Switz_T MESThesis 2007.pdf
Media
Part of Sustainability of Applied Aquaculture in the US
- extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
Sustainability of Applied Aquaculture in the US
by
Theodore R. Switz
This Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Maters of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2007
This Thesis for the Masters of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Theodore R. Switz
Has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
---------------------------------Amy Cook, PhD
Member of TESC-MES Faculty
----------------------------------Date
ii
Abstract
Sustainability of Applied Aquaculture in the US
Theodore R. Switz
With the current world demand for ocean resources, and the
impact that our historic harvesting levels have had on natural systems
populations, aquaculture has been introduced as an alternative
methodology to traditional wild harvesting for production of food-fish to
fulfill this market demand. Aquaculture systems have been developed to
supplement needed resources and to aid in the restoration efforts of
natural fisheries populations, by mass producing organism to be
commercially sold or introduced into natural system. The application of
aquaculture in wild fishery restoration and commercial production within
the US has greatly intensified over the last couple of decades. Ecological
and sustainability issues have arisen in this time as the impact of our
actions has become apparent and quantifiable. While both commercial
and restoration aquaculture systems serve a believed function in there
place in society, their environmental impacts and sustainability must be
addressed before expansion in the US continues at the current rate.
Identifying the variables that jeopardize sustainability in aquaculture
applications in the US is necessary to develop methodologies that
maintain native ecological stability and prolonged resource availability.
iii
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER ONE. TRENDS IN GLOBAL AQUACULTURE ...................................................3
CHAPTER TWO. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OF
AQUACULTURE ....................................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER THREE. COMMERCIAL AQUACULTURE IN THE US ................................19
CHAPTER FOUR. AQUACULTURE IN US RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
AND RESTORATION ..........................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER FIVE. THE FUTURE AND SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE ....................33
CHAPTER SIX. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............................................................43
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................... 47
iv
Introduction
The global reliance placed on the oceans fisheries for dietary
needs and social well-being has created economic opportunities
that fuel the exploitation of the resources far beyond the
sustainable limits needed to maintain healthy fishery populations
and the dependent economies.
Just as progressions in other
agricultural sciences to domesticate and harness the resources of
the land, allowing managed creation of desired crops and animals
for surplus and sale, developments in aquaculture have attempted
to harness the productivity of the ocean systems by selectively
rearing desired aqueous species in artificial environments.
With the current world demand for ocean resources, and the
impact that our historic harvesting levels have had on natural
systems populations, aquaculture has been introduced as an
alternative
methodology
to
traditional
wild
harvesting
for
production of food-fish to fulfill this market demand. Aquaculture
systems have been developed to supplement needed resources, and
to aid in the restoration efforts of natural fisheries populations, by
mass producing organism to be commercially sold or introduced
into natural system.
The
modern
global
expansion
and
intensification
of
commercial aquaculture has lead to serious concerns regarding the
existing ecological impacts of production systems and the long
1
term sustainability of the industry. These environmental impacts
are evident in the destruction of the ecology in areas used for
intense aquaculture systems, the degradation of water quality used
by the systems, and in the disturbances to populations of
organisms inhabiting the natural system.
The application of aquaculture in wild fishery restoration
and commercial production within the US has greatly intensified
over the last couple of decades.
Ecological and sustainability
issues have arisen in this time as the impact of our actions has
become apparent and quantifiable.
While both commercial and
restoration aquaculture systems serve a believed function their
place in society, their environmental impacts and sustainability
must be addressed before expansion in the US continues at the
current
rate.
Identifying
the
variables
that
jeopardize
sustainability in aquaculture applications in the US is necessary to
develop methodologies that maintain native ecological stability and
prolonged resource availability.
ecological
and
sustainability
A better understanding of the
issues
surrounding
commercial
aquaculture expansion in the US can be derived from the
examination of the existing global system.
Accounting for the
existing systems and the problems that have already been
identified should serve as an aid to US development in aquaculture
sustainability.
2
Chapter One
Trends of Global Aquaculture
The various ecosystems created by the oceans, rivers, and
lakes of our planet host the most biologically diverse and species
rich communities known to exist in our world, acting as one of the
most complex biological systems for us to attempt to interpret and
understand, but one of the easiest resources for us to access and
utilize. The fertility and productivity of our oceans and waterways
have fed the people and societies of our world throughout time,
and have shaped cultural beliefs, economic proliferation, and
global colonization. Historic costal and island civilizations as well
as inland populations have all benefited from the resources of the
oceans from direct access or through trade. As the human race
has progressed through time, and societies and cultures have
evolved and grown in complexity and sophistication, so have our
efforts in attempt to extract and utilize the resources of our Earths
water systems.
With our increased efforts, intensity, and
effectiveness in harvesting and processing the resources of our
oceans and rivers, our world cultures have become more
dependent on the resource’s availability and abundance.
The ocean fisheries targeted by commercial productions have
in general decreased in population abundance, and have been
unable to regenerate and maintain populations that would allow
3
long term continued harvest at historic intensities.
A society’s
location in regard to proximity to ocean resources is no longer an
issue for resource availability. In modern day times with the
expansive capabilities of global trade, and ocean product can be
obtained virtually anywhere there is a free market and the
appropriate
funds
are
available
for
acquisition
of
desired
resources.
When examining the use of aquaculture in the context of all
global cultures, it becomes apparent that the incorporation of
various
aquaculture
methodologies
in
societies’
agricultural
systems created valued food, needed by-products, as well as
potential marketable goods. Aquaculture is a complex arena, with
a multitude of possible applications and functions. Each system
attempts to produce a desired organism or organisms, by providing
appropriate conditions and inputs to manage the target species to
a harvestable stage in there lifecycle. The goal of aquaculture is
similar to the efforts of horticulture or livestock management with
the exception that we are dealing with an aqueous environment.
With the wide assortment of desired organisms and their
associated environmental needs, aquaculture systems take on
many forms and serve numerous societal and environmental
functions. Aquaculture systems also vary greatly in their system
complexity, intensity, and levels of disturbance to local ecology.
4
The flexibility in application, and ability to meet economic and
social needs, has made aquaculture a valued form of agriculture
utilized and incorporated in the majority of the world’s cultures
(Pister, 2001).
Within the last couple of decades the science, technology,
requirements of global fisheries, and consumer demand, has fueled
the application of aquaculture to meet global demands. This has
promoted the expansion of aquaculture to a level of competitive
global commercial production.
The global aquaculture market
consists of a multitude of systems contributing to the industry,
varying in scale, intensity, species focus, and location, all
attempting to create a cash crop. The Center for Study of Marine
Policy (2002) states that aquaculture accounts for roughly 25
percent of total seafood production, and that fish now account for
16 percent of the world’s supply of animal protein (Browdy, 2002).
Aquaculture has developed into a major industry, and is no
longer just a component of subsistence agricultural but a system
designed to produce cash crops. With an increase in number of
systems that exceed the subsistence levels of the population,
allowing the operators and proprietors to create an economic good
for trade, aquaculture has attempted to meet the global demand
for products that traditional fishing and aquatic harvesting
5
methods cannot fulfill, as well as meet the nutritional demands the
growing population requires.
