Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2014, 09:51:44 AM
(1) The legislature finds that nature has provided little to the people of the Pacific Northwest with a greater cultural, ecological, and economic value as the native runs of wild salmon that nurse in our local waters and, after an unimaginable journey, return home to repeat the ageless cycle. Although the natural rhythm of the salmonid pulses without human intervention, choices made by the residents of Washington can have a dramatic effect on the continuance of the very species that has served as a cornerstone of northwest culture for countless generations.
(2) The legislature further finds that the value of salmon exceeds culture, economy, and even the environment. Salmon, as a food source, represent a very need of human existence. So much so that an important and well-intended industry has taken to Washington waters and harnessed its clean, cool properties to raise salmon and other finfish in net pens.
(3) The legislature further finds that, although great investments continue to be made in net pen technology to avoid escapes, the use of genetically modified finfish in net pens create an unacceptable risk to the native salmon of the Pacific Northwest; genetics that are developed specifically and irreplaceably for each individual run of salmon.
(1) "Genetically engineered" means any organism or organisms in which the genetic material of the organism or organisms has been changed through the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques or the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles of the organism or organisms.
(1) No person may produce genetically engineered finfish in state waters.
(2) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. Each instance of a genetically engineered salmonid being produced is an individual violation of this section.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2143.pdf (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2143.pdf)
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2014, 09:54:26 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2014, 10:02:27 AM
No more triploids?
Honestly, I have no clue :chuckle:
The bill is so confusing that it really needs to be reviewed.
Post by: mossback91 on January 10, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
No more triploids?
Triploids aren't necessarily genetically engineered though are they? From what I understand a triploid could happen naturally. Nothing is removed or applied to the cells and so on.
All they do is change water temp the eggs are in
Post by: Special T on January 10, 2014, 10:28:47 AM
Post by: mossback91 on January 10, 2014, 10:35:09 AM
Triploids are made by changing water temps the fertilized eggs are in or changing pressure in it.
Post by: jackmaster on January 10, 2014, 10:39:00 AM
Post by: snowpack on January 10, 2014, 10:40:05 AM
:yeah: Could happen in a number of species naturally, but they do it with water temps. It is genetic engineering in a sense, just not in vitro, which looks like this bill focuses on.No more triploids?
Triploids aren't necessarily genetically engineered though are they? From what I understand a triploid could happen naturally. Nothing is removed or applied to the cells and so on.
All they do is change water temp the eggs are in
Post by: arees on January 10, 2014, 11:34:49 AM
What does "produce" mean in the 3rd item (1)? If I hatch them elsewhere were the produced there and just grown here?
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on January 22, 2014, 07:54:43 AM
No more triploids?
How are Triploids made?
If the egg is physically shocked shortly after fertilisation occurs, then it is possible to produce a fish with three sets of chromosomes, a triploid fish. The egg does not in fact manufacture an extra set for itself. The extra genetic information actually comes from the female parent and is present before fertilisation. Under normal unshocked fertilisation this information is lost from the egg as it is fertilised. But a shock, such as an increase in temperature, physical shaking or an increase in environmental pressure prevents this information leaving the fertilised cell. There is no genetic modification. Genes have not been changed or manufactured. The number of chromosomes are increased because a set are not lost on fertilisation. The fertilised egg is left with three copies of genetic information rather than two. Two from the mother, and one from the father. Triploid fish grow and develop as normal. After all they have the same information within them as diploid fish. But when it comes to producing eggs for themselves, the three sets of information do not divide conveniently and so no viable eggs are produced by hen fish. Triploid males do not produce viable sperm.
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 22, 2014, 08:44:17 AM
No more triploids?
Honestly, I have no clue :chuckle:
The bill is so confusing that it really needs to be reviewed.
The bill says salmon, not trout. Also, would this bill apply to the general public, wdfw and tribe hatcheries, or just the general public?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 22, 2014, 08:54:25 AM
The bill says salmon, not trout. Also, would this bill apply to the general public, wdfw and tribe hatcheries, or just the general public?
