skipjack
November 07, 2009 | 02:30 PM

My bad, a typo in the article defined ahi as bigeye and skipjack tuna. CC of Hawaii is correct, it should have been bigeye and/or yellowfin, not skipjack (which is known as aku). CC is wrong, however, I am not a CA transplant, nor should it make a difference if I were. He is also incorrect that "the overwhelming majority of actual local people who live in the area are for it." That is false. I encourage anyone to read up on the impacts of ocean aquaculture operations worldwide, and then ask why would would invite the potential for such a wide array of negative impacts to our fragile oceans. But it sounds as though this reader already has made up his mind. My opinion is apparent in this "news and views section (that's why it is an "opinionated" article). But it was formulated after months of reading and research on this specific project, and aquaculture in general. The purpose of environmental laws is that impacts may be studied before they negatively impact things. In the case of HOT's proposed ahi industrial feedlot in the ocean, there are so many unstudied details that the project should not have been approved, even conditionally. That's why a contested case was filed. Keep on reading, and thanks for your comments, even though we do not agree.

Rob Parsons