State bans controversial industry with landmark ruling: 'I don't believe that cost is worth it'
In a win for marine conservation, Washington state has permanently banned commercial fish farming in its waters.
The Washington State Board of Natural Resources announced it voted to prohibit commercial net pen aquaculture on state-owned waters, marking the end of a 40-year industry in Puget Sound.
The decision means Washington is the first place worldwide to remove and permanently ban commercial net pens. This move will help safeguard wild salmon populations and the endangered orcas that depend on them.
The ban follows a 2018 incident where a net pen collapsed off Cypress Island, releasing over 250,000 Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound.
Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz emphasized the environmental stakes: "No one can say these facilities don't have an impact. They do. There's a cost to our agency, there's a cost to our waters and our bedlands, there's a cost to our salmon and our orcas. I don't believe that cost is worth it."
While many celebrated this as a victory for ocean health, some tribal leaders and industry experts raised concerns.
Ron Allen, chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, pointed to the potential economic impacts. "The board has chosen to prioritize politics and misinformation over scientific evidence and collaborative stewardship," he told the Global Seafood Alliance. "Even more troubling is the disregard shown for our Tribe's sovereign rights to utilize our marine resources in our own fishery for the economic betterment of the Tribe."
To address these concerns, the rule includes exceptions for hatcheries that restore or boost native fish stocks. This provision helps maintain tribal fishing rights while supporting wild salmon recovery efforts.
Other tribal nations strongly support the ban. Lisa Wilson, Lummi Indian Business Council member, stated, "Banning net pens is not only a step toward environmental stewardship, but also a critical measure to uphold and respect the Treaty rights of all Tribes. The Lummi nation stands firm in our commitment to safeguarding our shared resources and cultural heritage."
Should we be harnessing the ocean to power our homes?
Absolutely
Leave it be
It depends
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
The DNR reports 80% of public comments backed the ban. Emma Helverson, executive director of the Wild Fish Conservancy, praised the decision, saying, "Their leadership reflects an understanding that the pollution and detrimental effects of this industry directly undermine public, tribal and government efforts to protect and restore wild salmon and starving orcas."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Trying to satisfy Trump, NATO is running into difficulties
In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. Advertisement It has already driven an effort by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of GDP on core military spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. Advertisement And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat, and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges, and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. Advertisement In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the PR move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' The proposal may have helped Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Advertisement There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump And Tucker Carlson Are Feuding, And Today It Escalated Even More
President Donald Trump escalated his feud with his one-time vocal ally Tucker Carlson, telling reporters Monday that no one is paying attention to the former Fox News host or his concerns about Israel's military action in Iran. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' the president said after Carlson, a highly watched Fox News personality until his 2023 firing, accused Trump of being 'complicit' in Israel's attacks on Iran. President Trump responds to Tucker Carlson's comments that he is complicit in the war. Trump: "I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen." — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 16, 2025 @yashar / Via Carlson raised his concerns in a Friday newsletter, lashing out at Trump after Israel launched attacks that killed hundreds of Iranians on Thursday. 'While the American military may not have physically perpetrated the assault, years of funding and sending weapons to Israel, which Donald Trump just bragged about on Truth Social, undeniably place the U.S. at the center of last night's events,' Carlson wrote. Related: Well, Well, Well, For The Second Time In 2 Weeks, People Are Letting JD Vance Know EXACTLY How They Feel About Him In Public 'They aided Israel in carrying them out. Politicians purporting to be America First can't now credibly turn around and say they had nothing to do with it. Our country is in deep,' his newsletter continued. Related: This Dem Lawmaker Is Going Viral For His Extremely Shady Question To Secretary Kristi Noem Trump responded Saturday in an Atlantic interview. 'Well, considering that I'm the one that developed 'America First,' and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides that,' Trump said, adding: 'For those people who say they want peace—you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that's not peace.' Carlson remained firm in his stance during an appearance on Steve Bannon's podcast Monday. 'You're not going to convince me that the Iranian people are my enemy,' he said to Bannon, who served as one of Trump's chief strategists during his first term in the White House. The U.S. is 'on the cusp of entering a war on behalf of a political leader in a faraway country that's going to really hurt my country,' Carlson continued, adding: 'I just don't want my country to be further weakened or destroyed by another one of these wars.' This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: This Conservative Said He Wears A Fake ICE Uniform For A Really, Really, Really Gross Reason Also in In the News: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week Also in In the News: "Let Them Eat Teslas": People At The "No Kings" Protests This Weekend Brought Signs That Were So Clever I'm Still Laughing About Them
Buzz Feed
3 days ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump Escalates His Feud With Tucker Carlson Over Israel And Iran
President Donald Trump escalated his feud with his one-time vocal ally Tucker Carlson, telling reporters Monday that no one is paying attention to the former Fox News host or his concerns about Israel's military action in Iran. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' the president said after Carlson, a highly watched Fox News personality until his 2023 firing, accused Trump of being 'complicit' in Israel's attacks on Iran. President Trump responds to Tucker Carlson's comments that he is complicit in the war. Trump: "I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen." — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 16, 2025 @yashar / Via Carlson raised his concerns in a Friday newsletter, lashing out at Trump after Israel launched attacks that killed hundreds of Iranians on Thursday. 'While the American military may not have physically perpetrated the assault, years of funding and sending weapons to Israel, which Donald Trump just bragged about on Truth Social, undeniably place the U.S. at the center of last night's events,' Carlson wrote. 'They aided Israel in carrying them out. Politicians purporting to be America First can't now credibly turn around and say they had nothing to do with it. Our country is in deep,' his newsletter continued. Trump responded Saturday in an Atlantic interview. 'Well, considering that I'm the one that developed 'America First,' and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides that,' Trump said, adding: 'For those people who say they want peace—you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that's not peace.' Carlson remained firm in his stance during an appearance on Steve Bannon's podcast Monday. 'You're not going to convince me that the Iranian people are my enemy,' he said to Bannon, who served as one of Trump's chief strategists during his first term in the White House. The U.S. is 'on the cusp of entering a war on behalf of a political leader in a faraway country that's going to really hurt my country,' Carlson continued, adding: 'I just don't want my country to be further weakened or destroyed by another one of these wars.'