Increased interest in developing commercial production of
aquaculture goods in the 1950’s and 60’s was enhanced by the
“Green Revolution” and the increased funds invested in large scale
agro-businesses in developing worlds, by the World Bank and
private US agricultural interests.
The main areas of interest for
the potential application of aquaculture was to attempt to meet
dietary needs of growing populations while creating economic
stimuli, both in a manner that was efficient in function and
expense.
With the lackluster results in production and potential
profitability of early attempts, interest and willing investors
dwindled. The growth of commercial aquaculture has been
restricted to specific areas of the globe where there is historic
cultural significance, local nutritional dependency or an economic
climate
that
creates
substantial
economic
potential
from
participating (Ryther, 1981).
The science and applicable technology of aquaculture is
limited in its development in comparison to other agricultural
counterparts and the available science is estimated at twenty years
behind that of Horticulture (Tibbetts, 2001). This lack of scientific
advancement in methodologies and system control has contributed
6
to the failure to gain the large scale investing that horticulture has
experienced, for the fear of inefficiency and profit loss to any
investor. Regardless of the lack of US interest, aquaculture has not
failed to develop into successful industries in many developing
countries utilizing the fundamental methodologies that do exist.
While aquaculture has historically failed to develop into a
large scale industry in the US, it has developed intensely, almost
explosively, in the Asian, Asian-Pacific countries such as China,
India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and Vietnam (Levin, 2001)
The
US and EU contribute to the global aquaculture market, but the
volume is not a considerable amount in comparison, roughly 7% of
the production as of 2005 (USDA).
The developmental intensity
experienced in these specific areas of Asia is due to numerous
variables. The ecology of the area, tropical/subtropical climates,
and the abundant available resources of water, river systems, and
inter-costal areas all provide perfect conditions for aquaculture
production (Nakamura, 1985).
The economic status, available
work force, and lack of environmental regulatory constraints all
contribute for the rapid expansion of operations as well (Shaftel,
1990).
With the lack of overseas funding for current and expanding
elements of aquaculture, practitioners are often forced to use
available technology and resources in ways that can be more
7
detrimental and have a greater impact on the surrounding ecology.
Corporate
operations
and
private
large
scale
agricultural
operations are often times preempted with the typical negative
connotations, regarding exploitation of the local people, natural
resources and economy. But Government funded operations often
times
have
the
resources
to
allow
more
environmentally
responsible operation of the system, than that of subsistence
farmers
attempting
to
produce
cash
crops
under
the
circumstances of a third world economy.
Countries
such
as
India
and
China
have
expansive
aquaculture programs and private operations and create over half
of the global production of aquaculture products, and generating
more national income via aquaculture than all other producers
combined (Fridley, 1995). This effort to develop aquaculture
programs has aided in providing necessary food fish for the
population and economic possibilities for the people.
But the
developments in aquaculture application have also created great
environmental concern regarding commercial aquaculture and the
associated impacts on surrounding native ecosystems, fisheries,
and resident non-target species. There is growing global concern
amongst governments and environmental monitoring institutions
that there is the need of the institution of regulation and
monitoring of aquaculture production, for the insurance of
8
sustainability of the system and market and to aid in necessary
environmental protection.
Social, economic, environmental, and general feasibility
issues,
coupled
with
varied
existing
US
regulations
have
suppressed prior growth rates of commercial aquaculture in the
US (Mann , 2000) Recent trends in the commercial expansion and
requests for agricultural subsidies indicate that aquaculture is the
fastest growing sector of agriculture in the US currently (USDA
census, 2005). This is not saying much considering the small
production
level
aquaculture
currently
represents,
and
the
expanse that horticulture contributes to our countries agricultural
production, but it does create need for concern in addressing key
issues surrounding aquaculture expansion within the US, and the
proper steps needed to ensure sustainable practices and beneficial
application.
The
US
has
not
engaged
in
the
aquaculture market like India or China.
global
commercial
The aquaculture
programs in the US are designed and applied to produce for niche
markets, with relatively low level production and high return, and
also to aid in restoration/management utilization of existing
commercial fisheries and species of ecological importance (Gillis,
1995).
Federal regulations and restriction with regard to
commercial activity in near shore waters and costal waters has
9
reduced the use of these areas for aquaculture production, leaving
the availability of expansion to shoreline activity, freshwater
systems and land-based reservoirs/manmade retaining ponds.
The majority of the commercial aquaculture production in
the US is finfish for food, particularly carp and salmonids-second
in production is mollusks; clams, mussels, and oysters (deFur,
1995).
The remaining commercial production consists of other
food fish, shrimp, tank fish, and ornamentals (ibid). These species
are raised in combinations of artificial containment systems and
modified natural existing ecosystems. There are many variables of
concern with considering the expansion of aquaculture systems in
the US, and the current leading global producers, India, and
China, are having their industries scrutinized for modeling
purposes to developed appropriate management for US resources
and industry.
While the commercial aquaculture production in the US is
not expansive, the use of the methodologies and technologies of
aquaculture for the use in hatcheries has become common place in
marine restoration projects.
The controlled propagation and
rearing of species to introduce into wild populations is a
restoration and management technique utilized to increase desired
fish populations.
The use of aquacultures methodologies to
propagate fish species has created a new aid to conservation and
10
restoration efforts but has also brought with it a whole new ration
of environmental complications and detrimental impacts.
Chapter Two
The Environmental Concerns of Aquaculture
The environmental concerns surrounding the aquaculture
industry are well documented and believed to have far reaching
effects on native ecology, local water systems, and various
indigenous species inhabiting the surrounding areas if aquaculture
systems.
applied
Depending on the individual site in question, and the
methodologies
used,
the
extent
of
the
detrimental
environmental impact resulting from the practice of aquaculture
will
vary.
The
available
technology,
materials
used,
and
production intensity often times dictate the effectiveness of the
system and the eco-cleanliness of the process.
With the majority of commercial aquaculture existing in
developing countries, the systems utilized are lacking clean
technologies, and environmental restrictions to control the extent
of ecological impact due to systems and their externalities.
The
economic situation of the people in developing countries, partaking
in the operation of aquaculture systems, does not allow for the
consideration of the negative impacts to local ecology. But rather
11
the focus of the people resides primarily on the production rate
and potential profit gained from the aquaculture system. This is
not an intentional evil, or a flagrant disregard of their community’s
ecological wellbeing, but a consequence of the economic status of
the people and their essential need for nourishment and a financial
stability.
Exporting
dangerous
and
detrimental
processes,
and
industrial externalities, is a privilege of wealthy nations and often
times not an option for developing countries.
Developing nations
are forced to internalize and deal with processes and byproducts
that pose human and ecological threats, until, the developing
nation posses the economic stability to export these processes to
an even less developed nation or choose to invest in cleaner more
efficient technologies.
The quality of life of the people and environmental health of
a nation is unfortunately dictated by the economic standing of the
nation, and the ability to afford to pay someone else to deal with
dangerous products and processes that the country and people do
not want to deal with.
Those countries that cannot afford this
privilege, of pawning off accountability, are then looked upon by
the global community as developing nations and utilized as such.
Because
the
majority
of
aquaculture
occurs
within
these
circumstances of economic and social need, and environmental
12
degradation is consistently present, the opinion of aquaculture in
developed countries contains the stigma that the process is
destructive and detrimental to the environment.
While this negative perception held by the developed
countries is supported by some global activity, it would be unfair
not to identify the countries that are attempting to make
ratifications to the existing and future aquaculture systems to
attempt to address the environmental threats.
Both India and
China are developing extensive programs to promote aquaculture,
and are intent on creating systems that can sustain the population
with consistent supplies of protein, a marketable product, and
ensure minimal environmental destruction (Nakamura, 1995).
These countries by no means have completed their goals of
rectifying their nation’s aquaculture sector, but their efforts and
attempts serve as case studies for the future of aquaculture and its
potential application, representing the potential of ecologically
sensitive aquaculture when proper technology and funding is made
available.
The
environmental
concerns
surrounding
commercial
aquaculture are similar in kind to any other industrial process.
The nature and scale of the system, required inputs, created
externalities, and the final product, all contribute to the creation of
environmental conflict. Understanding the variables that create an
13
aquaculture system and their potential hazards is essential to
create change and allow proper management to encourage
productivity while mitigating ecological compromises.
The first variable of aquaculture that leads to potential
environmental impact is the system location.
Aquaculture can
take on many forms; land based in man-made tanks or retention
ponds, in modified coastal regions and floodplain areas, or in nearshore waters. The location of an aquaculture system dictates the
extent of interaction between the system and the surrounding
environment, and the ease in which externalities and farmed
organism can affect local ecosystems. But, regardless of whether
an aquaculture system is in a fully artificial aqueous system on
land, or in floating pens in coastal waters, interaction exists
between the aquaculture system and local ecosystems just in
different levels of directness and intensity. The land based system
will interact with the surrounding environment and water system
through its effluent waste and escaped organisms, where a costal
based system will release externalities directly into water system
that it resides in.
All systems have impacts on surrounding
ecology, but the physical location of the aquaculture system will
determine the extent of disturbance to local ecology for the creation
of the system and the pathways of externality interactions.
14
In addition to the physical location of the aquaculture
system, the extent of localized ecological manipulation and
necessary
water
utilization
required
for
establishment
and
maintaining a system has serious impacts on the surrounding
ecology.
Land
based
operations
can
reduce
ecological
manipulation in that retention ponds are created in clearings and
floodplains, and local native ecological systems are not highly
disturbed (Meffe, 1992).
But these artificial land-based aqueous
systems require continual water inputs. This results in deferment
of localized surface water systems, or intense ground water
pumping for impoundment and utilization in the system. These
actions result in reducing flow of the rivers/streams that water is
being drawn from, lowering water tables surrounding wells, as well
as increasing pollution levels in these water systems as effluent is
released from the aquaculture system back into the respective
water source (Kreeger, 2000). This reallocation of water to
aquaculture
systems
can
reduce
available
water
to
other
agricultural and social needs, putting strain on the hydrological
cycle within a community or watershed, and can drastically change
the available quantities of water for both natural systems and
human activities.
Costal aquaculture systems potentially create the greatest
disturbances to natural ecological conditions.
Many of these
15
systems utilize the existing ecological conditions of naturally
occurring habitats, but introduce modes to contain organisms
within the system, usually levees or retaining walls.
This
methodology takes a portion of an intact ecosystem and isolates it
from natural interaction, and then utilizes its natural function to
attempt to support a farmed crop. These areas are productive for
periods of time, but without the ability to interact with its
surroundings and maintain ecological function, the area decreases
in fertility, sustainability, and carrying capacity (Ryther, 1981),
creating a weakened ecosystem and sometimes destroying the area
by the time the aquaculture system is relocated to a new area.
Often times in these natural costal enclosures, or near shore areas
that are flooded, the salinity level is modified by either pumping in
fresh water or salt water, this can have drastic effects of the local
ecology depending on its ability to tolerate brackish, salt or fresh
water, and can lead to salt brine accumulation and crystalline
deposits that can render soils infertile, destroy native ecology and
render the areas unusable for any form of agricultural production
for long periods of time (Keir, 1912). This manipulation of costal
areas not only debilitates and destroys the native ecology of the
coastline but also has far reaching effects on the native species
that rely on this area for habitat and nutrients, including birds,
reptiles, and other invertebrates.
16
The next variable of aquaculture that leads to potential
environmental impact is the organism of production. Depending
on the target organism of the aquaculture system different lifecycle, nutritional, and habitat requirement must be met.
Some
organisms are less demanding than others with regard to
nutritional inputs, and environmental conditions.
But other
organisms have strict biological requirements demanding continual
manipulation of the system to create desired environmental
conditions and nutritional needs.
Meeting these ecological and
nutritional goals can demand intensive inputs and energies spent
on
environmental
control,
and
ensuring
proper
nutrients
availability, especially in conditions where the target environment
varies greatly from the existing ecosystem being used to house the
aquaculture
system.
The
target
organism
dictates
the
requirements the system, and therefore control the extent of the
manipulation of the local ecology to create the necessary
environments and the quantities of required inputs to maintain
production within the system.
From the simplest monotypic to the complex polytrophic
systems of aquaculture, all require nutritional inputs.
As
aquaculture is an artificial environment the nutrients must be
provided for the system.
The availability and abundance of
nutrients dictates the carrying capacity for the population as well
17
as the growth potential. With the various requirements for
nutrients determined by the target organism, nutritional inputs
can vary from synthetic chemicals or nitrogen rich animal and
human waste to promote algae growth, protein pellets made from
ground fish or continual flow of ocean water latent with micro
organisms (Baker, 1998).
Most commercial aquaculture populations demand high
quantities of protein to ensure growth and health within the
systems.
The majority of feed supplies for aquaculture systems
come from processed wild harvested fish populations, often bycatch and unusable commercial waste and agricultural by
products from processing operations as well (Fleming, 1994).
Sometime but rarely, feeder fish are grown on vegetative blooms
and cellulose material that are in turn fed to the omnivorous target
species. The nutritional inputs required by aquaculture systems
makes them dependent on the harvesting and processing of wild
marine species for system function. This reliance on wild harvest
does not help ease the pressure on wild fish populations, or make
aquaculture
anymore
sustainable
than
traditional
fishing
operations.
Without alternative nutritional sources that are
sustainable, the aquaculture industry is dependent on wild fish
harvest and does not counter the effects of traditional harvesting
methods but rather is an enabler of the existing system in place.
18
The various components that create the externalities of an
aquaculture system pose some of the greatest threats to ecological
health in surrounding environment and to sustainability of the
system.
