Skip to comments.Looming Crisis: Officials Close Gulf Waters to Shrimping As Reports of Deformed Seafood Intensify
Posted on 04/26/2012 10:36:15 PM PDT by Razzz42
larmed by widespread reports of visibly sick, deformed seafood coming out of the Gulf of Mexico, state officials have closed area waters to shrimping this morning (April 23). The waters will be closed indefinitely as scientists run tests in an effort to get a handle on a situation that is fast becoming a full-blown crisis on the Gulf Coast.
The closures including all waters in the Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay, areas of Bon Secour, Wolf Bay and Little Lagoon mark the first official step in responding to increasingly urgent reports from fishermen and scientists of grotesquely disfigured seafood from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle.
The move is yet another major setback for the once-legendary Gulf seafood industry as it continues to struggle under the devastating impact of the BP oil spill, which began in April 2010.
Two years later, reports of severely deformed shrimp with bulging tumors and no eyes have become common.
And its not just the shrimp. Commercial fishermen are reporting red snapper and grouper riddled with deep lesions and covered with strange black streaks. Highly underdeveloped blue crabs are being pulled up in traps without eyes and claws (see link at bottom to my previous post on seafood deformities).
For those who thought 205 million gallons of oil and 2 million gallons of toxic dispersant werent going to have an impact on Gulf seafood, you need to check back in with reality.
As for the impetus for the shrimping closures, consider this from an April 18 Al Jazeera report by Dahr Jamail, who has doggedly covered the BP spill since the early days of the disaster:
Tracy Kuhns and her husband Mike Roberts, commercial fishers from Barataria, Louisiana, are finding eyeless shrimp.
At the height of the last white shrimp season, in September, one of our friends caught 400 pounds of these, Kuhns told Al Jazeera while showing a sample of the eyeless shrimp.
According to Kuhns, at least 50 per cent of the shrimp caught in that period in Barataria Bay, a popular shrimping area that was heavily impacted by BPs oil and dispersants, were eyeless. Kuhns added: Disturbingly, not only do the shrimp lack eyes, they even lack eye sockets.
Disturbing indeed. I am deeply saddened but not surprised by the shrimping closures. I applaud the courageous move by state officials to put consumer safety first. Theres no doubt in my mind as Ive said for months on end that seafood coming out of the Gulf of Mexico is unfit for human consumption.
We will bring you updates on water testing and any word on when these areas of the Gulf will be re-opened to shrimping.
Read my April 20 post on seafood deformities here: http://www.stuarthsmith.com/a-taste-of-the-grotesque-in-the-gulf-eyeless-shrimp-clawless-crabs-and-lesion-covered-fish
"...Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes. Justice Samuel Alito, who at the time, owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case. In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law. Exxon's actions were deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious." The judgment limits punitive damages to the compensatory damages, which for this case were calculated as $507.5 million. The basis for limiting punitive damages to no more than twice[clarification needed] the actual damages has no precedent to support it. Some lawmakers, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, have decried the ruling as "another in a line of cases where this Supreme Court has misconstrued congressional intent to benefit large corporations."
Exxon's official position is that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound."
Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims associated with the grounding of the Exxon Valdez. Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet, separate financial settlement of damages with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's effect on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven, but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages awarded in other civil proceedings. The $5 billion in punitive damages was awarded later, and the Seattle Seven's share could have been as high as $750 million if the damages award had held. Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement, and when it came to light, Judge Holland ruled that Exxon should have told the jury at the start that an agreement had already been made, so the jury would know exactly how much Exxon would have to pay...."
Also this side note: "...In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time. To protect itself in case the judgment was affirmed, Exxon obtained a $4.8 billion credit line from J.P. Morgan & Co. J.P. Morgan created the first modern credit default swap in 1994, so that Morgan's would not have to hold as much money in reserve (8% of the loan under Basel I) against the risk of Exxon's default...."
More links to local news outlets and TV here:
The fishing ban will apply in the following dates and areas:
From 25 April to 10 August, 2012 in the region from the mouth of the river Bravo (Tamaulipas) to the mouth of the river Coatzacoalcos (Veracruz);
From 1 to 28 February, 2013 in the area ranging from the river Bravo to the mouth of the river Coatzacoalcos;
From 25 April to 7 November, 2012 in marine waters ranging from the mouth of the river Coatzacoalcos to the border with Belize.