I think you could make the argument that trout are a salmon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout)
Post by: Dhoey07 on January 22, 2014, 09:15:44 AM
The bill says salmon, not trout. Also, would this bill apply to the general public, wdfw and tribe hatcheries, or just the general public?
I think you could make the argument that trout are a salmon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout)
I don't think you could. The state considers trout a game fish
(4) "Salmon" means all species of the genus Oncorhynchus, except
7 those classified as game fish in RCW 77.08.020, and includes:
8 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
9 Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon or king salmon
10 Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon or silver salmon
11 Oncorhynchus keta Chum or "keta" salmon
12 Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink salmon
13 Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye or "red" salmon
14 Salmo salar (in other than Atlantic salmon
I think what the bill is trying to do is get the farming of atlantic salmon out of Washington since it does not include triploids, tiger trout, or tiger musky
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 22, 2014, 09:30:28 AM
Post by: fastdam on January 22, 2014, 09:39:31 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 22, 2014, 09:41:24 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on January 22, 2014, 09:55:59 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 22, 2014, 09:59:03 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2014, 09:59:49 AM
It's interesting that the depleting of natural wild stocks of fish through hatchery production is not addressed at all. This has already proved to be a far bigger threat to our wild salmon and steelhead stocks than farmed fish, in my opinion.
Post by: nwwanderer on January 22, 2014, 10:24:49 AM
Post by: fastdam on January 22, 2014, 12:44:34 PM
Eugenics is something completely different :chuckle:
No its not.all genetic science is a continuation of Nazi eugenics programs. as a christian i would also call geneticly engineered animals abominations. God made life. The Devil corrupts it. Men are arrogant. Genetic engineering is a giant threat to all life on the planet.
Geneticly engineered fish are not going to keep populations from starving. Permaculture farming practices would help with that.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2014, 01:11:21 PM
Eugenics is something completely different :chuckle:
No its not.all genetic science is a continuation of Nazi eugenics programs. as a christian i would also call geneticly engineered animals abominations. God made life. The Devil corrupts it. Men are arrogant. Genetic engineering is a giant threat to all life on the planet.
Geneticly engineered fish are not going to keep populations from starving. Permaculture farming practices would help with that.
Really? On what do you base that opinion other than god, the devil, and abominations? Food technology absolutely helps feed more people every day and genetic engineering to increase yield is part of that.
Post by: fastdam on January 22, 2014, 01:42:56 PM
Also, i dont need another reason other than God to for that opinion. There is no better reason. God makes life and does a great job of it. Politics cause people to go hungry. Not a shortage of fish.
Post by: singleshot12 on January 22, 2014, 01:46:10 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2014, 03:00:05 PM
It is large agri-business that prevents people from taking care of themselves. The government often pays farmers to NOT farm thier fields. We all know that. Big agri-business uses toxic farming practices that hurt the land, and support legislation which interferes with the individuals ability to successfully produce food crops. Thier bottom line is ALWAYS profit and has nothinh to do with feeding hungry people. Large corporations work hand in hand with government. Both have been involved in depopulation efforts and that is the reason for many starving populations. Its poitical. Geneticly engineered fish farms are ran by these institutions and will have disregard for anything but profit. If you dont believe it then watch some documentaries. There is plenty of info out there that explains it.
Also, i dont need another reason other than God to for that opinion. There is no better reason. God makes life and does a great job of it. Politics cause people to go hungry. Not a shortage of fish.
I personally know of farms that aren't connected to big agra business, so using that scare tactic doesn't work. I'm also glad you have confidence in God, but using religion as a justification for passing laws is something the founding fathers were against. I am too. I have no intention of ignoring technology simply because someone's beliefs say it's evil. I'll stop short of giving my opinion about that.
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Post by: fastdam on January 22, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
The general notion that scientists have to create un-natural experimental lab creations to feed hungry people is absurd. Its only one food source and fish are abundant. The ocean is huge and has lots and lots of life in it.
You are what you eat, literally. I choose to trust God,nature and natural selection as opposed to politicians, scientists, corporations and governmental buerocrocies. You asked why i believed the way i believed and so i answered you.
