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:
Showing posts with label Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association. Show all posts

Monday, April 3, 2017

NGO's Sue over Coast Seafood's Plans to Expand into Humboldt Bay Eelgrass Beds

Aquaculture and Eelgrass Are not Compatible
Picture from 2015 clearly shows eelgrass beds stopping
where oyster cultivation begins.

Attorneys for Earthjustice have filed a Writ of Mandate for the California Audubon and California Waterfowl Association in order to stop Coast Seafood's (Pacific Seafood Group) planned expansion into Humboldt Bay eelgrass beds. Filed by Earthjustice against the Humboldt Bay Harbor District, in the California Superior Court in Humboldt County, the papers claim the environmental impact studies used to base the decision off of are flawed (see Final EIR here). Trent Orr, staff attorney with Earthjustice states:
“In its environmental review and approval of the Coast Seafoods expansion, the Humboldt Bay Harbor District ignored solid scientific data and extensive comments from biologists on the severe impacts this proposal would have on Humboldt Bay’s eelgrass beds and the birds, fish, and other wildlife whose survival depends upon them”
 In describing the critical significance of Humboldt Bay and its eelgrass beds to species dependent on that marine habitat, the California Audubon notes:
[Humboldt Bay is] second only to San Francisco Bay in its importance to shorebirds, Humboldt Bay is one of the most important migratory stopovers along the United States Pacific Coast. It is a globally Important Bird Area and a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site of international significance. It boasts the highest shorebird species diversity on the West Coast, with 46 shorebird species regularly using the bay. It provides habitat to significant portions of the populations of Black Brant, Western Sandpipers, Least Sandpipers, Marbled Godwit, and Dunlin, among many others.
The bay is so rich in bird life because of its unusually varied intertidal zone and rich subtidal habitat, which is home to approximately 50% of California’s remaining eelgrass. Eelgrass is particularly important as habitat for producing forage fish and crustaceans and to provide food for migratory and breeding birds.
In the papers filed with the Superior court Earthjustice attorneys write:
"...the FEIR fails to fully inform the public and decision-makers of the Project’s significant environmental impacts and fails to analyze and mitigate these impacts as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires. Petitioners therefore seek relief from this Court to void the Harbor District’s certification of the FEIR and approval of the Project. "
The papers go on to describe the impacts the proposed expansion would have and how the analysis was deeply flawed. Points discussed in detail include:
Impacts from Increased Disturbance Associated with Aquaculture Operations; Interference with Various Species’ Feeding and Movement Associated with Aquaculture Gear in Eelgrass and Mudflat Habitats; Broader Environmental Context of Project Impacts;  Impacts to Recreational Uses; The Project Approval Process; a Failure to Analyze Cumulative Impacts; and, Failure to Consider Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Get involved. Coast Seafoods is only one of the west coast shellfish companies who sees critical tideland habitat, including eelgrass beds, as little more than a template for corporate profits. Whether Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, Humboldt Bay or Drakes Estero, expansion into these critical areas is not speculative. It is real. There is money and motivation behind this industry to forever change a critical marine ecosystem which a diversity of species have depended on for existence. There is no other place to go. When it is gone, they will be gone. Forever.

CONTACTS
Trent Orr, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2000
Garrison Frost, Audubon California, (415) 644-4604
Mark Hennelly, California Waterfowl, (916) 648-1406, ext 105

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: NPS Rejects Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association Data Quality Complaint

"...your May 30, 2013, letter is without merit..."


3 strikes and you are out -
The National Park Service (NPS) has written to the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers' Association and informed them its 2013 Information Quality (IQ) complaint is without merit. PCSGA's 2007 IQ complaint was also rejected by the NPS. As was Cause of Action's 2012 complaint (submitted on behalf of Corey Goodman and Kevin Lunny) and their appeal. In baseball, after 3 strikes you are out.

Complaint is mooted - commercial activities are not compatible in a wilderness area
As with PCSGA's 2007 complaint the most recent complaint from PCSGA was mooted. In this most recent case it was when the Secretary of the Interior allowed Drakes Bay Oyster Company's "authorizations to expire by their own terms." NPS notes that the decision was "based on the incompatibility of commercial activities in wilderness and not on the data that was asserted to be flawed." Despite Jeff Creque's attempt to redefine "wilderness" in his recent Op-ed piece, wilderness is not a "sort of" concept.

Phantom allegations, repeated comments, not an affected person
PCSGA's allegations of harm was rejected as being "an unsubstantiated quotation of an aquaculture advocate in a report written by DBOC's former counsel [Cause of Action]."  They note further that their letter is nothing more than a repetition of comments raised in a December 9, 2011, comment letter. NPS notes it responded then to all substantive comments received. It notes: "The Information Quality Act is not to be used as a means of circumventing the NEPA public comment process." NPS notes PCSGA had the opportunity to comment, it did comment, and "...NPS responded to those comments in the FEIS. Your IQA Complaint essentially resubmits comments, and does not present any significant new information." Finally, NPS questions whether PCSGA is even an affected person, noting they argue "members might be harmed at some point in the future by some hypothetical arguments that could be raised by unnamed opponents" and "alleged harm offered in your Complaint concerns decisions made in states where your client has no members, and that example is based on an unsubstantiated quotation in a report by DBOC's former counsel."

Without merit
"In conclusion, we find that your May 30, 2013, letter is without merit..."

What now? Redefining the public trust doctrine
Already seen have been attempts to create a "corporate wilderness definition" using the glasses of "agroecologist" Jeff Creque. His false vision of Drakes Estero producing "unlimited biomass" created by "unlimited carbon and nutrients" solving the world's food problem will continue. On the horizon will be attempts to redefine what the "public trust" retained by California was when it transferred ownership to the Federal government. In that attempt to redefine the public trust retained by California, a claim will be made that the corporate profits generated by DBOC should somehow trump the contractual agreement to create a wilderness area to be shared by everyone. It should be rejected, as was the IQ complaint by PCSGA.
The Public Trust Doctrine: "By the law of nature these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea….. All rivers and ports are public: hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men." --- Institutes of Emperer Justinian, Book 2, Div. 1 (535 A.C.E)
The public trust doctrine does not include the inalienable right of one shellfish farmer's profits to prevent the creation of a wilderness area for everyone. 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Drakes Bay Oyster Company is in Crisis Management Mode


Sam Singer: "The Fixer"
Founder and CEO of 
 
Drakes Bay Oyster Company is in crisis control mode, enlisting Singer Associates to help put a new frame around an old picture. DBOC's "free" legal advice from Cause of Action ended when COA demanded Public Broadcast Service's NewsHour turn over all video tapes used in their article on DBOC. It resulted in a public relations nightmare which shattered the relationship between DBOC and COA like a shotgun blast hitting a skeet. Drakes Bay Oyster Company has begun to understand that nothing is free and there are multiple agendas at play, many of which see DBOC as a simple pawn in a larger game, upon which the tar of right wing conservatism has been spread and it doesn't know how to get it off.

PCSGA Attorney
Newly hired California 
attorney at Plauche & Carr
(created through representing
the needs and wants
of the shellfish industry)


In the shifting tides of aliances for DBOC the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association has also distanced themselves from DBOC. In their latest "Complaint about Information Quality" (signed by newly hired California attorney Robert Smith, previously with Jenkins and Hogin) they claim their new complaint is not "moot" as their 2007 "Complaint" was found to be, and as was Cause of Action's most recent "Complaint."

In PCSGA's new "Complaint" they acknowledge the "Secretary of the Interior decided to not renew DBOC's lease as a matter of discretion" and that "...the Secretary did not rely on the EIS in making his decision..." Instead of "jobs" or the "Lunny family" PCSGA's concern is the shellfish industry's actions have been found to have adverse impacts which outweigh benefits. Their concern is the environmental impacts will "be cited in review of other shellfish proposals throughout the country, thereby harming the PCSGA and its members."
 
        Bag of Clams
       in dirty water.                                          Clean water.
                      
"Proof" that a bag of clams                       "Proof" water is clean 
in an aquarium filters water                       if you don't pollute it.
which pollutants were added to.

They should be concerned. Constant repetition of "filter feeders" and "nitrogen removal" will not make an insignificant role any more significant. There is no problem with Drakes Estero's waters, nor will there be if DBOC oysters are removed. Even if there were some problem it is not something which will be managed by shellfish. As seen in virtually every healthy body of fresh water throughout the world, oysters have nothing to do with it. Controlling what enters the waters is what matters. As Dr. Land with the University of Texas, Austin, noted so clearly, "Pollution must be stopped. Sopping up never works."

Singer in Action
Today's online Wall Street Journal brackets a public relations "creation" on Drakes Bay Oyster Company with this line at the top and the bottom:
The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content.
At the bottom, just above the second disclaimer of the "...not involved in the creation of this content" is the contact information: Sam Singer, 415-336-4949 (Cell) In short, what is passed on as "news" is nothing more than an office press release from Singer and Associates, picked up through nothing more than "chummy relations" (see below).

Reuters pr creation on the same topic from Singer and Associates was more to the point: "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." Is this really news reporting or "chummy relations", similar to Dr. Goodman's Marin Media Institute's ownership of Point Reyes Light?


Terrorists attack Foie Gras, Treasure Island Becomes Developed (maybe), and Americas Cup is "Foiled"
Mr. Singer's efforts have included  developing a communication plan to "battle a terrorist attack on producers of foie gras", to have been on the communication team for "some of the largest real estate and transportation development projects in California, including the redevelopment of Treasure Island", and trying to explain why the America's Cup is looming as a financial disaster. Can he make this open oyster on the shelf of a grocery store edible? Not likely.

"I've got friends in high places."
Part of his attraction to those "...who apparently don't feel capable of dealing with the media themselves" is "because of the chummy relations he has cultivated with reporters and columnists at the city's major news outlets" (SFGate, January 7, 2008).  This apparently includes the Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also owns Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch
Owner of News Corp.


Mr. Singer has a lot to "fix" with Drakes Bay Oyster Company. The shattered shards of skeet spread on the tidelands of Drakes Estero through the shotgun approach of past decisions speaks for itself. The conservative tar which has been spread on DBOC in its attempt to usurp the Congressional declaration that Drakes Estero will become a wilderness when DBOC ceases operation will not wash off. Mr. Singer's best plan of action is to try and get those shards stuck onto DBOC's layer of tar, put it out to pasture, and let PCSGA attorneys discover - once again - its complaint is a moot point.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Shellfish Growers Beach Cleanup March 13, Low Tide +1.4

The Pacific Shellfish Growers Association has announced their "beach cleanup" will occur March 13 when the low tide is +1.4 feet. [click here for tide table]  Waterfront property owners who would prefer growers not walk their beaches should call 360-754-2744.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/03/07/2451441/south-sound-beach-cleanup-set.html#storylink=cpy

PVC Pipe from Geoduck Farms
Located in the lower tidal elevations
of +2 to -4.
 
Beach cleanups, by whatever groups are important. However, until the PCSGA begins to hold these events during minus tides when much of the derelict shellfish gear of concern is exposed, it may be worth PCSGA considering not using the event as a promotional tool showing how little shellfish gear is collected. (see 2013 tide table below to see when minus tides - in red - expose the lower elevations)
 
2013 Tide Table (Olympia time)
(Click to enlarge)

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

California Fair Political Practices Commission Investigates Koch Brothers

Politico has reported that the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating the Koch Brothers. While not specifically related to Cause of Action's legal support for the Drakes Bay Oyster Company it does shine a brighter light on where the funding for Cause of Action is coming from. [click here for complete article]

Charles and David Koch


In the article, "Koch World reboots", Politico notes:
The California investigation is trying to unmask the original source of a mysterious $11 million donation that was funneled through a key Koch conduit in the weeks before Election Day to a California political committee boosting a 2012 ballot measure to restrict union political activity and opposing a separate ballot proposition to raise taxes.
In the larger picture it describes the Koch brothers having called for an audit after having "spent hundreds of millions to win the White House and the Senate — and came up empty." Demonstrating the severity of concern, most likely from large donors who didn't get what they wanted and whose anonymity is now threatened with exposure, "they’re not waiting for the final report for heads to roll."

Dan Epstein


Specific to Drakes Bay Oyster Company, Cause of Action has refused to disclose who its donors are. Headed by Dan Epstein, a former staffer of the "Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation", COA is leading the legal fight in support of DBOC being allowed to continue its commercial operation in the only wilderness shoreline area on the Pacific West Coast.  [click here for East Bay Express article on the Koch connection

It may very well be the Koch Brothers are not supporting Cause of Action who is paying the legal fees incurred in the support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, begging the question, if they are not, who is? The East Coast Shellfish Growers Association's Vice-President is DBOC owner Kevin Lunny's cousin. The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association has previously allocated funds to pay for legal fees from their attorney and lobbyist. Shellfish growers who are members of PCSGA certainly have the money, generated from geoduck farming.

Perhaps the California Fair Political Practices Commission should be sure to include the mysterious Cause of Action, Dan Epstein, and its support for Drakes Bay Oyster Company in its investigation.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Judicial Action on Drakes Bay Oyster Company Questioned by Judge

" The judge was a tough audience." (The Recorder)

At the judicial hearing in Oakland California Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers questioned whether she had any authority to intervene on the decision of Drakes Bay Oyster Company's (DBOC) lease being allowed to lapse and not be renewed. The San Francisco Chronicle  reported the question as being put this way: "It seems to me it's much more in the realm of executive, political or legislative functions, as opposed to a judicial function," Gonzalez Rogers said. "... Where's the role of the federal judiciary on that policy decision?" [click here for article

DBOC's attorneys continued to focus on their disagreement over the Environmental Impact Statement's showing adverse impacts from the commercial shellfish operation. It is immaterial to the decision of whether the lease should have been allowed to lapse in November.

Additional arguments from DBOC attorneys included loss of jobs. Not mentioned was the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association lobbying in Washington DC last February where they stated unequivocally: "In a healthy economy, the domestic workforce does not provide sufficient numbers of qualified workers for the shellfish industry."  Jobs for the displaced workers exist and they no doubt pay more than what Mr. Lunny offered them for their time spent sitting in the court room being portrayed as victims. In fact, with minimal organization, the skilled workers providing the labor for all shellfish growers could most likely make substantially more than they do now.

Mr. Lunny's continued resistance to admitting he made a bad business decision is all that stands in the way of creating the only marine wilderness area on the Pacific Coast outside of Alaska. It is time for Mr. Lunny to be grateful for the true privilege he had to make the amount of money he did under the agreements with the National Park Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, both affording minimal fees to operate on the tidelands and nearshore area of Drakes Estero.





Sunday, January 20, 2013

Drakes Bay Oyster Company Court Hearing January 25

 
"Will you be having Tea with your oysters?"

January 25, lawyers supported by Washington D.C.'s Cause of Action, an advocacy group with ties to the Koch Brothers, Darrell Issa, and Tea Party politics, will argue in U.S. District Court before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland that Drakes Bay Oyster Company should be allowed to stay in operation until a court challenge to their lease expiration may be decided. [click here for article on Cause of Action] In addition to free legal support, Cause of Action has also created a well polished public relations campaign to help build public sympathy for the Lunny family whose lease for their commercial shellfish farm, purchased in 2004, was not renewed in December. The issue goes far beyond the Lunny family and their oysters.

Drakes Estero Shoreline Wilderness

Background - Cousin in the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association
In 2004 the Johnson family sold their commercial shellfish operation located in the designated wilderness area of Drakes Estero to the Lunny family. The Lunny's purchased the operation fully aware of the government's long-term goal of creating the only wilderness shoreline in the United States. The Lunny's apparent hope was they would be able to convince the government the lease should be extended and not end in 2012, a calculated gamble. Combined no doubt with encouragement found in Mr. Lunny being a cousin of the then President of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Tom Kehoe, he stepped up and purchased the operation. In 2012, Interior Secretary Salazar confirmed the commercial shellfish operation did not fit within the definition of "wilderness" and allowed the lease to expire. Mr. Lunny lost the card game, but there is a bigger game being played.

