Senate Bill 6279, introduced recently by Senator Nelson of the 34th Legislative District, opens with this line: The legislature finds that shellfish are critical to the health of Washington's marine waters and the state's economy. (Note: 1st Public hearing January 18, 1:30. Call (360) 786-7406 for location.)
Really? Are shellfish "critical" to the health of Puget Sound? Are shellfish "critical" to the state's economy? Edible shellfish are certainly indicators of how healthy Puget Sound is, and a healthy Puget Sound will support a regulated shellfish industry.
Another part of the bill considers whether an "oyster cap and trade" formula can help clean the waters of Puget Sound. Really? Current methods result in dead zones below mussel rafts; PVC pipes in the tidelands; acres of grow out bags smothering sediments; geoducks are air-freighted on a 747 to China. Carbon neutral?
Another part of the bill tells Ecology if a study's results affects a discharge permit they have to then show the precision and accuracy of the data collected - before they are released. Really? Isn't that something a scientific study does prior to its implementation in order to ensure no outside pressures try to "massage" the results before release?
Finally, is digging shellfish at midnight in the dark of winter really a "family" job critical to the state? Rural counties need help to improve their economic problems. Is this really the best way to help the next generation aspire to higher levels?
In this election cycle, before rushing head long into elevating shellfish to being "critical," consider Lake Washington. In the 1960's it was not "filter feeding" from shellfish which cleaned the 2nd largest body of fresh water in Washington. It was controlling what went into the water in the first place. It wasn't shellfish.
No comments:
Post a Comment