Our mission is to protect the habitat of Puget Sound tidelands from the underregulated expansion of new and intensive shellfish aquaculture methods. These methods were never anticipated when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. They are transforming the natural tideland ecosystems in Puget Sound and are resulting in a fractured shoreline habitat. In South Puget Sound much of this has been done with few if any meaningful shoreline permits and with limited public input. It is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act was intended to prevent.

Get involved and contact your elected officials to let them you do not support aquaculture's industrial transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Governor Inslee:

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

House Bill 1037/Imidacloprid - Pesticides/Politics/Oyster Lobbyists in Washington State

An Exercise in the Political Process In WA:
Polluting Washington's Marine Waters.

If at first you don't succeed: How to get approval to apply pesticides directly onto oyster beds and marine waters in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay: 

1. Give a Bill a sweet sounding name: "The Aquaculture Fairness Act" (House Bill 1037)
2. Claim that because others are polluting Washington's marine waters then you should be allowed to as well. Section 2(2) of HB1037
"...runoff from the yards pours into storm drains in urban areas and is carried out to the sea"
3. Never give up: After being told by the Department of Ecology they would not approve a permit to apply Imidacloprid to oyster beds and marine waters in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, the oyster industry did not give up. They appealed the denial.
4. Continue to be involved in the Department of Ecology's Clean Water Committee:  When the process fails, continue pressing within the political process and stay involved in Committees. Try to mend fences with other industries you've upset and turn a blind eye to what's being proposed by others within your industry.
From DOE on the shellfish industry being involved in a Clean Water Committee: Polluted runoff from our streets, forested lands and farms can carry nutrients, bacteria and other pollution into our lakes, streams and rivers. Preventing this type of pollution is our greatest challenge to restoring the health of Washington’s waters – a public resource.
5. Approve the draft of a Bill which supports your position that because runoff from the land is polluting Washington's marine waters then it should be okay for you to apply a pesticide directly onto Washington's oyster beds and in its marine waters (HB1037).
[Special Note: In the proposed Bill and any language used to promote the new narrative, be sure that you don't mention other industries as the source of runoff you're concerned with. It's only "...runoff from the yards...". Not dairy, cattle, agriculture or forestry the shellfish industry has so loudly complained about in the past.]

To read more on the history of the shellfish industry's involvement in transforming the tidelands and marine habitat, read M. Pearle's "Toxic Pearl" (read a review of the book here).


Available for purchase: at Amazon or Orca Books



Friday, January 11, 2019

Neurotoxins in WA Waters: The Shellfish Industry Tries Again - Imidacloprid in Marine Waters

[Update 1/16/2019: Application of Imidacloprid in Washington's waters flows along in the political process. HB1037 is introduced.]

House Bill 1037:
Pollution happens
so we should be allowed
to pollute too. 
Sounds good to me - write it up in a Bill!

How to promote a book 
about marine pollution by an industry:
Propose a Bill to allow pesticide application
in Washington's marine waters.
(available at Orca Books)

Imidacloprid: It's back.
In the world of the shellfish industry, "no pesticides in Washington's marine waters" is not understood. Once again, they are attempting through political means to have the neurotoxic pesticide Imidacloprid be permitted for use in Washington's marine waters, not only in Willapa Bay, but as House Bill 1037 is written, in any marine waters along "the Pacific coast of Washington."

Twisted logic: Indirect pesticide pollution happens
so why not allow direct application of pesticides?
Politics.

The "Bizarro World" of Politicians, Lobbyists and the Shellfish Industry
In a world which only a politician, lobbyists and the profit driven shellfish industry lives, the following logic is being used in HB1037 to allow the direct application of Imidacloprid to Washington's marine waters: 
 Section 2(1) of HB1037: Imidacloprid is found in lawn care products that the people of Washington may purchase without permit and frequently apply to yards. The runoff from the yards pours into storm drains in urban areas and is carried out to the sea with unknown quantities of imidacloprid.
Out damned spot!
Spraying herbides on the shore.

Extinction of Native Species Before our Eyes
Impacts from pollution and rising temperatures on Washington's marine habitat are having an devastating effect on native species. Whether the Southern Resident Orca or Sea Stars, species are nearing extinction before our eyes, within a period of years, not decades. Polluted stormwater runoff entering Puget Sound should in no way justify the direct application of pesticides in Washington's marine waters.  It wasn't a good idea when first proposed and it's still not a good idea. Contact your legislator and tell them to put on their thinking cap and throw this Bill - and its supporters - out. 

Get involved:
Find your District and legislator here:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Comment directly on HB1037 here:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1037

Friday, January 4, 2019

2019 Brings Publication of a Book on Pesticides and the Shellfish Industry

In Toxic Pearl, the author reveals the secrets and politics that enabled the destruction of our Washington State native aquatic life, and inspires others to stand up and speak out against this continuing industrial conversion of our marine ecosystem.

- Laura Hendricks, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound



Toxic Pearl, Pacific NW Shellfish Companies' Addiction to Pesticides, by M. Perle, is “The toxic legacy of the WA Shellfish industry", writes Amy van Saun, Staff Attorney for Center for Food Safety.  People should want to know where their oysters come from and “the destructive relationship we can have with the environment that sustains us, and our own health."

A reader should take a broader view while reading this history and consider the link between the Columbia River salmon struggles through their migration to the Pacific Coast, then through their coastal feeding grounds in the toxic shellfish sites described in this book, then onward to the Strait of Juan de Fuca to feed the dwindling population of the Southern Resident ORCAs. It seems all related.

Again, the reader may want to take a more wholistic view of the loss of feeding grounds for migrating birds, such as the eelgrass-dependent Brant. A reader may consider the connection between the USFWS Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge eelgrass resting-feeding grounds for Brants, which could be facing habitat loss there from a proposed shellfish farm, to their stopover at Willapa Bay on the Pacific Coast. It, now, is more like a “grab-and-go” feeding site of whatever may be left by shellfish farmers, hopefully sustaining the birds until their next stopover site. Point being, what is left for these birds?  Where can they find resting sites and where can they find food without pesticides?  

Laura Hendricks of the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound writes, this book should “inspire others to stand up and speak out against this continuing industrial conversion of our marine ecosystems.”  As van Saun says, this doesn’t need to be the future.  

Website: www.toxicpearl.com provides additional information.