Posted on 05/27/2006 12:19:00 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Coastside commercial fishermen were pleased that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday signed the Sustainable Oceans Act, severely restricting future fish-farming along the California coast.
The act, authored by Palo Alto Democrat Joe Simitian, allows ocean farming operations but requires stringent environmental protections that industry experts are calling the toughest in the nation.
Coastside fisherman Pietro Parravano, president of the Institute of Fishery Resources, said Saturday the new rules should help protect marine ecosystems and water quality. He said the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association had lobbied for passage of the act.
There are currently no finfish aquaculture operations on the California coast. Parravano said that is because the rugged coastline makes such operations too expensive for now. But aquaculture has become big business in other parts of the world, providing cheaper fish for consumers as well as sometimes hard-to-foresee impacts to the local environment.
SB 201, Sustainable Oceans ActNumber of Republicans voting for legislationAssembly: 2 (6%) Shirley Horton, Mark WylandSenate: 2 (14%) Abel Maldonado, Jeff Denham
Now they're turning against fish farming as "unnatural". Commercial fishermen, whose self-interest is obvious, are only too happy to contribute to this effort.
It is "California"
What is there left to say
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_201_cfa_20060510_150833_sen_floor.html
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
Supporters write that, "Fish farming poses serious risks to wild fish stocks and the marine environment. Farmed fish spread diseases and parasites; hormones, antibiotics, and chemicals pollute ocean and coastal waters; the use of fish meal and fish oils in feed deplete marine ecosystems; and predator controls harm marine wildlife. These risks have led to recent expressions of concern from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the Pew Oceans Commission, and the Governor's Ocean Action Strategy.
"The lack of adequate federal and international standards has forced some states like Alaska to ban all fish farming in marine waters. California banned farming salmon, non-native and transgenic species in 2003, but has no standards to site marine finfish operations, or properly assess impacts on fish, wildlife, water quality, and marine habitats and ecosystems. Nor does California have any standards to protect marine wildlife, habitats, fishing and other uses; minimize pollution; restore damage to the marine environment; adequately monitor and inspect facilities; or prevent and report the escape of farmed fish."
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/10/06) The Ocean Conservancy (source) Bluewater Network California Coastal Protection Network California Coastkeeper Alliance Center for Food Safety Coastside Fishing Club Defenders of Wildlife Environment California Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo Environmental Defense Environmental Entrepreneurs Institute of Marine Sciences, UC Santa Cruz Natural Resources Defense Council Oceana O'Neil Sea Odyssey Orange County Coastkeeper Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations Planning and Conservation League San Diego Baykeeper San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Santa Monica Baykeeper Save Our Shores Seaflow Sierra Club The Nature Conservancy University of California Marine Council
This will hurt operations at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, IMO.
Foolish and short-sighted. The government that is big enough to "protect" you by tightly restricting the operations of fish farms is also big enough to restrict you out of business.
Typical Democratic response--If it is not regulated, then we have to regulate it cause we are the regulators.
My guess is it will hurt operations across the state, not to mention various businesses and the consumer.
Regulation, regulation, regulation.
This was a good veto opportunity.
Could one just put his fishery beyond the twelve-mile limit?
Good question. I don't know the answer.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14677587.htm
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed into law new rules giving California the toughest ocean fish-farming regulations in the United States.
The measure, written by State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, is designed to reduce the risk of pollution and harm to marine wildlife from giant floating pens of tuna, halibut, or other species that could result if the aquaculture industry expands to the California coast.
"Ocean fish-farming can now be part of California's future without sacrificing the environment," Schwarzenegger said. "This legislation will lay the groundwork for a new California aquaculture industry to thrive while providing an abundance of healthy food and more jobs."
The bill was supported by the Ocean Conservancy and other environmental groups. It passed mostly along party lines, with Democrats voting for it and nearly all Republicans voting against.
The new law requires the California Fish and Game Commission to identify which coastal locations are best suited for fish farming. It also directs the commission to require fish-farming companies to reduce pollution and chemicals, tag all farmed fish, minimize the risk of fish escaping and return each site ``to its original condition'' after the operation is finished.
Ah, very informative. Thanks a lot for the info.
Here's an SFGate.com from earlier.
Thanks for posting this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1639355/posts
CA: State becomes 1st to regulate fish farms
SFGate.com ^ | 5/27/06 | Mark Martin
Posted on 05/27/2006 10:14:15 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
This is an interesting one. My Master's thesis was actually on the economic impact of market globalization on commercial fishing and fish farming.
Mariculture (ocean aquaculture) is a real mixed bag. My summer house overlooks salmon pens in Maine, which are tidy operations, each of which, however, produces as much pollution as a small city.
The economic benefits can be traced to where the infrastructure is strongest- Chile and the nordic countries derive the most benefit from equipment, feed and manufacturing. Local benefit decreases with time, and also decreases as efficiency in operations increases. Consolidation of asset ownership is inevitable for increased effiencency. There will be no local ownership given enough time.
Finally, high value fish require high value feed. Feed conversion ratios show that it takes from 1.2 lbs to 2.3 lbs of feed to increase the weight of high-value fish by 1 lb, causing a net loss to the ocean environment.
The farms do provide jobs, and yes, definately do decrease the cost of fish meat. There is some question as to the effect on quality.
Thanks. I meant to cross reference that thread and forgot.
There was a long article on this in Stanford Alumni mag last month. It predicted a Bush admin fed program to license fish farms at sea. The benefits included income from leasing fees to the government and a decrease in fish imports which are the second biggest item in the trade deficit after oil. If the feds have defered to states instead, that's news.
The environmentalists' ultimate objective is to destroy Western Civilization. As soon as an "alternative" becomes popular, they find a way to destroy it. Rich white liberals want to end our way of living, period.
Shouldn't environmentalists be supporting sustainable agriculture? If we still hunted and gathered on land as we do in the sea, we would all be starving to death today. If the meal fed to farm fish is questionable (contains fish parts, for instance), then campaign for better quality feed.
And how does salmon poop rate as "pollution", anyway? It's the same stuff salmon produce in nature, but concentrated in a small area. If this causes local problems, we can distribute it to where it does more good, just as with feedlot waste on land.
thanks for the post capt. P. with all the usual b.s. rhetoric about enviros on this site and elsewhere, people forget the fact that the devil is always in the details. fish farming can be highly benficial if done right (like the Chinese have been doing for centuries, creating mini environments in their farms by raising different kinds of aquatic life together) or it can really get screwed up (like Salmon farming, wild Salmon is much better for you than farmed Salmon). You can't have a system that works if there isn't some kind of regulation going on to make sure everyone is on the same page. Of course, if you're regulating the wrong approach ...
well TT, since you decided to go off subject to bash cali, i can think of a few things left to say. Here's some excerpts from another SFGATE.COM article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/26/MNGETJ2Q151.DTL&hw=Lay+Skilling+California&sn=004&sc=601
Former Enron overlords Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are going to jail because they defrauded investors and lied about their financial shenanigans. But for millions of California ratepayers still saddled with sky-high power bills from the 2000 energy crisis, these guys are finally getting their comeuppance for ripping us off.
"They didn't get convicted on charges of market manipulation in California," acknowledged Peter Darbee, chief executive of San Francisco's PG&E Corp. "But it's good to see some of the people involved in that being called to account."
"I will not be losing any sleep over this," Darbee said of Lay and Skilling being fitted for prison stripes.
"I would vastly prefer that they were convicted for their crimes in California," said former Gov. Gray Davis, who was handed his hat by California voters in the 2003 recall election largely because of the energy crisis. "But I take solace that they'll be going to jail for a long time."
He said Lay's and Skilling's conviction is "not pure justice, but it's poetic justice."
Loretta Lynch, who served as president of the California Public Utilities Commission during the energy crisis, shared this sentiment. Now she teaches at UC Berkeley and is writing a book about her experience as the state's top energy cop.
"I'm glad they got convicted," Lynch said. "But they're still shirking their responsibility to California consumers."
It's almost comical now to recall the petty schemes employed by Enron traders to manipulate electricity prices and transfer billions of dollars from the pockets of California ratepayers to the company's Houston headquarters.
Remember "Death Star"? That was Enron's name for a program in which the company billed Californians to relieve congestion on the power grid during threats of blackouts. In reality, there wasn't any congestion, and Enron wasn't providing any relief.
