But local fishing expert John Barnes doubted that the proposal would be practical, and said such a plan could not work in Bermuda's very deep waters. "Like most countries, the US claims a 200-mile economic zone," said Mr. Barnes, "and so do we. One of the main criticisms of fish farming is that it has mainly taken place in inshore waters, and in some cases the fish have been genetically modified to try to improve production; in other cases, there were total introductions, like Atlantic salmon into Chile.
"A concern is that if fish escape, they could change the natural fish population in a particular habitat. And with fish farming, you have the fish much more concentrated than in the wild, which leads to disease and pollution."
Mr. Barnes said that open ocean fishing would solve some of the problems of concentration of food and faeces, because offshore currents would help in their dispersal, and inshore fish farming gave rise to strong environmental opposition, but he saw the feeding of fish in open ocean conditions and the maintenance of facilities out at sea as serious difficulties.
"It would depend on what they want to grow," Mr. Barnes advised. "Cages of sea scallops or crabs on the bottom could work. That's why open ocean farming couldn't work here; you can go quite a long way out on the US continental shelf, and still be in relatively shallow water.
"Here, once you're a mile offshore, it's a mile down! A few inshore fish farming-type operations were tried here, but there was only a modest success with scallops and shellfish. The economies of scale weren't available to make fish farming commercially feasible here. The cost of bringing the feed in would be excessive."
Another local fishing expert was more dismissive of the US plan, and although he did not believe that farming in open ocean waters hundreds of miles away would pose a serious danger to local fish species, there was always a concern about the possibility of genetically-modified or introduced stock escaping cages and upsetting the natural order.
"We already have a problem here with lionfish, and they arrived recently, and naturally, from Florida waters. The Gulf Stream has a very beneficial effect on Bermuda generally, but it does sometimes guide the wrong species in our direction. The lionfish is poisonous and colourful, with long spines, and touching the spines can be very serious.
"There was an attempt to farm dolphin fish, or mahi-mahi, at Ferry Reach. It was research, but the idea was to expand into a farm, and it didn't work here. I saw something on this new plan from Alaska, and I can't really believe that anyone is thinking seriously of doing it very far offshore. It may be another way of underscoring the claim to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone."
"There have been reports of allowing salmon farming beyond the 12-mile limit in Alaska, and this may be the legal 'stalking-horse' for that plan. But open ocean fish farming would be a monumental challenge; there are so many problems to solve.
"Not only do you have to moor very large cages in deeper water offshore, and deep enough not to pose a hazard to shipping, farmed fish have always been fed on the surface.
"The cages would need some form of automated feeders, and a service boat would have to go out to bring up the feeders, fill them, lower them again and distribute feed automatically until the boat went out again. It would be a very difficult and expensive process," said the expert.
"I think that there are no laws developed beyond the three-mile limit, and it sounds to me like a way to give formal legislative jurisdiction to the US. "There may be some relatively sheltered and sufficiently shallow coastal waters between three and 12 miles offshore where you could do effective moorings and this plan could work, but they must be few and far between. "The problem in Alaska is that the economy is based mostly on oil and the oil reserves are in decline. Also, the natural salmon harvest is not what it used to be, and this may be a way to turn some fishermen into fish farmers. Environmentalists are concerned about damage to the natural salmon industry."
Indeed, Rebecca Goldberg, a senior scientist at the advocacy group Environmental Defence, told the Washington Post that she was "really disappointed" at the lack of environmental standards for offshore fish farming; the Commerce Secretary would determine whether a proposed operation satisfied federal environmental rules in the course of issuing a permit.
They did not want to stand in the way of aquaculture, she said, "but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't hurt marine ecosystems, and doesn't cause harm to commercial . . . or recreational fishermen".
THE US lags the rest of the world in fish farming, accounting for less than three per cent of world aquaculture. NOAA officials want to quintuple domestic fish farming by 2025, and their permit proposal for farms in federal waters three miles to 200 miles offshore would create commercial zones operating under ten-year renewable leases. They said that offshore fish farming "would complement, not compete with, wild-catch fisheries".
"Bush officials and some scientists say submersible fish cages in the open ocean are less polluting and less vulnerable to being ripped open and allowing farmed fish to escape than in-shore fish farms," reported the Post.
While the legislation to implement the new plan is being introduced by Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, even he was said to be concerned about the programme's effect on commercial fishermen.
Laura Fleming, public relations director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute told the Mid-Ocean News that "the issue is certainly receiving some animated discussion in Alaska.
"Commercial fishermen and some biologists are not convinced it's a sound idea, while in political spheres, the prevailing message is that economic development opportunities are welcome.
"Most politicians want to ensure that new development opportunities don't threaten existing healthy fisheries."
Mark Vinsel, executive director of United Fishermen of Alaska was dismissive of the effort.
He told the Mid-Ocean News that "we don't think the legislation is aimed at Alaska's waters, and Senator Stevens' amendment to allow States to prevent it off their waters is meant to address the negative position towards finfish farming held by a wide majority of Alaska fishermen and coastal communities."
He agreed with those who have serious objections to the environmental depredations of fish farming, and the dangers posed by escaping fish.
"Alaska banned fish farms in 1990. The concept of privatising our offshore waters is at odds with the State Constitution.
"(We) are already concerned by the escape of farmed non-indigenous Atlantic salmon grown on farms in neighbouring British Columbia which can compete with our wild fish in feeding and spawning areas, and introduce diseases."
------------
For further reading concerning industrial fish-farming goto www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish