Geoduck harvests are debatable, but lucrative
May 28th, 2009 by cdunaganGeoduck harvesting remains controversial. Some people are convinced that it creates long-lasting damage to the seabed and to the creatures that dwell on the bottom. Others are equally convinced that damage is minimal and does not last very long.
I have never determined for myself if one side or the other is absolutely right, or if it depends largely on bottom conditions at a specific site. As a reporter, I continue to listen to both sides and try to give them each fair treatment.
One thing is for sure, however: The money that goes into state coffers from the sale of geoducks is quite remarkable. In a story published in today’s Kitsap Sun, I quote state officials who say the market has remained strong, despite the downturn in the economy.
In a single area north of Blake Island in Kitsap County, the state will receive $1.4 million for geoducks harvested this year alone. Similar amounts can be expected from that area for the next few years.
I will entertain comments and links to documents from anyone who wants to discuss the damage issue. I must give some weight, however, to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has approved a Geoduck Habitat Conservation Plan and incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act. (See the NMFS Web site on geoducks.)
The reports, which are based largely on research by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, give the geoduck fishery a “low-effect” rating when it comes to threatened and endangered species.
“A low effect HCP is one that NOAA’s Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determine to have minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP,” according to the NMFS Web site.
Tags: endangered species, Geoduck harvesting, geoducks, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
May 29th, 2009 at 8:44 am
If you did a true assessment, I doubt it would prove that “lucrative”. So, the State gets $1.4 million. How much do they spend on restoration activites brought about by perpetuating such harvests? (and, yes, if the State was serious about “saving the sound” they would – in fact – forgo profit taking for a few years, close ALL fisheries). Additionally, history shows the tribes will use much of their $1.4 million take to sue citizens and jurisdictions who attempt to do what they – themselves – do: build docks, clear land, etc. The state (or at least the state’s citizens) have to pony up money to respond to those cases. All in all, I would say the VAST MAJORITY of people in this region would be better off if the geoducks were left in place: 1) they are part of the sound’s natural filtration system. 2) they are not being eaten locally 3) the continued exploitation of the Puget Sound only obligates the taxpayers of the region to ever higher “restoration” costs.
May 31st, 2009 at 12:05 am
The NMFS is part of NOAA, which is part of the Dept. of Commerce, so that is something to consider. Here is the USFW opinion.
http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/publications/Biological_Opinions/2008_F_0461_BO.pdf
It’s also important to distinguish between subtidal harvest and intertidal harvest, because the two habitats are quite different. The state prohibits harvest within 18 feet of extreme low tide and recreational harvest using water pressure is prohibited.
Also, the HCP doesn’t consider rockfish, which are soon to be listed.