Tag Archives: Geoduck

Geoduck market expands to Chinese neighbors

The market for geoducks harvested in Washington state has shifted from China to other Asian countries, primarily Hong Kong and Vietnam, according to certificates issued by the Washington State Department of Health.

Kitsap Sun photo
Kitsap Sun photo

We learned a week ago that the Chinese ban on imports from the U.S. West Coast will continue until Chinese health authorities better understand the U.S. system of protecting public health. See Water Ways, Feb. 4, with links to other sources of information.

The ban caused exporters to find new markets. I reported these numbers in a story published in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription):

“Health certificates issued by the Washington State Department of Health totaled 757 in January — more than double the 373 certificates issued in January 2013, when shipments were still going into China. These certificates are required to identify the shellfish-growing area and ensure that a given shipment of seafood is safe to eat.

“Of the 757 certificates issued in January, 409 designated shipments into Hong Kong, while 243 designated shipments into Vietnam. Other shipments were to Malaysia, 38; Thailand, 24; Indonesia, 8; and a number of countries with smaller shipments. Because shipments were closed off to China in January, no certificates were issued for that country.”

Wild geoduck harvesting is a multi-million industry, bringing significant revenues to businesses, tribes and state government.

Yesterday’s story, which was picked up by the Associated Press, describes how state and tribal geoduck divers appear to be on track to take their allocations of deep-water geoducks.

How many of these giant clams are getting into China illicitly and by what routes has been hard to track down. I have collected many rumors and comments on background, but I’ve been unable to verify the most provocative stories.

A new harvest year begins in April with new allocations of geoducks for the state and tribes. Meanwhile, the Department of Natural Resources has scheduled a bid opening for state geoduck tracts later this month.

It will be interesting to see how the Chinese ban on imports from the U.S. West Coast affects the price of geoducks over the coming year. So far, after a short closure when the ban was imposed, prices for wild geoducks have been holding fairly stable, according to officials involved in the market.

China maintains ban on shellfish imports

Business and government officials involved in the lucrative geoduck export market got some bad news on Friday, when federal authorities released a letter they had received from the Chinese government.

Kitsap Sun photo
Kitsap Sun photo

The letter raises many questions — at least from a Chinese perspective — about how the U.S. regulatory system protects public health. The message from Chinese health authorities dashes the hopes of industry officials for a quick lifting of the Chinese ban on shellfish imports from the U.S. West Coast.

I wrote about this issue for Saturday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription). My story was picked up by the Associated Press and distributed widely. (If you don’t subscribe to the Sun, see The Columbian, Vancouver, for the AP version.)

Washington state has a proud reputation for protecting public health when it comes to shellfish, and the letter from China does little to dispel suspicions among those who think that China may have ulterior motives. After all, Chinese authorities have done nothing to limit the geographic scope of the import ban or even limit the ban to geoducks only.

A statement (PDF 114 kb) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concludes that the letter contains about 20 separate requests for information about testing and safety.

You may wish to read the the letter from China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (PDF 150 kb). As translated, the letter includes this statement:

“We don’t not have a full understanding of the US regulatory system including the definition of sea region and management, the official monitoring on PSP and heavy metals and the responsibility among the relevant government agencies, and we have not conducted an on-site evaluation neither.”

The letter says the suspension of imports may be reduced to a specific area after certain questions are answered. It calls on the U.S. to develop an action plan for evaluation and outlines a review process, including a visit by an “expert team” from China to evaluate the geoduck inspection programs.

Officials at all levels in the U.S. say they are evaluating the questions posed in the letter and preparing a coordinated response.

Previous entries in Water Ways:

Jan. 9, 2014: Geoducks test OK, but what’s behind Chinese ban?

Dec. 24, 2013: Health officials to quickly test geoducks for arsenic

Chinese TV discusses shellfish import ban

U.S. officials say they have not heard a word from Chinese health authorities since the Washington State Department of Health sent test results showing that geoducks from Puget Sound are safe to eat.

A ban on shellfish imports from the Northwest continues. By all accounts, it appears that U.S. shellfish exporters will miss a chance to provide geoducks, oysters and other shellfish to China during lucrative Chinese New Year celebrations next week.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has sent the health department’s test results to China, NOAA spokeswoman Connie Barclay told me yesterday. “We will continue to work with folks to see if we can resolve this issue,” she said.

Meanwhile, Chinese Central Television (CCTV), a government-sponsored TV network in China, has produced a video describing the issue, including the economic effects on shellfish growers. It’s a pretty straightforward piece, but offers no hint about what further steps may be taken by the Chinese government.

For background, see my last entry in Water Ways on Jan. 9. which includes links to other sources. The same goes for an entry on Dec. 24 and the first one on Dec. 17.

The bottom line is that nothing has happened for weeks. Shellfish growers are waiting patiently, hoping this does issue does not grow into an extended trade dispute.

Geoducks test OK, but what’s behind Chinese ban?

Now it is up to Chinese officials to decide upon shellfish imports to their country, as uncomfortable as that may be for U.S exporters. I’ve begun to learn about international trade policies to better understand the confusing actions of Chinese health authorities.

As you’ve probably heard by now, officials with the Washington State Department of Health have concluded from a new round of testing that arsenic in geoducks from Poverty Bay presents no legitimate health concern. That seems to contradict findings from Chinese health authorities, who cited high levels of arsenic in Poverty Bay geoducks when they suspended shellfish imports from the U.S. West Coast.

Unfortunately, the Chinese have failed to reveal how they came to their findings, and they discarded all the geoducks used in their tests. Divers from the Washington Department of Natural Resources collected new geoducks from Poverty Bay, and state health experts conducted new tests. The findings were released Tuesday, and I covered that in some detail in a story published in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription). Also, check out Water Ways, Dec. 24, to understand the different types of arsenic.

USTR report

Results from the Washington state health lab showed that arsenic levels in all parts of the geoduck came in under the Chinese limit of 0.5 parts per million, except for the skin. Dave McBride, a toxicologist for the state health department, told me that cooks in both China and the U.S. blanch the geoduck to remove the inedible skin, so that’s not a factor.

But even if one consumes the whole geoduck, tests on the “whole body” found only one composite sample out of 12 that exceeded the Chinese standard. Of course, it would have been more convincing if none of the whole-body samples came in above 0.5 ppm.

A private lab also tested geoducks from Poverty Bay, and those results came in even lower. The differing findings probably resulted from the different methods used, Dave McBride told me. It might be wise to try to reconcile the differences and report the scientific uncertainty (possible range) represented by the two techniques.

Meanwhile, I’ve begun talking to experts on Chinese trade, who say it is not unusual for governments around the world to use alleged health concerns to gain a trade advantage.

As I reported in yesterday’s story, the U.S. Trade Representative, a presidential cabinet post, reported to Congress at the end of last year about what appeared to be unjustified health concerns blocking a variety of agricultural imports into China:

“In 2013, serious problems have remained for U.S. exporters, who are faced with nontransparent application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, many of which have appeared to lack scientific bases and have impeded market access for many U.S. agricultural products.

“China’s seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary inspection-related import requirements also continued to impose burdens and regulatory uncertainty on U.S. agricultural producers exporting to China in 2013 … Products most affected in 2013 included poultry, pork and beef.”

Dongsheng Zang, a University of Washington law professor who specializes in Chinese trade, and Debra Glassman, faculty director of the UW’s Global Business Center, helped me understand the trade situation for yesterday’s story. Here are some of the key points I came away with:

  • Chinese officials don’t always base their decisions on the best evidence,, even though agreements under the World Trade Organization require them to do so. In 2011, China stopped imports of oysters from Washington state following reports of a few people getting sick from eating raw oysters from Hood Canal. Zang says Chinese officials based their actions only on “media reports.”
  • Import bans often come quickly and take a long time to resolve. That happens not just in China but in other countries and the European Union, especially when the dispute must be resolved by the World Trade Organization.
  • International agreements require that any import restrictions must be the “least-trade-restrictive” to protect the public, such as banning shellfish from specific bays where problems are identified, Glassman said.
  • The Chinese ban on U.S shellfish could be designed for a domestic audience inside China. “I can only speculate,” Zang said. “Food safety is a huge issue in China. It’s really hard to say whether this (geoduck ban) is about public health or domestic policy.”

An official in the office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, D.C., told me (on background) that the office is watching this issue closely. If the shellfish ban develops into a full-fledged trade dispute, that office will become involved.

I realize that geoduck harvesters and government officials don’t want to accuse the Chinese of acting inappropriately. They just hope that the ban will be lifted without a drawn-out dispute. Meanwhile, those in the industry are losing millions of dollars by being shut off from their most important market for the giant clams.

Health officials to quickly test geoducks for arsenic

Shellfish and toxicology experts with the Washington State Department of Health are rushing to test new samples of geoducks from Poverty Bay near Federal Way. Poverty Bay is the apparent source of the geoducks that triggered a Chinese ban on the imports of all bivalves from the U.S. West Coast.

Photo: Washington Sea Grant
Photo: Washington Sea Grant

Since I wrote about this issue in Water Ways last Tuesday, state health officials have learned that arsenic — not paralytic shellfish poison — was cited by Chinese health officials as the cause of their concern in the Poverty Bay geoducks.

Past studies by state researchers have concluded that arsenic is not a health concern in shellfish taken from Puget Sound, based on sampling from some of the most polluted bays in the region. A letter (PDF 118 kb) sent last week from the U.S. Seafood Inspection Program to China’s health officials calls for China to lift its unusual ban. The letter cites a 2007 health assessment on arsenic in geoducks from Poverty Bay, where the giant clams were deemed safe to eat.

As a precaution, Washington Department of Natural Resources has closed the 135-acre Redondo Tract in Poverty Bay to shellfish harvesting until the Chinese ban can be resolved, according to a statement issued Friday from Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark.

One of the complicating factors in dealing with arsenic in shellfish is that the organic forms (primarily arsenobetaine) are not toxic, yet they are far more prevalent than the toxic inorganic forms (arsenic III and arsenic V ).

It is far easier to measure total arsenic than to separate organic from inorganic forms, so researchers often make assumptions. To be extra safe, they have assumed for years that toxic inorganic arsenic is less than 10 percent of total arsenic. Now, they have begun to rely on more recent geoduck studies from Seattle’s Richmond Beach (PDF 327 kb) that showed the inorganic form of arsenic to be less than 1 percent of total arsenic.

Dave McBride, a toxicologist with Washington’s Department of Health, told me the Chinese were reporting levels of arsenic at 1.7 parts per million, but they failed to say whether that was total arsenic or inorganic arsenic. The Chinese health limit was reported as 0.5 parts per million inorganic arsenic.

It also makes a difference whether the whole geoduck was tested or just the edible parts. The skin, which is generally discarded when cooking, appears to concentrate more arsenic than other parts, but the levels still are not high enough to be a concern.

A 2002 study of shellfish from several polluted water bodies in Puget Sound (PDF 1.5 mb) found levels of inorganic arsenic in clams to fall in a range from 0.015 to 0.035 parts per million. A 2007 health assessment of geoducks from Poverty Bay (PDF 874 kb) found total arsenic levels ranging from 2.28 of 4.96 parts per million.

Assuming inorganic arsenic at 1 percent of total arsenic the maximum value is .05 parts per million for shellfish from Poverty Bay. That’s one-tenth the level of concern reported by the Chinese.

Initially, Poverty Bay was an issue because of two sewage outfalls in the area and the proximity to Tacoma’s former ASARCO smelter — even though most airborne pollution landing on the water gets well dispersed. But the formal health assessment allayed concerns about arsenic and other metals as well.

Arsenic always raises initial concerns, because its inorganic form is known to disrupt the metabolism of multi-celled organisms, including humans. Also, it has been known to cause cancer. Because inorganic arsenic levels in shellfish are normally low, no federal or state standards have been established.

In response to the Chinese ban, the Department of Natural Resources went out yesterday and collected new geoduck samples from Poverty Bay. The idea will be to present findings on both total arsenic and inorganic arsenic, thanks to more sophisticated analytical equipment at the Department of Health laboratory.

Three geoducks will be put together to create a composite sample. In all, two composite samples each will be associated with 12 different locations in the bay, according to McBride.

Edible geoduck tissue will be separated from the “gutball,” which may be prepared by some Chinese cooks, I’m told. If enough samples are available, the whole geoduck (minus the shell) may be tested as well, or possibly just the skin.

One long day of processing is planned for Thursday, and the samples will be run through analytical equipment over the weekend, McBride told me. A report on the findings can be expected next week.

For information about the China ban on shellfish, check out a fact sheet from the state’s Office of Shellfish and Water Protection (PDF 282 kb).

Chinese geoduck ban creates industry turmoil

It was shocking to hear that China had banned imports of clams and oysters from most of the U.S. West Coast, This announcement came after Chinese health inspectors reported high levels of paralytic shellfish poison and arsenic in two shipments of geoducks coming into that country. (KUOW had the initial report.)

Photo: Washington Sea Grant
Photo: Washington Sea Grant

It turns out that one shipment of geoducks came from Poverty Bay near Federal Way in Puget Sound, and the other one came from Ketchikan, Alaska.

Washington state government as well as the state’s extensive shellfish industry pride themselves on a monitoring program designed to ensure that PSP levels for harvested geoducks remain well within safe limits. I frequently report PSP (“red tide”) closures when they occur on recreational beaches — and commercial shellfish are checked even more frequently.

The monitoring program for Washington state shellfish is recognized worldwide for its ability to keep unsafe shellfish off the market.

The initial memo (PDF 33 KB) from the Chinese government said inspectors had found levels of PSP at 30.2 mouse units per gram. Mouse units? I had never heard of such a measurement, although I know that live mice are often used in the monitoring tests. I learned that “mouse units” was an older standard of measurement, replaced by micrograms of toxin per 100 grams of shellfish tissue.

The use of mouse units was the first issue that threw everybody off. I received an explanation from Jerry Borchert of the state’s Office of Shellfish and Water Protection, and I offered this explanation in a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun (subscription):

“The Dec. 3 letter imposing the shellfish embargo stated that paralytic shellfish poison was found in concentrations of 30.2 mouse-units per gram. Mouse-units are an older standard, based on the amount of poison it takes to kill a mouse. The more common measurement today is micrograms of toxin per 100 kilograms of shellfish tissue, Borchert said.

“‘We need to know what conversion factors they used,’ he said. ‘Based on the best information we have, which is sketchy, the levels were between 600 and 1,500 micrograms per 100 grams.’

“In contrast, reports on geoducks from the Poverty Bay tract were no greater than 62 micrograms between Sept. 26 and Oct. 24, according to a health investigation completed Friday. The most likely harvest date was found to be Oct. 5.

“Authorities will close an area when the toxin level reaches 80. In fact, the high toxin levels suggested by the Chinese memo might not have been reached in geoducks found anywhere in Puget Sound this year, Borchert said.”

You can read the report, “Investigation and Results Related to the Geoduck Shipment Linked to the Shellfish Import Ban Imposed by China” (PDF 209 KB).

Confusion over the toxin levels found by the Chinese inspectors has created a great deal of anxiety throughout state government and the shellfish industry in Washington state. Nobody wants to say that the Chinese made a mistake, especially when the only data available is a terse finding in a memo (PDF 33 KB) transmitted to U.S. authorities. In fact, everyone I have talked to has been careful not to say anything negative at all until the facts are all in.

The chance that the shellfish exported to China exceeded the international standard of 80 micrograms per 100 grams seems possible, given that samples sent to state officials reached 62. That could invoke a response, even though the action level of 80 is considered within a significant margin of safety. But if the Chinese inspectors are reporting toxin levels higher than 600, that raises other issues.

What about poaching? I think it would be hard to rule out the possibility that somebody illegally sold geoducks from another area where PSP levels were higher and said they were from Poverty Bay. Whether that could happen depends, at least in part, on how well officials are able to track the geoducks through the market.

John Weymer of the Puyallup Tribe told me that officials were able to track the geoducks in question back to a specific boat working in Poverty Bay. Since it was a harvest by the Puyallup Tribe, tribal inspectors were on hand to make sure that the harvested geoducks were accounted for until sold to an independent buyer, he said. There is no doubt, he added, that the geoducks sold from the bay in October met health standards.

Although numerous areas of Puget Sound showed toxin levels above 80 micrograms in some types of shellfish, I’m told that the number of areas that reached 600 to 1,500 in geoducks were rare, if that happened at all. Such a finding would create more doubt about the accuracy of the Chinese testing.

One of the things I wondered about was whether the Chinese could be acting in retaliation for ongoing U.S. actions regarding the safety of foods imported from China. Bans on Chinese chicken were imposed and then lifted, amid Chinese complaints to the World Trade Organization. Questions of food safety have become entangled in issues of fair trade between the two countries.

I’ve raised this question of a trade battle with several people. Most tell me that if this were a trade issue, the Chinese would have used the opportunity to make a political statement. Instead, the Chinese memo was limited in scope, although the financial impact to the Washington shellfish industry could be significant.

Some people are quietly speculating that the Chinese have taken this action to manipulate prices. If geoduck harvesting is shut down in Washington state, the price of wild geoducks from the U.S. will drop and markets will improve for Canadian and Mexican geoducks. I’m told that the Chinese can make more money operating in those countries, although I have been unable to verify that so far.

Amusing Monday: Getting out of an oyster stew

I was looking about for some jokes and stories involving shellfish, mainly about clams and oysters with maybe a few quips about mussels. All I could find was either too raunchy, too childish or just plain lame.

What I did discover on YouTube, however, is that clam chowder is funnier than clams, and oyster stew is funnier than oysters.

First, in the video player at right, is “The Clam Chowder Song” by Thessaly Lerner, whose comedy is all over the place, including a series of bits she calls Ukulady, geared mainly for kids.

You may have seen this Progresso soup commercial on television. And if you’re a fan of Jim Carrey, you’ll recall this moment from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

A classic seafood battle is Curly’s skirmish with the oyster in a Three Stooges comedy that I remember from years ago. I was happy to find it posted on YouTube with context from the story. If you want to skip directly to the oyster part, you’ll find it at 1:45.

While not about oyster stew, I found a poster I want to share for the oddity of it all (below). The poster is one of three used in an ad campaign to raise awareness about the plight of the homeless. The campaign, launched by the German magazine “Biss,” shows one person inside the shell of a snail, another inside the shell of a turtle and a third inside the shell of an oyster a clam. Below each image are the words, “Nature doesn’t provide everyone with a home.” See AdPunch for details.

Although I wasn’t able to locate enough worthy shellfish jokes to share, you may find some amusement in previous “Amusing Monday” postings about shellfish:

“The fear of seafood”

“Geoducks are serious business”

“Geoduck companion appears on ‘Prairie’”

“Ivar knew how to clam it up”

Let’s keep an eye on the shellfish initiative

It is interesting to contemplate how the new National Shellfish Initiative, announced in June, and the Washington Shellfish Initiative, announced last week, could change things in Puget Sound.

Newton Morgan of the Kitsap County Health District collects a dye packet from Lofall Creek in December of 2010. This kind of legwork may be the key to tracking down pollution in Puget Sound.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

As I described in a story I wrote for last Saturday’s Kitsap Sun, the principal goals are these:

  • Rebuild native Olympia oyster and pinto abalone populations.
  • Increase access to public tidelands for recreational shellfish harvesting.
  • Research ways to increase commercial shellfish production without harming the environment.
  • Improve permitting at county, state and federal levels.
  • Evaluate how well filter-feeding clams and oysters can reduce nitrogen pollution, with possible incentives for private shellfish cultivation.

