Fish Farming in the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Marine Aquaculture’s Significance
Reasons for the Local Aquaculture’s Limitation
Strategies for the Development of Fish Farming in the United States
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Despite its size, the United States’ marine aquaculture may be currently regarded as the industry with great potential. The country’s long coastline and exclusive economic zone, available technologies, stable economic and legal system, skilled labor, and a substantively large seafood market contribute to the development of fish farming. However, for the United States marine aquaculture, social acceptance, and government regulatory policies are critically important. In the present day, the potential of the country’s fish farming is substantively limited by national, state, local, or tribal policies and opposition by national and local interest groups. Nevertheless, the supporters’ recent efforts and broad strategies may contribute to the advancement of marine aquaculture in the future.

Marine Aquaculture’s Significance

In general, fish farming plays a highly essential role in the global food market, while wild capture fisheries have already lost their dominating positions (Gentry et al. 1317). According to Knapp and Rubino, “aquaculture already provides about half of the world’s seafood supply, and future growth in supply will come from aquaculture” (214). Supported by scientific and technological innovations, environmentally responsible aquaculture creates opportunities for the production of nutritious food, create working laces, and maintain healthy oceans.

Despite the fact that the United States may be regarded as a large seafood consumer, its production does not meet domestic demand. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, from 80% to 90% of consumed seafood is imported in the country (Knapp and Rubino 214). Although the United States may increase its own supply from wild capture fisheries by ending overfishing, it will not be able to provide an appropriate amount of seafood for the domestic market (Lester et al. 7162). In addition, the dietary guidelines of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommend citizens to increase the current consumption of seafood (Knapp and Rubino 214). Consumers, companies that sell fishing equipment abroad, food service companies, and investors that earn on foreign production traditionally benefit from the import of seafood. However, American seafood companies have recently admitted the dependence between prices and seafood consumptions in other regions across the world. That is why the development of local fish farming that may reduce price fluctuations in the domestic market is becoming highly attractive.

Reasons for the Local Aquaculture’s Limitation

Despite the increasing interest in the development of domestic fish farming, there are specific reasons why this development is currently limited:

Marine aquaculture in the United States is relatively diverse, small, and unproven

A small size creates substantial economic challenges for the aquaculture industry in the United States. Despite its origin several decades ago, this industry is still economically disaggregated in comparison with commercial fishing, tourism, shipping, recreation, and real estate. In addition, due to its unstable position, marine aquaculture should consider the opposing interests of other industries.

Marine waters are defined as public resources

While the concept of private land ownership is generally accepted in American culture and law, marine waters are predominantly public resources. The tradition of public possession of wild organisms imposes certain extra regulatory and political responsibilities on commercial aquaculture. For other resources, leasing mechanisms are comparatively well-established, however, fish farming faces social, philosophical, and institutional resistance to growing aquatic species in public waters.

Citizens perceive an insignificant positive impact of fish farming and substantial negative effects

There are several groups of Americans for whom the impact of marine aquaculture will be negative. For instance, coastal residents are apprehensive about the limitation of access to the waterfront, reduction of real estate values, and changes in favorite sea views (Knapp and Rubino 216). Commercial fishermen want to avoid economic competition as well, and ordinary people frequently admit that marine aquaculture may harm marine ecosystems, lead to pollution, and increase pressure on international wild fish stocks.

Marine aquaculture in the United States faces substantial social opposition

As has been previously mentioned, a substantive number of Americans believe that the development of the fish farming industry may have a negative impact on the environment. However, this public opinion, politicians, regulators, and press are considerably influenced by private foundations that invest substantive effort and funding to advocate delaying, banning, regulating, or restricting marine aquaculture in the United States (Knapp and Rubino 217).

The government system for leasing and regulations decelerates aquaculture’s development

In general, the political challenges of the aquaculture industry in the United States are determined by permit or leasing regulations and policies of various agencies as local, state, and federal levels. As “regulatory authority for aquaculture in marine waters is divided among multiple branches of government at multiple levels of jurisdiction,” it takes much time to secure leases and regulatory approval critical for business development (Knapp and Rubino 217).

Strategies for the Development of Fish Farming in the United States

First of all, the aquaculture industry should address misconceptions and fix actual environmental problems as social acceptability connected with ecological concerns plays a highly significant role in its development. Moreover, marine aquaculture should demonstrate its social benefits that will overweight potential negative effects. Aquaculture’s critical local and national benefits may include public health and employment creation. In order to overcome substantive political challenges, the aquaculture industry may build a partnership with committed supporters that will include activists, elected officials, seafood farmers, chefs, journalists, and investors. In addition, marine aquaculture should argue more effectively with opponents and make attempts to reform governance that currently limits the industry’s potential.

Conclusion

Fish farming in the United States may be characterized by the potential that is currently limited by national, state, local, or tribal policies and opposition by national and local interest groups. However, the aquaculture community is fully aware of the industry’s political and social challenges. In the present day, it applies broad strategies to reshape the political paradigm and public opinion for the development of the local fish cultivation.

References

Gentry, Rebecca R., et al. “Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture.” Nature Ecology & Evolution, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 1317–1324.

Knapp, Gunnar, and Michael C. Rubino. “The political economics of marine aquaculture in the United States.” Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, vol. 24, no. 3, 2016, pp. 213-229.

Lester, Sarah E., et al. “Opinion: Offshore aquaculture in the United States: Untapped potential in need of smart policy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 28, 2018, pp. 7162-7165.

Click Here To Order Now!