Once thought of as a noble supplement to wild seafood, in some sectors where there has been a long-standing commercial and/or tribal fishery for similar market species, farmed fish has been viewed as a n unwelcomed competitor. This has resulted in fishermen allying with NGO's to fear-monger the risks of farmed fish to wild fish populations . A key risk that has been prominently featured is that of disease. Except for salmonids, across the US there is little federal oversight of fish diseases. It is more common for State resource agencies , with their stock enhancement programs, to be legally responsible for fish health regulations. While their long-standing experience with wild fish pathogens is to be respected, their policies and decision-making can often be lacking proper and rigorous risk assessment, transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability. Furthermore, cooperation between States for coordinated fish health policies is rare, causing for a patchwork of differing & independent regulations and applications across the US. This has had a negative effect on private aquaculture facilities who are often subject to expensive testing requirements, restrictions on stock movement, and outright stock destruction, without clear and agreed to justification . When the aquaculture industry has tried to push back against these policies it often encounters the precautionary principle/prove the negative stance. As these are resource agencies, edicts will give the wild fish the "benefit of the doubt" at the expense of the private sector. The welfare and growth of US aquaculture has been directly threatened by these policies. Examples will be given in the presentation with a list of potential solutions to what has become a crisis to US (and Canadian) aquaculture.