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.