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on January 22, 2014, 04:43:13 PM
The bill says salmon, not trout. Also, would this bill apply to the general public, wdfw and tribe hatcheries, or just the general public?
The Bill states:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 77.125 RCW
23 to read as follows:
24 (1) No person may produce genetically engineered finfish in state
25 waters.
26 (2) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. Each
27 instance of a genetically engineered salmonid being produced is an
28 individual violation of this section.
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on January 22, 2014, 05:10:30 PM
It only takes a few to escape and breed. Once that happens, AquaBounty will legally own every salmon in the ocean. The potential for accidental release is huge. There is no such thing as a release proof hatchery. It will only take a few. Also, No sterilization technique is 100%. AquaBounty: "sterilization technique is not foolproof." Especially when you are dealing with millions of eggs at a time.
Another quote I came across in an article.
In June 2011, NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco released a National Aquaculture Policy to guide how marine aquaculture proceeds in our ocean waters. While the policy includes some strong environmental provisions, it does not categorically prohibit the growing of GE fish in the ocean. It should. The profit models for this fish to produce big bucks all require growing in the ocean. As soon as that happens, the seals/sea lions will tear the nets to shreads just like they do today with the atlantic salmon. It will all be over with in a flash.
There is no requirement to label these fish in the market place. They will be labeled Salmon.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 23, 2014, 05:59:34 AM
People rely on thier personal ideals to decide if they support laws or do not. Religion has a huge impact on peoples ideals. There is nothing wrong with that. Nor did the founding fathers have a problem with people practicing thier religion the way they see fit.
The general notion that scientists have to create un-natural experimental lab creations to feed hungry people is absurd. Its only one food source and fish are abundant. The ocean is huge and has lots and lots of life in it.
You are what you eat, literally. I choose to trust God,nature and natural selection as opposed to politicians, scientists, corporations and governmental buerocrocies. You asked why i believed the way i believed and so i answered you.
The ocean has far less life in it than it did only 20 years ago. The notion that there's plenty of fish and we don't need to do anything to sustain that is at best, uninformed, as evidenced by dwindling stocks of sea bass, different species of tuna, and many other species which were formerly abundant. If the world continues to eat fish and our population continues to grow, aquaculture will be increasingly necessary to meet demand. Because I don't subscribe to the belief that the world is coming to its end as fulfillment of prophecy and dwindling sea resources are just a symptom of that, I want to see advances in seafood production, advances which include anything that will safely and responsibly produce more fish.
I do respect your beliefs. We just don't share the same ones. We'll have to disagree on this one, Fast. Thanks for the civil discourse. :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 23, 2014, 06:05:23 AM
The biggest scare is accidental release into the wild. A quote I came across in an article. "According to a Purdue University computer model that tracked the effects of releasing just 60 "Frankenfish" into a population of 60,000, there was a complete extinction of the normal fish in just 40 fish generations. It appears the larger size, which attracted mates more easily, combined with a slight reduction in survival rates, was a killer combination." The Canadians are in an uproar over this.
It only takes a few to escape and breed. Once that happens, AquaBounty will legally own every salmon in the ocean. The potential for accidental release is huge. There is no such thing as a release proof hatchery. It will only take a few. Also, No sterilization technique is 100%. AquaBounty: "sterilization technique is not foolproof." Especially when you are dealing with millions of eggs at a time.
Another quote I came across in an article.
In June 2011, NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco released a National Aquaculture Policy to guide how marine aquaculture proceeds in our ocean waters. While the policy includes some strong environmental provisions, it does not categorically prohibit the growing of GE fish in the ocean. It should. The profit models for this fish to produce big bucks all require growing in the ocean. As soon as that happens, the seals/sea lions will tear the nets to shreads just like they do today with the atlantic salmon. It will all be over with in a flash.
There is no requirement to label these fish in the market place. They will be labeled Salmon.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are three salmon farms in BC right now which are being used to write the new Canadian standards for commercial fish farming. They have solved problems of waste and contamination, parasite introduction, and escape. The government has closely monitored their success. In the US with some in WA, there are quite a few new plants designed in the same fashion.