PDA

View Full Version : Live rock aquaculture in Federal water to be BANNED!!!!


liverock
08/01/2010, 01:25 PM
This is very disturbing not only to the participants, but to the worlds ecology as somehow our Government has decided that Aquaculture of live rock is going to be made illegal, and SOON!!

There are 29 live rock aquaculturists in the area known as the EEZ, or Federal water in the US....when this bill passes, permits will be revoked, and ALL AQUACULTURE in federal water will be illegal.

How our government can do this to the industry is a crime.....against sustainable rock culture practices and an industry is beyond me. I know I have hundreds of trips with boat fulls of rock that I deployed on my site in the Florida Keys, in federal waters, years of work, under a permit granted by our government.

For the government to legislate the industry out of business is a crime.....yet one more vote from the Senate and this law goes into effect.

This is just not right.

Here is the info on the bill....scowl down to section 704

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3534

SEC. 704. OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE CLARIFICATION.

(a) No Authority- The Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Regional Fishery Management Councils shall not develop or approve a fishery management plan or fishery management plan amendment to permit or regulate offshore aquaculture.

(b) Permits Invalid- Any permit issued for the conduct of offshore aquaculture, including the siting or operation of offshore aquaculture facilities, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall be invalid upon enactment of this Act.

(c) Definitions- In this section:

(1) OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE- The term ‘offshore aquaculture’ means all activities related to--

(A) the placement of any installation, facility, or structure in the exclusive economic zone for the purposes of propagation or rearing, or attempting to propagate or rear, any species; or

(B) the operation of offshore aquaculture facilities in the exclusive economic zone involved in the propagation or rearing, or attempted propagation or rearing, of species.

(2) OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE FACILITY- The term ‘offshore aquaculture facility’ means--

(A) a structure, installation, or other complex used, in whole or in part, for offshore aquaculture; or

(B) an area of the seabed or the subsoil used for offshore aquaculture.

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com

bigworm175
08/01/2010, 01:54 PM
It seems to me that aquaculture is the sustainable option. What is the motive here?

poolkeeper1
08/01/2010, 02:03 PM
They alway's think they know best, And they believe it! You know who!
Bill

Alysiak00
08/01/2010, 02:11 PM
There's billions of gallons of oil spilling out everywhere and these dingbats are worried about aquaculture....

stanlalee
08/01/2010, 02:15 PM
oil spill probably has them jumpy about putting limestone or anything else into the bay even if it is harmless and beneficial overall (not to mention already there).

Create
08/01/2010, 03:38 PM
Yeah, I am still missing the point of the bill..

dwculp
08/01/2010, 04:24 PM
Idiots.....

Richard, when will this go into effect?

Snapper66
08/01/2010, 05:30 PM
The Government in America has to Much Power it Disgusts Me.

on the spot
08/01/2010, 05:40 PM
The Government in America has to Much Power it Disgusts Me.

See, now that's just funny. Like it or hate it, every sovereign nation has and uses this power Snap. The Fed of US isn't telling Canada what they can/can't do.

Stupid disgusts me.

tibob32
08/01/2010, 05:57 PM
I'm guessing it probably has something about protecting the american reef from the introduction of foreign critters/bacteria

liverock
08/01/2010, 06:17 PM
Idiots.....

Richard, when will this go into effect?
A soon as they vote this week and the Pres signs it....I think the Pres is outa touch...he needs to see what he is signing.

End aquaculture in the US?


Richard TBS

LaOtIn
08/01/2010, 06:32 PM
sounds like some more of that good o'Hope and Change!

I love our Senate, Congress, well, our entire government at the moment is pretty darn cool!

November is coming soon though :fun2:

saf1
08/01/2010, 06:39 PM
I'm guessing it probably has something about protecting the american reef from the introduction of foreign critters/bacteria

The bill dates back to 2009 - so it is not related to the oil spill. Although there are a couple amendments it seems. Its a pretty lengthy read to be honest - I followed the link and read through it.

If it deals with trying to limit or control non regional coral, animals, or other plant life then I think it is a good idea. We see too many issues above and below ground lately when restrictions or controls are not in place to prevent this. Lion fish come to mind, Asian carp, crabs, clams, etc. I'm not 100% positive that is what this bill is trying to accomplish or something else and it was muddied up by congress. Hard to tell.

Since it seems TBS posted this what I would recommend is that you start making some phone calls because all I saw within the bill was the estimated cost of $70 per U.S. citizen who pays taxes. It would be interesting to call out the number of lost jobs and household incomes if and when this takes effect.

In Florida here is the voting record for what it is worth. I would probably look at all members who border the water...

Florida
Nay FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]
Yea FL-2 Boyd, Allen [D]
Yea FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]
Nay FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander [R]
Nay FL-5 Brown-Waite, Virginia [R]
Nay FL-6 Stearns, Clifford [R]
Nay FL-7 Mica, John [R]
Yea FL-8 Grayson, Alan [D]
Nay FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus [R]

LaOtIn
08/01/2010, 06:45 PM
Florida
Nay FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]
Yea FL-2 Boyd, Allen [D]
Yea FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]
Nay FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander [R]
Nay FL-5 Brown-Waite, Virginia [R]
Nay FL-6 Stearns, Clifford [R]
Nay FL-7 Mica, John [R]
Yea FL-8 Grayson, Alan [D]
Nay FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus [R]

interesting...anyone see a pattern here? all the [R]'s voted.........nay

very, very interesting..../strokes beard

saf1
08/01/2010, 07:04 PM
It is what it is. But never the less I would honestly encourage TBS or any other small businesses that do similar sort of work to make some aggressive phone calls starting on Monday. Just recently there have been some magazine articles talking about coral farming in the U.S. Not only is it good for rebuilding storm damage upon our reefs but also talking about some of the technology used to promote faster growth, etc. I mean these are some really ideas that this bill could stop. I say could because again I'm not really sure what they are trying to do here.

But like I said - get the word out and make some calls. Stick to the facts only and nothing else. State how it may put you out of business. How much it would cost you to move it from coastal waters to protected land based. State how many employees you will let go, their incomes, the governments taxes (both business and employee), etc. Not to compare business models but maybe get with similar business and then paint the bigger picture. Coast to coast. I'm sure not only business in Florida would be impacted but what about off Texas or California and even to Hawaii.

It very well may be too late but also call up some of the news outlets and state the same facts. Drudge comes to mind. Fox business - what is his name, Cavato or such (I know I spelled it wrong). But spread the word and maybe it will take hold. It is probably the only way you can stop it.

mallorieGgator
08/01/2010, 07:17 PM
Honestly, it doesn't surprise me. I have leopard geckos and a snake and my husband and I have many friends in the reptile industry selling snakes and such. The control that is coming over the reptile industry is disturbing and how many types of animals are becoming illegal is disturbing as well. :( So it's no surprise that this is getting controlled too.

muttley000
08/01/2010, 07:49 PM
It is what it is. But never the less I would honestly encourage TBS or any other small businesses that do similar sort of work to make some aggressive phone calls starting on Monday. Just recently there have been some magazine articles talking about coral farming in the U.S. Not only is it good for rebuilding storm damage upon our reefs but also talking about some of the technology used to promote faster growth, etc. I mean these are some really ideas that this bill could stop. I say could because again I'm not really sure what they are trying to do here.

But like I said - get the word out and make some calls. Stick to the facts only and nothing else. State how it may put you out of business. How much it would cost you to move it from coastal waters to protected land based. State how many employees you will let go, their incomes, the governments taxes (both business and employee), etc. Not to compare business models but maybe get with similar business and then paint the bigger picture. Coast to coast. I'm sure not only business in Florida would be impacted but what about off Texas or California and even to Hawaii.

It very well may be too late but also call up some of the news outlets and state the same facts. Drudge comes to mind. Fox business - what is his name, Cavato or such (I know I spelled it wrong). But spread the word and maybe it will take hold. It is probably the only way you can stop it.

This thread will probably get closed for being political...

