CALL TO ACTION

[OceanBlue]

Okay all you Salty Dogs - Here's another issue to get riled up about. Excerpt from an email forwarded to me by some new friends of ours -

__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Friends, The comment period on the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) code of conduct for offshore aquaculture is scheduled to end Sept. 23. We are encouraging people to insist this time be extended and public hearings held.

ACTION ALERT
Summary

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plans to open up vast new marine areas in the US 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to fish farming, outside the reach of state and local government. NMFS is soliciting comments on
their proposed Code of Conduct for Offshore Aquaculture, which would place netpens seaward of coastal state boundaries and authorities. Washington State is one of the target states for development of offshore aquaculture, with operations planned for the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Alaska could have fish farms under the proposed Code even though salmon farming has been banned in state waters. New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Maine, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and
California are also at risk, as are neighboring countries.

NMFS has only allowed a one month comment period on their draft code, beginning August 23, 2002. We need public input to get the comment period extended and we are calling for public hearings.

Contacts:
Colin Nash, proponent of offshore aquaculture, is the NMFS person receiving comments, and for now, only until Sept. 23, 2002. He is not accepting email or phone comments, so it is especially important that the comment time be extended so that people who are fishing or unable to meet this deadline have time to get comments in.

Colin Nash
NMFS/WASC
P.O. Box 130
Manchester, WA 98353
Or Fax: (206) 842-8364

The process can be extended if enough people call for it and comments need to be sent to Susan Bunsick and others with NMFS. Contact NOAA/NMFS offices in your region and the following list of NOAA/NMFS personnel:

susan.bunsick@noaa.gov 301-713-2334 Extension 102
Robert.C.Hansen@noaa.gov
Laurel.Bryant@noaa.gov
Gordon.J.Helm@noaa.gov
Brian.Gorman@noaa.gov
Jim.Cohen@noaa.gov
Dane.Clark@noaa.gov
Jim.Mcvey@noaa.gov

Ask for a comment period extension and public hearings in all states where off-shore aquaculture is planned.

You can access the draft Code of Conduct online at the NMFS aquaculture page: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture.htm

Please at least take a look at the NMFS background and rationale for the Code.

They state they are committed to facilitating commercial development of at least seven new finfish species.

They are plainly quite aware that moving off shore takes the proposed farms out of state and local control.

A stated purpose of the Code is to legitimize aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic zone.

They see a need to establish private ownership rights to sites for developers, which they believe will include foreign and multi-national corporations. This shift in property rights privatizes what we all hold in common - the ocean.

Contact your elected representatives and anyone else who will press for public hearings and extended comment time.

Thank you for your help,
Mark Ritchie
Anne Mosness
Mike Skladany
Phil Lansing
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
http://www.iatp.org/fish
PH: 612-820-3402
e-mail: fish@iatp.org
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

[Orca]

What the heck are thay trying to pull now??

First Part done:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Sept 20, 2002

Susan Bunsick
National Marine Fisheries Service

Susan,

I just found out about the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan to open up vast new marine areas in the US 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to fish farming.

I understand that the public comment period ends on Sept 23. I will be unable to provide my input in the limited time remaining, and respectfully request that the NMFS extend the comment period to allow myself and others to adequately understand the plan and prepare a response. I also request that the NMFS hold public meetings to solicit comment in all states where off-shore aquaculture is planned.

Sincerely,

...

-----------------------------------------------------------

More pressure to come on our Senators this weekend.

Everyone else jump on this before the 23rd!

[ 09-20-2002, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Orca ]

[corrirod]

I sent mine to everyone. Hopefully it's not too late.

[Orca]

Anyone else?

[Pilar]

I'm on it. I'll post a response this evening. Basically we just heard about it and almost did not. This issue is a big deal in BC and in the islands off Wa. All of the press I have seen is negative. Specific concerns are in regards to the antifouling treatments used on the net pens and the environmental damage of the ocean bottom under and near the net pens.

We have no real locations off our shore since Oregon is pretty much devoid of islands. But this is clearly an attempt to dodge the backlash these operations are experiencing further to the north.

