RANCHING THE OPEN OCEAN

12/23/03
MICHAEL MILSTEIN

L ook out at the boundless ocean, and envision a new Iowa -- homesteaded by fish farm colonies bigger than downtown Portland, with row upon row of undersea cages roiling with swimming livestock.
From Our Advertiser





It's a dream of seafood visionaries, and the Bush administration is laying the foundation for it.

Federal officials are drafting legislation to let fish farmers lay claim to parcels of sea, just as pioneers laid claim to acreage in the unsettled West. Expected to head to Congress next year, it would apply to federal waters from three to 200 miles offshore -- an immense region outside state jurisdiction and bigger than the entire land area of the continential United States.

The move underscores U.S. government aims to expand fish farming in the United States fivefold by 2025. At that rate, the value of farmed seafood would surpass that of the nation's wild catch. Commercial fishing may become one of the last of the hunting and gathering traditions.

With salmon prices depressed, the new breed of farms may raise more marketable species: cod, halibut, black cod, red snapper, shellfish and more. Nobody imagines it would all happen right away, but over time, fishing boats could give way to bargelike cage complexes that hover below the waves -- safe from storms -- before rising up on floats come harvest time.

Unlike land, oceans have long been viewed as a common resource. The new legislation would grant businesses exclusive use of the sea under leases that may run 20 years, signaling the United States' plans to embrace an aquaculture boom sweeping the world.

"It would be sort of industrializing the oceans to produce things, and that's a brand-new idea for people," says Richard Hildreth, director of the Ocean and Coastal Law Center at the University of Oregon.

Fish farmers speak in dreamy terms of "blue pastures" ready to be sown. Offshore farming can reduce the nation's rising dependency on imported seafood, they say. More than 75 percent of seafood eaten in the United States comes from abroad, much of it raised on farms that may lack rigorous health and environmental standards.

"It's a food security issue," says Conrad Mahnken of the NOAA-Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center near Seattle, who is working on the new legislation. "It's difficult to know the quality of our food when we don't control where it comes from."

This is the fish farming vision.

But many Northwest fishermen see it as the first step toward privatizing the oceans, undermining fishing communities and handing over public waters to industry. A bill in Congress would also let oil companies avoid the cost of removing marine drilling platforms -- and claim tax breaks -- by converting them to free-standing fish farms.

Fish farming today could open the door to eventual leasing of the ocean for garbage dumping or other damaging uses, critics say.

"This is one of the largest public trusts we have," says Jeremy Brown, a salmon and albacore troller in Bellingham, Wash., who is trying to rally others against the movement. "Industry and the administration are looking at it and saying, 'How can we cash in?' "

On the far north coast of Norway, amid an Arctic landscape covered in snow much of the year, a laboratory is developing fish for the sea farms of tomorrow.

Anyone entering the chilly basement room full of conical tanks swirling with finger-sized cod must first don sterile slippers. The Norwegian government has invested $3 million in these pale gray fish -- the first generation of a national breeding program for cod.

Six researchers, including geneticists and molecular scientists who can scrutinize the tiniest bit of DNA, track the fish daily to select those best suited to farm life. Traits such as growth rate, disease resistance and adaptability to confined spaces all figure in.

Farmers have long sorted cows and chickens in similar ways, and Norway has become the most proficient farmer of high-value fish. The Scandinavian country has mastered salmon farming and exported it around the world.

Cod, a worldwide staple, may be next, especially with wild stocks in steep decline.

"We are realizing that captures of wild cod may never be much greater than they are today," says Arne Arnesen, director of aquaculture research for the Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture Research, which operates the breeding center on the island Ringvassoy. "There is now room for more farmed species."

Down the laboratory's hallways, tanks burble with tiny, transparent lemon sole, mean-toothed wolffish, sea urchins, king crab and more -- all species that may have a future on farms.

When it comes to aquaculture, countries including Norway, Japan and Chile have left the United States in the dust. Fish farming is expanding around the world by about 10 percent a year, but by only 2 percent in the United States, says Linda Chaves, director of the office of constituent affairs at National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries.

"Why should the economic advantages of these farming operations accrue to other countries if they could accrue here?" she asks. "We would like to be the leaders in establishing what the environmental standards should be globally, but right now we're not a player at the table."