"The net effect of these transactions is that Enron gets paid for moving energy to relieve congestion without actually moving any energy or relieving any congestion," the company's own lawyers said in an internal memo released in 2002 by federal investigators.
"These two gentlemen substantially contributed to a $45 billion fleecing of this state," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a San Diego advocacy group. "Seeing them go to prison for financial problems is like seeing Al Capone go to jail for tax evasion."
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer ... in 2001. He commented at the time that he "would love to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey.' "
Somebody let Spike know. His cellmate's on the way.
Yes, TexasTranplant. It is "Texas" and out here in California we view these gentlemen as shining examples of the true nature of Texas values. Now what do you have left to say?
oh and one more thing TT. back then plenty of people in the red states, including Texas, were blaming the whole thing on the enviros "they wouldn't build power plants etc." In spite of the fact that the whole thing looked fishy from the get go. Well as we now know, there were actually plenty of power plants and the enviros were (yet again) being used as scapegoats by the political right to cover the a$$e$$ of a bunch of crooked rich white guys. Gee, big surprise there.
Your Tagline Sucks, but it does fit you.
TT
'Are you over the whole Gray Davis thing yet?'
Dude, why the hell do you think we voted in the Governator?
*note: prime evidence of clueless Texan.
'While you sulk I am going to fire up my BIG 4WD Diesel Truck and tool around looking at our Texas Power Plants (We don't need anything from you Enviro Nut Jobs)'
I've been to Texas so I understand. With the exception of Austin (great music scene) and some neat caverns to the south of that fine city, there really isn't much else to do in that state except tool around looking at power plants. I suppose one could go to a Cowboys game for a good laugh.
'Crooked Rich White Guys go to Jail these days'
FINALLY! Took how long?
'Welcome to FR, you won't be around long.'
HA! A lot you know.
* more evidence of clueless Texan
And hey, at least my tagline is in English, not some dead language from an extinct empire.
1.2? I didn't think even tilapia were that efficient.
"And hey, at least my tagline is in English, not some dead language from an extinct empire."
But your name is modusoperendi? I thought it was "modus operAndi", unless your name refers to the band Red Animal War, here: http://www.songmeanings.net/artist.php?aid=8325 Then I guess your name is just a misspelling of a term from some dead language from an extinct empire.
Just ignore that clown
Next week we won't even remember who "it" was.
TT
The enviro-wackos deeply desire the restoration of the Stone Age standard of living--without the benefit of cooking or other fires and the extra constraints of exorbitant confiscatory taxation and mandatory vegan diets.
Why?
Heavy metals, supposedly.
I never liked Heavy Metal.
I much prefer good ol' Rock & Roll. ;-)
[snip]
There are currently no finfish aquaculture operations on the California coast.
Nor will there be, simply because the water is too warm. Successful fish farms are in Alaska, Canada, Scandanavia, and Chile for that reason.
They ought to rename this moron, "Joe Simian."
Mojave- I was using tilapia as an example, in fact- and 1.2FCR is the textbook best possible average... in reality, I got 1.5 at best on the operation I ran for a short time.
As for the other- 'pollution' from waste is sort of a misnomer- what it really means is that the nutrients released (think fertilizer) from the breakdown of fish waste are extremely heavily concentrated- diluting them down is usually the only option, economically speaking. Collecting the waste has been tried, but is so expensive right now (for ocean culture, at least), that it sucks up all the profits.
I dunno- this is a really complex one, guys. There is so much in the way of pros and cons to increasing the amount of mariculture done here in the US.
BTB, about 85% of the farmed salmon we buy in the US comes from foreign sources- they've got better growing conditions than we do, in Chile, especially... The market for salmon, the only real successfully-farmed marine species, is 100% globalized. There are NO companies with exclusively-located farms in the US.
To Blazing Arizona, Fish feed is the #1 expense for feading high-value fish. The meal in fish feed MUST have a lot of protein, which optimally comes from animal-derived sources, which has to come from inexpensive sources to keep the cost of feed down. There's a concern that if global pen aquaculture increases sharply, demand for fish meal will increase the amount of 'Industrial' fishing for trash fish, causing a loss of forage feed for wild stocks.
Also, fish meal is mostly used for cat food. It's getting very expensive.
Tilapia are pretty incredible critters. Hard to see how an American operation could compete with imports from Costa Rica.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.