The effluence, water waste, of the system carries a
multitude of contaminants, pathogens, organisms and pollutants
that can have severe implications on native ecological health,
function and productivity.
Herbicides, extraneous nitrates,
antibiotics, waterborne pathogens, and escaped organisms can all
potentially be present in waste water from aquaculture systems
(Kreeger, 2000). Each of the listed variables contribute to the total
amount of externalities produced, within the system they play a
role in maintaining system health and productivity, when released
into native environments via waste water in concentration and in
persistent frequency their damage and extent of interaction can
not be controlled.
Chapter Three
Commercial Aquaculture in the US
Aquaculture exists in the global community as a major
industrial enterprise and as a consistent element of subsistence
agriculture in developing nations.
Outside the US, large scale
aquaculture operations and family farms provide opportunities for
a large workforce within developed and developing nations. These
19
systems provide employment, economic and social benefits, and
access to nutritional needs, which in turn fuels an industry that
contributes increasingly to the world market demand for food fish
and inevitably large scale environmental degradation (Metcalfe,
2003).
Within the United States we find that these social and
economic patterns are not so evident, commercial aquaculture is a
regionally restricted activity lacking serious national notoriety, and
the use of aquaculture in restoration and resource management
programs is similarly restricted with regional application and
public awareness. But with the recent tracking of US aquaculture
trends it is becoming apparent that it is one of the fastest growing
sectors of US agriculture (USDA, 2005) and demands a closer
examination of the industry and its counterparts.
The commercial production of food fish, mollusks, and other
aquaculture products in the US is a relatively small portion of the
overall US agricultural program, limited in national extent and
production diversity (Thorpe, 1994). With the first census of
aquaculture conducted by the USDA-NASS in 1998 and the second
in 2005 (USDA-NOAA, 2005) the historically first comprehensive
examination of the US aquaculture sector was established.
The
census conducted included all commercial and private aquaculture
farms generating one thousand dollars or more in annual revenue.
The goal of the inquiry was to establish a base line of the location
20
distribution
of
aquaculture
production,
products
and
their
respective values, methodologies of operation, surface water acres
and
sources,
and
aquaculture
distributed
for
restoration,
conservation or recreation.
While the focus of the census played heavily to economic
analysis of production capabilities
and product value, key
environmental variables where identified as well that could help
lead
to
developing
methodologies
of
sustainable
expansion.
Understanding or at least having the ability to quantify the
production methodologies, water usage, organism production rate,
and location concentrations allows the incorporation of these
variables into watershed and fishery management; creating the
possibility for compensation and consideration of the impact of
aquaculture on our current natural resource management plans
and our proposed ideas for expansion in the future.
The information from the census show us that in the year
2005 there were roughly 4300 aquaculture farms in the US. These
farms occupied four hundred thousand water acres of land,
producing 1.09 billion dollars a year worth of food fish, sport fish,
mollusks, and crustaceans.
The highest concentrations of
production sites exist in the Southern states of Mississippi,
Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Texas, in the Northeast region of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maine, and the Pacific Northwest in
21
Washington and Idaho. The numbers for 2005 were up from the
original figures obtained from the census in 1998, showing nearly
a ten percent gain in the total number of farms and their
production value, and a fifteen percent increase in the total water
area of the farms under operation. Following the trend in growth
of farm’s number and area of occupation, the recorded water usage
for operations increased in all areas of interest; surface water,
ground water, imported water and salt-water.
This industry
dependence to water availability, leads to serious questions
regarding
industry
expansion
and
water
usage,
and
the
environmental and social impacts of increasing water diversion to
this growing industry.
The majority of aquaculture farms in the US are producing
food fish, approximately 1800 farms, almost half of the total
number of farms in production.
The greatest frequency in farm
number and the highest production rates recorded of food fish is
occurring in the Southeast. This region constitutes roughly twothirds of the total US production, with the aquaculture systems
almost exclusively being conducted in fresh water closed tank
systems, flow through raceways, designed for various carp species
and introduced exotics such as tilapia. These closed aquaculture
systems take advantage of the regional climate, existing warm
water systems, and the native species, allowing for high rates of
22
productivity and successful proliferation of organisms within the
system.
The inherit productivity capabilities of the warm water
systems that can be maintained in the area, and the growing
number of farms and intensity of production, has made the
Southeast region of the US the dominate producers of aquaculture
products. Aquaculture in this region is an integrated part of the
social and economic community, creating serious income for
residents and dependable, cheap, food for the communities of the
area. The rearing of food fish in these areas with aquaculture has
become a dependable and profitable alternative to harvesting from
wild fisheries, and is widely accepted by the community as a viable
alternative for supplying needed food and jobs.
Mollusks and crustacean-based aquaculture systems are
second in farm number and intensity within the US, with 980 and
925
farms
respectively.
Theses
aquaculture
systems
are
predominantly established in the Pacific Northwest and in the
Northeast, both areas of high native populations and naturally
existing communities. Mollusks appear to be one of the few target
organisms
of
aquaculture
that
is
not
grown
in
artificial
environments, but rather the aquaculture systems utilize the
natural costal waters and tidal flats of the production area. These
systems are mostly cold water environments with the exception of
the production that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly to the
23
warm water systems of the Southeast, the mollusk based systems
utilize the existing ecological conditions and ecosystems that are
based in the regions. The development of aquaculture systems in
these areas is a byproduct of the traditional harvesting methods of
wild populations.
The initial discoveries of the resource, mollusks, in these
areas lead to unsustainable harvesting of naturally occurring
communities of native species.
As industrial harvesting of the
resource intensified, it became apparent that management of
native species and the creation of controlled areas of production
were necessary to maintain productivity of the industry as well as
allow ease in which to access the resource and control its location
and availability. While the food fish production of the Southeast is
primarily a locally utilized resource, the products of the mollusk
industry are valued nationwide and are exported outside the US as
well (Policansky, 1998) creating a much different economic and
social scene. The production of these aquaculture products is an
engrained practice that contributes to the cultural identity of the
areas and is a necessary portion of the economy.
The bulk of the current aquaculture industry in the US is
divided between food fish and mollusk production; these systems
take advantage of two distinct environmental climates and water
conditions.
The mollusk industry utilizes the Cold water
24
environments of the Northeast Atlantic and the Northwest Pacific,
the food fish systems focus around the warm water systems of the
Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi river basin, and the South Atlantic.
With the difference in climactic and ecological conditions the
systems utilize different operational parameters catering to the
existing conditions, aiding the productivity and system function.
Each system type creates its own ecological concerns that relate to
water quality and native ecological health such as, effluence
content,
native
species
interaction,
water
allocation
and
misappropriation, native habitat reduction and regional ecological
degradation.
The wide range of ecological concerns that are
identified when examining the inputs, system parameters and
externalities of US aquaculture industry warrants proper planning
for sustainable expansion that considers the environmental
variables, economic contributions of the industry, and the social
role in region. These environmental issues of concern surrounding
future expansion of the aquaculture industry of the US will be
addressed in a future chapter.
Chapter Four
Aquaculture in US Resource Management and Restoration
Commercial aquaculture has experienced rapid growth in
both practice and production within the US in the past thirty
25
years. Developing into a sizable industry, aquaculture production
contributes to regional economies, world markets, and to the
overall agricultural production of our nation.
While commercial
aquaculture in the US is a profitable and growing sector of
agriculture, other forms of applied aquaculture outside the
commercial arena, used in restoration and recreation in the US,
are equally important to include in creating plans for future
management of public resources and expansions of sustainable
aquaculture.
The Federal Government has had a hundred year history of
incorporating hatchery practices into public resource management
and restoration efforts (USDA, 2005) The effects of early industrial
exploits of commercial fisheries became more than apparent in the
late eighteen hundreds, and salmon harvests of the Pacific
Northwest and California began to suffer (Towle, 1981).
The
necessity for artificial supplementation to fishery populations and
management of the resource was deemed more than necessary.
The National Fish Hatchery System was established by the U.S.
Congress in 1871 through the creation of a U.S. Commissioner for
Fish and Fisheries, this lead to the development of the first
federally run hatchery and Salmonid restoration program in the
country almost 120 years ago (Black, 1994). The System is now
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is currently
26
comprised of 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 9 Fish Health Centers,
and 7 Fish Technology Centers (USFW, 2005).
Along
with
the
expansion
of
federally
run
hatchery
infrastructure and technology, public policy and laws have been
enacted to structure the commercial and restoration efforts in the
US. The National Aquaculture development act, “put in place in
1980, directed the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, to develop a National
Aquaculture Development Plan… to identify those aquatic species
that could be cultured on a commercial or other basis and to set
forth for each species a program of necessary research and
development, technical assistance, demonstration, education and
training activities” (USNADA, 1980)
Later ratifications to the Act further required the “Secretaries
to conduct studies of the capital requirements of the aquaculture
industry, to provide advisory, educational and technical assistance
to interested persons, encourage implementation of aquaculture
technology and to provide informational services… ratifications
went on to establish the Secretary of Agriculture as the permanent
chairman of the Joint Committee on Aquaculture and directed the
Chairman to establish the Office of Aquaculture Coordination and
Development. It also established the National Aquaculture Board
27
composed of 12 private sector representatives and authorized
appropriations” (USNADA, 1980)
The responsibility of this board was to create a management
plan
for
potential
expansion
of
the
aquaculture
industry,
identifying key production species, effects of restoration efforts,
and
potential
complications.
exotic/invasive
The
early
species
and
developments
environmental
of
aquaculture
implementation and management by the federal government in
1871 established applied aquaculture in the US, but it was the
laws allocating management authority to FWS and USDA, and the
millions in funding, that sparked the interest in commercial
expansion of aquaculture and the unrealized potential that the role
of hatcheries could play in restoration efforts.
Federally run hatcheries and associated science centers are
just a portion of the total number of hatchery systems contributing
to restoration efforts in the US.
While Federal hatcheries have
extensive funding, a large range of organism in production, and
state of the art facilities; various State, Tribal, and private run
hatcheries also contribute considerably to the total volume of
organism
produced
for
recreational
sport
fishing
and
the
restoration of natural fisheries, threatened/endangered species
(Fleming,, 1994).
Washington State alone houses over one
hundred state run hatcheries that provide for and estimated
28
seventy-five percent of the total salmon catch from the native
fisheries (Levin, 2001).
This cooperative of hatchery operations is
arguably the driving force keeping salmon in Northwest waters.
In the US today the role of hatcheries constitutes one part of
a three piece approach used in restoration efforts to counter the
dwindling populations of threatened and endangered aquatic
species. The current methodologies utilized by Federal and State
agencies alike attempt to initiate restoration efforts and build
populations back to sustainable levels by targeting improvement
and modification to three main variables of the situation; target
organisms and their community habitat, the supplementation to
native
populations
via
hatchery
input,
and
reduction
in
commercial, Tribal, and recreational harvest from fisheries.
In a hypothetical situation, approaching a restoration project
with the current methodologies, the three main variables of the
approach seem to encompass the primary objectives that would be
thought to be needed to address the situation and to ensure
positive restoration effects. There is regard and importance placed
on the need for habitat and the associated improvement or creation
of caring capacity for the system, the incorporation of hatcheries
allows for the introduction of organisms at controlled levels to
contribute greatly to native populations, and the reduction of
harvest allowing fished population to have time to recover to
29
sustainable levels. But the problem that exists is that two of the
three main variables are not able to fulfill their roles in the
restoration process.
Though habitat restoration projects are abundant, well
funded, and becoming more and more effective in reconstituting
disturbed habitat, the existing proportion of viable habitat in
comparison to disrupted or nonviable areas within a watershed
cannot support historic populations or populations that would not
be considered threatened for many of the species that restoration
efforts revolve around (Waples, 1994). The extent of damage to our
freshwater systems through urbanization, agricultural expansion,
road systems, dams, and industrial pollution can not be mitigated
with the small extent of intact and restored habitats created and
expect true ecological recovery in such a short time period. These
improvements to the habitat conditions within water systems is a
valiant effort to aid the inhabitants of the natural system, but
restoring sporadic reaches of a river system that provide ecosystem
function cannot offset the levels of disruption and loss in function
the water system as a whole has suffered (Fridley, 1995). Nor is it
possible for the available habitat that has been restored to support
a self regulating population that we harvest so intensely.
Reducing the commercial catch is also very tricky and is not
easily negotiated or enforced.
With numerous State fleets and
30
international
fleets
all
harvesting
from
associated
fisheries,
monitoring and maintaining set harvest levels is highly demanding.
The only effective measure to regulate and decrease harvest seems
to be the incremental reduction in available population within the
fishery
itself.
With
current
US
and
Canadian
protection
regulations implemented on some salmonid species, reducing the
commercial harvest to a lower level at this point would eliminate
the profit of the industry (Tibbetts, 2001)
The inefficiency of two of the three variables used in fishery
restoration
leaves
a
tremendous
burden
on
hatcheries
to
compensate for the situation, and attempt to keep the restoration
functional or at least the species population from hitting extinction
levels. For many restoration projects the hatcheries function serve
as a life support system for the organism within the system,
continually supplementing the native population in order to
attempt to maintain a semi-functioning system of individuals. The
intention of a restoration effort is to aid the endangered population
in reaching a self perpetuating population, by providing adequate
habitat
for
life
cycles,
decreasing
the
harvest
levels,
and
introducing groups of compatible individual organisms to the wild
population, with the optimistic chance that the species and system
will eventually regain self regulating stability.
31
This vision of restoration has become distorted from its
original intentions.
We now find ourselves stuck in a cyclical
process that demands huge inputs of individuals into a system
that cannot support the population naturally, to attempt to
maintain a population that can provide for the dependent
industries and not succumb to extinction. The identified negative
impacts on native populations and natural systems from hatchery
practices stem from the form and function of hatchery systems,
consistent with the general ecological concerns of commercial
aquaculture. The issues that have abundant scientific interest
surround sustainable inputs for the support artificial populations;
hatchery practices impacts on native systems, proper handling of
externalities and localized pollution, and the diversion of fresh
water and proper watershed allocation (Mann, 2000). These key
variables are all brought up when dealing with the ecological
impacts and unsustainable future of the hatchery process and the
needed elements of change.
With the full extent of the long term ecological implications
that hatchery practices present still an unknown, the identified
disturbances, sometimes even destruction, of natural systems and
their respective species by the influence of hatchery operation is
becoming well documented These apparent trends are supported
with the accumulation of studies and ongoing monitoring of native
32
species/ hatchery offspring interactions and population fluctuation
since the introduction of hatchery operations (Pister, 2001). The
grandiose attempt to restore disturbed natural systems, with the
application of aquaculture to manipulate and control large scale
ecological situations has resulted in an unforeseen result.
With
the current indicators that hatchery operations potentially are
doing more harm than aid to the natural system, and the natural
populations that are attempting to be aided are now primarily
consisting of hatchery fish not native ones. The question for the
future development of management strategies is; is it best we
attempt to correct the failure of the current management practices
to get back on track to original goals for the natural system? Or
embrace the situation that has been created and attempt to utilize
the technology and application of aquaculture to perpetuate the
current situation with modifications to unsustainable practices.
Chapter Five
The Future and Sustainable Aquaculture
The practices and applied methodologies of aquaculture in
commercial operations and restoration efforts in the US are not
currently contributing to systems that are sustainable in nature.
The
required
externalities,
inputs
and
the
for
the
hatchery
organisms
systems,
produced,
resulting
contribute
to
33
degradation of local ecological conditions, stress on the source
systems providing inputs, and the disruption and exclusion of
native species within ecosystems containing released captive
reared populations.
The concerns of sustainability surrounding
aquaculture, and its contribution to commercial production and
fishery restoration, consist of more than ecological issues. Social
and economic change is needed in the way we view resources and
an increase in the understanding of the limitations and capacity of
natural systems to be exploited must be addressed to allow for
sustainable progression.
Modifications to both the existing commercial production
systems and restoration hatchery operation methodologies must be
made to ensure a positive contribution to natural systems and
social needs, and to reduce the ecological impact and stress
created on other natural resources. A reevaluation of the function
and role of aquaculture in natural ecosystems and in our
agricultural industry must be addressed prior to the pending large
scale
expansion
within
the
US,
as
complications we are currently creating.
not
to
intensify
the
Modifying the existing
practices and methodologies used in aquaculture to enhance the
overall system sustainability benefits all parties involved; the
consumers, the producers, and the environment, as everyone
34
benefits from the persistent availability of the resource and the
reduction in ecological stress and degradation.
While
both
commercial
and
restoration/resource
management applications must be addressed to ensure positive
progression towards sustainability, the scale and context of
ecological impact that restoration hatcheries have been shown to
have on native species and systems demands priority attention.
The system of hatcheries used in restoration and resource
management in the US poses the greater threat of widespread
impacts on our native freshwater systems and coastal ecosystems
than the current commercial industry.
Developing plans to aid
realistic change within restoration hatchery operation that leads to
more sustainable systems, via methodology and application
modification is needed to ensure long term effectiveness of system
and resource availability. It is necessary to correct the current
counterproductive path of applied aquaculture to ensure stability
to the natural system and the dependent social and economic
variables.
Some of the identified inputs of aquaculture systems
that contribute to unsustainable practices are the required
nutrients, use of antibiotics, herbicides, and the quantities of fresh
water allocated to the industry.
Examining the sources of the
inputs for the system, their long term availability, effectiveness in
maintaining the system, and the effect on natural systems once
35
they have left the aquaculture system is critical in developing
sustainable methodology.
Most commercially cultured populations exist in artificial
conditions for the entire life cycle until harvest, while restoration
populations live in captivity until release into native systems. For
the full duration of the time spent in the hatchery system, all
protein and nutrients must be supplied to the population from an
outside source.
This outside source can be an agricultural
byproduct, waste or by-catch from the fish industry, or a
commercially processed protein based feed (Ryther, 1981).
The
demands of the captive populations require the extraction of
resources from other natural systems to supplement the inability
of the aquaculture system to self perpetuate. The demands of the
artificial system contribute to reduction in the stability and fertility
of the natural systems that resources are being drawn from.
Traditional methodologies of aquaculture from China utilized
polyculture, or populations consisting of multiple related species,
to create stability and a simulated trophic structure within the
system. With the incorporation of multiple species, various niches,
function, utilization of varying elements, and opportunities are
created within the system. The methodologies of mixed population
systems have proved to be productive and sustainable, but not as
productive as monotypic systems with direct inputs (Nakamura,
36
1985).
This difference in productivity and potential profitability
reduces the natural tendencies of commercial operations to utilize
these methodologies.
If functioning trophic assemblages were
identified, the incorporation of polyculture in commercial systems
could greatly contribute to the improvement in sustainability,
potentially reducing the demand for nutritional inputs, and the
associated degradation to current sources.
Antibiotics and other biological control agents such as
herbicides and insecticides that serve as key management
elements are utilized in aquaculture systems to control disruptive
environmental conditions created and to maintain the health of the
population (Fridley, 1995). High population densities and species
homogeneity
threatening
create
its
numerous
basic
stability
problems
and
within
demanding
systems,
consistent
modifications and inputs. Chemical agents are used to attempt to
counter the biological side effects and changes that occur in the
systems condition resulting from normal operation. Density and
composition
of
the
system
population
allow
communicable
pathogens to be spread at rampant rates, increasing mortality
potential within the population if exposure occurs. Antibiotics and
insecticides are applied to control pathogens and vectors of
exposure, while highly effective at times, these agents are passed
on through the waste water into natural systems affecting all
37
native organisms that comply with the effective parameters of the
agents used.
Decreasing population density and increasing
biological diversity within the system would reduce the tendencies
of vulnerability that is exhibited in current systems, ideally
decreasing the need for agent inputs.
The
density
and
confinement
of
populations
within
hatcheries typically creates superfluous levels of waste in the
system. Inefficient means, or incapacity to replace, circulate, or
filter the water of the system properly will result in the build up of
extraneous nutrients, primarily nitrates. This nutrient rich water
can be released into surrounding ecosystems to cause spikes in
biological activity, disrupting normal nutrient cycling, or it can
remain within the system resulting in undesirable biological
blooms within the water column.
These biological blooms are
detrimental to the aquaculture system and native systems,
decreasing available oxygen levels and providing habitat for
pathogens and vectors.
Herbicides are used to manage unwanted biological growth
feeding on the available nutrients.
Like antibiotics, these
herbicides are passed on through the water system into native
environments, continuing to effect biological systems outside the
intended application. Unwanted algae blooms and other biological
growth within hatchery systems are an effect of the system
38
intensity and insufficient nutrient cycling within the system, and
are managed primarily with chemical agents (Kreeger, 2001).
