Betting the farm

Hasty permission for vast fish farms endangers Gulf fisheries and the humans who depend on them

World fish consumption has grown at a furious pace in recent decades, and with good reason. A forkful of fish offers lean, tasty protein, with omega-3 acids and other endowments that might ward off cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's.

But a hasty federal plan to allow massive fish farms in the Gulf of Mexico could wreck that ecosystem's health and devastate the livelihoods of coastal residents.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council wants to give 10-year permits to "aquaculture" farmers to raise fish in vast offshore cages. Scheduled to decide on the idea this month, the council must slow down and retool its proposal alongside experts who fully grasp its many risks.

The Gulf Council is a regional advisory body to the federal fishery agency; if it approves the fish farm proposal, the federal government will accept it as well.

The council, which is meant to represent all stakeholders in the Gulf fishing system, was en route to approving the fish farms this summer when environmentalists and fishermen found out and called for hearings. Last month, 250 coastal advocates packed meetings from Houston to Sarasota, Fla., to complain about this untested, hastily crafted plan.

Their testimony revealed the many loopholes in the plan to permit Gulf aquaculture — a type of industrial fish farming still in its early forms in this country. Other aquaculture experiments, as well as freshwater fish farms, have already produced some disastrous outcomes. The Gulf, one of the world's most prolific wild fisheries, is also one of its most fragile and could quickly founder in the presence of ill-planned fish farms.

These farms are gigantic cages or nets in which baby fish are fed and raised under the waves. The council's proposal doesn't specify the type of structure to be used — potentially exposing the Gulf to ill-designed farms that could break apart in violent weather or from normal wear and tear.

If they do, the escape of the farmed fish, even if they are the same species as those swimming wild, could be lethal. The hybrid offspring can inherit traits of the farmed fish and fail to survive in the wild.

Farmed fish can also bring with them parasites, disease and enormous amounts of unused nutrients and waste — still more threats the farm proposal doesn't fully address.

All have the potential to decimate or destroy wild marine life. This month, Science magazine reported one of the worst-case scenarios:

The proliferation of salmon farms in British Columbia has coincided with the lethal spread of sea lice, killing more than 80 percent of the wild salmon that migrated near the farms. Data collected since the 1970s showed infestations only appearing in 2001, when the fish farms expanded.

An official in the U.S. fisheries agency argued that "correlation is not the same thing as demonstrating a cause and effect." But the Gulf, a major source of Texans' income and recreation, is no place to test the equation further.

There needs to be a stable and wholesome supply of fish. Worldwide consumption has grown almost 9 percent a year since 1970, and about 80 percent of the fish on Americans' plates is imported. Many wild fisheries are weak or collapsing.

Federal officials say fish farming is crucial to balance this national "seafood deficit." But gambling with the Gulf's irreplaceable resources could be costly beyond belief. The fisheries council should halt plans to decide on its proposal anytime soon.

Instead, it should carefully and methodically address the plan's many gaps, working with the environmentalists and fishermen who understand the Gulf's fragility — and its incalculable value. It's better to have a "seafood deficit" than a full disappearance.

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle