So you’re saying they would, in fact, check/sanitize the water.
There is a current (double meaning intended) problem with species that properly belong in the Red Sea, turning up in the Mediterranean, thanks to the Suez Canal.
You do realize we’re talking not about fresh water, but about about the ocean, sea water, and its transportation - right? Are you claiming that ocean-going vessels stop and undergo inspection when they cross state lines?
I’d be interested to hear of any evidence that such an inspection has ever been done. Given how unusual the truck-borne transportation of seawater must be, and how little of it ever makes it back to the ocean in a substantially different place, this looks like a silly thing (not that being silly means it’s impossible).
Right. And given the amount of water moved by ships from one part of the ocean to another vs. that moved by truck (the ratio probably exceeds millions to 1), it makes little sense to inspect the latter until substantial effort is devoted to the former.
See, there are inspections and regulations around the former. And this is the false dilemma fallacy you’re using, BTW - we can easily do both.
Boston’s aquarium is on a pier. They just pump seawater from right below, through a filter.
The fact is that once there’s a tank full of saltwater, all you have to do to keep it filled is add fresh water. The salt doesn’t evaporate, just the water.
As I linked up thread, they are not trucking in seawater. They chemically alter fresh water.
Right, and once there’s a tank full of saltwater, all you have to do to keep it filled is add fresh water. The salt doesn’t evaporate, just the water.
A lobster restaurant featured on Diners Drivesins and Dives does this for their lobster tanks. Can’t get any fresher than that!
Many years ago on a sailing/diving trip I took in the Keys, we caught a couple of spiny lobsters and used them in the pasta we cooked on board. That’s pretty fresh!
Where does one look to find evidence of these? (We’re talking, remember, about the movement of ocean-going vessels from one state to another.)
FWIW, I recently sailed a 42-ft sloop from Rhode Island to South Carolina (and thus through the waters of ~8 states) without encountering any such inspection.
The regulations aren’t specific to salt-water vessels, but do cover them. Examples include the Oregon legislation. There are similar regulations in other states. The concern is mostly with trailered boats, and foreign ships coming into e.g the Great Lakes from over the ocean. Travelling up-and-down the same open coast isn’t quite the same concern. But move a ship from RI to California through the Caribbean and Panama, and I’m damn sure the inspectors at your California POE will want to have a look at your boat.
Well, California definitely has inspection of watercraft for freshwater invasive species, very similar to those in the link you provided for Oregon. But how are such inspections relevant to the question of trucking ocean water to an aquarium?
As I mentioned earlier, the Lacey Act is the relevant Federal regulation for any such thing.
As others have mentioned, pretty much nobody ends up doing this, so trying to find an actual concrete example of it happening is unlikely, but that appears to be the regulation under which they could do an inspection if someone actually did it.
The Oregon inspections cover both freshwater and saltwater - likely California does too. They definitely have regs about foreign (i.e. non-local, not non-US) ships cleaning out their bilges in deep water, before docking.
You were the one who said inspections were not done, or needed. I said they were, in fact, needed, because there’s fuck-all functional difference between a bilge and a tank, when it comes to transporting invasives. So there’s your relevance.
This would be the case if there had ever been a case of an invasive species spread by the trucking of seawater. Given how rare such truckage, and within that how rarely that water is carried to another part of the ocean (as opposed to, say, an aquarium), I suspect it will be very hard to find any evidence of the need for inspection, and essentially impossible to show that such inspection could be cost-effective.
You’ve never heard of the Precautionary Principle, have you?
And it doesn’t matter if this particular mode of transporting seawater is rare. What matters is that we know it is **functionally identical to other methods **of transporting seawater that we know have causedpretty catastrophic invasive episodes, that have fucked over entire seas’ ecosystems and the dependent human economies. Transporting unprocessed seawater around, is transporting seawater around, no matter how you do it - it’s a good idea to check it for hazardous content. We do that all the time for freshwater invasives, why wouldn’t we do it for seawater ones?
Unless you can show a functional difference between bilges and tankers, that is…
Your argument works equally well for roadblocks and inspections to insure that no one is carrying, say, vials of anthrax across state lines. Wouldn’t it make sense to take precautions against what could obviously be a very nasty threat?
Well no, actually. The cost of such inspections and the actual rate at which people smuggle anthrax across state lines makes this idea quite silly.
I have it on good authority that Anthrax will be smuggled from Luxembourg into Germany 6/6, and then into Switzerland 6/9 :). Actually, I’m surprised that the dates are posted online in one convenient location.