Preach it Sells…Nothing like the good old facts.
I am no lawyer but I believe the SC Department of Agriculture already has the mandate and authority to promote both wild and aquaculture produced products. I believe the law was passed back in the 1980’s. A quick search of the state code should reveal the section. We don’t need any law to accomplish this perhaps a change in focus for the Commissioner but no more laws please.
Preach it Sells…Nothing like the good old facts.
There is no “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” solution. Offshore pens only benefit 1 party. The corporation that owns them. In addition, certain species are not fit for aquaculture for commercial usage. Cobia is an exception because they are fast growing and there is still a profit to be made after the expenditures of growing them in captivity. Red snapper are NOT. There have been studies done and it has been shown that it cost more to keep a red snapper alive than it does to sell them at harvest size which means you are in the red on that one, and no commercial operation would ever do it.
I find what goes on at the Waddell center the most interesting. Over the years they have PROVEN the viability of hatching red fish and putting them in the wild. Last I heard, some 4-6% of the harvested red snapper in SC waters were hatched from the Waddell center. They can identify these fish because they imprint their DNA with a harmless chemical that allows them to be identified upon harvest. But, we need to divert our attention to fish that “need” it… Why don’t we convert the Waddell center into a place that releases gags and red snapper or other “overfished” species? Gag grouper are VERY well studied and understood and they are proven to use our estuaries. We even know the EXACT water termperatures and times of the year in which they will thrive. We could literally monitor the weather every year and on years where natural conditions were not ideal, we could wait a few weeks until they were and release these hoards of new gags into the appropriate estuaries. You could do something very similar for red snapper and many other species. Alabama has already pioneered this research for Red Snapper and is doing it already. Something like this benefits EVERYONE…
Just as a reference most of the gags that are harvested in 100’ of water are about 4-8 years old, so it’s pretty obvious that what happens TODAY affects the stock 4-8 years from now, which means we need to switch from a reactive model to a proactive model.
An
Wild caught fish or seafood are not under the Dept. of Ag. law (Title 46). In fact, traditional aquaculture is not addressed in much detail at all within that part of the code.
www.scmarine.org
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
I just don’t see how private aquaculture benefits recreational fishermen. The commercial fishing fleet has all but been demolished around here and 70-90% of our seafood is imported already. If that wasn’t the case, then I would be more fascinated with the commercial aquaculture approach.
Unless, they had to “give back” in the form of revenues that go towards something like the Waddell center.
Move seafood inspection, etc. to Dept. of Ag.
Aquaculture projects are fine, but doing finfish in natural habitat is asking for disaster. This domestication of wild species idea has been tried with many dif. species, like elk, and even if you sterilize them, disease can spread to the wild stocks and destroy the very thing you were trying to help. The answer is adding wild habitat and restocking to help offset what humans are harvesting and what habitat we have destroyed with dredging, beach renourishment, industrial pollution, etc. Most of y’all have no idea what the fishing used to be like off our beaches in the 1930’s and 1940’s before roller nets and minefields and the army corps of engineers changing the coastal environment. You cannot do anything in nature without consequences- both intended and unintended. If the “problem” is us harvesting fish faster than can be sustained to feed people who don’t know how to fish (i.e. commercial fishing) or if the “problem” is us out there fishing ourselves, then the way to MITIGATE the problem is to help nature produce more fish. Restock them. Add habitat. Don’t industrialize our state’s most precious asset. That’s one of the biggest reasons I’m against even commercial catch shares, btw. The fishery becomes a commodity, and the supply and demand become controlled by the government and a few large corps. Do you think they care as much about the environment and fish as those of us who are on the water for generations and want to keep passing our knowledge and experiences down to younger generations?
Move the seafood regulation beyond the docks over to Dept. of Ag.
Free up money for DNR to give us better science, more restocking, more reefs, and more enforcement rather than depending so highly on the feds for all the above. The federal money is an addiction we have got to get over. Their money- their rules. Need to take responsibility for our own problems and solutions. Things happen more efficiently this way…
www.scmarine.org
www.joinrfa.c
quote:
Originally posted by PhinMove seafood inspection, etc. to Dept. of Ag.
Aquaculture projects are fine, but doing finfish in natural habitat is asking for disaster. This domestication of wild species idea has been tried with many dif. species, like elk, and even if you sterilize them, disease can spread to the wild stocks and destroy the very thing you were trying to help. The answer is adding wild habitat and restocking to help offset what humans are harvesting and what habitat we have destroyed with dredging, beach renourishment, industrial pollution, etc. Most of y’all have no idea what the fishing used to be like off our beaches in the 1930’s and 1940’s before roller nets and minefields and the army corps of engineers changing the coastal environment. You cannot do anything in nature without consequences- both intended and unintended. If the “problem” is us harvesting fish faster than can be sustained to feed people who don’t know how to fish (i.e. commercial fishing) or if the “problem” is us out there fishing ourselves, then the way to MITIGATE the problem is to help nature produce more fish. Restock them. Add habitat. Don’t industrialize our state’s most precious asset. That’s one of the biggest reasons I’m against even commercial catch shares, btw. The fishery becomes a commodity, and the supply and demand become controlled by the government and a few large corps. Do you think they care as much about the environment and fish as those of us who are on the water for generations and want to keep passing our knowledge and experiences down to younger generations?
Move the seafood regulation beyond the docks over to Dept. of Ag.
Free up money for DNR to give us better science, more restocking, more reefs, and more enforcement rather than depending so highly on the feds for all the above. The federal money is an addiction we have got to get over. Their money- their rules
DNR currently has nothing to do with the sale or promotion of seafood. Where is the problem we are trying to fix here?
SECTION 46-1-10. Definitions. [SC ST SEC 46-1-10]
-
The terms “agriculture, agricultural purposes, agricultural uses, farm crops, cultivated crops” or words of similar import shall include horticulture, floriculture, and aquaculture. Words of similar import applicable to agriculture are likewise applicable to horticulture, floriculture, aquaculture.
-
The term “aquaculture” means the cultivation, production, or marketing of domesticated aquatic organisms.
-
The term “domesticated aquatic organism” means any fish, aquatic invertebrates etc.etc.
quote:
Originally posted by hungryneckDNR currently has nothing to do with the sale or promotion of seafood. Where is the problem we are trying to fix here?
Then why do I have to send monthly reports to them? Why do they have the right to go through all of my records? Why do they come by and check shellfish tags, species, and sales of my retail store?
.
NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
quote:
Originally posted by hungryneckSECTION 46-1-10. Definitions. [SC ST SEC 46-1-10]
The terms “agriculture, agricultural purposes, agricultural uses, farm crops, cultivated crops” or words of similar import shall include horticulture, floriculture, and aquaculture. Words of similar import applicable to agriculture are likewise applicable to horticulture, floriculture, aquaculture.
The term “aquaculture” means the cultivation, production, or marketing of domesticated aquatic organisms.
The term “domesticated aquatic organism” means any fish, aquatic invertebrates etc.etc.
You need to be in 50-18-2. Wrong section. 50-18-215 vests authority over aquaculture with DNR. Right now, there is an exclusion for saltwater species. DNR needs to be changed to Dept of Ag and the exclusion needs to go away.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
quote:
Originally posted by hungryneckDNR currently has nothing to do with the sale or promotion of seafood. Where is the problem we are trying to fix here?
Sir, with all due respect, they do. Otherwise, Director Taylor and I have wasted a lot of time discussing this matter.
Stephen Goldfinch
“Sleep When You’re Dead!”
It is not possible to manage our entire fishery well as State control only extends out 3 miles. The Feds have the rest. The Feds do not manage ANYTHING efficiently. The more control we can get in State the more we can affect the right balance for SC. The 3 mile limit is how the Feds control us.
Look at the Deer/Turkey populations…if they get too low it is easy enough for the State to change bag limits/seasons. The local biologists can get REAL data from us. We have Hog & Coyote population explosions and the DNR now allows unlimited hunting on these species. If we waited on the FEDS to change the law our Turkey and Deer populations would be wiped out.
Govt. has to be efficient and it will never be. I hate to be doom and gloom but at this point in time have no faith in the Feds
I think States should have control out to 50 miles…just my opinion.
OK I surrender like I said I am not a lawyer. However SCDNR has/had some of the leading aquaculture folks in the world if they couldn’t make it work here nobody can. Transfer whatever to Agriculture at the end of the day it will not matter. China produces 62 % of all aquaculture products in the world (FAO 2012)and will continue to drive the market. Our only opportunity is in fresh product with consumers who are willing to pay for it. This has nothing to do with DNR.
There are good aquaculture practices and bad ones. Here are the good ones I support. Native bi-valve aquaculture in open water has many positive benefits with very few negative impacts. Artificial reef habitat placed on sandy bottom in appropriate areas increases the total bio-mass of many different species available to recreational and commercial fishermen. Those fish live free and self-sufficient until harvested. The new habitat also benefits non-target species like turtles and corals. I believe most aquaculture should take place in land-locked ponds to avoid spreading disease, invasive species, and waste pollution. We should be processing scraps of cleaned seafood into feed pellets so we make the most efficient use of our natural resources. This would also help make farm-raised species more economically viable and environmentally friendly. We can feed many more people and reverse the 91% imports and 9% domestic seafood numbers IF we start managing America’s marine resources properly. We can show other nations by example how they can feed growing populations while generating more revenue and promoting a healthy resource that provides more recreational fishing opportunities.
BlueFly has a great solution with allowing states to manage offshore waters out 50 miles.