When
the State of Washington outlawed net pen aquaculture of non-native species in
2018, the decision seemed to foreshadow the end of net pen salmon aquaculture
on the Pacific coast of the United States.
At
the time, no open water salmon aquaculture facilities existed in Oregon, California,
or Alaska. In Washington, fish farms still produced coho
salmon and sea-going rainbow trout, the latter also known as “steelhead,” but
sentiment against the net pens was growing.
And in
2022, the state decided not to renew the aquaculture leases of Cooke Aquaculture,
one of the largest net pen operators (Cooke was also responsible for negligently
releasing 263,000 Atlantic salmon into Washington waters in 2017, after one of
its net pens collapsed), with the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources noting that it
“determined that allowing Cooke to continue operations posed
risks of environmental harm to state-owned aquatic lands resulting from lack of
adherence to lease provisions and increased costs to DNR associated with
contract compliance, monitoring, and enforcement.”
Hilary
Franz, Washington’s Commissioner of Public Lands, said that
“Since the catastrophic Cypress Island net pen collapse in
2017, I have stood tall to defend the waters of Puget Sound.
“This effort began by terminating finfish net pen operations
due to lease violations. Despite years
of litigation—and a company that has fought us every inch of the way—we are now
able to deny lease renewals for the remaining net pen sites. Today, we are returning our waters to wild fish
and natural habitat. Today, we are
freeing Puget Sound of enclosed cages.”
The regulations were widely supported, with over 80 percent
of the comments received by the Board in favor of the prohibition. The Wild Fish Conservancy, a Washington-based
nonprofit founded over 35 years ago to support conservative, science-based
management of Pacific Coast fishery resources and the habitats that support
them, issued a press release celebrating the new rules, which said, in part,
that
“…On Tuesday, Washington State made history, becoming the
first—and only—place in the world to successfully remove and permanently ban
commercial net pen aquaculture.
“…This decision ensures that this dangerous industry will never
return to threaten Puget Sound’s ecosystems, safeguarding the health of
Washington’s public waters for generations to come.
“’This is a landmark moment for environmental protection,’
said Emma Helverson, Executive Director of Wild Fish Conservancy. ‘Thanks to the commitment of the public and
the leadership of Tribal Nations, we have achieved something
extraordinary. This victory is not just
for Puget Sound—it’s for every community, every species, and every ecosystem
that has been impacted by the harmful practice of commercial net pens.’
“…These actions resulted in the complete removal of
commercial net pens in Washington, making 2024 the first year in four decades
that Puget Sound was free from daily pollution and the devastating impacts that
net pens cause…
“Washington’s success will also serve as a powerful model
providing important momentum for the global movement to eliminate open water
net pens, an industry that poses a threat to marine ecosystems everywhere in
the world that they exist. Similar
efforts to protect public waters and ecosystems from this industry are already
underway in countries such as British Columbia, Chile, Scotland, Norway,
Finland, and Tasmania…”
While that all sounds good, there were also people who were
very unhappy about Washington’s actions, most or all of whom were positioned to
profit from continued open-water net pen aquaculture.
An
editorial in the media outlet Fishfarmingexpert.com declared that
“Washington State’s fish farm ban ‘is out of step with
America,”
and went on to note that a
“Lobbyist points to growing bipartisan support for sector in
Congress,”
undoubtedly the same sort of support that often occurs when just
the right mix of lobbyists, congressmen, and campaign contributions is achieved. The article went on to quote
Drue Banta Williams, identified as the “campaign manager” for a group that
calls itself Stronger America Through Seafood, who complained that
“This decision in Washington State is out of step with the growing
bipartisan momentum for open ocean aquaculture across the country and in the
nation’s capital, as Americans and environmentalists recognize that open ocean
aquaculture can be conducted without harming the environment, is beneficial for
our communities, and is a sustainable source of protein farmed here at home…
“Aquaculture is increasingly recognized by those on both
sides of the aisle (in Congress) as a critical industry to boost our nation’s
economy and ensure a steady supply of healthy, sustainable, American-raised
protein. The US should be making every
effort to expand aquaculture in the US, and today’s decision in Washington
State is a step in the wrong direction,”
which is probably what any lobbyist for the aquaculture
industry would be expected to say.
Another group, the Northwest Aquaculture Alliance, which
claims to be
“Championing
the Growth of Responsible aquaculture in the Pacific Region, [sic]”
made
similar comments, with the organization’s president, Jim Parsons, alleging that
“This ban was not based on the best available science, but rather
on political maneuvering.
“DNR ignored hundreds of pages of scientific documentation
that demonstrated that responsibly managed net pen aquaculture can coexist with
Washington’s marine ecosystems.”
The catch, of course, appears in the phrase “responsibly
managed;” Washington’s initial decision to end net pen aquaculture of
non-native species was based on the collapse of what it viewed as negligently
maintained net pens, and its decision not to renew Cooke Aquaculture’s leases
was supposedly based on Cooke’s “lease violations.” Some might thus consider it reasonable for
Washington to believe that “responsibly maintained” net pens were more of an
aspiration than anything that might exist in the real world.
