34 SEPTEMBER 2019 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG TABLE 3. Summary of stakeholder focus group meeting, Totten Inlet, 30 April 2009. Overall perceptions Life and blood of Squaxin Island tribe. Green industry. Sustainable: needs to be supported by science. Source of jobs and income. Indicator of watershed health. High quality food source. Heritage. Trade and economy for nation and local communities. Source of pride. Benefits of shellfish Habitat-forming. Nitrogen removal. Lease/rental income for landowners. Livelihood for Squaxin Island Tribe. Recreational opportunities. Educational opportunities. Jobs in rural areas where other natural resource jobs have disappeared. Consequences of shellfish Little data exists on the effects of shellfish on water quality and habitat. Additional requirements on homeowners of shellfish beaches. Land use conflicts* - growth driven. Phytoplankton over consumption by commercial shellfish. Changes habitat quality and character for other species. Negative economic impacts to other industries (fishing, tourism). Future visions Totten viewed as a reserve area for future harvest Shellfish harvest expands – economic and environmental benefit to community. Limited aquaculture until additional scientific information is available. More widespread community support (lessening of land-use conflicts; more community farms). Preserve natural shoreline. Enhancement of native oysters. Technology to allow for lower impacts to the environment. Everyone involved in the debate has broader perspectives. Reinforce the view that there are numerous stressors on Puget Sound. Tighter regulations. Co-existence. Trade-offs Who pays for science? Squaxin Island Tribe would hope everyone would say yes to paying more. Industry is paying now through voluntary shellfish closures and grants to homeowners. There needs to be a fee that benefits all species and harvest activities, not just shellfish. Removal of waste into Puget Sound is the responsibility of those who create the waste. Agriculture also an impact; need to address all impacts and inputs. Some will be willing to do the right things, others will need incentives. Water quality is not the only driver. Need education and outreach on the wide range of sources of pollutants. Additional comments More science needed to understand the ecological impacts of shellfish on habitat and other species. When is enough science enough? How will we know everything about the ecosystem? Do we need to wait? Precautionary principal. Some data indicates that N removal benefits may not be supported in full by recent science. Puget Sound and British Columbia are the two places in the world where the views on shellfish harvest are considered negative. Pew and Packard (NGOs) have been spreading negative press about aquaculture. Key points from focus group Mix of commercial and tribal growers, and local government and NGOs. Lack of science a strong theme during discussion. How much is enough? Strong feelings on both sides: shellfish are good for the ecosystem, and shellfish harm the ecosystem. Important cultural and community resource. Expansion is a thorny issue, particularly for NGOs, who feel there is not enough science to support the carrying capacity of Puget Sound to support more commercial growing. Conflicts over Puget Sound are over FUTURE expansion, not current harvest activities. Expanding the markets for shellfish does not necessarily mean expanding production. Geoduck market is inflated due to overseas market. Some shellfish products are perhaps “non-essential” food sources”. In a global market, shellfish are a product that is essential – need to respond to the market. Squaxin Island Tribe used to “own” all the tidelands. They’d like to expand their harvest capability. Bush/Callow Act: require cultivation of shellfish on private land. Potentially the land could revert back to the state if not cultivated.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=