: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water....
04-03-2005, 07:21 PM
If you thought the recent research from inshore fish farms and the affects of sea lice might be a significant chink in the armour of fish farms...
Fish Farms Go to the Open Oceans!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20050403/ap_on_sc/farming_the_gulf&sid=84439559)
All you Gulf Coasters... Be careful what you wish for....
What scares me more, however, is the precident being set of fish farming in the open ocean... Not just in the Gulf of Mexico off the Gulf Coast, but our north Pacific and Atlantic backyards as well. As noted in the article, fish farms up till now have been regulated relatively locally, by states/provinces. In taking it into the open oceans, and National waters (as opposed to waters with state/provincial jurisdictions), local control and influence is all but lost. :eek: I gave Pescaphile some s**t in the other post about the federal government, but I'd join him in being VERY concerned about Federal Government control of fish farming in the open oceans. They ARE further removed and even less sensitive to input from concerned citizens and sports-folks, and even MORE influenced by the back door $$'s and influences that unofficially direct this (and every) administration and congress. :mad:
And we think there are problems with existing fish farms successfully containing their fish in pens, in the relatively sheltered inland/inshore waters?? Wait until we start seeing massive floating fish farms out in the high seas!! :whoa: That's the making of a nightmare!!! :eek:
my "favorite" quote from the article - in response to concerns of polution associated w/ these fish farms... expert...
Treece said, who believes the Gulf's strong currents "should take care of that," he said. "The solution to pollution is dilution, and that's what you got out here — lots of dilution."
Think he was also refering to the concerns over hatchery fish and their genetics infiltrating and "diluting" wild genetic stock??? :mad:
Species listed as already farmed - cod, flounder, redfish, salmon, halibut, haddock... Other species I could see going this way - striped bass... Watch out all you east coaster's.....
Did i mention the Shrub is actively behind and supporting this proposal????? :mad:
04-03-2005, 07:41 PM
The President's Action plan per this post... This was submitted to Congress and the different departments in the White House last year... Was/is (??) open for public comment...
Bush's Action Plan on Ocean's Management (http://ocean.ceq.gov/actionplan.pdf)
Page 23 of this report specifically outlines the desire and direction to "advance offshore aquaculture". Pretty black and white to me...
Plan's website... (http://ocean.ceq.gov/)
Further details on the President's action plan and all that it entails...
Did any one hear about this when it was open for public comment? An interesting list of commentors.... (see website, comments section)...
BTW - I find it kinda interesting that it's a land-lubbin' Central Oregonial, living in the dryest part of the State, that's finding all this stuff.... :hihi: :razz:
04-03-2005, 08:24 PM
This is going to take some time to read, but first on the list in the Highlights Page is Food Production, (Hail to the Shrub) :roll:
Feiger, your just good at findin this stuff and we know that! Were just letin ya do what ya do best, but dont expect any special treatment :chuckle:
I'm going to save comment untill I study this......but I will say that any Aquaculture Opperation inshore, or offshore, without strict controls is "Dilution" of the Oceans existing Wild Stocks!
Severe storms damaged some pens and fish got out. And Treece said studies show that the ocean-raised redfish worked out to cost a whopping $22 a pound, whereas redfish sold for $3.50 a pound at market. Also, just to run the platform's navigational lights and fight off corrosion cost about $50,000 a year, he said.
Doesn't even make sense financially!
Miget remembered standing on a platform with an Occidental representative contemplating the future of fish farming. Responding to a question, Miget estimated that in ideal conditions, the platform could gross $6 million a year.
"The Occidental employee turned to me and said: 'We produce $6 million in gas every month off this platform,'" Miget said. "That put it in perspective."
Clearly Bush is trying to take care of his oil buddies on this one. $2.2m each to take down a platform, thousands laying idle out there in the gulf...
Critics worry about turning the nation's oceans into the equivalent of ugly, dirty feedlots — but for fish instead of cattle.
"It's much like chickens or hogs or other confined feeding operations on land and putting them in the ocean," said Roger Rufe, president of The Ocean Conservancy. "There are considerable issues with that, pollution issues."
Not to worry, Treece said, who believes the Gulf's strong currents "should take care of that," he said. "The solution to pollution is dilution, and that's what you got out here — lots of dilution."
This reminds me of the quote coming from the Ronnie Raygun administration "with enough shovels everyone will survive a nuclear holocaust" or something like that.
Critics also question whether the government should designate sections of the ocean for farming and, in effect, privatize a public resource.
Just what we needed. Ol' boys network running the oceans.
Another concern: Hatchery-raised fish could be put out in open-water farms, escape into the wild and corrupt wild populations' genetic pools.
Alaskan fishermen, for example, warn that their wild stocks are being infiltrated by Atlantic salmon bred in fish farms.
"The potential for Atlantic salmon to compete with our natural wild salmon or to spread diseases is an ongoing concern and part of the reason the United Fishermen of Alaska opposes finfish farming," said that group's executive director, Mark Vinsel.
Besides it creates a power shift for a multi-billion dollar industry.
The efficiency of fish farming is another question. Fish farmers have been known to feed eight pounds of fish for every pound of fish they raise, said Andy Rosenberg, a U.S. Ocean Commission member and former deputy director of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
That plain sucks!
Industrial Aquaculture is no different than Industrial agriculture. Doomed to failure by taking more from the earth and her oceans than it produces. It has no intention to feed the third world nor could it. Only small scale local farming and very localized aquaculture and localized fishing can feed the world. Every attempt to do other wise has failed, example, In the 70's the fertile Island of Bali was sold a bill of goods called high yield rice. They planted it and for two years they had huge crops then the soil failed and it took 8 years of hunger and hard work to get soil back where they could use the traditional ways and feed their Island population again.
Salmon were ment for a seasonal harvest and a harvest for a localized market. I support a localized commercial fleet one that takes only what the oceans can give safely. People in Kansas do not need to eat Salmon to live. I'm tired of the first world wanting to satisfy their taste buds at the cost of out stripping our worlds lands and sea of every thing that reproduces life. When it takes 15 times the amount of calories to get a product to market than the product gives out in life nourishment then we are out stripping our earths resources at a rate that means future failure world wide.
04-05-2005, 11:57 AM
I love putting politics into science; it makes everything so clear. From the sounds of this thread and others recently, I'd say some on this board are like the good ol' boys down South who are still fighting and moaning about the Civil War. Jeez, get over it already! The Whineocrats couldn't field a candidate who could beat Bush (twice) and continue to try to insist that they had the right choice... How many more decades do we have to listen to "That dang old Sherman, he didn't have to burn his way..."
It's hypocritical in my view to be whining about federal control now when that is the prime tenet of the Democratic party. Bush tried to turn over habitat issues and ESA protection to the states--Whineocrats didn't like it then because it took things out of federal control. Now when the feds want to control something-- in this case ocean farming-- the Whineocrats are complaining about things not being in state control. What do you want, federal or state control of resources? Pick one and work with it; you might actually accomplish something instead of beating your gums.
Support of commercial fishing? Let's talk hypocrisy-- the one industry that has done more to destroy salmon and steelhead runs in the Northwest than any other. If you don't believe me, look at the history. There are few, if any, benevolent commercial fishermen. They are into one thing-- making money. It's obvious that the commercial fleet is killing wild steelhead in the Columbia, not to mention killing ESA salmon. And some of you support that? Let's put more gill nets in the river! That'll help the runs recover.
Take the politics out of discussions that are involve science and policy, and you might be able to really discuss the issues that are involved. You might actually get some current facts instead of information that is decades old. But then you wouldn't be able to whine, right?
Some of the discussions lately remind me of a Trout Unlimited meeting I went to where the discussion centered around the planting of tiger muskies in Mayfield. One guy actually stood up and said that if the tigers were planted, they would escape and spread all up and down the Columbia system. Never mind that tiger muskies can't breed, and the plant was limited. If you let your emotions or politics rule your discussions, you're going to the main points...and Bush will still be president.
There were nuances of political orientation in previous threads, mingled within fish related topics. In your post, meaning no disrespect - there were nuances of fish related topics mingled within statements of political orientation! :lildevl:
Very good Keith. As a fly fishing republican you remind me of the guy a few years back on the front page of the Seattle Times. He was a republican who stood up for the enviroment. He talked about how republicans were doing the right thing though could do more to help make things better. They had a picture of this guy standing in front of his new 5000 square foot house made of old growth timber over on Lake Sammamish. Hypocrisy on both counts!
