Now, listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about. The decline of marine populations in the Chesapeake Bay is a serious problem. However, the solutions you read about probably would not work. First, catch limits on crabs are much less likely to be accepted by people than catch limits on striped bass. There's an important difference between fishing for striped bass and fishing for crabs. Striped bass are often fished recreationally just for fun or sport. People interested in striped bass can limit their catch and still have a good time. Crabs, however, are almost entirely captured by professional fishermen who rely on selling crabs to make a living. Imposing limits on the crab catch would have serious negative consequences for these people. This proposal would encounter a lot of resistance. Second, oyster species from other countries may be resistant to local Chesapeake diseases. But introducing them into the ecosystem is a terrible idea. These oysters might carry some other diseases from their native habitat. And these new diseases could have a serious effect on other creatures in the Chesapeake ecosystem. Since there's no way to know the consequences of introducing new species, it's much too risky to try. Finally, educating local farmers has been tried, and it hasn't made much difference because the fertilizer pollution problem really isn't a local problem. Look at the map. The large highlighted area is the Chesapeake Bay drainage area. That means that all the rivers and streams in the highlighted area eventually empty into the bay. This area covers more than 100,000 square kilometers and stretches over six different states. To really reduce fertilizer pollution in the bay, tens of thousands of farmers throughout this whole area, not just those in the small area near the bay, would have to drastically reduce fertilizer use. It's probably impossible to conduct an effective educational campaign on this scale.