As the federal agency charged with building aquaculture, NOAA-Fisheries has sunk cash -- more than $3 million last year -- into making the United States a player. Grants and loans have gone to hopeful fish farmers and researchers designing new cages to stand up to rougher seas offshore, where currents may supply cleaner water, and to solve disease and escape problems.

It plans to pay a New Hampshire company $289,774 to develop a U.S. strain of cod for farming.

But as near-shore fish farms clash with seaside residents and activist groups, NOAA-Fisheries thinks the only way fish farming can fulfill its promise is to move farther offshore.

Marine farming will take place in something called the Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ. It begins where state waters end, three miles from shore, and extends 200 miles from the coast. It lies under federal jurisdiction, yet no federal agency is entirely in charge of it.

That means fish farmers trying to set up shop crash into a bureaucratic wall: No federal law covers the leasing of ocean for fish farms or provides for environmental safeguards.

In 1987, a company called American Norwegian Fish Farms Inc. wanted to occupy 50 square miles of ocean 37 miles off Massachusetts and build 90 pens that would hold 45 million pounds of salmon. But, facing repeated regulatory struggles over several years, the company gave up.

The new blueprint for aquaculture would outline a straightforward process for the secretary of commerce to grant permits. It's unclear whether environmental standards that apply on land would extend offshore -- or what controls would limit escapes, fecal waste and use of drugs. Salmon farms in operation worldwide face few restrictions on the management of huge volumes of waste. But the government would set up new standards through a public rule-making process, Chaves said.

Just as land grants encouraged settlers and railroads to develop the American West more than a century ago, rights to the sea are seen as a vital incentive to persuade fish farms to expand offshore.

An early draft of the new fish farming legislation, obtained by The Oregonian, authorizes the secretary of commerce to lease sections of ocean for fish farming for up to 20 years. Farmers would pay the government royalties of one-half of one percent of the sale price of their fish.

A report funded by NOAA-Fisheries suggests zoning the ocean, like national forests, into sections suited for commercial use, recreation and other purposes. Some regions might become "aquaculture parks" -- after industrial parks on land -- where many fish farms could operate together.

A possible location in the Northwest would be the Strait of Juan de Fuca, outside Puget Sound, said Dan Swecker, executive director of the Washington Fish Growers Association.

"If you could do it on a massive enough scale, it could be worthwhile," he says. "It would take major investment."

Fishing and recreational uses would likely be restricted in leased waters, creating perhaps the first example of a private business mandate for U.S. waters.

Farmers, the legislation says, must use "best available and safest technologies" to protect public health and the environment. But it offers a loophole rarely seen in federal regulation -- the best technologies would not be required if incremental benefits are "clearly insufficient to justify" the costs.

Officials have since revised the legislation, but would not release the latest version until it is cleared by the administration.

Fishermen fear leasing will shut them out. Farming proponents say that's unlikely, however, since farms need not be big to be prolific.

"You can produce huge volumes of fish in a relatively small area," Chaves says. "I would be shocked, stunned and amazed if we ever had huge fish farms blanketing our EEZ."

But it is difficult to tell where the limits might be. NOAA-Fisheries, a branch of the Department of Commerce, is vying for the role of regulating ocean fish farming while also promoting it. The agency has made marine aquaculture a top priority for $6 million worth of grants in the next two years.

Some of that would go toward engineering cage systems that could stand up to battering by the sea. One of the pioneers is Ocean Spar Technologies of Bainbridge Island, Wash., which sells $100,000 saucerlike cages that remain submerged and can be tethered almost anywhere currents allow it. Almost 20 are in use around the world, and the cage has proved sturdier than the fish inside it, said aquaculture manager Langley Gace.

"It's like being in outer space," he said. "You're out away from everything, so you really have to plan ahead."

The ultimate obstacle to offshore fish farming, however, is higher cost. With salmon prices depressed by oversupply, companies are looking into more valuable species. As they move farms toward the horizon, they also may compensate by raising lots and lots of fish.

"The industry is going to develop whether we like it or not," says Chaves. "We would like to ensure it's done in an environmentally sound manner. We can't do that unless we're at the table."

Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com

It would cut back on netting but is it possible? I could see this as a huge source of food in the future. I actually think that this is a good idea but I don't believe that it could be as large as the artical talks about.

Thats so lame.. we need tio start the days where if you want a salmon to eat you go catch it yourself I am sick of all the destruction in the name of free enterprise.

I support all aquacultures.
This sounds like a good plan eventhough way behind the asian countries.
The result of aquacultures will definitely impact the commercial market.

They do the exact same thing on land with almost every animal raised for food. Cattle, hogs, chickens and the list goes on. Why fish-farming has never become bigger than it already is, is what really suprises me the most.
If something isn't done now, what will happen in twenty or thirty years. Ultimately, this may be the only thing that saves the wild salmon and steelhead.
History tells us that when food or other demands are high enough, the animals in demand will be the ones to suffer. Look at the American Bison ("Buffalo") the Eastern Elk, Ducks and other animals that have been commercially hunted. Until the commercial hunting was stopped they were doomed. Luckily, many of them have since recovered.

the only question i have about doing this is the genetic engenireeing that is done to make a fish more desiarable for the companys that produce them. it is just like farmed salmon, no one wanted to tell you that they have to put food coloring in them to make them that pretty color until everybody raised a stink about it. steve

The food coloring used for farmed raised fish is natural.
This stuff is usually called NutuRose.
Alot of people are very ignorant when it comes to feed and they'll jump when an ingredient is hard to pronounce or sounds funny.
Just because something is added to the feed does not always mean it will hurt you.

Just think about the vitamins you are taking daily. It does not grow out from a tree.
In deed it is all man made in a lab.
Same thing.
Of course there are a few things which are dangerous too.
Just look for the FDA approved and do a little research before you follow the "Red Herring".

Iron head is right on!

I worked on a project that was to build an algea raising farm in hawaii. The algea was grown and added as a suplement to farmed fish food to naturally enhance the color of the flesh. It was the same substances they get in the ocean.

O natural... Except for maybe the little bio engineering that was involved... J/k...

I personally think that without some sort of fish farming on a large degree we will either wipe out certain species of fish or totally disrupt the food chain and screw up every species of fish. My only concern is with the environmental impact. Something like this has to be in the ocean and near good currents to distribute the wastes over large areas.

This seems like a good direction to go relative to fish harvest and having more available at the markets may make for a healthier populous down the road. The point where I cringed is when they mentioned the straights as being ideal. Say what? Those tides go both ways so for almost half of every day all the waste bi-products from these farms would be blowing into the Puget Sound region. Not sure you need to be a biologist to understand what will come from that after a few years.

Off shore, away from the mouth of the straights, and out a few miles would seem to be the appropriate location. Let the open ocean wash that stuff away, not push it into our bays where alot of the clams, oysters, etc. are.

Great! Frankenfish, feeding the Clones and the Test tube Frankenbabies of tomorrow.

Maybe we should take a more through look at artificial reproduction, overpopulation and other issues, before we are forced to freak out the Planet and it's resources. If you can't naturally produce a kid, don't go have Dr. Frankenstein and order take-out, 5 at one time, in a test tube. Would you like fries with those babies? Not! Those that do are going against the Laws of Nature, which keeps things in check and weaknesses out of the bloodline and species. Can we keep up with the feeding of so many artificial but real appetites? Probably can but at what cost? They are here folks and in great numbers. It's is now a cottage industry. From genetically modified grains, feeding Clone animals and Humans (Organic and Non-Organic), to in the near future, impregnating men with artificial wombs, to add to our gene pool. Hello!

Reasoning starts at the top and encourages understanding and education at the grass roots level. Who knows what the impact will be of in-breed Cloned and Test Tube individuals, dating the Son's and Daughters of Natural or Organic people, having babies and everybody eating their frankenfood? There goes the neighborhood.

Just hope they come out with labels to identify the Organic from Non-organic amongst us. That is sure to be a battle and could cause the next really big war for all the marbles. "Clones vs. Non-Clones, Organic vs. Non- Organic". The year 2060 AD or sooner at this rate. The winners gets to eat the losers, as in Solent Green. Remember that movie, Sci-fi fans?

We need to look for solutions within ourselves and the choices we make.

John Lee,
You must not trust you fish catching ability if you think you will have to buy genetically altered fish from a fish farm...