“predetermined and inadequate,”
that the Washington Department of Natural Resources
“does not have unfettered authority to regulate aquaculture,”
and that
“As the demand for seafood continues to rise and wild
fisheries are unable to meet that demand, net pen aquaculture is a crucial
component of the vision shared by the Alliance and its members.”
Without having reviewed the administrative record underlying
the Washington regulations, and without knowing anything about Washington law,
it’s impossible to predict who will prevail in that legal action. About the only certainty is that the issue of
net pen salmon aquaculture in Washington, which appeared settled less than
three months ago, is still very much up in the air.
Yet, while there is nothing unusual about an industry going
to court to protect potential profits, something fairly surprising, and also
aquaculture related, is happening up in Alaska.
Alaska
has banned fish farming of any kind since 1990, when its legislature decided
that
“Avoiding harm to the state’s wild finfish, land, and water
resources must take precedence over the development of a new speculative and
potentially harmful commercial finfish farming industry.”
However,
on February 21, its governor, Mike Dunleavy, introduced legislation that would
“authorize the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and
Game, in consultation with the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation,
to permit the cultivation and sale of certain finfish in inland, closed system
bodies of water.”
The legislation is relatively conservative, as it requires all
finfish “acquired with a finfish farm permit” to be triploid hybrids that are
sterilized and so unable to reproduce, prohibits the farming of Atlantic salmon
or any of the five species of Pacific salmon, requires fish farms to be
enclosed within a “natural or artificial escape-proof barrier,” and allows
stocking a lake on private property with fish for personal consumption only,
provided that the lake is also enclosed within such an escape-proof barrier.
Governor Dunleavy justified the bill by arguing that
“This legislation is a continuance of my administration’s efforts
to grow Alaska’s food security by creating a new fish farming industry. Alaska can join other regions of the world by
raising fish that can be sold and consumed here in Alaska and be available for
export. This legislation will yield new
jobs, economic growth, and a new food source for all Alaskans.”
But it seems many Alaskans aren’t convinced.
An
opinion piece that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News declared that
“Dunleavy fish-farming plan shows he’s given up on Alaskan
fishermen.”
It goes on to argue that
“…the signs have been there for a long time. Dunleavy sided with the foreign backers of
the Pebble Mine over the health and sustainability of Bristol Bay. His appointees to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council have repeatedly failed to take any meaningful action to rein
in the devastating negative impacts of trawl bycatch on salmon, halibut,
herring and other species. Now he has
reached a new low with his introduction of legislation to permit fish farming
in Alaska…
“It’s true fish farms are an established and growing part of
the global food supply. It’s also true
that fish farming is oftentimes terrible for the environment and nearby communities…”
The Alaska Daily News is not alone in its criticism.
“Friends don’t let friends eat farmed fish,”
while another legislator, Rep. Louise Stutes, opined that
“Lifting a ban on fishfish farming—regardless of the species
or whether its in salt or freshwater—would send the wrong signal to the
industry, fishing communities, and fishing families across the state that are
struggling to recover.”
Rep. Stutes is also concerned that
“Pursuing freshwater finfish farming of any kind is a foot in
the door for salmon farming in the state.”
Governor Dunleavy has attempted to play down such concerns,
saying that
“This bill does not allow the farming of salmon. That is an iconic Alaskan species of fish.”
But there is some evidence that Rep. Stutes worries are
well-founded. No less an authority than SalmonBusiness.com,
which describes itself as
“an independent news source focusing on salmon farming,”
“The bill is also of interest to the global salmon marketing
sector, which has long faced opposition in Alaska. While HB 111 does not propose lifting the ban
on salmon farming, it signals a potential softening of the state’s stance on
aquaculture. If successfully
implemented, the legislation could set a precedent for future discussions on
farmed salmon in Alaska, a market that has remained exclusively reliant on wild-caught
supply. Any move toward finfish
aquaculture in the state is likely to be closely watched by salmon farming
companies looking to expand operations in North America.”
Thus, along the Pacific coast of the United States, we’re currently observing two potentially convergent events taking place which are keeping the salmon farming debate on the front burner.
In Washington, state efforts to outlaw net pen salmon farming are being
challenged in court by the aquaculture industry, while in Alaska, a 35-year old
law that outlaws any sort of finfish aquaculture is being challenged by the
state’s governor, who has introduced a bill that would chip away at the total
ban and allow some aquaculture, initially for non-salmon species, but could
eventually lead to the sort of salmon aquaculture that Washington is trying to
abolish.
The long-term fate of Pacific salmon aquaculture in either state is impossible to predict right now, but whatever that fate may be, it
appears that the debate over salmon aquaculture in the Pacific coast states
will be continuing for some time to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment