interesting letter from coral-list

[Anonymous]

Dear all,

once again we have a serious and sad attempt to
start a new enterprise in RMI that is not at all
attentive to the waters and corals around this
still semi-pristine country. Shark fishing picked up
2 years ago and is still running, but now they
want to start tuna caging in one of the most
pristine atolls in the country. As researchers attached
to the College of the Marshall Islands (CMI) we
visited the place twice during our researches for
resource assessments and conservation. Three
years ago the government approached CMI and the
related biologists asking help for analyzing the coral
reefs of the un-inhabited atoll of Rongelap in
order to find good areas to protect and to use as
spots for what was to be developed as an
eco-tourism activity. Now, after two years of research
and reports suggesting the ideal location for MPAs
and sanctuaries, the atoll government just signed
a contract to start growing yellofin tuna in
cages, feeding it with African sardines, and
fattening it
for the sashimi market.No information on the
location for these cages, but even the passes could
be a dangerous spot, since the incoming current
would transport the feed and excreta around the
lagoon and on its corals - as a model from E.
Peterson recently presented at Okinawa suggests.

Any ideas or strong tools we can receive to try
to convince these people they are playing with a
dangerous weapon? On the side, the local
government will receive 25% of the income produced by the
US tuna caging enterprise.

Thank you all, feel free to forward this message
to appropriate lists and people,

Silvia



Silvia Pinca, Ph.D.
Marine Science Program Coordinator
College of the Marshall Islands
P.O. Box 1258, Majuro, MH 96960
ph. (692)-625-5903
ph. in Italy until March 12th: 333 597 8963
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.nras-conservation.org

 

[Anonymous]

now read this again :wink:

http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=53456

 

[spawner]

Vitz,

If done correctly sea cages have little to no effect on the environment, if poorly designed they have very negative effects. I would suggest that the CMI look at the SeaStation cages. They have had great success in HI and Puerto Rico thus far. Very small changes in the benthic communities directly under the cages, and no detectable nutrients within 100 meters of the cage (you'll have to check for the exact data). It's really impressive, but they are much more expensive than floating cages. This type of a system should be the standard.


http://www.oceanspar.com/seastation.htm

andy

 

[Anonymous]

i didn't write the letter :wink:

there are implications here that are relevant to the mamti issue, however, which is mainly why i posted it

in fact, there are many disturbing things here, if you read between the lines abit


to the impact argument:

there's a preponderance of evidence to suggest that most, if not all 'pen farming' has 'some' impact at a minimum, on immediate reef environments

one is in essence creating a highly localized and concentrated pollution/waste engine in an environment that's built to deal w/a much more spread out source

it's basically a big column of poop , that keeps generating more poop :wink:

i can't accept the contention that such a thing is benign

the letter seems to be a call to ask that proper investigations/impact studies be done before plunging into an unknown, as i read it

the fact that it was already given the go-ahead w/out any real in depth study is what disturbs me

any foriegn gov't can decide to do whatever it wants, camps or no camps, mamti or no mamti :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

the letter has generated some replies to the list

anyone wanting to follow the discussion can register here :


> Coral-List mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.oceanspar.com/seastation.htm

Wouldn't tuna need something just a little bit bigger than whats listed on that site?