The current administration will not be swayed by hearing it is going to hurt a business. Somehow the people willing to lay it on the line and start a business, and employ people are now considered the enemy. Good luck in your future endeavors liverock:mad2::mad2:

maynardjames
08/01/2010, 08:30 PM
start a online petition. i would sign it. maybe some online news will pick it up spread it around. problem is the majority of the nation dosent know anything about live rock, aquacultured coral & dont really care because it dosent effect them

dwculp
08/01/2010, 08:31 PM
I would do as was suggested, start calling all of the liverockers you know, even if they are the competition and begin an aggressive phone calling campaign.

For what it is worth, I plan to call and or email the author of the bill and my own state of Texas representatives.

The term "aquaculture" is a BROAD term. I dont think the bill is singling out liverock aquaculture, the term,as used in the bill may need to be defined more strictly.

canesfan44
08/01/2010, 08:36 PM
This is ridiculous, but it doesn't suprise me, nothing the government does suprises me anymore.

BrianD
08/02/2010, 04:44 AM
This thread is political by its very nature. However, if people can address their comments to the isolated legislation mentioned as opposed to random comments about the evils of our government, we will leave it open. If people choose to ignore this warning, the thread will be closed. I hope maturity prevails.

username in use
08/02/2010, 05:14 AM
I hope maturity prevails.

and so hope prevails over experience hahaha. :lolspin:

BFG
08/02/2010, 05:25 AM
Hmmm, if it can't be done in the water, can it be done on land? They do not permit doing it offshore but there's nothing about "in land". Time to go multi tier setup then?!?

Beaun
08/02/2010, 07:05 AM
For people jumping to conclusions here is just the summary

Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009 - Establishes in the Department of the Interior the Office of Federal Energy and Minerals Leasing. Transfers to such Office certain functions of: (1) the Minerals Management Service; and (2) the Oil and Gas Management program of the Bureau of Land Management. Amends the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 to revise miscellaneous specified administrative requirements. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to take specified actions regarding oil and gas royalties, including: (1) a pilot project assessing costs and benefits of automatic transmission of certain data produced under federal leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS); (2) determination and reporting of BTU values of natural gas from federal leases; and (3) final regulations concerning required recordkeeping of natural gas measurement data. Modifies oil and gas leasing requirements under the Mineral Leasing Act, adding requirements for coal mine methane recovery. Amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to: (1) extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund through FY2040; (2) make $900 million available from the Fund each fiscal year without further appropriation; and (3) revise requirements for allocation of funds for federal purposes and financial assistance to states. Sets forth a public land leasing program for commercial wind or solar energy development. Amends the Mineral Leasing Act to set forth a uranium leasing program on specified public lands. Designates specified OCS Regions for federal renewable and nonrenewable energy resources development. Directs the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce to establish Regional Outer Continental Shelf Councils to: (1) coordinate siting and development of energy resources; and (2) prepare OCS Strategic Plans. Establishes in the Treasury the Ocean Resources Conservation and Assistance Fund (ORCA), from which grants shall be made to: (1) coastal states and affected Indian tribes; (2) the Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes Grants Program (to be established under this Act); and (3) Regional Ocean Partnerships. Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal: (1) royalty incentives for natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico; and (2) royalty relief for deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish an annual production incentive fee for specified leases of federal onshore and offshore lands for production of oil or natural gas under which production is not occurring in commercial quantities. Prohibits the following authorities from developing or approving a fishery management plan to permit or regulate offshore aquaculture: (1) the Secretary of Commerce; (2) the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; or (3) the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Declares invalid any permit issued for the conduct of offshore aquaculture.

There is significantly more in this bill then just aquaculture. It almost seems out of place to have aquaculuture attached to the bottom of this bill. I'm wondering if there is a loophole that can be used for liverock, but it does say any species (bacteria).

serpentman
08/02/2010, 09:25 AM
For people jumping to conclusions here is just the summary



There is significantly more in this bill then just aquaculture. It almost seems out of place to have aquaculuture attached to the bottom of this bill. I'm wondering if there is a loophole that can be used for liverock, but it does say any species (bacteria).

Its usually how it works. When I was heavily involved with reptiles, they would often slip provisions in completely unrelated bills. Then they would incorporate common sense things such as prohibiting the keeping of whales, elephants, hippos without proper permits. Then in details, they would slip in keeping keeping harmless snakes such as ball pythons, boa constrictors, etc. Any lawmakers skimming the bill would see the "whales, elephants, etc." and think, well, that makes sense.

