Ugh, that’s really disappointing to see. It’s pretty sad to think that they’re going to start farming in the gulf given how much it is a dead zone as a result of land-based agricultural run off?

September 21, 2009
Letter to Danny Jensen:
?
As an environmental scientist, biological oceanographer, marine parasitologist, marine biologist, and mariculturist and I take serious exception to your arbitrary, capricious, and unscientific statements regarding proposals for offshore mariculture in the Gulf of Mexico.?I and my associates have actively campaigned in Washington and throughout the Gulf region for 20 years to acquire permits and promulgate regulations that will enable a sea-farming industry in the Gulf of Mexico. we have encouraged our political leaders and officials in Washington since the first Bush Administration to accept the wisdom of rearing finfishes and shellfishes in America’s offshore waters. We have attended many public meetings of the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council and actively commented on the proposed regulations for establishing offshore sea farming. All of the public concerns expressed by us and your followers during the Gulf Council public hearings on mariculture, over the past 6 years, have been taken into consideration and have resulted in the current proposed regulations for establishing a Gulf of Mexico sea-farming industry?at last!.

It is obvious to me, in reviewing your recent article, that you have very little knowledge and/or understanding about these matters and are only repeating the falsehoods, half truths, and unsubstantiated claims of those groups and individuals who would:
?
1.? Continue the status quo of over-fishing our native finfish and shellfish stocks;
?
2.?Continue to allow the destructive fishing and trawling practices in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ);
?
3. Continue to overlook the impact of the unregulated and environmentally-destructive aquaculture industries of other countries that strip the seas of all its living animals with huge commercial drift-netting ships;
?
4. Continue to support the exportation of hundred of thousands of jobs and $10 billion of U.S. funds to other countries who have discovered the validity and productivity of sea farms and who supply the U.S. with the bulk of its sea food; and who would,
?
5. Deny the “rights” of U.S. citizens and corporations to utilize federal waters for the creation of thousands of sea farming-related jobs and diversifying our country’s supply of needed protein from the seas while simultaneously supporting the “rights” of other U.S. citizens and corporations [the wild-catch fishers and trawlers] that “rape, pillage, and destroy” our native finfish and shellfish stocks and their habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
?
The points you raised regarding “the discharge of untreated sewage, pesticides, and antibiotics directly into the water; the likelihood of escapes of non-native species; and the introduction of disease and parasites to wild populations,” in your 15 September 2009 blog [http://www.takepart.com/blog/2009/09/15/obama-administration-opens-gulf-to-industrial-fish-farms/] have been addressed for the most part in the offshore fish-farming rules and regulations adopted by the Gulf Council and NOAA, but a few words of wisdom are appropriate.
?
RE The discharge of untreated sewage:?Until and unless you and the so-called environmental organizations campaign to stop the discharge of treated and untreated “sewage” from coastal human communities around the Gulf of Mexico and along rivers discharging into the Gulf, your diatribe against the release of fecal matter (not sewage) by finfishes in sea cages is a farce.?I know of no study that suggests that the excretions by large populations of finfishes and shellfishes now living in the Gulf cause “pollution” problems, while we humans cause a 3,000-square-mile “dead zone” in the Gulf from our waterborne wastes and fertilizers “excreted” from the mouth of the Mississippi river.