While these algae blooms are not desirable in salmonid hatchery
systems, they can serve as nutritional inputs in other aquaculture
system types. Numerous carp based aquaculture systems utilize
biological growth associated with extraneous nutrients, and are
fully incorporated into the larger agricultural system as an
externality utilizing function; essentially turning agricultural waste
into a valued product, reducing pollution and contributing to the
social and economic well being (Tibbetts, 2001).
Current US system designs fail to integrate aquaculture into
larger agricultural systems, attempting to operate as an individual
process. This lack of integration into a multifaceted agricultural
system creates individualistic goals for the aquaculture operation.
Developments in system application and agricultural integration of
aquaculture to convert agricultural waste to valued product would
be a great step in sustainability for application of aquaculture.
The ability to maintaining manageable concentration levels
of waste and extraneous nutrients within hatchery systems
depends
on
capabilities.
water
availability
and
the
systems
processing
As aquaculture systems exist within water, the
availability and abundance of water is essential to the systems
ability to be productive. Freshwater availability and its allocation
39
for use, is a mounting concern for the future as resources become
limited and the demand increases (Meffe, 1992). Water availability,
and the entitlement to access to the water, is a potential obstacle
for aquacultures future. With regional droughts and dwindling
aquifers, aquaculture will have a hard time arguing for water
allocations that will be needed to maintain the horticultural, social
and industrial aspects of our culture. Current water allocations
and natural availability have limited the capacity for fresh water
land based expansion of commercial operations,
marine and
estuary based commercial operations currently are limited to shore
operations exemplified by the mollusk industry.
While marine
expansion into the economic zone in our oceans has been
proposed, there has been not been any approval for these
expansions into federally controlled waters.
Some sustainability issues surrounding aquaculture pertain
primarily to restoration hatcheries methodologies.
The genetic
manipulation of hatchery populations and the interactions that
occur between hatchery populations and native system has have
proven to be counterproductive, and hindered the attempts to aid
native
population.
The
genetic
manipulation
of
hatchery
populations has impacted the wild genetic composition; roughly
80% of Salmonid species in Pacific Northwest fisheries are
hatchery raised, reducing the genetic diversity of wild populations,
40
and effecting the natural distribution of species within respective
watersheds. This has caused a decrease in the ability for the
population to cope with environmental changes; there is 90-95%
mortality rate of salmonid raised hatchery fish once in open ocean
conditions (Fleming, 1994). These mortality responses are linked
to the loss of temperature and climate toleration associated with
historic breeding grounds that has been lost via breeding
methodologies of hatcheries.
These genetic variations that have
occurred within the natural populations have impeded the ability
for the species to perform normal biological functions such as
returning to breeding grounds and procreation.
The massive insurgence of hatchery populations that were
intended
to
replenish
and
aid
the
wild
populations
has
accomplished the total opposite. Wild fisheries of salmon, in the
Pacific Northwest, consist of hatchery organisms with the fate of
wild genetics in great jeopardy (Thorpe, 1994). The attempt to save
wild salmon populations has failed. Existing populations do not
reflect the historic genetic composition of the species, and
hatcheries are perpetuating a fishery that is essentially foreign to
the ecosystem.
The natural system interaction that occurs
between hatchery fish and wild populations result reductions in
wild population’s stability, via genetic manipulation and out
breeding of native genotypes (Waples, 1994)
hatchery fish have
41
out competed and replaced the wild populations in natural
systems, proving to be more aggressive and monopolizing available
habitat and resources.
The manipulation of genetic composition
and mass release of hatchery populations is not a sustainable
contribution to fishery recovery. While captive breeding might be
able to aid populations, introducing a population of engineered
organisms will not improve the status of wild populations or
strengthen their place within the ecosystem. The current situation
requires the operation of hatcheries to maintain the population of
salmonid
species,
despite
the
fact
that
the
practices
are
unsustainable and damaging, as long as there is industrial
demand and the desire of the people perpetuating the system it will
continue. Restoration of salmonids might be possible, the use of
hatcheries must be reevaluated to determine how
Creating
maintain
systems
stability,
and
that
are
demand
more
less
manipulation
to
environmentally
friendly,
currently requires the sacrifice of production potential.
Current
system models are industrializing a natural process, without the
consideration that natural processes demand multiple variables
and conditions to be productive.
This lack of consideration of
function content of natural ecological processes has created a
system that has a greater production capacity than its natural
counterpart, but none of the sustainable or self-perpetuating
42
properties. While aquaculture has the potential and the ability to
serve as an aid in resource management and restoration, its
current applications are not contributing to positive change or
sustainable systems.
Restoration efforts have been able to
perpetuate species populations using current methodologies but
there have been ecological consequences. The apparent short term
gains in population regulation are overshadowed by the looming
environmental and system complications that are arising from our
efforts. Reassessment of the extent of positive change aquaculture
can provide for the management of our resources must be made
with the considerations of existing environmental stability and
expectations of future progression of natural systems.
Chapter Six
Conclusions and Discussion
The development and expansion of applied aquaculture in
the global community varies little from the historic progression of
other
agricultural
endeavors.
Production
methodologies
of
aquaculture were identified in systems of subsistence agriculture,
and then implemented as independent functions in commercial
systems; production potential as opposed to sustainability became
the primary objective.
The progression of aquaculture as a
commercial industry, has allowed an increase in the availability of
43
nutritional needs to the global community, and has contributed to
the economic prosperity of those people and nations involved in the
industry. But this development in controlled resource production
has come at a high cost, resulting in local environmental
degradation or destruction and serious negative implications
surrounding the impacts on the stability of natural aquatic
systems. As commercial aquaculture has attempted to supplement
the demand for ocean resources, and divert harvesting from
dwindling wild fisheries, the inefficiencies and externalities of the
systems have resulted in further unintentional complications and
degradation of the oceans resources and natural ecosystems.
The
environmental
industrialized
aquaculture
complications
are
apparent
resulting
in
the
from
regions
of
application, and the influences on natural system stability are
quantifiably, but the industry continues expanding to fulfill the
growing market demand. The identified industry impacts on the
environment, and resource sustainability concerns, are beginning
to be prioritized into system management approaches and the need
for change has been recognized (Fridley, 1995).
Developed
countries such as India and China that support large, wellestablished
aquaculture
systems,
are
attempting
to
ratify
environmental complications and implement sustainable practices
(Shaftel, 1990).
The infiltration and redirection of the industry
44
with sustainable practices will inevitably take a long commitment
to bringing about change, but is more than necessary to curb
current destructive practices and to ensure future resource
availability.
The
extent
of
commercial
aquaculture
development
experienced within the US has been regionally restricted, and fails
to compare to existing systems in other developed nations. While
the US does not suffer from the severity of environmental
degradation
associated
with
the
global
industry,
applied
aquaculture has left its mark on US fisheries and natural
ecosystems.
restoration
The incorporation of hatchery operations into
efforts
has
reshaped
the
approach
to
fishery
management and securing resource availability, and has greatly
effected the composition and stability of some of our commercial
fisheries.