[corrirod]

I was told by someone from Canada that these pens are a breeding ground for sea lice and the lice are killing off all the fish around the area. Anybody else hear that?

[OceanBlue]

Here's what I found:

Sea lice outbreak blamed on B.C. fish farms

From Europe:LICE CONTROL ON FISH FARMS

And a government report (B.C.):
Salmon Farms, Sea Lice and Wild Salmon

Sea lice outbreak near B.C. fish farms threatens salmon, say aboriginals

[Myles]

Here's a link to a report about the salmon farming in B.C. http://www.ariverneversleeps.com/bac...currents.shtml

If this is what they do while under scrutiny, I'd hate to see the results of unregulated fish farming.

myles

[Mark Mc]

This is a topic that we should all become well versed in, whether you're a river guy or ocean gal.

Here are a few more references:

mother jones article on BC fish farms

and from a Canadian organization that has been studying this for quite a while:

Suzuki Foundation

Bottom line:

- Present-technology salmon farms are NOT the answer to the "salmon crisis", or the "feed-the-world" crisis, as the proponents will tell you;

- Spreading of disease & parasites, water quality, and inter-breeding with wild fish ARE huge problems that are happening right now;

- Similar problems are likely to arise if farming / rearing pen technology is used for other species.

Politicians, and regulators who don't understand fishery biology & ecosystems, are easily swayed by proposals to open up new areas to this kind of thing because the proponents make it sound like such a win-win ("look at all the food we can supply, by only using the water". "And the jobs, bla bla bla").

The locals in Fort Bragg CA, a small town on the beautiful but economically depressed Mendocino Coast, are fighting a battle in which the city council wants to allow an "un-used" part of the rocky coastline for an aquaculture company to come in and develop the tide pools with their "technology."

[Mark Mc]

Myles: Just when I thought I'd read enough about this issue, I read the article you posted from "A river never sleeps" by Alexandra Morton.

This brings into question the safety of eating farmed fish. Although I've never bought farmed salmon, because of my "pride" and belief about taste & quality, I would now be inclined to tell all my friends that it could be unsafe to eat, not just bad for wild fish & the environment.

It seems there are at least a few aquaculture companies that can not be trusted regarding responsible use of antibiotics and chemicals (such as anti-fouling paint) in their operations.

[skein]

Interesting reading. I'm familiar with the area - we have gone up to Port McNeil almost every summer since 1987. I spent a couple of days at Echo Bay in 2000, and I can echo the sentiment in those reports. For example:

Fish farms, which used to be here and there, are now "around every corner." I don't have any numbers because I've never studied this sort of thing, but the proliferation is staggering. And I've heard stories from the locals about diseased fish and fish that had to be destroyed by the thousands. Stories of fish-handlers getting sick, etc. Stories that bordered on science-fiction. Maybe they're truer than any of us "outsiders" believed.

Fishing, both sport and commercial, has crashed. In the early season, I fish Double Bay / Blackfish Sound, a place that usually has 100's of boats fishing (and nets flying). This year I saw 4 boats. Even the owner of the sporting goods store in McNeil shook his head at the absence, telling me "You'll have plenty of room on the water." We used to watch streams of commercials traveling bow to stern on their way to an opening, and this summer there was only the odd boat here and there.

I could go on, but it's all anecdotal. All I can say is I won't be going back. And I had made that decision before I read the Morton or Suzuki reports. I think they've killed it.

Don't let it happen here - ever!

Skein

[DB_Cooper]

I gave this Colin guy my 2¢ worth of opinions. Here is the link to the draft code. You have only until 5:00pm PDT to respond (1 hr. from now).Good Luck

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/AQ/FRAQcode.htm

[Slow Roll]

Done,
Email and phone call.

This stinks that they are just trying to slip one by. I saw a special on this last year on the Discovery Channel (I think) and it was downright scary what the end results were.

Another abomination that they are trying to pass off as an accepted idea. That's a big load of you know what.

Paul B.

[kenai]

Whoa, that Mother Jones article really shocked me. Talk about trying to slip one under the radar. I'll make whatever contacts I can immediately. Seems lately its one assault after another.

[Deepslayer]

A River Never Sleeps really scary. :shocked: It's amazing how some people will muck up our whole ecosystem to make a buck!
I am sure they will never get the Atlantic Salmon out of the ecosystem now, since they are breeding in the rivers!

I have had friends catch Atlantic salmon in SE Alaska . Healthy well fed fish!

[corrirod]

Wow, I think that post just help solidify my decision against fish farming.

I agree with Skein completely. We're talking about instinct here. So how is it that fish raised in a hatchery being fed pellets learn to catch other fish in the wild?

I'm somewhat lost in the statement:

Moreover, Atlantics cannot successfully cross with Pacific salmonids, whereas escaped farmed Pacific salmon can and do cross with wild fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Huh? How can it work one way but not the other with the same two fish?

So the commercial fishermen are funding the opponents, whose funding the proponets? Could it be the fish farmers? Cause I know it's not the public.

Don't get me wrong. I may support fish farming down the road but it's my belief the environmental impacts have yet to be ironed out and I don't want to see my backyard used to do the testing.

[Mike Gilchrist]

Guys, don't get me wrong, I still have a healthy level of concern on fish farming. I just wanted to point out the other side of the argument.

The problems I have with opponents of fish farming is that they use the same old public aguments against fish farming that they allways have even though many have been proven false.

The issues I have concern with generally have to do with what we don't know more than what we do know. The sea lice example posted above is a good example, if that is indeed an issue caused by the farms. My other concern is that just because you set rules for fish farming does not mean that the opperators will follow them.

Skein: I don't think the writer was aware of the new reports of atlantics spawning successfully in some BC rivers. I also can not speak to why they would be easy to eradicate. The argument of being pellett fed holds some water but I agree that some will adapt to survive. The part that was not mentioned that leads me to believe that Atlantic salmon are not likely to populate the west coast is that in the early part of the 1900's atlantic salmon were introduced into the pacific northwest. I believe it had something to do with atlantics taking a fly. Those efforts failed completely.

corrirod: What he was saying is that potentially farm raised pacific salmon could escape to spawn with wild pacific salmon whereas farm raised atlantics can not spawn with wild pacifics.

[OceanBlue]

Okay, so if the concern were atlantic salmon spawning with pacific salmon, I'd sure feel better. But I think the larger concern here is that the atlantic salmon will reproduce and compete with our threatened native species.

Would atlantic salmon be a threat to native species' eggs? Compete for food?

When I posted this, I was really hoping to help get the date for response extended. I had no intention of taking on the issue itself, but it is certainly something to look at.

Conceptually, I love the idea of fish farming. What a wonderful way to provide seafood to a market that enjoys it, while protecting non-targeted species from over harvesting.

On the other hand, I think it ought to be studied carefully. Then, of course, there's the whole regulation thing. Making sure that businesses are performing as they should so that we don't have 'accidents' that can be destructive. Lastly, there's the potential impact it could have on everyone else who wants to use the ocean. Why, what will happen next? Floating condos? I just have a really hard time with the concept of turning large areas of ocean into farms.

Anyway, I haven't heard if the comment period was extended or not. Thanks guys, for trying to help with this. Let's keep our eyes and ears open and continue to share information... pro and con. I'd love to learn more about this "new" industry.

[KrystalFlash]

Hmm.....Sent one already. Sorry forgot to reply.

Now......Where did I put that Torpedo launcher....???

KF/MG
If you're gonna get Wet...
Make it a DoubleGaynor... :smile:

[Orca]

Mike G., did the RFA weigh in with the NMFS on this issue?

[Mike Gilchrist]

I have a few points to touch on because this thread has taken off in one direction that only seems to get info from one side. To be fair we should look at some other things.

1: I support efforts to get the comment period extended. That was the original point of this post. Their is certainly much to still be learned about fish farming overall and we should be cautious with the development of the industry. Even more important is to be educated on the subject.

2: It would be jumping to conclusions to be only thinking of salmon. Farmed halibut is a reality. Other species are on the way.

3: Who is the "Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy". They obviously are against fish farming. The rhetoric they use sounds quite familiar, in fact it seems to be identical to the wording used by the commercial fishing industry.

4: Straight of Juan De Fuca? Last time I checked that body of water was within the boundries of Washington State control, except of course the Canadian side. If Canada wants to establish fish farms there, nothing much NMFS can do about it.

5: Here is part of an e-mail from a person closely associated with the Washington State aquaculture industry:

The opponents of farmed salmon have fought every turn of the permitting and appeal process. Interestingly, the opponents have consisted primarily of retired U.W. professors and some active members of the faculty. We have always wondered who funds the teams of lawyers sent against salmon farmers. I have no proof that the funds come from the commercial fishing industry, but one wonders. In B.C., where the farmed salmon industry is much more extensive than here, the opponents are primarily funded by something called the David Suzuki Foundation. One can ask the same question regarding the true source of their funding. In Alaska, the legislature acted to ban salmon farming. This effort was strongly lobbied by commercial fishing interests. Whatcom County has apparently chosen to become a mini-Alaska.

I would be the last to tell you that salmon farming has always been problem free. The early efforts at net-pen culture in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in limited waste accumulations on the bottom sediments due to over-feeding and some unwise management methods. When there were disease outbreaks, the fish were given feed with medications, which raised fears of antibiotic-bacteria in marine organisms. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were extensive studies and a programmatic EIS. These studies showed that the environmental impacts of salmon farms were very limited, but could be improved.

The industry did improve through better management practices, improved feed, and better technology resulting in stronger net-pen systems. At the same time, the industry was strictly regulated by a plethora of permits issued by the Departments of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, and Natural Resources, and the Corps of Engineers. They were almost regulated out of existence, which comes as no surprise in our State.

In 1996 the remaining 12 sites in Washington were issued NPDES waste discharge permits by the Dept. of Ecology with strict conditions regarding sediment impacts. All the permits were appealed by so-called environmental groups under the umbrella of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund out of San Francisco. On the surface, they appeared to be concerned professors, environmentalists and lawyers. Below the surface, I wonder where the funding for this massive challenge came from. Thus, the opponents' strategy shifted from appealing individual siting permits to challenging the entire industry and Ecology.

For once, Ecology stood together with the regulated industry. We had a five-week trial before the Pollution Control Hearings Board. Twenty-three expert witnesses testified for and against farmed salmon. I won't bore you with the details. The salmon farmers won every single issue, which included the impacts of escaped Atlantic salmon, the impacts of waste discharges from the farms, environmental review under SEPA, and something called the anti-degradation policy. On all counts, the Board held that the opponents and their academic supporters had failed to prove their case. On all counts, the testimony presented by our scientific experts stood up. Nevertheless, the Board ordered Ecology to add conditions to the permits making them even more restrictive. The industry bit their lips and agreed to the measures. In fact, they were already voluntarily implementing most of them.

The opponents appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court. The Judge upheld us and the Board's decision on every issue. The opponents then appealed to the State Court of Appeals. They failed to show up at the first scheduled hearing. At the second hearing, the Court of Appeals ruled against the opponents, holding that their claims had grown stale and were now "moot." They had had their final day in court and lost.

The industry continues to work cooperatively with Ecology in protecting the environment while providing the public with an alternative to wild fish killed by commercial fishermen (along with a considerable by-catch).

One more note. Cypress' product is farmed Atlantic salmon. They are easier to raise than Pacific salmon and make a fine fresh or smoked product. Moreover, Atlantics cannot successfully cross with Pacific salmonids, whereas escaped farmed Pacific salmon can and do cross with wild fish. Several large escapements occurred from Washington farms in 1996, 1997 and 1999. Cypress has rectified that problem by replacing all of its facilities with newer, stronger technology able to withstand strong tidal currents. The point is that, despite the opponents' strenuous efforts and loud outcries, there never has been any credible evidence that escaped Atlantic salmon harm our native Pacific salmonids. That point was litigated extensively and the opponents failed to prove their case. Quite simply, farmed Atlantics act like farm animals. When released, they wander about waiting to be fed pellets, and find themselves in the wrong ocean. They are easy prey. Although they sometimes wander up rivers, there is no proof whatsoever that they interfere with the more aggressive Pacific species. There have been a couple of reports that Atlantics have spawned in the Tsitika River. Even if true, a couple of pairs spawning does not mean establishment of a self-sustaining run. If Atlantics did establish a run, it would be easy to eradicate.

I urge all of you not to be swayed by anti-aquaculture rhetoric over the effects of farmed salmon. The more we support farmed salmon, the less demand there will be for the commercially caught product.

[skein]

Mike, do you really believe this statement?

Quite simply, farmed Atlantics act like farm animals. When released, they wander about waiting to be fed pellets, and find themselves in the wrong ocean. They are easy prey. Although they sometimes wander up rivers, there is no proof whatsoever that they interfere with the more aggressive Pacific species. There have been a couple of reports that Atlantics have spawned in the Tsitika River. Even if true, a couple of pairs spawning does not mean establishment of a self-sustaining run. If Atlantics did establish a run, it would be easy to eradicate.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">No species as inherently strong as the Atlantic Salmon got that way by "wandering around waiting to be fed." They will get hungry and find something to eat. They will mature and find someplace to spawn. And if runs are easy to eradicate, then would you lend a hand to the folks trying to eradicate mudsnails, zebra mussels, and chinese snakesheads?

Not trying to pick a fight, but your post raised a lot of red flags, and I've learned over the years to trust myself when the alarm bells start going off. Put me down as one who vehemently opposes fish farming off our shores.

Skein

[Slow Roll]

My response back from Mrs. Bunsick:

Dear Mr. Borowick,

In response to requests from you and other members of the public, the
National Marine Fisheries Service will be extending the comment period
on the draft Code of Conduct until October 31. A Federal Register
notice will be issued within a few days.

Thank you for your interest in this document.

Susan Bunsick

Looks like we got our extension, now what?

Paul B.

[Pilar]

Now my friends, we have to educate ourselves. We need credible information and a fact based response to net farmed salmon.

So we have 30 days or so to do this. Does anyone do this for a living willing to talk about it? BTW, Who signs your paycheck? is where the credibility test starts.

The issues are ( feel free to chime in here ) ...
1) Pollution or other environmental effects
2) Escape and alien population problems. IE: Atlantics in West coast rivers, spawning, interbreeding.
3) Economic importance. Does it make sense to farm fish like Salmon? Who makes money and who loses.
4) What do other places think? Not that this matters too much, Oregon and Oregonians lead as far as 'New idea' thinking goes.
5) ???

[ 09-25-2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Pilar ]

[skein]

I've got a niece who just graduated with a degree in marine biology. I believe, through her studies, she has contacts from Vancouver Island to New Zealand. If she doesn't know an answer, I'll bet she knows someone who will - or who will at least have an informed opinion. I'll ask her.

As an aside, she has a strong interest in orcas, and in her junior year, to reward her for studying so hard in college, my wife and I took her to Johnstone Strait and let her observe the pods at close range. I can't tell you what a pleasure it was to watch her eyes and listen to her converse with the scientists that were up there studying the whales. I believe I could have driven the boat away and she would have just stood there on the water - she was that close to heaven. But I digress....

I'll ask her.

Skein

[Mike Gilchrist]

Orca: I did not personally weigh in on this issue because it quite honestly skipped past me. I have not been able to determine if other RFA reps did or not

Because of my location in the Puget Sound region I have been exposed more to the issues surrounding fish farms than perhaps those of you reading this message board from Oregon and Southern Washington. We have had several salmon producing fish farms within Puget Sound for quite a while now. If anglers had any information that indicated that these salmon were threatening the long term existence of our fisheries we would all be up in arms about their existence.
A member of the RFA advisory board, Jim Georg, who also produces the fishing magazine "The reel news" has been a long time proponent of fish farming because of its impact to the commercial salmon fishing industry. He has regularly put articles in his magazine correcting some of the misinformation circulated primarily from the Alaska fishing industry.
I am not as well informed as he is on the subject so I will share some of his responses from the last article he published on the subject.

1) Pollution or other environmental effects:
Uneaten feed and fish feces are the main organic wastes released by salmon farms. Studies show that waste accumulations, if any, is limited to the area directly under the farm and does not normally extend beyond a few meters from the site. In locations where waste accumulations occur the sea floor recovers within several months to 5 years after farming is halted. Farmers try to locate their farms where currents naturally dispose of the wastes before they can settle.
Salmon farmers must follow stringent fish health practices where broodstock and eggs are rigorously tested for disease and young salmon are raised in disease-free water. Transfer of salmon smolts from hatcheries to saltwater pens will expose the fish to diseases carried by wild fish migrating past farm sites. Records show that the only diseases found in farmed salmon are those which occur naturally in wild salmon populations.

2) Escape and alien population problems. IE: Atlantic?s in West coast rivers, spawning, interbreeding:
All attempts to establish sea-run Atlantic salmon have failed. Early this century, Atlantic salmon were deliberately released into 52 B.C. water bodies to try to establish sportfishing runs. Of 195 introductions totaling 13.9 million eggs, fry or smolts, not a single one was successful. Despite numerous attempts in dozens of other countries, there has never been a successful introduction of sea-run Atlantic Salmon outside their normal territory.

3) Economic importance.
The only reason we have started to get better allocations on salmon fishing compared to what we used to get is because the farms in Chile, Iceland, Norway, B.C., etc have driven the price of salmon very low.

4) What do other places think? :
The countries I mentioned above are obviously in favor of it.

5) I still have the concerns that I stated in my previous post. Just because we set standards does not mean that they will follow them and their has to be some enforcement presence their. I actually prefer the idea of ocean farms out in the EEZ to land based ones. There is always current to disperse the waste. There are typically organisms that thrive on the waste. Escaped fish are not near one particular river mouth. There is simply a greater margin for error in the ocean. If there is a problem the ocean will recover with less overall impact than, for instance, an estuary. I would recommend never having farms in an estuary.

[corrirod]

Mike,

I'm still having trouble decifering the conflicting information I'm getting from you vs. various media.

For instance, in this month's issue of Saltwater Sportsman, October issue, I quote:

"Biologists on Alaska's Copper River Delta have found Atlantic salmon swimming in fresh water in that area. The fish probably escaped from commercial salmon farms in Washington state or British Columbia. Alaska officials consider Atlantic salmon an invasive species and warn that Atlantics could displace native Pacific salmon species. A report from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, states that the first Atlantic salmon was recovered in southeast Alaskan waters in 1991 and since then almost 600 have been documented."

That's 600 documented, what about the ones still out swimming around? Is this publication wrong? If so, who really knows what's going on up there? I've talked with fishing guides in B.C., as well as civilians and they all despise fish farming and claim there are lots of cases of adverse effects.

Also, if fish farming has been going on for quite awhile now, what positives have been realized? There should definately be enough history to tell if it's making a difference. Why is nobody, in the media, talking about the positives of fish farming?

I guess I'm a little confused also about why Oregon needs to join the fish farming club? Exactly what benefits will we see because of this? I agree it may reduce the amount of commercial fishing by driving down salmon prices to an unprofitable level but that will happen no matter where they put the next fish farm. Right now our salmon crops are thriving and able to sustain commercial fisheries, are the rewards of fish farming worth more than our commercial fishermen's jobs?

To me, I'm not sure why we would want to take such a chance. I realize the fish farmers will enjoy the new territory and revenue but what will the residents of the state enjoy?

I hope to learn more very quickly so I can make an educated decision whether to allow it or not.

Mike, please don't think I'm singling you out. I only direct my questions towards you because you seem to have contact with the "other side". I don't want to argue, I just want to learn.

[ 09-25-2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: corrirod ]

[Mark Mc]

So here's my 2 cents. The proposal is about "rules of conduct" for some form of aquaculture in the open ocean. We need to find out what is the intent behind this pre-work for open-ocean aquaculture. Is it merely sincere. proactive forthought to the possibility? Or has some entity put out some "feelers" with the regulators to find out if there are any restrictions to some new aquaculture? The only thing I know of that is indeed happening in these waters is the seining of bluefin tuna off the Monterey area, then slowly towing these fish to Mexico where they are put in pens & fattened up for the Japanese market. The PFMC has recognized this in their ongoing work on a Highly Migratory Species management plan; they specifically have this bluefin operation on their agenda. But what else is on the horizon?