:p

Piper,

lol! I do catch plenty of fish and usually have a freezer full. I have a spare freezer just for the purpose of making sure I have plenty of the good stuff. I vacuum pack and smoke it when needed but give a bunch to friends or people I care about.

Got Fish? You bet.

Caution is highly warranted here. Ask a cattle rancher how many head he can run on a given piece of land and he will give you a very dialed in answer - 1 cow per 2 acres, 3 cows per 4 acres, etc. Can anyone honestly estimate the carrying capacity of the sea? If there is a collapse in the food chain all creatures that depend on that chain (our own salmon and steelhead included) will suffer. On first blush, this seems like a possibility to removing the commercial overharvest of the fish we love, however, beware the law of unintended consequences.

Merry Christmas!

Nice measured response Eddie...I'm sorry to see the world coming to survival by artificial means but remember that most of the world is populated by hundreds of millions of people who could careless about the environment and would do anything for a buck or to survive. Overpopulation and overconsumption worldwide is resulting in a major disastrous crash in fisheries. We focus on the Pacific NW but elsewhere the depletion of fish stocks has reached crisis proportions.

This article exaggerates the scope of the fish farm idea I think. I haven't heard of this before and will read more about it. Other nations are already on this bandwagon and I'm sure the US will follow to a greater degree in the future. I don't think this issue should be debated in the sense of Bush bashing as it is ultimately a non-partisan problem.

Rob I see you are still hoping for that euphoric dreamland full of nothing but wild fish ..Hope you find it someday..Think of a way to eliminate about a billion people from the earth and it might happen sooner than later. I must say I would rather see that than squeezing artificial salmon paste out of a tube .

no offense folks, just because something is made in a lab doesnt meen it is good for you (fish, medicine or otherwise). i feel that we should research and find out what exactly can happen. i personnally like to a good amount of research even before i take a medication. it's an old habit from working in the medical proffesion. just because someone says something is safe does'nt mean that is good for everyone. the other concern i have as someone stated is the waste that would be created. i would be curious if they had modeled this after some the existing fish farms so that i could study a little more about it, since i dont have all the info. to honestly make the most informed decision. not trying say that it is good or all bad just some random thoughts that pooped into my head as i read the article. happy holidays by the way. steve

Why do people always think that "Man" is not part of "nature"? Other then the sole, is he, and his ways not part of nature too? Just because we are at the top of the "intelligence list", that should not in my opinion, exclude man as part of "nature".

Many times we dismiss the cruel reasons for doing something as; its "nature's way"! Yet when man does things, why it is always considered to be "against" nature's way? In the end, "Natures" always wins anyway, so are we not just part of nature's big scheme of things?

So one could certainly say that what man (the specie) does is all part of how "nature" is working and playing itself out. You know, it's kind of like the seagulls that come in eat up the locus swarms at some point in time. So just maybe, in the big picture of things ("nature"), man was always meant to use the oceans for his farming fields but just hasn't gotten to that point in time yet.

The world's population is certainly not declining, and people will continue to need more food to eat! So to me, fish farming of our oceans seems to be the most logical direction that man will go to next, especially when you take into consideration that the oceans cover over 70% of the earth; and the Pacific Ocean covers 38 % of that. Most of the oceans would not be to useful for other types of "farming" because; 1) Overall oceans are not very biologically productive as they are too cold and dark (i.e. poor temperature and light availability) for the rearing of crops; 2) Species diversity is much lower than that of what is on land, and there is less habitat diversity/variability for use by other species.

So why not use them (the oceans) for the best production of food that they can be used for…..i.e. FISH?


Cowlitzfisherman

cfm

very interesting thought. i cant say i have had anybody put it that way before. i agree our population isnt going down anytime soon. so yes we should look at other possobilities to feed ourselves. like said i would just like to get more info, before making a hasty decision. i like to be able to hear from both sides of something to get a broader understanding of an issue. i think sometimes we as a society can make rather hasty decisions without thinking something through completey. steve

Anything to ensure the total and complete colapse of all comercial fishing! But of course do it right!

If you like science fiction, read the new Clive Cussler book "White Death".

It's about fish farm genetisists creating evil monster fish. All of Clive's books have their technology rooted in current truths.

i like the idea of this fish farming, when they mentioned maybe farming king crab, thats when i perked up, i would like to be one to eat that stuff if it wasnt so spendy and also how many people in the crabbin industry this might put out of work, i dunno, but it will save some lives also, crabbing is a very dangerous profession and when there is a company big enough out there to come out with its initial price offering, i may jump on it..might be a good investment..

Yea,

But before you would know it….you would have eaten up all the profits!

I have no problem with farmed fish to feed the world. I'm sure there will be numerous problems to overcome as this evolves, so I would think that the number one priority should be to make all farmed fish "seedless", so to speak. This will assure a limited time that any uncontrolled or uncontrollable problem can remain alive.

As far as knocking out the commercial fishery as it presently exists?.....I'm all for it!

My biggest worry is like Eddie said, a total collapse. We fishermen are right now the eyes and ears for most destructive fishing. Being many miles offshore there will be very few if any eyes or ears out there to be able to see what is happening. By the time something catastaphic were to happen it woulld be too late. Overall taking the pressure off of our natural land based Salmon and Steelhead would be a great idea. Ever been to Neah bay and watch the commercial fishing boats feeding the huge processor ships nonstop? They dump the by-products (fish) over board and they are floating everywhere, dead or dieing. Very sickening, wonder how much one of those shoulder mounted rocket lanchers cost? It is out there everytime I go out there. How can anything replenish at that rate.

Those are the nature worshipping Makah's....Mother Earth and all that....they are the ones with the huge nets on the back of those huge seiners...with all the fish and birds rolled up in the nets...every time I come back to the marina it makes me sick. They are a separate nation though so their actions don't affect America...right? Maybe if fish farms become popular enough the tribes can go to court and confiscate half of those fish too???

I read a little on the current fish-farming going on in the world and the problems that it creates. I see this off shore concept as a resolution to a few problems that exits.

As stated in the article waste build up in the shallow water farms in Canada and Asia are a major problem and putting the farms at sea sounds like a better solution. The other problem is food for the farmed fish. Farmed fish are feed fishmeal. This is made from the unwanted smaller fish in the world. To supply this food other countries use dragnets on reefs to catch the small fish that we would not cosumme for are selves. This is ground and feed to salmon and other farmed species. This causes a far larger depletion of our oceans then just targeting and netting salmon in the first place. It takes some thing like 3 lbs of ground fish to put 1 lbs of meat on a salmon. Of course in cages salmon would not burn a lot of fat hunting. I once learned that cattle can be walked at curtain speed with out burning fat, but if the go fasted they lose a lot of weight.

If off shore farms can some how fix this problem then I am all for it. Make be they can grow sardines at the same farms in order to feed the salmon and cod. I believe that the fall out of salmon and stripper commercial catches at the turn of the century off of California had more to do with the over fishing of sardines, the food fish of the larger species, then the over fishing of the salmon and strippers them selves.

Why not save the middle step and just process the smaller fish into fish-like substances...

Anyone for "hot dog-fish" or "kil-bass-i"... Oh I almost forgot... How about some "hatchery steelhead brat-wurst"

it sounds like a great idea to me. as for putting out the commercial guys jobs. well wouldn't these new farms all need employes and boats. rather than pulling a net around the ocean raping it how about being a harvest contractor to these farms instead of a commercial fisherman? duh!! and it would be all year long not just sesonal as fish would need fed when not being harvested.


dc

Say what!

How many days a year do you want us commercial boys to work?

Don't you understand that we have other jobs to take care of too!

Full time jobs......bite your tongue boys!


Cowlitzfisherman

Aquaculture is not a new Bush administration idea. Plans for aquaculture have been in the works for years....Most of the bad press for fish farms is coming from the commercial fishing industry lobby so beware of who you are quoting to make your case.

I think Grandpa slipped something my drink when we met. I find myself agreeing with him a lot lately.

I agree that the biggest problem we have is overpopulation and its not getting any better soon.

Since we should/must feed all there people it makes sense to me to "farm" the sea.

And I especially agree that a lot of the bad press the current fish farms get can be traced to an ever more desperate commercial raping er fishing industry.

But, we need to proceed with caution. Man has a sad history of acting without understanding all the consequences. That said I think we should proceed WITH CAUTION. We need to know what we will fee d these fish, where it will come from, what effect harvesting smaller fish to feed bigger fish may have, etc. etc. etc.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Surecatch AKA Dave Vedder:

"Man has a sad history of acting without understanding all the consequences."


My point exactly!

i think it's dangerous for a hatred of one industry (commercial fishing) to cloud one's vision on other issues. fish farming has had serious problems since it's inception. disease has been catastrophic in areas such as norway, and wild stocks have been damaged. atlantic salmon are spawning in northwest rivers (in bc juvenile atlantic salmon have been found in rivers, even with only a tiny percentage of rivers tested). do we want to risk other species, especially offshore species such as halibut and sablefish? it seems to me that this offshore farming is just an "out of sight, out of mind" venture to lessen opposition to fish farming from not only commercial fishermen, but coastal residents and environmental groups (i know that's a dirty word for some).

as one who fishes offshore, who decides where these offshore farms are placed (over popular and productive fishing spots?). the mention of how much fish meal is used to produce fish-eating fish is not trivial. just because the reduction of bait is happening in other places in the world doesn't mean it's not bad for the world's oceans.

lots will say the lower fish prices will force commercial fishing to disappear, but let's not forget the other side of low prices.... more incentive to catch more fish to cover costs. plus the consolodation of the world's fleets by corporations means the pressure will remain on governments to allow high harvest rates.

i also object to the taxpayer money being used to promote fish farming. i know there's plenty of waste in government, but it still bothers me.

ymmv,

chris

I am for the huge fish farms as long as all considerations are met along the way. What would they do with 5 million diseased fish if it were to happen. Bring them on land? drop them to the bottom for other fish to eat? This is somthing that really needs to be looked at before the monsterous farms are built. I am sure that is being looked into. The outta site outta mind approache here could be disastorous if things wee done dentirely in the name of profits. I watched the discovery channel yesterday about the "Mysterious Lobster" It went into fish farming on the east coast. They showed halibut and everything else. The halibut were up to 800 pounds. Wow. I think the high currents in the ocean would be helpful in reducing the waste build up delow the farms. The straight of Juan de Fuca should be out of the question. Victoria already dumps their sewage in it. Fish farms shouldn't go there.

Short term I think development of industrial aquaculture will be very hard on wild fish.

Look at what happened to wild land animals in north america with the large scale farming of north america 100 to 150 years ago. Combined commercial hunting, farming, and habitat destruction due to logging and farming did a number on many species. Buffalo, elk, deer, bear, ducks, turkeys, geese all driven to near extinction. Of course now 100+ years later they are again fairly abundant (except for the buffalo). The initial habitat degradation was extreme, and as the habitat has recovered, commercial hunting ceased, and the wild animals adapted to agriculture , their numbers have rebounded. Of course some species didn't adapt or recover (anyone seen a passenger pigeon lately).

I for one don't want to give up fishing for 100+ years while the fish recover from our mistakes in aquafarming and comercial fishing.

topwater....I do not think we are talking about hatred of commercial fishing here. The numbers are all documented for all of us to see....commercial fishing has done more to deplete the world's fisheries than anything else. Commerical fishing has taken the most and paid the least for it. The fisheries that commercial fishing has put under were made up of natural resources that belonged to all citizens...not just a handful of industrial harvesters. When one species crashes in population a new one takes its place until there are no more abundant stocks to over harvest...as in today. So maybe fish farming is a mitigation that we must do because of past excess and greed...Like hatcheries we built to subsidize commercial lust for harvest and now we debate the damage they may be doing to wild stocks. The damage has been done and now we are searching for ways to keep putting fish on the tables in Asia...so we can continue to make more money.

It is ironic that most of the crying about fish farming and most of the hot rhetoric is coming from commercial fishing and processing interests who stand to lose money if more fish farming is allowed. So I take their arguments with a huge grain of salt.

If this was New years eve......I would draink to that one grandpa !

Hey grampa2, FYO, the Alyeska, Misty Dawm, and the other big draggers In that one port may be crewed by Makahs, but owned and financed by who?
Knock off the Indian bashing.
Try looking elswere to place the blame for the same bycatch that I have seen with my own eyes too.
You make some good points, but if those nets bother you, than lobby against the powers that be, who allow the rape of our ground fisheries off our coast with those very nets. Not the american citizens who do their job for the man, make a paycheck, feed and house their families, and likely live under the poverty line.
Remember that commercial and recreational fishing oppurtunities are set by the same regulatory body. Don't ask sportsman, already on the banwagon of comercial hating, to pick out one small minority of people to place the blame. It's a global issue, not just local.
Myself, I've never even considered comercial fishing for a living. But I can be empathitic to someone's way of life being threatened, even if it is detrimental to the overall good of the fisheries I am so passionate about.
I don't have all the answers, but to call out one Indian tribe is unfair when the issue incompasses the entire world. And I do see aquaculture as progress to the problem of that same world's ever increasing population.

jaydee....I know I am being critical of the tribes. I am not singling them out by any means. I think I mention many other villians. The Makah tribe is trying to make a go of it without the luxury of a casino...They are poor as are most members of tribes. The draggers out of Neah Bay are raping the resource no matter who owns the boats. If, as you say, indians do not own the operations that is news to me and would be even a bigger joke. If you know who owns them other than the tribe please document it here. No matter though since we are discussing the possible implementation of offshore fish farms. I suspect if and when they come to pass near Neah Bay the tribes willl be involved....Maybe they'll go to court and sue for half the farms???

I am on your side.
Tribes have the fishing rights they do because of treaties of the past.
No doubt that aquaculture is the future and our government will probably encourage and maybe help fund it so the tribes get a share, but I seriously doubt half. In the case of Makahs, I believe that no where in their history did they ever practice any substancial form of aquaculture, they have always harvested from the sea, and under "current regulations," you and I see first hand the damage that it causes with today's technology. Yelloweye rockfish for example. Since its been their right for thousands of years, under treaties, they will continue to have the right to commercially fish. By no means is there a treaty granting half of all aquaculture to tribes.
My point is be more critical of the governing/regulatory body(ies) who allow the needless destruction. I'm just sick of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer all the time. There is no doubt in my mind that draggers do sooo much indiscriminate damage and something should be done. But that is the job of our elected officials.
I don't know if you grampa2, or whoever, is famillar with the Recreational Fishing Alliance but they have made some wonderful steps in protecting our ground fishery in the NW in my opinion.
As far as documenting names to place blame for three, or four draggers in Neah Bay, I won't do it. Not when there's Hundreds of them up and down our northwest coast. All contribute to the damage and I refuse to call out the minority on this. It's a bigger issue than just those boats. Besides, how may boats come from Westport, Seattle, ect, to drag the fertile waters off of Cape Flattery?
Are they all run by tribes?
Who cares who's running them, it who is allowing them to do what they do, not the minority, but the majority, backed by Government.
And "if" someone did get a large share of aquaculture in our state, so be it. I'm not interested in the money, just protecting and maintaining the resource. The oppurtunity to sport fish, recreationally, is all that I ask for, and that's what I want for the generations to come. For me fishing is a privlege.
Mr. Vedder, I hope I'm not straying from the point too much.

jaydee....I am a member of RFA and fully support what they do nationally and what Mike and Phil do here locally. They are a great group to support and I think they will be extremely successful in the future supporting sports fishing.

grandpa,

i stand by my post. we have no argument over the damage commercial fishing has caused, but i will not push another imo damaging industry just because it might put commercial fishermen out of business. that was my point, not that commercial fishing has no impact. i personally will not support industries i feel are bad for fisheries, and i believe aquaculture is bad. it creates a net-protein loss from our oceans (so much for the feeding the world nonsense), has major disease issues including fatal levels of sea-lice near farms. pushing it further offshore doesn't negate the negatives, it just moves the industry further out of sight and out of regulation. as for the earlier post about what would happen with dumping large numbers of dead and diseased fish, we allready know the answer. the canadians have allready dumped huge numbers of dead and diseased fish offshore (i wonder what fish have eaten them... maybe halibut).

as for commercial interests not liking fish farming... i wonder why. not every commercial fishery is damaging and farmed fish is low quality fish that damages the market for high quality wild fish and increases the incentive to overharvest because the cost is less.

chris