Frequently Asked Questions


Q.  The shellfish aquaculture industry claims that geoduck farming is good for the environment.  Is this true?

A.  No.  In reality, the shellfish industry is responsible for damage to the environment.  Depletion of native species, introduction of harmful invasives, the use of chemical insecticides and disruption to fish habitat are just a few examples of environmental damage.  The shellfish industry commonly uses self serving pseudo science to justify it's practices.  However, natural populations of native shellfish in the marine environment does provide benefits in terms of nutrient filtering and structered habitat. 

Q.  Do geoduck farms clean the water?

A.  Geoducks filter and consume plankton and excrete feces as waste.  Plankton is an important nutrient for a number of other aquatic species and is naturally present in the marine environment.  Also, the total geoduck biomass in Puget Sound renders the filtering of farmed geoduck to be irrelevant.  Geoduck farmers actually want to install their operations in areas of planktonic abundance.  In the wild, geoduck are stimulated to spawn due to increased water temperature and increased plankton blooms.  So the argument: 'geoduck clean the water' is a totally false and misleading statement.

Q.  Why does the shellfish aquaculture industry claim themselves as champions of clean water?

A.  The shellfish industry is referring to pathogens, such as fecal coliform bacteria.  The shellfish industry cannot sell shellfish infected with pathogens from sewage contamination and is thus required to monitor water quality regularly.

Q.  The shellfish and geoduck industry promotes themselves as environmental heroes.  Are they considerate of fish and bird habitat?

A.  Generally not.  They're interested in making money as a business by exploiting Puget Sound's tidelands.  If they were interested in fish, bird and other wildlife habitat of the intertidal, they would have waited to expand operations until baseline studies had been completed.

Q.  What about Endangered Species Listed salmon and steelhead?

A.  The shellfish industry claims that geoduck farms are good for juvenile salmon.  NO scientific studies can substantiate this claim.  The South Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Group lists 'shellfish aquaculture' as a 'stressor' to salmon populations.

Q.  How does shellfish aquaculture impact salmon and fish habitat.

A.  The shellfish industry uses plastic mesh bags, PVC pipes, and large anti-predator canopy nets to cover intertidal substrata areas.  Salmon, sole, flounder, and a large number of other aquatic species use the natural functions of this habitat for feeding.  Endangered Chinook salmon and flounder both have similar benthic diets, and some of these prey taxa are depressed by tubes and nets.  Conversely,  tubes and nets can provide a surface for algae growth and production of epibenthic prey, but it is not known if salmon will feed over geoduck sites.  It is also not known how geoduck structures affect migration patterns of salmon, or the effects of the constant ongoing removal/replacement of tubes, nets and bags.

Q.  Is shellfish aquaculture documented as a stressor to fish habitat and salmon populations?

A.  Yes.  For one example please:  Click here. 

Q.  What about the social disruptions caused by shellfish aquaculture expanding into non traditional and residential areas?

A.  Generally, profits are the primary goal of the shellfish industry.

Q.  What about the loss of traditional and recreational sport fishing grounds?  Does the shellfish industry respond to this issue?

A.  No.  There has not been much consideration given to this issue by the shellfish aquaculture industry.

Q.  Does the plastic tubes (PVC - polyvinyl chloride) used in geoduck aquaculture contain Bisphenol A (BPA) or Phthalates?

A.  Yes, the plastic pipes used in geoduck aquaculture contain Phthalates.  According to a University of Washington study: 'Plastics: Possible Impacts on Children's Health', Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units: "Phthalates are man-made chemicals used as a 'plasticizer' in a variety of industrial and commonly used products.  These chemicals are anti-androgenic, and can adversely impact androgen sensitive tissues during specific windows of development."

Q.  How many companies are pursuing geoduck aquaculture in South Puget Sound?

A.  Primarily three: Taylor Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and Chelsea Shellfish.  Additionally, the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and various other private, state, county and federal agencies work to assist the shellfish aquaculture industry in expanding into inappropriate areas of South Puget Sound.

Q.  Is geoduck farmed in its natural habitat?

A.  No, geoduck is mainly a subtidal animal.  Geoduck is farmed in the intertidal zone using plastic pipes and nylon nets for predator exclusion.

Q.  What about natural densities?  Are geoduck farmed in natural densities as they occur in the subtidal?

A.  No, absolutely not.  Not only are geoducks farmed in the intertidal, which is not their natural habitat, they are farmed in densities that are many times their densities in the wild. 

Q.  Has the Washington State Department of Natural Resources done a good job of managing the subtidal geoduck harvest?

A.  No.  Areas have been overfished and harvest boundaries have been violated on a number of subtidal tracts. 

Q.  Are geoducks an aphrodisiac or do they have properties of male enhancement?

A.  No, absolutely not.  Some Asian cultures believe this is the case because of the geoduck's profound phallic appearance.

Q.  Are geoducks a valuable food source.

A.  No.   Salmon has three times the calories, twice the protein, and five times the healthy Omega 3's as geoduck, but at one third the price.

Q.  Why is geoduck so expensive?

A.  The demand is driven by the false cultural belief that geoducks have properties of aphrodisia.  More than 95% of geoduck is sold to Asian markets. 

Q.  The shellfish aquaculture industry claims that geoduck farming is good for the economy.  Is this true?

A.  No, this statement has not been quantified or substantiated.  Because geoduck are largely exported, sales and excise taxes are avoided, depriving Washington state and Puget Sound counties of significant revenues.  Since tidelands are taxed at only $3. per acre, substantial tax revenues to Puget Sound counties are avoided.  Yet the shellfish industry's clean water initiatives, in which they gain financially, cause great expenses to be incurred by taxpayers in lieu of other programs.  The truth is: only a handful of individuals stand to gain substantially from geoduck aquaculture. 

Q.  Does shellfish aquaculture help balance the seafood trade imbalance and the overall trade deficit.

A.  The U.S. exports over 70% of its seafood products to other countries while importing about 80% of seafood from foreign countries; primarily China.  We export our high quality seafood and import cheaper farmed seafood products to consume here.  This is a business and policy issue/problem that cannot ever be solved by exporting our shellfish overseas. 

Q.  Why is the shellfish aquaculture industry moving into traditional and historic recreational and residential areas of South Sound?

A.  Money and greed.  The South Sound has optimum conditions for geoduck aquaculture: clean pristine waters, abundance of planktonic nutrients, suitable intertidal substrate, proper salinity and proximity to processing facilities. 

Q.  Has the government of British Columbia, Canada, banned new intertidal geoduck aquaculture?

A.  Yes.  The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands used to state that this was: "due to the lack of understanding on the effects of geoduck aquaculture techniques to fish habitat".  Because of pressure from the shellfish aquaculture industry, this now says: "while the policy for intertidal geoduck culture is under review".

Q.  What is hypoxia?

A.  'Hypoxia' is low dissolved oxygen, or 'anoxia': absence of oxygen.  It is caused by a number of factors, including an over-abundance of shellfish.  Other causes: algal or plankton blooms, decaying plant and animal matter and riparian loss.  Plankton blooms can occur naturally and can be exacerbated by septic and fertilizer runoff. 

Q.  The shellfish aquaculture industry claims that geoduck farming improves hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) in Puget Sound.  Is this true?

A.  No, this has not been scientifically substantiated.  In fact, too much geoduck can contribute to hypoxia in 2 ways: geoduck as aerobic consumers of oxygen, and from feces deposition increasing organic carbon levels and hence, sediment oxygen demand.

Q.  Is hypoxia caused by upland development?

A.  In Hood Canal, the hypoxic conditions are primarily caused by the nitrogen leached from decaying alder leaves, a result of massive clearcutting of evergreens.  Reforestation to native evergreens would be the best solution to hypoxia in Hood Canal.  Residential upland development (septic and fertilizer runoff) accounts for about 10% of the hypoxia problem in Hood Canal. 

Q.  What about oysters?  Are they good for the environment?

A.  Yes.  A natural abundance of shellfish are important to the ecosystem.  Oysters are particularly beneficial.  One oyster can filter as much as 60 gallons of water per day.  Oysters are superior at sequestering carbon and provide natural habitat to crab and other filter feeders, such as barnacles.

Q.  What about invasive species?

A.  The shellfish industry has introduced a number of harmful invasive species, while contributing to the near extinction of the native Olympia oyster.  The Pacific oyster is an invasive species, as is the oyster drill from Japan.  Mediterranean mussels are invasive, as are Manila clams.  Aquaculture is the number one method of introduction of invasive species in Puget Sound.   Marine invasive species are a major threat to biodiversity and have profound ecological and economic impacts.

Q.  Does CISA oppose all shellfish aquaculture?

A.  No, absolutely not.  CISA supports reasonable scale, eco-friendly oyster culture in rural areas such as Willapa Bay.  CISA does not support shellfish aquaculture expansion in Puget Sound.