Why isn't DNR's aquatics division
managing their subtidal lands
as well as their counterparts
in the forestry division?
DNR requires replanting after harvesting.
Why doesn't the aquatics division require
replanting after subtidal harvesting?
We may not agree with it, but
at least forestland is managed
by requiring replanting.
Forest land and subtidal lands should be managed the same way.
For decades Washington's Department of Natural Resources has been actively managing forest land for the benefit of the state's citizens. Tracts of land are put up for bid, the winning bidder takes the timber as agreed, and then is required to replant the land at a specific density within a specific period of time. While people may disagree with various types of forestry management, the result is that instead of waiting for a new stand of timber to naturally seed, in uneven densities, an even age class of timber is available to harvest in as little as 35 years instead of waiting for 60 to 70 years.
You can do this but not replant?
Subtidal harvesting of subtidal state lands.
Strip it and don't worry about replanting.
8 years, 40 years, who cares? I'm paid to extract geoduck not replant them. Ocean acidification? They don't pay me to think about that.
Currently the aquatics division of DNR views their bedlands (subtidal lands) as areas to simply "clearcut" geoduck from, little more than extracting a resource. The hope is over a 40 year period that enough geoduck are nearby their spawn will settle and eventually repopulate the area to be harvested again. Current subtidal farms in Canada and Alaska are harvesting planted geoduck in subtidal areas in ~8 years. So instead of having 5 harvest cycles, you have 1 every 40 years. This is not management. Especially when you can't control poaching, which reduces any natural spawning even further. Add in ocean acidification's impacts on shellfish's inability to grow shell, if true, and waiting for 40 years is a recipe for disaster.
Don't walk, don't anchor, don't dig.
Why be excluded from here when
planting subtidaly does the same?
Public tidelands are scarce and about to become more so to benefit a few geoduck growers and their investors. It is not in the statewide interest.
Instead of requiring replanting DNR has instead decided the few remaining intertidal tidelands (exposed at low tide) available to the public should be leased out to geoduck farmers, thereby excluding their use to everyone. As noted in the Seattle PI today, DNR will begin leasing tidelands to geoduck growers. No longer will people be able to dig their own clams. No long will people be able to anchor. No longer will people be able to see the diversity of life at low tides. Instead, they will be given tidelands with 40,000 PVC pipes per acre and told to stay off.
Econ 101: Limit supply to artificially prop up the price.
Chelsea Farms recently applied for a permit to plant a subtidal area near Burley Lagoon. They said nothing of there being any problems planting subtidally. So why would the state not want to require planting subtidally? Consider as a possibility the industry is flush with cash and knows how to spend it to get what they want. Economics 101 clearly explains the effect which limiting supply has on price. It artificially props it up higher than it could be otherwise.
Get involved - demand the state's subtidal lands be managed for everyone, not just the geoduck industry. Replanting should be required and the few state owned tidelands should be left for the public to use.
The geoduck industry is fixated on transforming any available tidelands into geoduck farms. They are out of area to grow on and now only have private and state tidelands to pursue. Private owners have said enough, leaving only state tidelands. Huge subtidal swaths of subtidal lands are being cleared of 4 million pounds of geoduck each year. None are being replanted. That is not management. Help by supporting The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. Demand subtidal lands harvested be replanted.
No comments:
Post a Comment