32 SEPTEMBER 2019 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG TABLE 1. Summary of stakeholder focus group meeting, Oakland Bay, 22 April 2009. Overall perceptions Tribal perception of aquaculture vs. natural shellfish harvest. Accessibility is important. Cultural importance. Economic importance regardless of native/non-native. Quality of life indicator. Ecological services (water quality, CO2 and nutrient uptake, habitat, bentho-pelagic coupling. Political support – legislature. Local jobs. Environmental concerns. Food production (esp. overseas). Perceptions; farming vs. extraction. Sustaining resource – part of a larger ecosystem. Importance for tourism, especially on public beaches. Benefits of shellfish Subsistence farming and ceremonial use. Environmental/social justice issues. Pleasure from shellfish consumption. Oysterfest is a big event in Mason County: consumption, tourism, fundraiser for county, education. Shellfish is an icon and namesake. Industry owners contribute to clean up (water quality and other pollution). Local economy is supported. Mostly outside money coming into the community from extraction and tourism. State revenue from licenses. Fosters good stewardship. Upstream/ downstream economic support. Landowners lease the tidelands allowing them to remain on their property. Sustaining a local food source. Provide habitat / structure. Nutrient uptake. Investment in water quality. Food web function. Clean water provides other services. Consequences of shellfish More stringent regulations. Another land use conflict. Haves vs. have not’s – class wars. Access denied in some areas. Aesthetics/ perceptions/ expectations vary. Natural disasters can impact tourism, harvest, all things connected to shellfish. Shell litter. Requires working on/in the water. Future visions Closer working relationships (tribes, industry, etc.). Existing areas preserved and/or restored. Future WQ levels support healthy shellfish consumption and communities. Shellfish industry embraced by policy makers. Pollution trading credits. Future is bleak: one participant “doesn’t care”. Trade-offs Benefits: willingness to pay. Jobs: Most feel that they are already paying in terms of jobs, time, and protection of resources. Revenue to community: Would be willing to pay more to see no further closures. User should pay vs. consumer should pay: in reality, we all pay. Tribes do invest, but treaty rights relevant to property rights make this a complicated issue. Tradition: people perceive that the beach is a public resource. Consequences: willingness to pay. Cost of enforcement: We are already paying for some of this as well. Additional comments Concern: Toxics in the environment: what’s being done about it? WA state tidelands are owned to the low tide mark, unlike most states. Makes public access challenging. Key points from focus group Group heavily dominated by shellfish growers. A few local governments and one resident. Shellfish harvest is a way of life for the community. Multigenerations. Economic backbone of community. Not much concern about environmental consequences. Access and land ownership a source of conflict. Would like more political support in the future.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=