To read more about the initiatives, check out:

One of the most encouraging things is an attempt to expand Kitsap County’s Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program to other counties, with increased funding for cleaning up the waters. Check out the story I wrote for last Friday’s Kitsap Sun, in which I describe the search-and-destroy mission against bacterial pollution.

As most Water Ways readers know, I’ve been following the ongoing monitoring and cleanup effort by the Kitsap County Health District for years with the help of Keith Grellner, Stuart Whitford, Shawn Ultican and many others in the district’s water quality program. In fact, just two weeks ago, I discussed what could be a turnaround for a chronic pollution problem in Lofall Creek, a problem that has taken much perseverance to resolve. (See Kitsap Sun, Dec. 2.) Unfortunately, the story is far from over.

I’ve talked about the importance of old-fashioned legwork in tracking down pollution, and I’ve suggested that other local governments use some of their stormwater fees or implement such fees for monitoring of their local waters. See Water Ways, June 30, for example.

Water free of fecal pollution has benefits for humans and other aquatic creatures. Thankfully, Washington State Department of Health’s shellfish program is careful about checking areas for signs of sewage before certifying them as safe for shellfish harvesting. Maybe the new shellfish initiative will allow the state to open beds that have been closed for years. That’s what happened in Yukon Harbor, where more than 900 acres of shellfish beds were reopened in 2008. (See Kitsap Sun, Sept. 25, 2008).

Certifying areas as safe for shellfish harvesting means that waterfront property owners are safe to enjoy the bounty of their own beaches. It also offers an opportunity for commercial growers to make money and contribute to the state’s economy.

Of course, this does not mean that intensive shellfish-growing operations ought to be expanded to every clean corner of Puget Sound, any more than large-scale crop farming or timber harvesting should be allowed to take over the entire landscape.

Some environmentalists have expressed concern that the Washington Shellfish Initiative could become a boondoggle for commercial shellfish growers. Laura Hendricks of the Sierra Club’s Marine Ecosystem Campaign sent me an e-mail noting these concerns about the expansion of aquaculture:

“Washington State has more native species listed as endangered than any other state in the USA. We see no mention of the adverse impacts in this initiative on nearshore habitat, birds and juvenile salmon.

“Governor Gregoire and the various speakers failed to mention that ALL of the pending shoreline aquaculture applications they want to ‘streamline’ are for industrial geoduck aquaculture, not oysters. Red tape is not what is delaying these applications…

“Shellfish industry lobbyists who pushed for this expansion are silent on the following three serious threats to our fisheries resources, forage fish, birds and salmon:

“1. Shellfish consume fisheries resources (zooplankton — fish/crab eggs and larvae) according to peer reviewed studies. A DNR study documented that forage fish eggs did not just stay buried high on the beach, but were found in the nearshore water column. Continuing to allow expansion of unnatural high densities of filtering shellfish in the intertidal “nursery,” puts our fisheries resources at risk.

“2. The shellfish growers place tons of plastics into Puget Sound in order to expand aquaculture where it does not naturally grow…

3. Mussel rafts are documented to reduce dissolved oxygen essential for fish and are known in Totten Inlet to be covered in invasive tunicates with beggiatoa bacteria found underneath…”

Ashley Ahearn of KUOW interviewed Laura Hendricks, and you can hear her report on EarthFix.

In her e-mail, Laura recommended the video at right. She also pointed to a blog entry by Alf Hanna of Olympic Peninsula Environmental News. Hanna suggests that environmental advocates who go along with commercial aquaculture may become the oysters that get eaten in Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter.”

Have intensive shellfish farms in Puget Sound gone too far in their efforts to exploit the natural resources of our beaches? Can shellfish farmers make money without undue damage to the environment? Which practices are acceptable, which ones should be banned, and which areas are appropriate for different types of aquaculture?

It would have been nice if these answers were known long ago, and in some cases they are. But at least this new shellfish initiative recognizes that more research is needed to answer many remaining questions. Research is under way in Washington state on geoduck farming, which involves planting oyster seed in plastic tubes embedded into the beach. Review “Effects of Geoduck Aquaculture on the Environment: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge” (PDF 712 kb) or visit Washington Sea Grant.

Other research in our region is needed as well, although it is clear that environmental trade-offs will be part of the deal whenever commercial interests cross paths with natural systems. For a discussion about this issue, check out the executive summary of the NOAA-funded publication Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment (PDF 4.2 mb), edited by Sandra E. Shumway.

Needless to say, we’ll be keeping an eye on this process for years to come.

Amusing Monday: Geoducks are serious business

If you haven’t noticed, today is not Monday; it’s Tuesday. So this “Amusing Monday” feature is a day late. But I have a good excuse. Yesterday was a holiday, but that wouldn’t have stopped me. The real reason is that the power was out at my house all day, from the time I got up in the morning to the time I went to bed at night. See Kitsap Sun story for the details.

I’ve had geoducks on my mind since writing about them over the weekend. Check out today’s story in the Kitsap Sun. I thought it would be appropriate to bring back some great videos about this amazing Northwest critter. The entry below first appeared on Feb. 1 of last year.
—–

I love the reaction of newcomers to the Northwest when they see a giant geoduck clam for the first time.

Some people laugh; others stare in disbelief at the unique creature that reminds some people of the male anatomy.

After you’ve lived in Washington state, you learn that this massive mollusk is not only funny, it is big money on the international market. Geoducks are believed to play an important role in the ecosystem, where they filter water and can live for 100 years or more.

Geoducks grow naturally in deep water and are harvested by divers who dislodge them from the seabed with jets of water. Revenues go for managing the resource and to local governments willing to make recreational improvements to the shoreline. Some people contend that the state is over-harvesting, at least in certain locations.
Continue reading

DNR holds online forum about geoduck farming

The Washington Department of Natural Resources is hosting an interesting conversation this week about the potential of leasing state-owned tidelands for geoduck aquaculture.

A typical geoduck farm involves seeding tiny clams on the beach and protecting them from predators for about two years. Normally, a section of PVC pipe is inserted into the beach, one surrounding each clam. The DNR is providing a variety of background information in support of this week’s discussion.

Each day this week, a new question about geoduck aquaculture is being raised. The participants in this forum are the very people involved in the debate at the local and state levels, so one can learn a great deal about this debate by skimming through the comments.

On Monday,
the question was: Are there effects of geoduck aquaculture on public access and aesthetics, and if so, how can they be mitigated?

Most of the commenters were opposed to geoduck farming on state lands, saying that the tubes were ugly, intrustive and restricted public access in various ways. Geoduck farmers also weighed in, saying the problems are minimal when the farms are managed responsibly.

Tuesday’s question was: When seeking to balance the public benefits from state-owned aquatic lands, how much of a priority should DNR give to job creation and revenue generation when developing a geoduck aquaculture program on state tidelands?

This lively discussion involved a range of interests discussing the balance between jobs/economic benefits versus protection of the ecosystem. Some people made the point that money raised by leasing state land can be used for environmental restoration.

On Wednesday, the question turned to: What does science tell us about the impacts of geoduck aquaculture on Puget Sound?

I found this discussion more confusing, in part because references to scientific studies were mixed in with personal observations. Many of the comments were interesting, but the discussion was too scattered to really address the scientific questions, for which some studies are still under way.

Today’s forum is called “unknowns”: If DNR moved forward on a program leasing state-owned tidelands for geoduck aquaculture, are there significant unknowns that we need to be aware of, and if so, what are they?

As of the time of this posting, only a couple people had weighed in today, but you may want to comment on this item or on any of the topics in previous days. One can navigate through these various topics from the main page of DNR Forum.

I would like to know what you think of this forum by DNR and if we might want to encourage discussions like this on other important issues of the day.