Countdown for the Comment Period on Sohn Geoduck Permit - March 31, 2015

"Two on a Log", Bald Eagle residents of Zangle Cove.

These two Bald Eagles are our resident pair on Zangle Cove. They sit on their nest every day! They feed in the exact location of the proposed geoduck farm. Bald Eagles caught in geoduck nets have been photographed more than once.

We want to save the habitat of these very special residents of our neighborhood!

Please send your comments on the proposed industrial geoduck farm by March 31, 2015, before the end of the comment period. Write to:

Tony Kantas, Senior Planner, Thurston County, kantasK@co.thurston.wa.us 

CC: wilsonc@co.thurston.wa.us,  davisj@co.thurston.wa.us,  kainm@co.thurston.wa.us,  osbornc@co.thurston.wa.us,  mccorms@co.thurston.wa.us,  murphyb@co.thurston.wa.us, Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil, protectzanglecove@gmail.com

Reference Case 2014108800, Sohn Geoduck Farm
Go to http://protectzanglecove.org/action.html for ideas about your letter.

Permit Application for Sohn Industrial Geoduck Farm Now Published

This photo is of the Hammond geoduck farm, run by Allen Shellfish, just around the bend from us. 

One of the biggest concerns is the cummulative impacts of industrial geoduck farms that take more and more of the tideland. 90% of Totten Inlet tidelands now contain shellfish aquaculture, primarily industrial geoduck aquaculture.

Thurston County published the Notice of Application for the Sohn industrial geoduck farm on Zangle Cove on 3/12/15. We received a copy in the mail today. April 1, 2015 is the deadline for comment. 

Send comments to: Tony Kantas , Cindy Wilson , davisj@co.thurston.wa.us, murphyb@co.thurston.wa.us, kainm@co.thurston.wa.us, osbornc@co.thurston.wa.us, mccorms@co.thurston.wa.us, "Sanguinetti, Pamela NWS"

Our Lovely Geoducks

Other than a great deal of money for the shellfish industry, what are we filling up our tidelands with plastics and liquefying our beaches for?

Geoducks are air-freighted to elite markets in China and Hong Kong because geoduck are considered to be an aphrodisiac. We are not feeding the poor and the hungry. The shellfish industry, with the blessing of the Puget Sound Partnership, is ruining our tidelands in order to exploit virility fantasies.

See article by Dr. Liesa Harte, MD titled Aprodisiacs Part I.

Industrial Geoduck Farming DOES Impact the Tidelands

Totten Inlet Geoduck Farm.

This photo along with hundreds of other photos of geoduck farms tells the story--that the claim perpetuated by the shellfish industry, even in legal documents, that geoduck farms do not seriously impact the tidelands, is a falsehood. A fragile sea anemone colony, for example would be trampled and unlikely to re-establish. There is a chain of life on the tideland that is simply destroyed.

Science Related to Geoduck Aquaculture

Industrial geoduck aquaculture on Totten Inlet, 2006

We have known for a long time that one of the issues related to industrial geoduck farming on Puget Sound tidelands is related to "regulatory capture" by the industry and the money spent on lawyers and lobbying along with multitudes of "consultants." There is a great deal that can be said about this, but let us start by reading one of the decisions regarding an appeal and the granting of the permit by Thurston County in 2010.

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/agenda-staff-report/shellfish-hearing/exhibits/2010100420.decision-on-reconsideration.thiesen.pdf

See page 37. The hearing examiner sates that:

"The peer reviewed scientific studies and articles offered in opposition to the proposal appear to be based in sound scientific methods and their results, and results of further studies on the same topics, would be appropriately considered in review of individual geoduck farm applications. However the weight of scientific evidence in favor of the project is found to be greater..."

If one study says "good" and the other study says "bad", does the Hearing Examiner have the scientific credentials to declare for one and trash the other? If several studies say "good" and only one study says "bad", even if the latter is based on "sound scientific methods," is the fact that there are more "good" than "bad" mean that "good" wins?

Did the Hearings Examiner actually read the studies or was she just saying 5 studies are obviously more conclusive than one?  Is this really related to "science"?