This is very unfortunate as it is very anti-business. Furthermore, aquaculturing fills an economic need in a sustainable way without depleting the natural reef. Very disturbing and seems to be the trend. Our hobby has long been in the cross hairs of extreme environmentalists. However, I would think pushing aquaculture would actually help bridge the gap in establishing a happy medium.

I suggest everyone write their congressperson and voice their opinion in a clear, objective tone and explain the economic ramifications and effects on you as a hobbyist and taxpayer. If you do, be sure to avoid "rants" or you won't be taken seriously.

serpentman
08/02/2010, 09:45 AM
For anyone interested, I wrote the following to my Senators. Feel free to use it, chop it up and do what you will with it.

I am writing to express my opposition to HR3534, specifically section 704. As I interpret it, this section eliminates aquaculturing in federal waters. As I am sure you are aware, this multimillion dollar industry provides local jobs and taxable revenue in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner without depleting fragile aquatic resources such as coral reefs, etc. If fact, I hope you would agree that such practices should be encouraged not restricted. That is why I am asking that you either vote NO on HR3534 or propose an amendment to strike section 704.

CleveYank
08/02/2010, 09:55 AM
Removed. I see you chose fit to ignore my warning above. BrianD

Beaun
08/02/2010, 09:59 AM
Make sure to write your senators and not your congressmen, its already out of the house.

saf1
08/02/2010, 10:03 AM
Well Cleve there isn't a better place to live...

As Beaun said it is up to the senate now. I really believe that it is up to the local businesses now to put it in perspective. Jobs, income, etc. Maybe too late but who knows. The economy isn't turning around like they wanted so if you talk about jobs, taxes, and income maybe it will help.

If not, then I would urge you to see about how you can change your business model. Moving it to land based may work but probably not very cost effective.

RVANANO
08/02/2010, 10:12 AM
Removed. I see you chose fit to ignore my warning above. BrianD

noahm
08/02/2010, 10:37 AM
For people jumping to conclusions here is just the summary



There is significantly more in this bill then just aquaculture. It almost seems out of place to have aquaculuture attached to the bottom of this bill. I'm wondering if there is a loophole that can be used for liverock, but it does say any species (bacteria).

Yes, it appears that a lot of it is dealing a lot of offshore activity that everyone has been screaming is needed, but somebody threw in this aquaculture bit to gain a few votes, I would guess. Doubtful the aquaculture bit is even noticed by most of those voting on it. This kind of stuff has been going on for decades. It didn't get there by accident though, somebody has an interested party in their back pocket.

BrianD
08/02/2010, 10:51 AM
Do I need to repeat the warning above? If you can't respond in an intelligent fashion to this specific legislation, don't respond at all. Random comments about the "evils" of government are not useful or productive.

small alien
08/02/2010, 11:07 AM
They alway's think they know best, And they believe it! You know who!
Bill

(deleted my own post.)

dwculp
08/02/2010, 11:14 AM
Yes, it appears that a lot of it is dealing a lot of offshore activity that everyone has been screaming is needed, but somebody threw in this aquaculture bit to gain a few votes, I would guess. Doubtful the aquaculture bit is even noticed by most of those voting on it. This kind of stuff has been going on for decades. It didn't get there by accident though, somebody has an interested party in their back pocket.

Aquaculture is a large and encompassing term that is too vague. I dont know if it was meant to single out rock farming. If it was, that is inane And stupid, if it wasn't, this is an unfortunate side effect. Either situation is unacceptable.

stevek480
08/02/2010, 11:42 AM
For anyone interested, I wrote the following to my Senators. Feel free to use it, chop it up and do what you will with it.

I am writing to express my opposition to HR3534, specifically section 704. As I interpret it, this section eliminates aquaculturing in federal waters. As I am sure you are aware, this multimillion dollar industry provides local jobs and taxable revenue in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner without depleting fragile aquatic resources such as coral reefs, etc. If fact, I hope you would agree that such practices should be encouraged not restricted. That is why I am asking that you either vote NO on HR3534 or propose an amendment to strike section 704.

Thanks, I used this to write my 2 senators.

serpentman
08/02/2010, 12:56 PM
Aquaculture is a large and encompassing term that is too vague. I dont know if it was meant to single out rock farming. If it was, that is inane And stupid, if it wasn't, this is an unfortunate side effect. Either situation is unacceptable.

Agreed, which is why this could have some dire consequences. Although they may not be targeting rock farming, enforcement would be entirely up to the interpretation of the law and expose those that are currently legally aquaculturing to be exposed to potential criminal or civil penalties.

Although live rock aquaculturing is near and dear to our hearts, this could potentially have massive financial impact on fisheries.

The Merriam-Webster definition of aquaculture: the cultivation of aquatic organisms (as fish or shellfish) especially for food


Thanks, I used this to write my 2 senators.

Glad I could help.

James404
08/02/2010, 01:12 PM
I just wrote both of NY's senators regarding this as well.

lshark21
08/02/2010, 01:24 PM
Wrote to both of my PA senators.


Complete list of how all the Reps voted.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-513

rgh69
08/02/2010, 02:08 PM
That stinks.....I suppose that I better order some aquacultured rock pretty quick.

liverock
08/02/2010, 02:21 PM
Wrote to both of my PA senators.


Complete list of how all the Reps voted.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-513

Thanks for the support.....seems our representatives are out of touch with reality.

I was diving today on my site in the Gulf....a state lease thank goodness...and looking at all the life that has evolved around the 4 million pounds of rock I have out there....would be a travesty to see it eliminated in federal waters. And the 175 trips plus I have under my belt depositing rock on my federal site in the Keys, just whisked away by this bill....something is wrong here....

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com

lshark21
08/02/2010, 02:34 PM
I was diving today on my site in the Gulf....a state lease thank goodness...and looking at all the life that has evolved around the 4 million pounds of rock I have out there....would be a travesty to see it eliminated in federal waters. And the 175 trips plus I have under my belt depositing rock on my federal site in the Keys, just whisked away by this bill....something is wrong here....

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com



So what happens to your rock in federal waters if this passes? Would you lose it? There's prolly too much there to move out of the federal waters before this legislation comes to pass, huh?

dwculp
08/02/2010, 02:37 PM
Here is a list of senators and contact information by state:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Marshall1385
08/02/2010, 05:58 PM
Thanks, I used this to write my 2 senators.

x2

scapes
08/02/2010, 06:22 PM
i just wrote my two (R) senators

JokerGirl
08/02/2010, 06:36 PM
What a travesty. It's sad to think that a large portion of the mantis shrimp in the hobby come from you and your rock which will no longer be a supply. It truly makes me sick to my stomach.

Yogre
08/02/2010, 06:40 PM
What a travesty. It's sad to think that a large portion of the mantis shrimp in the hobby come from you and your rock which will no longer be a supply. It truly makes me sick to my stomach.

If I understand Richard's post correctly, his site off Tampa is not at risk as it is not in Federal Waters, thus he does not require a Federal permit, rather a State of Florida permit.

The Key West site is at risk.

dwculp
08/02/2010, 10:35 PM
I emailed both of my senators and expanded upon the email first presented here. Here is mine:

As a resident of Texas, I am writing to express my opposition and concern regarding HR3534, and specifically section 704.

As I interpret it, this section eliminates aquaculturing in federal waters. As I am sure you are aware, this multimillion-dollar industry provides jobs and taxable revenue in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner without depleting fragile aquatic resources. In fact, I hope you would agree that such practices should be encouraged and not restricted.

In addition, the term "aquaculture" is not properly defined within the bill and leaves the term very vague and could lead to impacting industries and practices it was not meant to.

I understand the purpose of the bill is to help protect our environment and I believe this a worthy goal, however, the bill, as written seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the unfortunate disaster unfolding on the Gulf. I feel the bill will cause more problems and difficulties by being over restrictive.

That is why I am asking that you either vote NO on HR3534 or propose an amendment to strike section 704.


I also emailed the Nick Rahall, the bills sponsor. This email appears below:


I am writing to express my opposition and concern regarding HR3534, and specifically section 704. I was wondering if you could please clarify section 704 for me and for those in the “live rock” farming business for the aquarium trade.

As I interpret it, this section eliminates aquaculturing in federal waters. As I am sure you are aware, this multimillion-dollar industry provides jobs and taxable revenue in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner without depleting fragile aquatic resources. I hope you would agree that such practices should be encouraged and not restricted.

Specifically, this bill came to my attention because of the possible impact it may have on "live rock" farming in federal waters. "Live rock" farming is the practice of placing base or seed rock on the ocean bottom and later harvesting this rock for the saltwater aquarium trade. This practice came about in order to have a sustainable source of this very important piece of a marine aquarium without destroying naturally occurring coral reefs. This seems like a practice we should encourage and not try to eliminate.

Am I correct in my interpretation of your bill that it would eliminate such environmentally sound and safe practices?

dwculp
08/02/2010, 10:38 PM
I already know that both of my senators will vote no as they are both of the R type as it seems the voting on this bill (and as most bills go) is almost straight along party lines, but I decided to contact them anyways. We need more with Democratic senators to email or contact those senators.

rainydave
08/03/2010, 08:11 AM
For anyone interested, I wrote the following to my Senators. Feel free to use it, chop it up and do what you will with it.

I am writing to express my opposition to HR3534, specifically section 704. As I interpret it, this section eliminates aquaculturing in federal waters. As I am sure you are aware, this multimillion dollar industry provides local jobs and taxable revenue in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner without depleting fragile aquatic resources such as coral reefs, etc. If fact, I hope you would agree that such practices should be encouraged not restricted. That is why I am asking that you either vote NO on HR3534 or propose an amendment to strike section 704.
Thanks...used this to write my Senators.

jerseyhokie
08/03/2010, 08:49 AM
2 things id like to chip in. First is the EEZ in florida 3-200 miles from shore? Or is it defined differently there? Im mamazed live rock is being cultured that far from shore.

Second, i think this bill has different intentions but is not worded properly. For example Farm raised salmon in the northwest have cause considerable damage to wild stock through pollution and disease. It sounds like a great idea, culture salmon so wild populations are less stressed, but there have been unintended consequences.

liverock
08/03/2010, 10:22 AM
2 things id like to chip in. First is the EEZ in florida 3-200 miles from shore? Or is it defined differently there? Im mamazed live rock is being cultured that far from shore.

Second, i think this bill has different intentions but is not worded properly. For example Farm raised salmon in the northwest have cause considerable damage to wild stock through pollution and disease. It sounds like a great idea, culture salmon so wild populations are less stressed, but there have been unintended consequences.

On the Gulf side....federal waters begins at nine miles.....there are a few culture sites there.....in the Atlantic federal waters begins at three miles....the majority of sites are in Atlantic waters, including mine.

Richard TBS

liverock
08/03/2010, 10:24 AM
So what happens to your rock in federal waters if this passes? Would you lose it? There's prolly too much there to move out of the federal waters before this legislation comes to pass, huh?

Yes they will take the rock, all 175 trips boat full by boat full of rock that I have deployed there over the years.
Richard TBS

trb
08/03/2010, 10:46 AM
Richard,

Do you have legal counsel clarification on the impact and purpose of the bill? One of the local guys read it over and to him it looked like it was written to centralize the control of offshore permits under one government entity, not under all of the various ones that have issued permits in the past. Granted, that would require applying for new permits to your existing sites, but you should have first right to them. Hopefully the all knowing government would have enough sense to not eliminate a whole industry, but then again, who knows.

Best of luck to you.

liverock
08/03/2010, 02:53 PM
After much research...and communication with officials involved..today.....it seems there may be a "behind the scenes" action going on.

Even though the language is the same in the bill passed by the House....the provisions in section 704 have been eliminated according to my sources in the government... even though what you read online says the opposite.

If you cannot believe what they post..on the official USA government site......and what the law says...how do you make heads or tails of what is going on....

What a mess.......

