Edhat Staff
By the edhat staff
Last week a small group of activists held a protest against National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s fish farming proposal in the Santa Barbara Channel.
“Don’t Cage Our Oceans” delivered a petition to NOAA’s administrative building on State Street over an Executive Order on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth (E.O. 13921).
In 2020, the Trump Administration directed the Secretary of Commerce to identify geographic areas containing locations suitable for commercial aquaculture to apply a science-based approach to identify Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in Federal waters. An AOA is a defined geographic area that has been evaluated to determine its potential suitability for commercial aquaculture.
The order states the goal of identifying AOAs is to “promote American seafood competitiveness, food security, economic growth, and support the facilitation of the development of domestic commercial aquaculture, consistent with sustaining and conserving marine resources and applicable laws, regulations and policies.”
Southern California was selected as one of the first two regions to identify one or more AOAs. According to the order, geographically discrete areas within Federal waters off the coast of Southern California that would be suitable to site future aquaculture development were selected. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzed potential impacts to the human environment that may occur should aquaculture projects be proposed in one or more AOAs.
In the last year, federal agencies put together a list of potential options suitable for finfish, shellfish, macroalgae, or multi-species aquaculture that include the Santa Barbara Channel, Santa Monica Bay, Santa Barbara Channel AND Santa Monica Bay, or a No Action Alternative.
Options for Aquaculture Opportunity Areas
The proposed geographic area of interest where one or more Aquaculture Opportunity Area(s) may be identified includes selected site options (SSOs) in Federal waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in Santa Monica Bay and the Santa Barbara Channel. The location of the SSOs are shown as red dots. This figure is Figure 3.44 of the U.S. Aquaculture Opportunity Atlas for the Southern California Bight (Morris et al. 2021).
Santa Monica Bay Preliminary Alternative
The Santa Monica Bay preliminary alternative includes two selected site options (SSOs), shown as gray boxes, that may be identified as an AOA. The Santa Monica Bay SSOs are located between 8.06 and 8.82 kilometers (4.35 and 4.76 nautical miles) offshore of Los Angeles County. This figure was adapted from Figure 3.82 of the U.S. Aquaculture Opportunity Atlas for the Southern California Bight (Morris et al. 2021).
Santa Barbara Channel Preliminary Alternative
The Santa Barbara Channel preliminary alternative includes eight selected site options (SSOs), shown as gray boxes, that may be identified as an AOA. The Santa Barbara Channel SSOs are located between 10.02 and 19.72 kilometers (5.41 and 10.65 nautical miles) offshore of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. This figure was adapted from Figure 3.45 and Figure 3.62 of the U.S. Aquaculture Opportunity Atlas for the Southern California Bight (Morris et al. 2021).
“Dont Cage Our Oceans” states this project would harm the environment and affect local jobs.
“As our speakers from Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter, Pinyon Ojai, and the local fishing community made clear, these industrial fish farms would be nothing more than a corporate takeover of our oceans,” the group said.
Watch a portion of their protest below:
Seems like an opportunity for local fisherman…(?) Aqua culture has been around and supplies a lot of seafood around the World,. This could be a great opportunity for our local fisherman (fisherpeople) that had their fishing grounds restricted by conservation measures in what was once open fisheries. Seems like a win/win.
These fools are already “Caging the Ocean.” after the most recent storms I counted 23 derelict lobster traps on Hendry’s Beach alone in varying states of decay. Two with live lobsters in them. How many are still on the ocean floor? My friend was an urchin diver, put himself out of business. Uncle was an abalone diver, out of business.
All thanks to: you guessed it! See #5 on the list (3 years ago today):
https://theweek.com/10things/913957/10-things-need-know-today-may-12-2020
This whole project seems to me to be a “land grab” (but in the ocean?)
Yeah it’s already Fed water but…
Anyone who thinks farming fish is a good thing may want to read this:
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/312/aquaculture/about-aquaculture
2 years ago the bureaucrats threw a tantrum because of a proposal to store a few small pallets of wine on the ocean floor. Now the bureaucrats boost this?
https://www.independent.com/2021/09/08/underseas-wine-aging-business-struggles-for-state-approval/
I think this has a lot of the same issues as the marijuana legalization. Politicians selling out our local resources (and fishermen) to big grabber industries that don’t give a crap about anything but dollars in their pockets. Globally, thus far we haven’t got aquaculture figured out yet. I think it’s time will come. But like Stray said, “ follow the money”, because I’d also be very skeptical of anything Das wants to endorse just to bring in money.
“ goal of identifying AOAs is to “promote American seafood competitiveness, ”
“Competitiveness”? Who’s competing ?
And this will not benefit local people.
Fish farms pollute the ocean floor and ruin the ecosystems around them
It is a land grab
As it is over 40% of CA Agricultural is sold overseas. Do CA residents benefit from this? Nope.
We actually suffer from our limited water supply being used to benefit others while the farmers make money.
CA is in debt & Newsom needs to generate revenues wherever he can to make up for it.
Aqua farm in the channel is not a good idea for the environment. But the “green” eco people making policies only care about appearances, they don’t actually care about the Earth.
“Historic Cannery Row” in Monterey Bay is called that because locals overfished the sardine population to near extinction and the industry collapsed. Over fishing has been repeated all over the world. That said, be very, very careful of fish farming. In Norway, the fish farms containing salmon are regularly moved from fjord to fjord. The waste products produced by the farmed fish pollute the waters and the sea bed to a high degree. The used fjord is allowed to remain fallow for several years just to recover. Do we want this industry in our Santa Barbara Channel? If Supervisor Das Williams supports this project, be sure to ask more questions. And follow the money.
We tried to grow abalone in Pillar Point harbor years ago and were finally run off by the local fishermen. They feel as though they own the ocean and are the last of the buffalo hunters. Abalone disappeared because of over fishing as did a major portion of the fin fish stock.
Local Fisherman Protest OF… or Local FishermEn Protest… or Local Fisherman’S Protest OF…?
Come on, now.
There’s a danger of ‘leakage’, fish getting free of the ‘cage’ and contaminating the native population or overtaking them. This is a obvious bad idea in out area due to it’s oceanography. Is this another one of those things like oil company dangers-of-extraction born by locals to benefit big dogs elsewhere?
I spent some time in South America a few years ago. Chile has hundreds of fish-farming operations, mostly, if not all, for salmon. One of my first meals in Castro, Chile (Chiloe regioin) was a huge plate of salmon….it was $5 for the salmon with allllll the trimmings and another $2 for a whole bottle of red wine. Bottom line is that what looks like a good idea on paper is absolutely not good for the marine environment and ecosystem. What a MESS! Very/very/very destructive “fishing” technique, which is only good for investors and governments that want nothing more than to control their people…..sad.