So we are trying to learn about all the possible pitfalls from this example of salmon farming. But until we know what kind of operation is being thought of, it is hard to correlate any specific learnings from the farmed salmon situation, only the general concepts.

"Transfer of disease" would be a general concept. As applied to the bluefin thing, one would ask "what happens to the level of disease / parasites in those bluefin as they are confined together for the tow down to Mexico, and while in captivity?" And if this increases disease, what is the impact on the surrounding natural area?

I think the learnings from farmed salmon are real helpful for a start. However, the possibilities for the ocean are limited only to one's imagination. I would suggest that we all brainstorm for these possibilities, but we wouldn't want to give any lurking science-fiction aquaculturist any ideas now, would we?

So for now, I would like to find out what is driving this proposal in the first place. I'll talk to my friend at Sea Grant & see if there are any rumors floating around.

[Fishplay]

[img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
I think we need to take a close look at this and then assess our posisition. We have just recently established a respected presence in fisheries management. Lets be cognizant of the reputation we build. It is known that our group is capable of organization and vocality. We don't want used as pawns in the Kings board game when it's our credibility at stake. In other words, lets limit ourselves to the issues that greatly effect us and those that we hold dear to heart!
There is already some apparent confussion about the specifics of the proposal and the subsequent effects we will experience.
The key isssue is:

"The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plans to open up vast new marine areas in the US 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to fish farming, outside the reach of state and local government".

This is not a State issue it is a federal issue. Yes Oregon may be effected by fish farming offshore but lets keep this in perspective. Oregon's economic and ecologic liability is most probablly limited. Our bretheran to the North however may be more adversely effected. The Straights of Juan De Fuca could be developed under this proposal because I believe the (EEZ) is the area inside the 200mi international waters line and the 3mi. offshore state waters line. Some of the San Juan island areas could fall within this range.

I'm not saying we shouldn't stay involved with fish politics. Neither am I saying we should only fight Oregon battles. Many of the members here are Washingtonians. I myself consider the Straights homeland waters due to living and fishing in the area for many years. Lets do, however; be careful not to become the complaining customer thats no longer heard!

[ 09-26-2002, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Fishplay ]

[Deepslayer]

I have read all of the posts on this subject, and I must admit I am still confused. :whazzup: There is one thing that would concern me, that I have not seen mentioned. I would be very concerned if a foreign company was given rights to fish farming in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone! :depressed: I do not feel that this would benefit any of us. It would only hurt all Americans who make their living from or enjoy the benefits of the ocean. My $.02.
,Ed

[corrirod]

I agree Fishplay, becoming a complainer is counterproductive. There is a reason why they are asking for feedback regarding this issue and I feel we, as a group of concerned fishermen and women, can provide helpful suggestions and possibly expose conflicts that may not have been thought of before. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if we don't, who will?

Maybe this is a complete non-issue but until I've learned that for myself I intend to do some research and voice my thoughts.

I don't know, after seeing the whole Groundfish debacle it really scares me that I could lose my privileges in an instant. All it takes is some goofball to show up at a meeting, tell the appropriate people to stop, and if there is nobody else to debate it I will lose it. John(Pilar) asked the NMFS leader if he was a fisherman and he was not! I almost fell out of my seat! Of course he doesn't care if our limits get reduced to nothing, he's never landed a 40" lingcod, or a 50lb. salmon. He's never seen the expression on a young childs face when they land their first fish.

I don't blame him. He's using scientific data that he believes is accurate to make his decisions. He has no sentimental tie to fishing like we do and that's the part that scares me.

Maybe some of you know these people below better than I do. Do they have our best interests in mind?

Susan.Bunsick
Robert.C.Hansen
Laurel.Bryant
Gordon.J.Helm
Brian.Gorman
Jim.Cohen
Dane.Clark
Jim.Mcvey

And Deepsleeper, I agree 100%. I was trying to say the same thing but you said it better.

[OceanBlue]

Mike: Thanks for bringing us info from the "other side". I'm curious about a number of things and yes, I understand that some of what we see is rhetoric, propaganda, and whatever else you might wish to call it... coming from those who'd like to see the Commercial Fishing interests protected. Obviously the opinions you've shared with us are from a pro-farming, anti-commercial viewpoint. However, I think we all would like some educated, non-biased information on this topic.

At the risk of starting a heated discussion, I'd like to seek clarification on a few of the other's viewpoints that you've shared. Whether you or someone you know can answer these is not what's important. These are intended to be thought-provoking questions:

The statement was made: "In locations where waste accumulations occur the sea floor recovers within several months to 5 years after farming is halted." What adverse effects are there during the farming effort? during this 5 year recovery period? Is the recovery period directly related to the length of the farming effort? (I'm assuming that tides and currents also affect this)

"The only reason we have started to get better allocations on salmon fishing compared to what we used to get is because the farms in Chile, Iceland, Norway, B.C., etc have driven the price of salmon very low." Can you explain this further?

"he countries I mentioned above are obviously in favor of it." Because they have/allow it, does that mean they're in favor of it?

" actually prefer the idea of ocean farms out in the EEZ to land based ones. There is always current to disperse the waste. There are typically organisms that thrive on the waste. " What are these organisms? Are they good ones? Or will this population thrive and cause destruction or otherwise disturb the ecosystem?

Fishplay: Good points, however, I would not want to assume that "Oregon's economic and ecologic liability is most probablly limited." I'm not suggesting we take up this sword and become embroiled in this battle. I would however, like to learn more so that I can decide if or how to become involved.

Deep:
Ditto!

Slow Roll: Thanks for posting the good news.

All: Let's continue to explore and share information.


[ 09-26-2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Pilar's Mate ]

[Fishplay]

Suggestion:
Please take the time to read the "code of conduct". It is pretty dry reading but very informative. At the very least read the scope of the document so that you have a general knowledge of what your being asked to comment on.
The following are important reading also if you wish to become completely informed of our governments stance on aquaculture (specificly the National Aquaculture Act).

National Aquaculture Act (reauthorized 1998)
Magnuson-Stevens SFA definition (Harvest includes aquaculture)
NMFS Strategic Plan - Develop environmentally and economically sound marine aquaculture
NOAA Aquaculture Policy
Department of Commerce Aquaculture Policy
DOC/NOAA Aquaculture Information Center

Corrirod:
This is definately not a complete non issue but rather one that deserves our attention. This whole aquaculture industry could devistate an entire ocean if not monitored and policed correctly.

Deepslayer:
Your concerne of foreign interests is addressed but you may not be happy with it.

Pilars Mate:
I know your original intent was to simply help get the date for comment extended but things were quickly changing course with out what I felt was sufficiant education. I'm glad you don't like to just sit back and assume things. Your passion is inspiring. My statement about Oregons economy and ecology was based on all the information I have personaly digested and I beleive it accurate.

Anyone else notice the lack of participation by our State. Should I be scared? Or is this due to the conclussion I previously came to about our liability? :whazzup:

Lets all stay abreast of this issue and be ready for the `stakeholders and the coming proposals.

[Mike Gilchrist]

I find myself without the time right now to continue posting reply's to this thread. The seattle times seems to be pretty good at reporting on issues of aquaculture and in what is kind of a surprise to me they seem to report it as news without obvious bias. I posted a couple links but if you go to www.seattletimes.com and search their free archives you can find many more.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...ry=salmon+farm

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...ry=salmon+farm

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...ry=salmon+farm

[OceanBlue]

Fishplay,

Quick comment then off to a 1/2 day meeting :-(.

You might be heartened to know that although it may not appear that the state of Oregon is concerned about this... the info that I posted was forwarded to me by an individual that works in a state office. I have no idea what Oregon's "Official" position is on this, or even if they'll get directly involved as it is a federal issue, but at least we know that there are concerned citizens at the state level.

[Fishplay]

Thank you Jennifer, that news is somewhat comforting. I was perplexed as to why not one representative was present at any of the workshops held. I would have thought OSU or the Marine Science Center would want to be involved in early policy determination. It appears that notification was sent.

It remains extremely hard for me to imagine large aquaculture pods anchored in the unprotected waters off Oregon. I know of salmon farms in BC that have broke loose in very protected areas. I can't wait to see the areas proposed for development and the list of species they plan to produce.