Hey Keith did you ever get down to the public meeting to speak out against the 6% wild steelhead kill in the Columbia River commercial season?
But we still like ya anyway.
04-05-2005, 03:40 PM
Yep, putting politics in fishing makes it all very clear. Just like putting religion in politics> :eek: :lildevl:
04-05-2005, 04:34 PM
If you are going to take on a project, what ever it might be as it relates to fish of any kind and there ultimate survival, the hope would be that you would carry on that particular action with the best intrest of your prime objective in mind, namely, THE FISH!
Common sense would dictate that any action contrary (ie, LACK of fish survival) to one that takes the best intrest of your prime objective, ie the fish, in mind would be COUNTER PRODUCTIVE!
It don't make a hill o' beans difference who the he** is behind it! If someone is he** bent on screwing with the fish stocks for monetary gain, and don't give a rats behind what they leave in there wake.....I for one am going to call a spade a spade!
If I saw someone who was involved in a less than scrupulous activity down at the river, or sea shore, or lake, I would'nt care if it was Geo. W, or John K., Gen. Sherman or the bloody local constable, I am going to make a stink. WHY HAWK?
'Cause folks need to be held accountable! The Fish Farmers, The Commercial Fisherman, The Sport Fisherman, Me, You, EVERYONE!
'Cause if everytime some crap was started like this, and everyone just threw there heads back and said "Ah well, la-de-da, whatever" there will be NO fish left, NO clean rivers, NO flyfishing, NO flyfishing forum!
Conservation Works! Activism Works! Instead of beating each other up for what side of the isle we might stand, lets put our heads together for the common good of THE FISH!!!
I yeild the Soapbox
Oh yea.....The Ways......RIGHT WAY, WRONG WAY!.... I mean correct me if i'm off base here
04-06-2005, 11:48 AM
Perhaps I erred in entering a discussion of fisheries issues with a political post, but since others were not separating the two, what the heck, I say.
I agree with Deerhawk that if fish are the concern, then fish should stay the concern without regard to politics and partisanship. Separate science and policy-- that's been my point for a long time and something that a lot of folks on this board don't appreciate. Too often I see posts where the Bush administration (actually the federal government) makes a proposal, and it's condemned immediately by folks who don't have a clue simply because it was a Bush administration proposal. That's B.S. from a science standpoint, and that was the intent of my original post in this thread.
An example of this was a change in the approval of chemicals for agricultural use. The E.P.A. decided to abandon a lengthy approval process by not bouncing it off every ESA species that might be concerned. This was widely hailed as an attack on the environment by the John "Every Tree Is A Chapel" Kerry crowd as an attack on salmon. Further investigation showed that the abandoned rules were so stringent, time-consuming and useless (or nearly so from what I read) that the EPA hadn't been using them at all for 10 years (that's back in the Clinton administration for those who went pursued a liberal education and are mathematically challenged)-- well before they were dumped by the feds.
Another hue-and-cry was raised recently when the Center for Disease Control issued a report/statement that said the mercury warnings for fish consumption we've heard so much about the past few years were inaccurate at best. The report indicated there were no (that's zero for the libs) reports of mercury poisoning and that the levels in fish were not above FDA guidelines. The HAC I heard said this was just another move on the Bush admin's part to rape and pillage the U.S. environment. Yet, the CDC is about as agenda free as it gets in this country-- it's more concerned with doing away measles and smallpox and things like that. I mean, c'mon folks, stop building hats out of tin foil and read beyond the scare headlines.
And OC-- if being a "flyfishing republican" means I'll get a 5,000 square-foot home built of old growth on Lake Samammish, then I'm gonna sell my gear rods and vote a straight party ticket. I could parlay that sucker into a trailer pad in Forks, a cabin in Ketchikan, a pied a terre on the Little Blackfoot and have enough left over for a little shotgun house on the Gulf Coast. Yes, indeed.
As for working for less than 6% in the Columbia, I'm more interested in getting rid of all commercial fishermen in the Northwest. Zero percent is much better than 2 % any day.
04-06-2005, 02:53 PM
Holy smokes Keith why would you want a cabin in Ketchikan the commercial fisherman wiped out Alaska back in the 50s :lildevl:
Your post are way to funny to be offensive sorry but I have just lived too long to take anything as pointed as this to be serious.