Richard TBS
www.tbsaltwater.com

dwculp
08/03/2010, 03:20 PM
Section 704 may have been stricken from the bill because it may soon become its own bill. I received a response from one of my senators. Basically she said nothing of use and took no sides in the debate (typical politician right). Anyways, here is the response:


I was a bit confused as my email was about the HR3534 and I received a response regarding S. 3417,

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 3417, the Research in Aquaculture Opportunity and Responsibility Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

S. 3417 was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) on May 25, 2010. It would prohibit any agency or Regional Fishery Management Council from using offshore aquaculture until three years after a report is completed regarding the impacts of offshore aquaculture. This legislation would also apply these prohibitions to existing offshore aquaculture permits issued by federal agencies.

I understand the importance of conserving our natural resources and wildlife. Biodiversity is critical to the health of the ecosystems that support life in Texas, and we all share the responsibility of preserving the world's natural resources for future generations.

Our fishing industry is also very important in Texas. This vital resource must be preserved while simultaneously promoting a strong natural environment for the future of Texas.

Offshore aquaculture involves growing fish on a large scale in cages and nets in open ocean waters. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is currently one of the primary agencies in charge of permitting and overseeing aquaculture.

You may be sure I will keep your views in mind. S. 3417 has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, of which I am the Ranking Member. I encourage the continuation of ecological studies to be released to the public in order for us to make a fully informed decision on offshore aquaculture.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov

Stroob
08/03/2010, 03:29 PM
One thing that I am hoping is that the equal power of each state in the Senate will allow a better showing in stopping the bill. Just a quick count on the House voting showed California and New York to have over 1/4 of the 'Yea' votes. The majority of the states were 'Nay' and I am hoping it remains that way for the Senate vote.

:sad1:

08/03/2010, 03:32 PM
I have a Federal LR site/permit here, in the Lower Keys and have been loading substrate on it for years, tons and tons...this is very disturbing.

SpencerG
08/03/2010, 09:53 PM
Vitter is one of our senators, and he is running for re-election right now. He's got a decent opponent who is making it a race. I would have to think he would be sensitive to complaints about his bill and wouldn't want to be depicted as someone who is trying to kill jobs here in the U.S. unnecessarily and in the middle of a bad recession.

Frick-n-Frags
08/04/2010, 06:10 AM
i think if there is a distinction made between bringing in species to culture that really dont belong there vs, just letting the natural life spread onto inert material, maybe LR culture could slide.

seems the objection is to all the collateral damage and overall strain on the local ecosystem from culturing something. LR culture has nothing to do with imposing another biological structure onto the system..just letting the "weeds" spread into the fresh cleaned field..so to speak..ie..things that would happen anyway.

edit: maybe the thing to do is to re-define cultured LR as something other than aquaculture..in the sense of the way it is being defined. like "re-habituated" rock heh.

"Sir, we didnt culture squat..we put the rock out there and it grew that stuff on its own. Whaddaya mean CULTURE? pfffft...."

49.35 North
08/04/2010, 08:31 PM
I have a Federal LR site/permit here, in the Lower Keys and have been loading substrate on it for years, tons and tons...this is very disturbing.

This is all very confusing. According to NOAA, "... currently, there is no way to obtain a permit for aquaculture in federal waters under existing U.S. laws and regulations" (emphasis added).

http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/us/welcome.html

Is it possible that your Federal permit is for something other than aquaculture?

If NOAA is right and there are currently no US Federal aquaculture permits, wouldn't this mean that S. 704 just confirms what is already the case?

dwculp
08/04/2010, 08:39 PM
Here is an article: http://www.sosfla.org/2010/07/help-us-stop-factory-farming-in-gulf-of.html

Although the article puts a negative spin on the dumping of section 704, it brings up a NEW bill (mentioned in a post above by me). This bill seems to target fish farms.

dwculp
08/04/2010, 08:41 PM
A discussion on another forum about the current topic: http://************.com/2010/08/03/live-rock-hr-3534-law-aquaculture-federal-waters-offshore/

dwculp
08/04/2010, 08:45 PM
Looking at the specific laws, rules, and regulations:


(iii) Aquacultured live rock. For a person to take or possess aquacultured live rock in the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ, a Federal aquacultured live rock permit must have been issued for the specific harvest site. Such permit, or a copy, must be on board a vessel depositing or possessing material on an aquacultured live rock site or harvesting or possessing live rock from an aquacultured live rock site.

(iv) Prohibited coral. A Federal permit may be issued to take or possess Gulf and South Atlantic prohibited coral or Caribbean prohibited coral only as scientific research activity, exempted fishing, or exempted educational activity. See 600.745 of this chapter for the procedures and limitations for such activities and fishing.

(v) Florida permits. Appropriate Florida permits and endorsements are required for the following activities, without regard to whether they involve activities in the EEZ or Florida's waters: (A) Landing in Florida fish or other marine organisms taken with an allowable chemical in a coral area.

Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/622-4-permits-and-fees-19896535#ixzz0vhC6aw9Q


I wonder if live rock farming even falls under aquaculturing?

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/622-4-permits-and-fees-19896535

49.35 North
08/04/2010, 08:46 PM
I'm not trying to pretend I know a lot about the US constitution or the US regulatory system because I don't, but according to the US Ocean Commission, "the Submerged Lands Act was enacted in 1953 giving coastal states jurisdiction over a region extending 3 nautical miles seaward from the baseline, commonly referred to as state waters. For historical reasons, Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida are an exception, with state waters extending to 9
nautical miles offshore."

Aren't most fish farms and, in the Gulf, live rock farms closer than 9 nm to the coast? And wouldn't the Federal legislation apply only to the (non-existent) aquaculture facilities further offshore?

49.35 North
08/04/2010, 08:54 PM
Looking at the specific laws, rules, and regulations:

[i]
(iii) Aquacultured live rock. For a person to take or possess aquacultured live rock in the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ, a Federal aquacultured live rock permit must have been issued for the specific harvest site. Such permit, or a copy, must be on board a vessel depositing or possessing material on an aquacultured live rock site or harvesting or possessing live rock from an aquacultured live rock site.

Again according to the US Ocean Commission (which may be a completely unreliable source, for all I know), "In 1983, President Reagan proclaimed the U.S. EEZ, which occupies the area between 12 miles (the seaward limit of the territorial sea) and 200 miles offshore for international purposes."

That seems to me to imply that anything less than 12 nm offshore is outside the Federal regulation you cite.

stevek480
08/04/2010, 10:13 PM
Looking at the specific laws, rules, and regulations:


(iii) Aquacultured live rock. For a person to take or possess aquacultured live rock in the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ, a Federal aquacultured live rock permit must have been issued for the specific harvest site. Such permit, or a copy, must be on board a vessel depositing or possessing material on an aquacultured live rock site or harvesting or possessing live rock from an aquacultured live rock site.

(iv) Prohibited coral. A Federal permit may be issued to take or possess Gulf and South Atlantic prohibited coral or Caribbean prohibited coral only as scientific research activity, exempted fishing, or exempted educational activity. See 600.745 of this chapter for the procedures and limitations for such activities and fishing.

(v) Florida permits. Appropriate Florida permits and endorsements are required for the following activities, without regard to whether they involve activities in the EEZ or Florida's waters: (A) Landing in Florida fish or other marine organisms taken with an allowable chemical in a coral area.

Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/622-4-permits-and-fees-19896535#ixzz0vhC6aw9Q


I wonder if live rock farming even falls under aquaculturing?

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/622-4-permits-and-fees-19896535

After reading on S. 3417, it sounds like it specifically excludes the prohibition of live rock farming, unless I am mistaken.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3417.IS:

Section 3 prohibits offshore aquaculture until 3 years after a report is created on various aspects. However, in the definition section it states that offshore aquaculture does not include "the cultivation of mollusks, except cephalopods, or live rock in the exclusive economic zone;". So it sounds like live rock farming would not be prohibited by the bill. If section 704 was stricken from the house bill, you may be safe.

dwculp
08/04/2010, 10:28 PM
Richard, I believe you are safe!!

glextank
08/05/2010, 12:08 PM
Well I wrote both of my senators, and they are both D.

maynardjames
08/05/2010, 09:46 PM
Richard, I believe you are safe!!

i hope so