Why in hell would anyone believe what is posted on Wikipedia????? WTH!!!
If you are an adult, use your head and figure things out for yourself.
Dems have nothing to offer but fear. This is all BS.
Any particular reason you posted about Mexicans trying to reinvigorate different varieties of shrimps using moratoriums?
I am outside New Orleans and I have not read or viewed any local news report to substantiate what is in this article.
There is so much disinformation out there it's hard to know what real.
All we’re hearing about around the gulf coast is the possible invasion of asian tiger shrimp which are cannibalistic, big, and the threat they might pose to our normal shrimp population.
Just another attempt by the left to convince the American public(the stupid ones)that oil is sooooo dangerous we need to rely on sun and wind to supply us with energy, regardless of how piss poor the performance of solar and wind has been to date.
I know what you mean, try this rebroadcast, seems balanced...
At least consider it a heads up notice.
Those bracketed numbers after almost every statement point to the source of the information provided. Wiki is very easy to fact check.
It’s too bad they are burning off excess natural gas because of lack of storage or pipeline transportation. Flaring it is okay but building power plants fueled by natural gas for boilers or turbines or both would pollute the air. Go figure.
Well that makes sense ...
Lets let all the deformed / mutated seafood live so that the gene pool is NOT cleansed ...
I never eat the shrimp eyes anyway.
Who cares if the shrimp is deformed. Does it still taste good with cocktail sauce on it?
Beats me, I prefer grilled salmon.
spilled oil doesn’t do this. if it did, then sealife would be deformed constantly
the source of the problem is the crap they poured into the gulf to “break up and disperse” the oil
(remember how “well” 0failure dealt with it??)
Evolution in action! Selection pressure! Random mutations! Wait - that’s bad? I thought that was a good thing?
I wouldn't blindly accept the writings of a lawyer who makes it his career "fighting major oil companies and other polluters." And neither should you.
Shrimp is great when it is sauteed in 10W-30.
Your blog posting smells like Dem party propaganda
Your blog posting smells like Dem party propaganda
Remove this garbage post
You posted a Ambulance chasing trials lawyers BS website nonsense !
Who are u trying to scam here ?
Most species of shrimp only live for one to two years some exceptions up to 7 years. My question is how did blind shrimp live long enough to get netted? I’m callin BS on the whole story.
So Al Jazeera is doing the reporting too!
Wiki and Jazeera! All the news that's fit to spin!
5W-30 in our house. Tasty, but with less calories.
Yep - this morning's news had a cat with backwards legs - I'd wager a month's pay the cat never came into contact with the Gulf of Mexico waters. They probably never noticed the damage that nets do to a portion of each catch.
This certainy works around Election time to justify Obama,Inc. per their role in destroying oil industry in Gulf.. Seems all too convenient; their finding way to tell public who it is, that wears the 'white hat' - while reminding all, 'they' are still saving America from our arch enemy 'oil'.
Too much tin foil here - or not. . .
Seems all too convenient; their finding way to resurrect fear while 'reminding'' public who it is, that wears the 'white hat' - and why this Gov justified in 'crucifying' America's arch enemy 'oil'.
Too much tin foil here - or not. . .
Blind shrimp should be easier to catch! Bigger catches, lower prices. Mmmmm, eyeless shrimp, skewered and basted in butter, chili powder and lime juice on my new Green Egg.
The ambulance-chasing attorney blog this is from has no links.
And you linked to Democracy Now - a rabid left-wing news site - and claim it is balanced.
Forget oil spills, I smell ozone.
NoLibZone, thanks for the links, but the links you provided are for bans in Mexican waters. razzz42, where are the links for bans for American waters, as claimed in this story?
much of the punatives were overturned on appeal.
The exxon case continues to work its way through the court system.
Here’s the official link to the Waters Closing to Commercial and Recreational Shrimping Effective 6AM, Monday, April 23, 2012
Now, it doesn’t say a shrimp boat was attacked and devoured by pissed off oil drenched shrimp or that a dad and his kid using a hand net from a row boat showed back up at the dock with a load of mutated shrimp blindly trying to escape.
Maybe the ambulance chasing lawyer is using his trade’s typical hyperbole as an excuse to glorify the findings of a few researchers or maybe the State Fish and Game is practicing conservation as exampled with the Mexicans using a moratorium during breeding season to allow some shrimp time to replenish themselves. Or maybe the State is investigating low shrimp count while searching for causes.
The Alabama Notice says you can call them for more details. The linked I posted to the supposed liberal freak show, names the researchers who have been tracking the Gulf’s sea life even before the Deep Water Horizon disaster.
If I have to rely on Russian TV or the UK or some other outside news source because I don’t want to listen to some past Senator that now lobbies for the oil industry, speaking on behalf of BP that is trying to take care of the situation, pardon me.
Fishermen should be aware that state biologists will continue to sample in the areas to be opened. This closure is in response to routine shrimp sampling that indicated the average size were smaller than 68 head-on shrimp per pound. Should sampling indicate a change in the projected average size of 68 shrimp per pound, additional announcements will be provided to modify the original announcement.
Funny, no mention of mutant shrimp.
As opposed to what? Your spewing this alarmist claptrap that has no basis in the reality of the reason for the closure? Your approach isn't any better than that of those you decry? Both are blowhards.
Funny dirtboy. You couldn’t even find a simple link to the closure. And then when somebody does your homework for you, you still complain. In fact, I beginning to think you are a constant whiner. Almost a professional whiner.
Did you want me to dig up the researcher’s reports on gulf sea life anomalies too? Or can you handle that on your own?
If I put on my tinfoil hat, I see the only thing can cause mutations in a short amount of time is, nuclear waste or fallout. I wonder if there is a nuke plant in the area leaking nuclear byproducts?
Motive: Al Jazeera wants to reduce U.S. energy production so that we become more dependent upon Middle east crude.
I'm not the one posting from idiotic liberal websites such as Democracy Now! And from ambulance chaser websites. And guess what? You posted from a blog with no links to back up its claims (gee, I wonder why), it's YOUR job to find them when the story was challenged. And as it turns out, the claim on the blog was bogus - that the closure was due to deformities seen on shrimp.
So what you call whining I call vetting. Something you should do a lot more of, apparently.
Follow the links posted, you might learn something.
...Dr. Jim Cowan with Louisiana State University, and hes been working on a project, getting his funding from the state of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. And hes been, actually, for many decades, sampling red snapper, which is a very popular fish in the industry. And hes been finding that before the BP disaster in April 2010, that of all the red snapper he was sampling, he was finding point-one-tenth [0.1] of 1 percent snapper coming up with lesions and other types of problems. Post-spill, that has gone to between 2 and 5 percent of all samples. That means an increase of between 2,000 and 5,000 percent, and in some areas as much as 20 percent [a 20,000% increase], he said, in other areas who have extreme impact, where the oil and dispersants came in nearby the shore, of as many as 50 percent [a 50,000% increase] of fish sampled. Very, very disturbing information there...
...Dr. Darryl Felder with University of Louisiana-Lafayette, he also has before-and-after samples. He was working out around the Macondo wellhead area on the sea floor with a grant from the National Science Foundation, that they wanted him to investigate just overall drilling impact on species in the area. And so, he had deep sea crab, deep sea lobster, deep sea shrimp, from before the spill, and then many, many sampling trips after the spill. And what he found was obviously a very, very large increase of finding crab and lobster, etc., that had black gills, that had appendages falling off, again similar stains on their shells, and again similar to findings not too different from Dr. Jim Cowans, in that when the oil, that much unnatural oil introduced into the environment, coupled with the dispersants, that its causing these lesions that are burrowing into the carapace and the shells and eating into the wax of the shells, causing an increase in the microbes that do eat oil. Not only are they not eating just oil, but eating into the shells, and then parasites and diseases and other illnesses are being formed...
Thanks for that additional link. The stated reason for the closing doesn't appear to be because of mutant or diseased sea life, though.
This closure is in response to routine shrimp sampling that indicated the average size were smaller than 68 head-on shrimp per pound. Should sampling indicate a change in the projected average size of 68 shrimp per pound, additional announcements will be provided to modify the original announcement.
That's certainly less inflammatory than the honorable Esquire's blog.