Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
By Jeremy Brown, Mike McCorkle, Zeke Grader, Dr. Michael Skladany, Ben Bolton
We’re all familiar with it by now. In the push for free trade and globalization -- not to mention increased corporate profitability – many jobs here at home have been sacrificed. Jobs in textile and steel mills, shoe factories and electronics plants have gone overseas in droves over the past two decades as the government has pushed its free trade agenda and corporations have slipped from their union contracts to go abroad to places where the livin’ is easy and the labor is cheap. It’s not just blue-collar workers anymore being laid-off, but their white-collar brethren who are facing pink slips as their once safe technical, financial and service jobs are outsourced to places like India and Israel. President Bush’s chief economic advisor, Gregory Mankiw, uses the case of radiologists in India analyzing the x-rays, sent via the Internet, of American patients, as a shining example of how far this has already gone. Now, friends, it seems they’re coming after us!
The outsourcing we’re talking about here, however, is not U.S. companies eliminating jobs here at home and sending the work abroad, but “our” U.S. government closing the ocean commons to fishing men and women and sending the production of fish to offshore aquaculture operations owned by major corporations.
Now we know a lot of fishermen have already lost their jobs because of U.S. policies favoring multi-national companies engaged in the farmed salmon and shrimp trade. And we’re all too familiar with the job losses that resulted after the U.S. government encouraged a mass of new and larger boats into the fisheries in the late 1970’s and 1980’s without doing any assessment of how much fishing the stocks could sustain, or giving any though to what would happen when the populations were fished down.
This new proposal is even more insidious. What they’re proposing in what was once the Fishery Conservation Zone, renamed by President Reagan as the Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”) – that ocean area from 3 to 200 miles – is the leasing of large offshore tracts for fish farms. In essence, they are trying to private our ocean.
Old oil rigs are likely to be the first sites for these operations. By turning decommissioned platforms into aquaculture operations, oil companies hope to get out from under their lease agreements to remove the structures and clean-up the seabed – which they agreed to when they signed the contracts giving them the exclusive rights to the oil and gas in an offshore tract. They are looking to get out from liability for the structures as well. Offshore net pens, well outside of pesky state jurisdictions, and giant deep-sea fish cages – like something straight out of Popular Science – would be next.
This is not something off in the far distant future either, but hitting us right now. During this past month there have been proposals for offshore fish farms on old oil platforms in both the Santa Barbara Channel and the Gulf of Mexico. While there has been some shellfish culture on the rigs – mostly mussels – in the past, this is the first time finfish have been proposed, utilizing many of the stocks currently harvested by U.S. fishermen. Further, as this is being written, the Bush Administration’s offshore aquaculture initiative is now going through final approval by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and being readied for introduction in the Congress.
Of course, fishermen have not been completely forgotten by the folks at the Department of Commerce or its National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its subsidiary the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), that this Administration calls “NOAA Fisheries” (the once proud old U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries). For the lucky few there may still be jobs catching fish to feed the stocks in the pens or cages. There may be jobs hauling supplies to the offshore operations. For divers, there may even be jobs cleaning the pens and cages. For everyone else – well, see what buyback may be available to take your boat and permits (if you are lucky, for 20 cents on the dollar) and get in the line for an “associate” position at Wal-Mart.
How did this all come about and what can be done about it? We’re not claiming to have the inside track here, as we were never invited in and those on the inside aren’t talking, but here’s what’s known.
It appears two forces that have long been at work have now come together. The first of those forces comes from the problem the oil industry has with what to do with offshore platforms that are now obsolete because the wells they’ve tapping have run dry. Under most of the lease agreements the industry has with either the federal government (for the leases 3 miles and more offshore) or state governments (leases in state waters), the industry is required to remove the platform and clean-up the seafloor. The removal and clean-up costs can run up to $30 million or more per platform. Although the companies clearly understood their obligations under the terms of their leases and the costs involved, and have profited handsomely from those leases, they would prefer, nevertheless, to reduce or eliminate these cleanup costs.
One way to reduce removal and clean-up costs has been to leave part of the submerged platform in place, simply renaming it an “artificial fishing reef.” To what extent the rigs actually act as habitats and increase fish production or simply act as fish attraction devices is still a matter of debate. The rigs are much less useful as habitats or attractants once the upper portion of the platform is removed, since it is that above-water portion that provides the shade canopy attracting fish. In effect, the remains just become a scrap heap, potentially creating navigation hazards from those portions left protruding above the seabed.
While a “rigs-to-reefs” program can substantially reduce removal and clean-up costs for the oil companies, there are lots of problems. Other than the issue of whether these structures actually “create more fish” or just act as fish aggregating devices making fish appear more abundant, there is still the question of whether rigs make the best reefs, or whether other types of structures that more closely mimic nature, such as concrete, are more effective.
While the artificial reefs may be good for sportfishermen (sort of like stocking a lake with fish), they’re not good for a lot of commercial fisheries. Aside from changing natural habitats, the oil rigs and the assorted anchors, debris and “safety zones” around them make them virtual no-take reserves to most commercial fishing. Leaving the debris from the rigs in place and not cleaning up the seabed prevents a lot of commercial fishing in the sites and presents real hazards for lots of fishing gear, from troll to trawl. Indeed, some of the rigs sit on sandy bottoms, prime habitat for flat fish and areas where trawling should directed instead of eliminated.
Then there is the problem of pollution around the rigs and to what extent it may contaminate the fish at the site. Heavy metals and hydrocarbons, much of it from substances such as barite and diesel oil used in the drill muds, can leave the seabed around a platform heavily polluted. These pollutants are then picked up by the fish in the surrounding area. For example, fish around oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have been found to have high levels of mercury; the source of this mercury was from the barite that was used in the drill muds. In late 2001, the Mobile Register commissioned tests on anglers who caught and consumed fish from around the oil platforms and found that they had mercury levels in their blood some 10 to 11 times higher than the safe level of one part per million (for more information see the January 1, 2002 Register report and the follow-up articles by writer Ben Raines). Whether these toxics could ever be cleaned-up is uncertain, but it raises questions about creating artificial reefs in these sites without first testing to determine whether the fish from there would even be safe to eat?
Still, it is obvious that there are huge economic benefits to the oil companies if they can find some way to get out of their original seabed removal and cleanup obligations, duck any future liability for both the mess and the dangerous piles of scrap they leave behind, and gain tax credits as well! In other words, the oil companies are seeking any way they can to shift the true costs of these pollution problems from the companies to the taxpayers or to public health.
Besides the “cut off the visible bits and call it a reef” option, which is fraught with liability concerns because of the implicit hazards to public access, the oil companies now seem to favor options that would retain the essential private property exclusion that rigs currently enjoy. Under consideration now are proposals for converting derelict rigs into prisons, powerstations, natural gas unloading terminals, research facilities, marine resorts and most recently to “homeland security stations.” The latest and now most popular way out is to turn these aging structures into fish farms.
The idea of using oil and gas platforms for aquaculture operations has been explored before in places like the Gulf of Mexico. A bill - HR 2654 or "the Rigs to Reefs Act of 2003" - was introduced last year in the U.S. Congress. Among other provisions, the bill would exempt oil companies from having to remove rigs within a year of lease termination and even award them tax credits for converting their rigs.
Not content to wait for public debate, one such project is quickly moving beyond the discussion stage. Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute of San Diego has teamed up with NMFS, Chevron-Texaco and the owner of the candidate rig, Venoco Inc., to convert the aging rig known as “Grace,” 10 miles off Ventura, into a full-on fish production operation. Initial operating permit applications were filed with the Army Corps of Engineers and the US EPA just this January, and company officials expect to begin work before the end of 2004.
Renamed the “Grace Mariculture Project,” Hubbs Project Manager Paula Sylvia told the Los Angeles Times they planned to grow California Yellowtail, Bluefin Tuna, Striped Bass, Cod, Halibut and Abalone. She claimed that no wild fish would be used to stock the facility, but rather that larvae from the Institute’s Carlsbad facility would be transferred once large enough.
Meanwhile the Gulf of Mexico, with it’s thousands of older rigs, is also getting plenty of attention. Over 160 rigs have already been “reefed,” and industry sources estimate that this activity will increase as an average of 186 rigs will need to be decommissioned each year through 2023. The process is not without its critics, ranging from Greenpeace, who occupied and forced Shell to remove the massive Brent Spar oil storage rig in the North Sea, to the more staid and scholarly scientific journals.
In a recent article in the journal Nature three leading reef fish scientists, Robert Shipp of the University of Alabama, Felicia Coleman of Florida State at Tallahassee and Mark Carr of UC Santa Cruz all agreed that “the jury is still out” on the claimed benefits. “To really identify the ecological consequences of artificial reefs, we need to know how well the fish grow, survive and reproduce, and what their relative fates are,” says Carr. “We just don’t know yet.” “It’s changing the nature of the biomass. If you have more reefs, you will have more reef species,” observed Shipp.
Dr. Michael Skladany of the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy is more critical: “It’s a new giant biopolluting industry,” he says. “I just don’t think we need offshore aquaculture in our oceans. Oil rigs are amongst the largest structures ever made by man; to deliberately discard them in the ocean would be the greatest act of littering ever committed.”
The second force at work has been the push within NMFS and the National Sea Grant program to develop a major legislative initiative to promote ocean aquaculture. The concept has been around for 15 years or more, and an Aquaculture Policy had been crafted during the Clinton Administration, but was going nowhere until the Bush Administration came in, and with it a new Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, who (like the President himself) was a Midland, Texas oil man with close connections to that industry. Quietly the Bush Administration gave the ocean aquaculture initiative the green light.
The first warning signs were additional funding being given aquaculture research and development through the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act fund. That program, some may remember, established in the 1950’s by the two Senators from Massachusetts, was to aid the fishing industry through funds derived from a tariff on imported fish. NMFS, or NOAA Fisheries as Team NOAA now calls it, is now using the money to undercut the fishermen it was intended to help. More Sea Grant programs were aimed at aquaculture research and development, and NMFS even made a big deal at its annual fish fry in DC of pushing aquacultured moi.
It was clear what direction NMFS was heading, as publicly it sought the sympathy of commercial fishermen by evoking images of an agency under siege from environmentalist-inspired lawsuits. In fact, a lot of those lawsuits were brought on by the agency’s own incompetence, and some of the suits were actually brought by fishermen themselves because of NMFS’ lame lack of effort on salmon restoration or essential habitat protection.
In her December, 2002 Fishermen’s News article, “Aquaculture’s Next Wave Threatens to Swamp Commercial Fisheries – Moving Offshore, Out of Sight and Free of Scrutiny,” IFR’s Natasha Benjamin reported on NMFS’ quiet release in August of that year of its draft “Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ,” a document that left many asking “what aquaculture in the EEZ?” “This document was not widely publicized and most did not even know of its existence, especially within fishing communities,” wrote Benjamin. “NMFS’ rationale for aquaculture development in the EEZ is based on the Aquaculture Policy drafted by the Department of Commerce in 1999 calling for a ‘fivefold increase in the value of domestic aquaculture production by the year 2025, and threefold increase in employment.’” What policy? Who had even seen it, much less agreed to it?
More details came out at a November, 2003 Seattle conference, “Marine Aquaculture: Effects on the West Coast and Alaska Fishing Industry,” sponsored by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and funded only reluctantly by NMFS after Alaska Senator Ted Stevens got an appropriation and forced it on the agency out of his concern for what was happening to his state’s salmon fishery. As reported in this Fishermen’s News column in January, 2004 “Fish Farmers and Fishermen,” the attitude of the agency and aquaculture representatives there toward the fishermen attendees was both shrill and condescending, as if how dare we question this government agency, how dare we question this burgeoning industry that will feed the world’s masses through the miracles of netpens and biotechnology? How dare fishermen align themselves with conservation groups to protest “progress?”
Frankly, both the agency and a lot of the aquaculture folks attending attempted to use the forum to intimidate commercial fishermen, telling them to get in line and not raise a ruckus because aquaculture was the “wave of the future.” It wasn’t helped by the fact that there were some aquaculture industry folks lecturing the fishermen present about buggy whip makers and buffalo hunters. The metaphors, inappropriate as they were, reflect the spin NMFS and the fish farmers (and a few of our own industry media types) will try to give the conflict between the fish farmers and fishermen. These analogies are, of course, outrageous. Unlike buggy whips, wild fish are in demand and fishermen are no more obsolete than organic farmers when it comes to food production. Like organic farming as compared to industrialized, chemical-based agribusiness, wild ocean fisheries are probably far more sustainable, in the long run, than industrialized aquaculture.
Moreover, if anyone remembers their history, the buffalo hunters were deliberately hired to wipe out the herds of these native animals to make way for trains and homesteads - as well as eliminate the food source for the plains Indians. Fishermen, on the other hand, have an economic interest in maintaining sustainable populations of fish, not wiping them out, even if at times there are those who (out of greed or ignorance) do overfish. But such abusive and condescending metaphors, however inappropriate, abounded at that Seattle meeting, as noted in the January 2004FN article, and give us a feel for the spin the agency and advocates of offshore aquaculture will give to their upcoming legislation.
Worse, this issue is not just a theoretical worry for the future, but is upon us right now. The Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy’s (IATP) Offshore Aquaculture Working Group reports that currently “there are experimental and demonstration offshore fish operations in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Texas…. Fish involved in these projects are high-value species including: red drum, amberjack, summer flounder, cod, halibut, red snapper and cobia. Commercial operations are already underway in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.”
In September, 2003 the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council rejected a proposal by Florida Offshore Aquaculture, Inc. for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) for a site in the Gulf, 33 miles offshore Johns Pass, for caged culture of cobia, mahi-mahi, greater amberjack, Florida pompano, red snapper and cubera snapper. In December, 2003 NMFS upheld the Gulf Council’s denial, citing 20 different reasons. While NMFS’ decision on this permit gave the appearance the applicants were flakes and didn’t know what they were doing, the agency was also concerned that if such projects get going before NMFS legally establishes permitting authority for itself, it could be more difficult to install any kind of regulatory authority, much less revenue sources from the leasing of offshore tracts.
The rejection of the Florida Offshore Aquaculture application for an EEP is likewise no sign the Gulf Council opposes such ventures. Just this past month the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported a meeting in Houma, Louisiana where Gulf of Mexico Council officials were floating a proposed amendment “to lease offshore waters to fish farmers [that] could create jobs and business opportunities in the U.S. seafood industry.” Council officials “said current laws don't allow the federal government to lease offshore waters to seafood farmers, and asked industry workers and environmentalists how to create a new law that does.”
“Allowing offshore farms on some of the 4,000 coastal oil platforms might even open new markets for algae, pharmaceutical sponges, or even species of coral,” the Times-Picayune reported one researcher telling the meeting. “Alternatives considered in the proposal [GMFMC amendment] range from creating limited farming permits, for a few species, to allowing open ocean farms growing tuna or other highly migratory species….”
That brings us back to the Hubbs-Chevron-NOAA proposal for Project Grace in the Santa Barbara Channel and outside of state waters. “A major motivation behind the push for OOA [open ocean aquaculture] is the growing opposition to coastal fish farms and tough state regulations. By locating offshore, fish farming operations can escape state control. For example, it would be possible to locate farms three miles off Alaska, though the state has banned fish farming to protect its hugely productive marine ecosystem. Likewise, genetically engineered fish could be raised three miles off California, Maryland or Washington State despite their bans on these organisms,” said IATP’s Offshore Aquaculture Working Group.
The Working Group went on to say, “NOAA is expected to submit its ‘offshore aquaculture bill’ to Congress, which will set up a policy framework for the widespread commercialization of open ocean aquaculture (OOA) operations. If the bill is passed by Congress, it could green-light not only a brand-new, giant bio-polluting industry, but a wholesale privatization of the Continental Shelf and an end to public stewardship over the oceans.”
The upcoming legislation may very well be the culmination of these two forces coalescing – one resulting from an oil industry effort to get out from under removal and clean-up costs for old rigs; the second from an agency push, most likely generated by some wannabe fish farmers in NOAA, some big food manufacturers and the ever-present entrepreneur looking to make a quick buck from a government policy. The problems inherent in the new NOAA Aquaculture initiative should be readily apparent to most fishermen.
Loss of Fishing Grounds. First, how much of the ocean is going to be lost to fishing if this NOAA initiative moves ahead? There are already concerns regarding the proposed 15 to 30 percent of coastal ocean waters that could be lost to marine protected areas and, more specifically, no-take marine reserves that some scientists and environmental groups are touting as the answer for ocean conservation. Drawing circles on charts and making them off limits to commercial fishermen isn’t going to save fish or our oceans, especially if there are no controls placed on pollution or other human activities affecting marine ecosystems. Now what would remain (or could be recovered by removing old offshore platforms) could be lost as the ocean is divided up into tracts for offshore aquaculture with no place left to fish.
Liability for Loss of Life and Property. Second is what every fisherman knows: the ocean is a powerful environment. What’s going to happen when these cages or net pens break free in a storm – which they almost certainly will? What happens when they are torn or damaged and the fish get loose? Who is going to be liable for damages to vessels or fishing gear or damage to natural resources as a result of aquacultured fish getting loose in the wild?
Genetically-Engineered Fish in the Open Ocean. Third is the issue of genetically-engineered fish. Will such transgenic animals, genetically modified to grow faster, or larger, or able to tolerate higher ocean temperatures, cooler ocean temperatures or whatever be allowed in the open ocean? There will inevitably be a push to use genetically-engineered fish with promises of higher profits, much as we’ve seen with agribusiness promises of higher yields and profits from planting GE crops.
What will happen when (not if) GE organisms get loose? Will there be an irreversible “Trojan gene” effect from genetic pollution that could utterly wipe out wild stocks? The National Research Council (NRC) raised grave doubts about sterilization techniques as a means of preventing GE fish from mating in the wild. Even if GE fish could be effectively sterilized to prevent mating in the wild, there are still issues of their preying on or competing for habitat with wild fish stocks. NOAA, however, is resisting any kind of restrictions on the use of GE fish in such facilities, including opposition even to a ban on such fish in the national marine sanctuaries they operate.
Disease and Antibiotic Use. Fourth is the issue of disease and the use of antibiotics. Animals, including fish, raised in close confines are much more vulnerable to disease and such operations become huge reservoirs of diseases which can then spread into the wild. Excessive use of antibiotics can also create antibiotic-resistant “superbugs.” Will there be prohibitions on the use of antibiotics or other chemicals, such as those to treat sea lice, with these operations taking place in open ocean waters? Likewise, what types of controls will be in place to assure there is no spread of disease to wild fish?
Amounts of Feed and the Sources. Fifth is the issue of feed. Aquaculture is touted as increasing the amount of protein available but, in fact, has resulted in a net loss of protein available for human consumption. What are these fish going to eat? “While aquaculture is proving less wasteful now than in the late 1990s, it is using up more resources than ever before. And recent US policies could be set to make things worse,” reported the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at their meeting in Seattle this past month.
“The expansion of aquaculture has meant that the total catch going towards fish food has continued to increase, from 10 million tons in 1997 to 12 million tons in 2001. As aquaculture continues to boom, it will exact a growing toll on species such as sardines and herring,” according to Environmental Defense’s Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, who has studied aquaculture extensively. The AAAS went on to say the “situation could be made worse by a new policy from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which aims to promote offshore farming of species such as red snapper and cod. By growing these fish in cages held almost 5 kilometres off the coast, NOAA wants to expand the worth of the US aquaculture industry from $1 billion to $5 billion per year.”
Fair Competition. Sixth is the issue of competition in the marketplace, or the potential lack thereof. These offshore aquaculture operations are not going to be Mom-and-Pops. It’s going to take a lot of capital and that means big business. With that capital investment, and given the size of the capital available to such large corporations, will there be an even playing field in the market place? Will we see these operators over-produce, as happened in salmon, driving prices way down? Will they dump product on the market to drive fishermen harvesting wild stocks out of business – assuming of course there will still even be places to fish or any wild fish left? Fisheries represent one area of the U.S. economy, and much of the world’s food supply, that is still largely in the hands of small producers. Will it stay that way or will there be increased concentration of ownership of the food supply?
Privatization of the Commons. Seventh, and one of the most troubling aspects of the whole NOAA initiative, has to do with the privatization of the ocean commons. In a recent essay, “Privatizing the Ocean, the Last Great Mahele?” by one of your authors here (Jeremy Brown) found that “U.S. territorial waters, commonly called the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)appear perfect for such a sale [transferring a publicly held resource to private hands]. They are real estate, hold vast natural resources, are completely out of sight, and 99 percent of the public doesn't even know the EEZ exists. Potential economic benefits that could accrue to private holders of the continental shelf include not only familiar oil and gas development, but minerals such as deep sea manganese nodules and methane hydrates, geothermal potential and aquaculture.
“Who could possibly object or miss it once it was sold off? Probably only fishermen, yachtsmen and cranky academics. Against this you have the vast force of speculative venture capital, eager to grab a piece of the action in a land rush on the planet's last frontier… As further evidence of both the potential windfall to insiders and being first in line, the marine aquaculture industry in the U.S., which is principally engaged in growing Atlantic salmon, is hanging on despite mounting losses. Being first in line and able to convert its leases into real property would certainly explain why it persists,” the essay noted.
The title for the essay, by the way, refers to the process whereby Hawaiian native land -- formally held by the King in trust for all -- was divided (mahele roughly means division), thus accelerating the native transition from subsistence to a cash- and property-based economy. Despite the stated intent that Hawaiian commoners should be the beneficiaries, in a very short time haole traders and missionaries had amassed most of the land, a situation that could be said to persist to the present.
“The open public debate as to whether any of these things are in the public interest has yet to begin, and should do so before any commitments are made,” wrote Brown. “The loss to the people of Hawaii through the Great Mahele is beyond dispute, whatever good intentions preceded it. The privatization of the ocean commons could well duplicate that pattern of loss, yet on a far larger scale.”
Exemption From Environmental Protections. Last, but by no means least, is the legal reality that offshore aquaculture operations become free of many current environmental restrictions. This is part of the reason they are being pushed so hard. Unless Congress specifically says otherwise, offshore industrial operations outside of state territorial waters are automatically exempt from all state environmental and land use laws, including state laws intend to protect ocean fisheries.
The Bush Administration has also been floating the legal theory that basic federal environmental protection laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires a comprehensive analysis of potential environmental impacts before a federal permit could be approved, also does not apply in the EEZ. The Administration has asserted that very position in a recent court case involving offshore military sonar testing and its impacts on marine mammals. If they can make that position stick in the courts, this means the federal government would not even have to investigate or consider the potential environmental problems discussed above. They could rubber stamp such permits in complete ignorance of potentially serious consequences to the nation’s ocean ecosystems and its fisheries.
So what should fishing men and women do about all this? The only answer is to fight back. We’re not saying here that some offshore aquaculture may not make sense or could never be done in an environmentally sound manner that would not interfere with commercial or recreational fishing. Just don’t look for it from NOAA Fisheries. Like with individual fishing quotas (IFQs), offshore aquaculture may make sense for some areas, and for some fisheries -- with well-defined national standards. Until that debate takes place, however, and there is agreement on where open ocean aquaculture (OOA) may be acceptable and appropriate, and until clear protective standards are in place, we should demand a moratorium on offshore aquaculture.
IATP’s Offshore Aquaculture Working Group has developed a report, outlining the problem and listing a series of recommendations. The report calls for a moratorium on commercial open ocean aquaculture (OOA) development until national aquaculture legislation is adopted and comprehensive, open and transparent protective regulations are formalized. The report recommends these regulations include:
A moratorium is certainly the first thing fishing men and women ought to be demanding before any legislation moves forward or permits granted for offshore aquaculture operations. The first question that needs to be asked Commerce, NOAA and its fishery agency – sometimes more appropriately called NO Fisheries – is why fishermen’s groups were never approached regarding a policy and plans that potentially impacts the stocks they fish, where they can fish, hazards to themselves and the fish they depend on, competition in the marketplace and the very safety of the fish they sell. We should expect them to come clean on what’s being proposed.
We’ve all heard news about companies springing news on workers about lay-offs and plant closings; well, we’re not about to let “our” government spring the news on this 10,000 year old profession that it’s about to outsource the jobs of fishing men and women and replace us with aquaculture. It’s not unreasonable to ask, demand even, that fish stocks be protected; that access to fishing grounds be maintained; that the fish that are caught and sold are healthful – not contaminated, not genetically modified; that competition in the market place is fair – free from dumping or manipulation; that fishing men and women can continue to make their livelihoods in sustainable fisheries, and not have their jobs outsourced by this Administration.
NMFS/NOAA’s Aquaculture site is at: http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/frontpage.htm.
What to do with platforms? Alexander’s Oil & Gas Connections; www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex13166.htm.
The Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy website is at: http://www.iatp.org/fish/Nature. See also: http://www.nature.com.
Copies of the power point presentations made at the November 2003 aquaculture conference in Seattle are now available on the web from the PSMFC at: http://www.psmfc.org.
For more about the recent National Academy of Sciences’ report on the Trojan gene problem, see the report online at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0306285101.
A copy of Jeremy Brown’s essay is on the web at: http://www.tidepool.org/voices/mahele.cfm.
A copy of the National Research Council’s report, “Biological Confinement” is at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309090857/html.
A copy of Natasha Benjamin’s article, “Aquaculture’s Next Wave Threatens to Swamp Commercial Fisheries – Moving Offshore, Out of Sight and Free of Scrutiny” is at: http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec02.htm.
A copy of the January 2003 Fishermen’s News article, “Fish Farmers and Fishermen” is at: http://www.pcffa.org/fn-jan04.htm.
A slide show on the Platform Grace proposal is online at: http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/presentations/hubbsseaworld_files/800x600/index.html.
Jeremy Brown is a commercial fisherman from Bellingham, Washington. He is a board member of the Washington Trollers Association, the Western Fishboat Owners Association, the American Fishermen’s Research Foundation and the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association. He is a 2002 Food and Society Policy Fellow, a program of the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute in partnership with the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Mike McCorkle is a commercial fisherman from Santa Barbara, California. He President of the Southern California Trawlers Association, a member of Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara and a board member of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association and the Institute for Fisheries Resources. He was a 1987 “Highliner of the Year” award recipient.
Zeke Grader, J.D. is an attorney and has served as Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations for the past 28 years.
Dr. Michael Skladany and Ben Bolton both work for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Fish and Marine Conservation Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota.