Vancouver 24 Hours (Vancouver, B.C.), July 5, 2007

BUSH ANGLES FOR ALASKA

[Rachel's introduction: "It would also mean that despite individual state bans on fin fish farming in Alaska, Oregon and California, the entire west coast covering Canada and the U.S. could soon be speckled with fish farms."]

By Robyn Stubbs

A recently proposed U.S. bill to open federal waters to offshore fish farming is sending shivers through Alaskan fishermen.

The Bush administration-led bill would effectively open the door to big businesses wanting to set up open-pen fish farms in federal waters, three to 200 miles offshore.

It would also mean that despite individual state bans on fin fish farming in Alaska, Oregon and California, the entire west coast covering Canada and the U.S. could soon be speckled with fish farms. Offshore farms are typically open-net pens that are either submerged or float on the surface in the open ocean.

There are currently no offshore fish farms in B.C., and there's not enough research on them for environmental watchdogs to support the idea, says Craig Orr of B.C.'s Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

"It's just a big unknown. The idea of moving them out of really close proximity to migration routes is good, but we still don't have enough science to know what impact this will have on wild salmon," he says.

Alaskan fishermen and environmental groups also have grave concerns about the proposed U.S. legislation, and what it could mean for their thriving local fisheries.

Alaskan politicians looked to B.C.'s developing commercial aquaculture industry and decided not to follow suit after investigating escapement and pollution concerns.

Now it seems the federal government is undermining that ban and putting their wild fishery at risk, says Paula Terrel, an Alaskan fisherman and fish-farming issues coordinator for the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.

"Some of the same problems that exist for near-shore farming [potentially] exist for offshore farming: Pollution, use of chemicals, concerns about huge multi-national corporations taking over our oceans, the impact on coastal communities... the whole precautionary principle is: First do no harm." Terrel says. "If we supplant our wild fisheries with fish farming offshore, we've traded one flourishing industry for another."

But it's not just the environmental effects of offshore aquaculture that need to be considered. The social and economic impacts of coastal communities -- similar to those in B.C. that rely on a strong fish return for livelihood -- could be impacted.

Alaskan-born graduate student Becky Clausen is studying just that, and is touring coastal communities in the Broughton Archipelago to determine the impact of big industry aquaculture.

"Often the statistics of employment -- jobs being created or lost -- get recorded, but what gets left out is the actual change in the labour process," says the University of Oregon student.

For example, "is a job being an independent fisherman on a boat equivalent to a job at an aquaculture site or processing plant?"

The regulatory structure of U.S. fisheries is eerily similar to Canada's setup, where the agency responsible for protecting the ocean also oversees aquaculture.

And according to Terrel, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (DFO's American equivalent) is pushing the offshore aquaculture bill as one of their top priorities.

"If it were on a really fast track, they could pass it before this time next year," she says.

The first committee hearing happens in Washington, D.C. on July 12.