The excretions of finfishes and shellfishes in the Gulf of Mexico serve as nutrient resources for marine fauna and flora further down the food chain that have evolved to consume and recycle those excreted nutrients and that in the end serve as food for other native finfishes and shellfishes.?Natural recycling is an important part of all Gulf of Mexico ecosystems and offshore fish farms will not disrupt the recycling of nutrients in open-sea areas with normal tidal currents. In fact, natural populations of fauna and flora will recycle those excreted waste and increase the native biomass to take advantage of the available nutrients in the vicinity of offshore fish farms. The Gulf of Mexico, with its elevated productivity, especially in nearshore areas, absorbs and utilizes discharges from finfishes and shellfish populations—otherwise that sea would be a virtual septic tank (as is the “dead zone” off Louisiana from human pollution).
?
RE The discharge … of pesticides and antibiotics directly into the water:?Again, until and unless you and the so-called environmental organizations campaign to stop the discharge of pesticides and antibiotics from coastal human communities around the Gulf of Mexico and along rivers discharging into the Gulf, your diatribe against the release of federally-regulated pest-control agents and drugs (antibiotics) from offshore fish farms is likewise a farce. The “discharge … of pesticides and antibiotics …” will be regulated and controlled by federal regulations to avoid harm to the marine environment.
?
RE The likelihood of escapes of non-native species:? The use of non-native finfish and shellfish species will not be permitted in offshore fish farms under rules adopted by the Gulf Council and NOAA, so this statement is patently false.?Any species of finfish and shellfish native to the Gulf of Mexico may be a candidate for offshore fish farming.?The mariculture potential of those multitudinous species has yet to be determined, but viable finfish species include cobia (Rachycentron canadum), red drum (Sciaenops ocellata), snappers (Lutjanus spp.), groupers (Epinephelus spp.), amberjacks (Seriola spp.), and tunas (Thunnus spp.).?

The unintended escape of any members of these species will only enhance the native populations of those fishes in the Gulf.?Japan, a country that has benefited from mariculture for more than 50 years, operates hatcheries that release native finfishes and shellfishes to enhance natural populations in coastal waters around that country.
?
RE The introduction of disease and parasites to wild populations:? Diseases and parasites of finfish and shellfish are already natural pathogens and symbionts in the Gulf of Mexico.?They have evolved along with their native host species and are already endemic to the Gulf.

The culture of native finfishes and shellfishes will not introduce exotic or non-native pathogens and parasites—the exotics are already coming in via tanker ballast water, via importation on non-native species by humans for other purposes, and via range extensions as a result of global warming.

Pathogens and parasites are usually not a burden to the host species unless they become stressed or malnourished—conditions that must be avoided for sea farms to be economically and biologically successful.?The presence of endemic pathogens and parasites in native populations will be a threat to cultured finfish and shellfish species rather than the other way around.?

Finally, I strongly suggest that you read the proposed Gulf Fishery Management Council guidelines for establishing offshore sea farming in the Gulf of Mexico, with the facts outlined in the above paragraphs in mind. Then and only then you may be able to comment to the public on a more informed basis.
?
Respectfully,

Ed Cake
_____________________________?
E.W. “Ed” Cake, Jr., Ph.D.
Chief Science Officer
Gulf Environmental Associates
E-mail: ed.cake@yahoo.com

Hi, We are based in South Africa,Western Cape and would like to learn more about the farming of Dusky Cob in the south eastern Cape Sea waters.

Dear Sirs, President Obama was also a Senator running for president when Senators, Clinton, Biden, and McCain did not use their influence to protect Americans from human pathogens in ballast water, by failing to address the Coast Guard Authorization Act H.R.2830, which passed the house of representatives,(the largest elected legislative voice of the people) 395-7. This was because they could not resolve in the Senate whether, Americans health risk from virus and bacterial pathogens, being dumped into American waters by international shipping, and foreign sea captains, was a states rights issue or a national security issue. One can only wonder whether all this environmental talk, about cleaning up water is only being used to foster a fake image. Sincerely,
Don Mitchel

Dear Sirs, Yesterday October 23 2009,the house passed h.r.3619 and seems to show that once again that previous legislation on ballast water passed by the house may have been just as Rep Oberstar has reportedly expressed “bullshit”. The following is from the House of Representatives discussion about again addressing ballast water with the latest Coast Guard Authorization Act.H.R.3619 on oct22. “Lastly, I am concerned with our inability to include language that would establish uniform national standards for vessel discharges, including ballast water. ”

“I would like to talk briefly about a provision that was not included in this year’s bill, ballast water management”
“Although I would have liked this bill to once again include a provision on ballast water management, I am cognizant that this provision may be one of the reasons this bill has been held up in the Senate.” It is sad they still do not mention the human pathogens associated with ballast dumping. Perhaps this is why the Senate can still consider this a states rights issue. As politicians wish to be treated with respect and decorum, history has proven that Senators can be for sale, and it only takes one Senator from a state that oil transportation and shipping of foreign goods plays an important part of their economy to hold ballast water regulations up on a states right issue.
Sincerely, Don Mitchel