive any information that the public posts online.

The public is also encouraged to track Executive Order developments by utilizing the RSS feed, Twitter updates and Facebook page. Video and photos will be available on the YouTube and Flickr channels. Access to these tools can be found under the Stay Connected section at http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net

My point is that if people read the order they probably would start thinking more about the actual consequences and implications of a government run initiative that if we don’t comply with then then Federal Courts will make us do so. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Obama Order, which is impressively lucid about new anti-pollution measures to be taken by several Cabinet agencies is a wonderful thing. I am just perplexed why some of the folks who just bee symbolically fired from the Bay cleanup are so happy about the very public, Federal acknowledgement of their failure? I think the real “news” is that the Executive Order suggests that it will now bring a supervening authority on board to ensure that the States start delivering real results when it comes to “Saving the Bay”. The Executive Order acknowledges in no uncertain terms, that States have failed to do the job and that different and expanded measures are needed plus stringent oversight if we are to expect a restoration of the Bay and its ecological significance.

Yet the irony here is that Federal interference in the affairs of the States is almost never welcome in any area you care to mention. Of course Federal money is always welcomed, but Federal interference is usually reviled by the States. So truthfully, a complete restructuring of the Bay preservation movement with a Federal kick in the pants at yearly intervals instead of every ten years, is a pain in the rump that many will quickly come to resent if the Executive Order is implemented to its full potential. Yet, in a manner consistent with the Obama administration, this latest message was delivered in a cordial and diplomatic fashion, so maybe some have missed the point so it bears repeating. The Bay program has failed–the Feds are no longer looking to the States to maintain the status quo. Results are expected. The Fed will run the show and lead the way. It’s a partnership but one where everyone has to be accountable.  While, we will now have increased federal participation in the Bay cleanup, there probabaly won’t be loads of new federal money coming on-line but frankly we should have been doing this clean-up stuff all along-or we should never had let things degrade to the extent that would cost so much to restore. It is not an unfunded mandate, it is one at we have simply deferred for years and we will have to find ways to pay the piper, maybe even by defunding other stuff.

The other intriguing question I have heard is whether or not the recent Chesapeake Bay Foundation litigation against the EPA is the guiding light behind the President’s announcement?  Draw your own conclusions but consider this food for thought:

1. The Bay Foundation law suit as filed was rather vague and indistinct as to the relief it was seeking (other than some Federal engagement). Although framed by an eloquent description of the failures, lack of attainment and various interests at stake, the law suit text made the argument that the Bay program has failed but without actually pointing  a finger at any of non federal signatories to the Bay agreement.  If the substance of the prior Bay agreements imposed a duty on the EPA to see that the Bay was cleaned up then does not the same duty apply to those other signatories? The implication may be that this CBF filing was a political strategy as much as a legal one. The rhetorical and policy based arguments contained in it seem far more compelling than the legal ones.  Further, if the new Obama initiative for the Bay is the product of the Bay Foundation’s hazy legal strategy, then there is not a single plank to that effect in the President’s message. The concordance between well known problems is clear but the proposed strategies seem delinked from the CBF legal presentation. On this basis, one might conclude that the Executive Order is unlikely to be just an implementation of the Bay Foundation’s strategies for the Bay.

2. Virtually none of the strategies proposed in the Executive Order reflect a platform of ongoing actions, priorities, activities or policy initiatives that the Bay Foundation has ever sought to advance.  Maybe there is synergy here but the Obama plan seems programatic in scope. It barely mentions the educational programs that CBF is best known for.  One interesting caveat is the Obama call for greater “access”" to the Bay for those without it. It suggests an environmental justice aspect that is potentially refreshing.  I’ve rarely seen this plank in any Bay Foundation outreach about its own prescription for healing what’s wrong with the Bay.  So if after all the Bay/EPA lawsuit was the catalyst for “something”; then the Obama  administration at least deserves a good measure of credit for taking the CBF well meaning desire to “Save the Bay” and translating it into an actual strategy that is likely to produce mesaurable progress to that aim and more. So, does it matter whose idea this is? I think it does to the extent that if one views the Obama initiative as an extension of the existing Bay preservation movement and community then it is a very limited vision. If this were the case, then one would expect that the “usual suspects” will now have  Federal support to pursue the usual  approach to the usual problems. Instead, I think it is worth noting that that the Obama order seems to set the stage to chart an entirely new course, that it is a changed direction, establishes a revised power structure and marks a fresh beggining.  This posture (to me) seems inconsistent with CBF’s undeniable role as part of the old establishment and clearly an influential force that is enmeshed in the previous and existing Bay cleanup community.
So, if change is really in the air, the public will know rapidly once the EPA has empanelled the oversight committee that will be focused on the Bay’s problems. If it reflects new blood, new ideas and new inspiration in the composition of the group, in the breadth of its vision and willingness to being about real change, it will be a refreshing change. But if it  is top heavy with the same “gang” that have been leading the cleanup movement for the past 40 years then it will signal the new dawning of the same old song instead.

I can’t wait to learn which.