The introduction of hatcheries into salmonid restoration
methodology in the Pacific Northwest exemplifies the capacity of
applied aquaculture to manipulate large wild fishery populations.
Hatcheries were used to compensate for commercial take and
general decline of wild populations by supplementing the wild
fishery with artificially raised populations.
The intentions of the
restoration efforts were to reestablish the wild fisheries, and aid in
the natural recovery of the species populations. What resulted was
45
a bombardment of the natural system with hatchery spawned
salmon that were able to out-compete, and essentially replace the
wild populations within the natural system (Gillis, 1995).
The
wild populations of salmonids that exist today can hardly be
referred to a wild at all, with the genetic composition of all
salmonids populations consisting of roughly 80% hatchery origin
(Policansky, 1998) the system created has not allowed the
restoration of the wild populations but replaced them with farmed
organisms.
The
decision
to
incorporate
hatchery
operations
into
restoration efforts, and attempt to manipulate multifaceted natural
systems, now seems to have been a mistake. The effects on the
salmonid populations are irreversible, and the system created
must be perpetuated by human input to maintain the existing
population (Pister, 2001) It is impossible to determine the fate of
these species if we had not interjected them with hatchery
introductions, but what qualifies our current situation to be viewed
as successful or superior to potential natural extinction?
The
methodologies of aquaculture have proved to be powerful tools in
population
production
and
manipulation,
and
the
misappropriation of this technology has become apparent in the
ecological
commercial
impacts
that
have
resulted.
aquaculture
and
the
The
continuance
expansion
of
of
hatchery
46
application
intelligently
in
restoration
modified
to
efforts
perform
maintaining sustainable practices.
must
be
desired
reevaluated
functions
and
while
Resource exploitation and
natural system destruction is a thing of the past, our future and
the future of people, require accountability and intelligent use of
our renewable resources.
Sustainability is not an option for
operational management of industries and resource management
but essential to creating systems that we can continually benefit
from without repercussions.
Reference Material
Baker,Beth (Aug., 1998), Washington Watch: Keeping Aquaculture
Environmentally Friendly BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 8. p. 592.
Black, Michael (Sep., 1994), Recounting a Century of Failed
Fishery Policy Toward California's Sacramento River Salmon and
Steelhead Conservation Biology, Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 892-894.
deFur, Peter L.; Rader, Douglas N. (Mar., 1995), Aquaculture in
Estuaries: Feast or Famine? Estuaries, Vol. 18, No. 1, Part A:
Dedicated Issue: The Effects of Aquaculture in Estuarine
Environments. pp. 2-9
Fleming, Ian A. (Sep., 1994), Captive Breeding and the
Conservation of Wild Salmon Populations Conservation Biology,
Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 886-888.
47
Fridley, R. B. (Mar., 1995), The Opportunities for Engineering and
Technology in Addressing the Environmental, Institutional, and
Economic Constraints of Marine Aquaculture in the United States
Estuaries, Vol. 18, No. 1, Part A: Dedicated Issue: The Effects of
Aquaculture in Estuarine Environments. pp. 18-24.
Gillis, Anna Maria. (Mar., 1995) What's at Stake in the Pacific
Northwest Salmon Debate? BioScience, Vol. 45, No. 3, Ecology of
Large Rivers., pp. 125-127+228.
Keir, R. Malcolm (1912), Fisheries an Example of the Attitude
toward Resources Bulletin of the American Geographical Society,
Vol. 44, No. 8. pp. 582-592.
Kreeger, Karen (Nov., 2000), Down on the Fish Farm: Developing
Effluent Standards for Aquaculture BioScience, Vol. 50, No. 11.
pp. 949-953.
Levin, Phillip S.; Zabel, Richard W.; Williams, John G. (Jun. 7,
2001), The Road to Extinction Is Paved with Good Intentions:
Negative Association of Fish Hatcheries with Threatened
SalmonProceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 268, No. 1472. pp.
1153-1158.
Mann, Charles C.; Plummer, Mark L. (Aug. 4, 2000), Can Science
Rescue Salmon? Science, New Series, Vol. 289, No. 5480. pp. 716719.
Meffe, Gary K. (Sep., 1992), Techno-Arrogance and Halfway
Technologies: Salmon Hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North
AmericaConservation Biology, Vol. 6, No. 3. pp. 350-354.
Metcalfe, Neil B.; Valdimarsson, Sveinn K.; Morgan, Ian J. (Jun.,
2003), The Relative Roles of Domestication, Rearing Environment,
Prior Residence and Body Size in Deciding Territorial Contests
between Hatchery and Wild Juvenile Salmon The Journal of
Applied Ecology, Vol. 40, No. 3. pp. 535-544
48
Nakamura, Royden (Feb., 1985), Aquaculture Development in
India: A ModelBioScience, Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 96-100.
Pister, Edwin P. (Jun., 2001), Wilderness Fish Stocking: History
and Perspective Ecosystems, Vol. 4, No. 4.pp. 279-286.
Policansky, David; Magnuson, John J. (Feb., 1998), Genetics,
Metapopulations, and Ecosystem Management of Fisheries
Ecological Applications, Vol. 8, No. 1, Supplement: Ecosystem
Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries. pp. S119-S123.
Ryther, J. H. (Mar., 1981), Mariculture, Ocean Ranching, and
Other Culture-Based Fisheries BioScience, Vol. 31, No. 3, Living
Marine Resources. pp. 223-230.
Shaftel, Timothy L.; Wilson, Beverley M. (Feb., 1990), A MixedInteger Linear Programming Decision Model for Aquaculture
Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 11, No. 1. pp. 31-38.
Thorpe, John E. (Sep., 1994), Performance Thresholds and LifeHistory Flexibility in Salmonids Conservation Biology, Vol. 8, No.
3. pp. 877-879.
Tibbetts, John (Jul., 2001), Aquaculture: Satisfying the Global
Appetite Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 109, No. 7. pp.
A318-A323
Towle, Jerry C. (Jul., 1983), The Pacific Salmon and the Process of
Domestication Geographical Review, Vol. 73, No. 3. pp. 287-300.
Waples, Robin S. (Sep., 1994), Genetic Considerations in Recovery
Efforts for Pacific Salmon Conservation Biology, Vol. 8, No. 3. pp.
884-886.
49
Federal, State, and Private Resources
U.S. Department of the Interior.
www.doi.gov
U.S Department of Fish and Wildlife Services.
www.fws.gov/pacific
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Aquaculture division.
www.usda.gov/aqua/
National Agricultural Statistics Service. Aquaculture census
www.nass.usda.gov
National marine fisheries services- NOAA.
www.nmfs.noaa.gov
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
www.nwifc.wa.gov
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
www.wdfw.wa.gov
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
www.nfwf.org
American Fisheries Society.
www.fisheries.org
Pacific Fishery Management Council.
www.pcouncil.org
Trout Unlimited.
www.tu.org
50