JURISDICTIONS RESPOND TO THREATS POSED BY AQUACULTURE

 

Years ago, it seemed that aquaculture might be the answer to some of the problems plaguing fish stocks. 

It has been more than a century since wild-caught game disappeared from most United States markets; commercial hunting for waterfowl was banned in 1919.  

While some commercial fishing still continues in inland waters, it is generally restricted to catfish, some panfish, and “rough fish” such as buffalo, drum, and carp.  

With just about all of the meat and poultry that we buy coming from farms, and even some of the most popular freshwater finfish, such as rainbow trout, catfish, and Arctic char, coming from production facilities and not from nature, it didn’t seem unreasonable that commercial fishing in salt water, at least for inshore species, would eventually be either supplemented or supplanted by fish raised in coastal farms.

To some extent, that has occurred.  Most of the striped bass that show up in typical markets are actually farmed striped bass/white bass hybrids.  Just about all of the Atlantic salmon sold have also been raised in pens.  Other finfish species are raised domestically in smaller amounts.  The United States hosts a substantial fishery for wild shrimp, yet most Americans tend to purchase cheaper crustaceans that were farmed overseas.  Artificially propagated oysters, mussels, and clams undoubtedly far outnumber their naturally-raised counterparts on restaurant menus and in fish market bins.

But the development of aquaculture, particularly for finfish, has not been trouble-free.  Just as cattle infected native elk an bison with brucellosis in the early 1900s, farmed fish in coastal waters can infect wild populations with diseases and increase their exposure to various parasites such as sea lice.  There is also the risk that fish can escape fish farms, survive, and become a threat to native ecosystems, as occurred in the Mississippi River watershed when flooding allowed Asian carp to leave overflowing farm ponds and enter natural waterways.

Such threats to native ecosystems have led some jurisdictions to look past aquaculture’s promise, and give more serious consideration to the potential threats that it poses to native fish populations.

On November 17, 2022, in the State of Washington, the Commissioner of Public Lands issued an executive order prohibiting commercial net pen aquaculture on state-owned aquatic lands, and ending 40 years of net pen aquaculture operations in the state.  The executive order was the last link in a chain of events dating back to August 2017, when a poorly maintained salmon pen collapsed and released 250,000 Atlantic salmon, not native to Washington’s waters, into the state’s coastal sea.  That escape led the Washington legislature, in 2018, to pass a bill prohibiting the farming of non-native fish in the state’s marine waters; such legislation led, indirectly, to the total ban on net pens that was put in place last November.

The executive order noted that

“salmon and steelhead populations across Washington State, and in particular in the Salish Sea, are not recovering.  Further, salmon and steelhead are integral parts of the Salish Sea ecosystem, cultural identity, and Tribal Treaty Rights.  In addition, Southern Resident Killer Whales continue to be endangered due to a lack of prey, noise and disturbance, and toxics and other pollution.  Commercial finfish net pen aquaculture poses risks to the State, many of which cannot be avoided even with best management practices.  It is important to ensure that commercial finfish net pen aquaculture does not contribute added stressors to salmon, steelhead, Southern Resident Killer Whales, or the ecosystem.”

Although Washington has banned net pen aquaculture, the state’s Department of Natural Resources is actively promoting finfish aquaculture in land-based facilities, that do not create the same disease, parasite, pollution, or escape issues that are endemic to the net pens.

Washington’s decision to ban net pens puts that state in accord with Alaska, California, and Oregon, all of which had previously banned such aquaculture facilities. 

As one might suspect, the decision to ban the net pens met with both praise and condemnation, depending upon the commenter’s perspective.  Conservation advocates, which included many of the state’s indigenous tribes, were supportive.  A spokesman for the Wild Fish Conservancy stated that

“The benefits of these actions for the recovery of wild fish, water quality, and the greater health of Puget Sound cannot be overstated.  Immediately, this action will cease untreated chronic pollution that has been discharged daily at these aquatic sites for over forty years.  Finally, these heavily polluted and degraded sites will have the opportunity to heal and begin the process of natural restoration as part of the largest passive restoration project in Washington’s history.

“The decision will also eliminate many major risk factors that harm the recovery of wild salmon and steelhead, including ending the risk of exposure to viruses, parasites, and diseases that are amplified ans spread at unnatural levels by massive densities of farmed fish and the risk of future catastrophic escape events in which farmed fish could compete with, attempt to interbreed, or spread pathogens to threatened and endangered wild fish.”

Leonard Forsman, the Chairman of the Suquamish Tribe, said,

“Ending commercial finfish farming in our ancestral waters is an important step towards protecting marine water quality, salmon populations, and the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales.  The impacts of commercial finfish farming put all that at risk, and threatened treaty rights and ultimately our way of life and culture.”

However, others disagreed.  W. Ron Allen, Chairman of the Jamestown S’Klallam tribe, which operated a joint venture with fish-farming giant Cooke Aquaculture, argued that

“This action is an irresponsible denial of what science has proven: marine net pen aquaculture is safe for the environment and the most sustainable, climate friendly way to feed the world…today’s DNR announcement was political; crafted to placate ill-informed activist groups who refuse to admit the vast array of scientific studies show us that well-regulated aquaculture is not a threat to the environment, or wild salmon.”

Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, the aquaculture company’s west coast subsidiary, predictably issued a statement calling Washington’s action “short sighted,” and arguing that it had no scientific basis.

However, banning net pen aquaculture seems to be a continuing trend along the eastern Pacific coast of North America.  Last week, the Canadian province of British Columbia announced that it would not renew licenses for 15 net pen salmon farms, because the area where such farms are located

“is a key migration route for wild salmon where narrow passages [between islands] bring migrating juvenile salmon into close contact with the farms.”

The province’s Fisheries Minister, Joyce Murray, noted that the British Columbia government is working to transition away from net pen farming in coastal waters.  Ms. Murray’s actions were taken at the direction of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has charged her with shutting down all of the province’s 79 net pen salmon farms by 2025.

As in Washington, the salmon farming industry opposed such action, arguing that it would lead to the loss of important jobs.  The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance complained,

“This decision goes against First Nations Reconciliation, increases food costs to Canadians and undermines food security and has broad-reaching implications for employment and economic opportunity for people in rural, coastal and indigenous communities, and our global trading markets.”

However, the First Nations, speaking for themselves as part of the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance, apparently do not agree with the aquaculture industry’s comments, noting that over 100 First Nations support the move away from the net pens.

Lost in the debate, particularly when industry spokesmen begin to hide behind claims of increasing food costs and decreasing food security for local residents (claims that begin to seem somewhat questionable, when uttered in the same sentence with concerns for global trading markets), is the fact that eliminating net pens does not equate to eliminating all salmon aquaculture.  As specifically noted by the State of Washington, aquaculture may continue in land-based facilities, that present no threat to wild runs of salmon.

Yes, land-based aquaculture will almost certainly cost a little more than the net pens.  But for those who view the traditional runs of wild Pacific salmon as something priceless, the extra expense of going to land-based facilities would appear a trivial cost to pay.