Scientific Disagreements
Entwined within the argument of whether the lease should have been extended or not was an Environmental Impact Statement performed by the Nationnal Park Service. After a multi-year process the EIS showed there were significant adverse impacts from the commercial shellfish operation, ranging from the introduction of non-native shellfish species (Pacific oysters and Manila clams) to the spread of the non-native invasive tunicate, Didemnum vexillum. The conclusion was that these adverse impacts would continue and get worse, a conclusion the shellfish industry became alarmed about. [click here for EIS]

Non-native Invasive Tunicates from
Taylor Shellfish's Mussel Raft in Totten Inlet
Also found in Drakes Estero on shellfish from DPOC.


Shellfish Lobbying Groups Mobilize
In 2005, the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) became engaged in the process, and, in 2006, brought in their Washington DC lobbyist, David Weiman, to lobby for the renewal. In 2007, becoming aware of the growing body of scientific evidence showing the commercial operation's adverse impacts, PCSGA had their attorney (Mr. Plauche) become involved and filed a complaint under the "Data Quality Act", rejected by the National Park Service. [click here for an article on the Data Quality Act from The National Law Journal]

In 2010, concerns within the shellfish industry continued to grow, extending to the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association (ECSGA). Then President Tom Kehoe, the cousin of Kevin Lunny, asked members to engage in the process. Requests for support of Mr. Kehoe's cousin from the ECSGA continued with requests to sign petitions; requests to contact representatives; and general pleas for support, finally reaching a climax with Executive Director Bob Rheault telling members the more it went on, "...the more libertarian I become."

December 2012: The Water Boils - Dan Epstein, Darrell Issa, and the Koch Brothers
Late 2012, Secretary Salazar did not renew the lease, "...based on the incompatibility of commercial activities in wilderness ...." As put in the East Bay Express:  "In short, Salazar essentially decided that it would be a mistake to set a national precedent, and thus open the door for other commercial enterprises on potential wilderness land around the country to request lease extensions, too. If the secretary's reason for closing the oyster farm sounds familiar to Express readers, it's because this newspaper noted back in June that the intense controversy over whether Drakes Bay Oyster Company was harming the environment was irrelevant, and that the real issue at stake in Point Reyes was the precedent it would set if Salazar decided to re-up the oyster farm's lease." (December 5, 2012).
 
An invitation distributed last year by the shellfish lobbying
groups, noting Shell Oil as a co-sponsor. Shell Oil
 has currently grounded one of its drilling rigs used in the Arctic.
The decision was well thought out and avoided the shellfish industry's Data Quality questions, something which the industry would have dragged on for years. But when larger players began to realize what it meant for other industries seeking opportunities in designated wilderness areas, the game became bigger and Lunny was encouraged to sue. Enter Dan Epstein, described by Mother Jones as:  "a former GOP counsel on the House's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under California Republican Darrell Issa. Epstein is also a veteran employee of billionaires Charles and David Koch; he used to work at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and for a Koch Industries lawyer." [click here for article]

The ironic part of what Cause of Action professes to be upset about and defending - "public accountability" - is that the leases which Mr. Lunny and his shellfish operation operates under collect virtually nothing for his million dollar plus operation (the National Park Service was paid $2,800 per year [click here for NPS Permit]). Were Cause of Action truly following their "public accountability" belief, they would have instead been pursuing a suit demanding compensation for the use of public lands the Lunny's were using for virtually nothing. (Note: A separate lease was also in effect with California.) But that was not their concern. Instead, they have attempted to frame the issue as one of "an illegal taking", despite the operation occurring on public lands, let alone on now designated wilderness.



Precedence -
At issue, and why the Cause of Action is so involved, is that if it can be shown a commercial operation such as the Lunny's commercial shellfish operation may operate in designated wilderness areas, the door is opened to any commercial operations operating in designated wilderness areas. Not just shellfish farms and not just existing operations whose leases are set to expire. The Koch brothers and their allies in the energy field do not care about the Lunny's nor their oysters. They are nothing more than a pawn. What they care about is the precedence set in allowing the lease for a commercial operation in a designated wilderness area to continue, including access to energy sources which may lie in designated wilderness areas such as those found in the shale formations below Theodore Roosevelt National Park. [read National Park Advocate article here]

Reality, not PR: T-Shirts Saying "Drakes Bay Oyster" at Court are Not Relevant
(from a recent press release on the upcoming court hearing: "It would also be helpful if you have a DBOC sweatshirt or T-shirt to wear it.")
Well polished public relations campaigns and T Shirts paid for by those who put their own self interests above those of the general public and future generations (perhaps even those they profess to support) should not be allowed to influence any decision about Drakes Estero, whether in court or otherwise. The Lunny's, most likely encouraged by their cousin who was then President of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, made a bad business decision. Gamblers should not be rewarded nor rescued when they make a bad bet, which is exactly what the Lunny family did.

"We have millions of dollars of oysters which will go to waste." The West Coast shellfish industry is crying for more oysters to grow. The Lunny's have a ready market at the grower level where these oysters may be sold. Saying "millions of dollars will be lost" is simply not true.

"30 employees will be out of a job." Using the skilled workers being displaced is deplorable. The shellfish industry has said for years they cannot get the skilled labor of the very kind the Lunny's are so concerned about. These skilled workers are the backbone of the shellfish industry and can find jobs in one of a number of locations, ranging from Humboldt Bay to Puget Sound. Whether they are paid what they are worth is a separate subject, but well worth delving into at some point.

"Removing shellfish will result in increased nutrient loads and low dissolved oxygen." The amount of nitrogen and sediment removed from Drakes Bay Estero by the "filtering" and "harvesting" of shellfish is a fractional amount of nutrients which enter the waters. If, in fact, the Lunny's and the shellfish industry are truly concerned about the health of Drakes Estero waters, they should instead focus on their own cattle.

"Getting rid of the oyster farms is just part one." The greater risk to cattle farms on Point Reyes are shellfish operations in the waters around Point Reyes. Shellfish operations may easily bring focus to the perceived threat of runoff from cattle and dairy farms, putting in question whether they should continue. It is not the National Park Service they need to be concerned about, it is the very people supporting the Lunny's continued shellfish operation they should be concerned about - the shellfish industry.

What will the Lunny Family Do?
The Lunny's have been operating a cattle ranch on public lands in the same location on Point Reyse for generations now. Their cattle are able to feed on those public lands for very little and people pay a premium price for the meat from those cattle. The Lunny's, and their children, will continue to live far more comfortably than many people in the United States. They will also have the Drakes Estero Shoreline Wilderness area to enjoy, along with everyone else. Their finally agreeing to the the lease expiration will also help ensure other designated wilderness areas will not come under threat. As Mr. Epstein says on his Cause of Action web site: "...the clients we select are secondary to our educational mission." It's something the Lunny's should consider over morning coffee, or tea.



Friday, August 31, 2012

Pickering Passage Closed to Commercial Harvesting of Oysters

Pickering Passage has been closed to commercial harvesting of oysters due to illnesses traced directly to oysters harvested from this growing area. This is now the 9th commercial growing area which has been closed because of illness caused by oysters harvested from Puget Sound. These illnesses continue a known and growing problem.

Laboratory-Confirmed cases of Vibriosis
(Note: CDC estimates for every laboratory
confirmed case >40 are not reported to CDC.)
 
The annual outbreak of vibriois caused by oysters harvested from Puget Sound is an ongoing annual problem. When the FDA attempted to deal with lowering numbers through press releases the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association reacted with complaints of "economic harm" (see Issue Paper below). Currently the "Blue Ribbon Panel" on Ocean Acidification is recommending actions specifically for the benefit of the shellfish industry with estimated costs at over $4 million (Note: A number of actions' estimates were not available, only noting they were "dependent on scale.") Decisions on the allocation of taxpayer dollars for the shellfish industry might consider the fact that warming temperatures will bring with it an increase in the naturally occurring Vibrio parahaemolyticus and most likely its more deadly cousin Vibrio vulnificus (currently found in Gulf State oysters which kills 50% of those who contract it). Allocating a portion of those taxpayer dollars to prevent outbreaks might be something for the "Public Outreach" committee and panel to consider.
 
 
PCSGA Issue Paper on FDA Press Releases
(click to enlarge)