Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs
- Thread starter Ken Kurtis
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
FrankPro1
Contributor
My initial fear was that this was some type of backdoor that fishermen could use to get permits for commercial or recreational take within the SMCA's.
I asked Debbie Karimoto from OCDiving.org about these "specified activites permitted by other agenices" and she responded with this:
That is essentially due to various pre-existing maintenance issues that were debated ad nauseum over the last few months. The new SMCAs of which I am aware are still NO-TAKE, even though they will not have the SMR designation. An example of this is an outfall pipe in South Laguna that SOCWA maintains. They lobbied hard against a SMR that came too close to their pipe so that area was changed to a no-take SMCA.
OP
Ken Kurtis
Contributor
I will try but I won't swear this is 100% accurate. It's a bit outside of what I've been dealing with but I think I've got a sense of it.
The Wrigley Marine Reserve (which is being renamed Blue Cavern SMCA) is a perfect example. It's a no-take area. However the Wrigley Marine Science Center has a permit to not only do experiments in there but to aslo remove animals for scientific study under the restrictions/auspices of their permits. And the Director of the Lab (who will also likely be the Manager of the SMCA) can designate the individuals who are allowed to do those thbings. So I think that's the type of thing they're talking about.
It may be that at some point there's some study going on about the gestation period of Black Sea Bass and a permit would be granted to remove a male and female from the Long Point SMCA. But it won't be something like, "Johnny didn't get his urchin quota so we're going to let him into a no-take zone so he can fill up."
Not sure if that helps but that's the best I've got at the moment.
- Ken
-------------------
Ken Kurtis
Member - SIG (Statewide Interests Group)
MLPAI (Marine Life Protection Act Initiative)
This is but a small step IMHO, but at least a step. It is disturbing that two commissioners voted against this and that the set asides come nowhere near the minimum suggested by science (which was supposed to drive this process).
Looking at the Catalina map, the protections on the leeward side make some sense. I'm glad the dive park will finally gain protected status, but mostly for its educational value. It and Lover's Cove are far too small to be truly effective marine reserves and the feeding activity over the decades at Lover's Cove has altered the species balance there.
On the windward side, which represents a quite different array of habitats due to its exposed nature and cooler temperatures, the protections are pretty sketchy. As one whose research involved marine reserve siting issues back in the 90s, I contacted the commission, DFG and those involved in the process about the inappropriateness of the reserve along the coast at China Point (near Farnsworth). While Farnsworth itself needed protection, placing a reserve at the widest point on the windward coast of Catalina was not a particularly bright idea. The currents which sweep past that location will undoubtedly carry many of the larvae out to sea where they will either die or settle in more distant locations rather than helping to re-establish other sites along the windward coast of the island as desired in the spill-over effect. The failure to establish several sites along the windward coast in locations where larval and juvenile spillover will intercept unprotected areas downstream is IMHO a glaring error in the reserve siting there.
I applaud the effort of those who worked hard to get these protections in place. I just wish my country (and human beings in general) would stop taking the short-term view and look at what is best for our children, grandchildren and their descendants.
The damage that has been done to many fish and invertebrate stocks over the past 120 years, and especially the past 60 years (following the beginning of the population explosion in our State after WWII) is fairly well known. We need to use benchmarks that reflect this, not benchmarks from a few years ago.
Looking at the Catalina map, the protections on the leeward side make some sense. I'm glad the dive park will finally gain protected status, but mostly for its educational value. It and Lover's Cove are far too small to be truly effective marine reserves and the feeding activity over the decades at Lover's Cove has altered the species balance there.
On the windward side, which represents a quite different array of habitats due to its exposed nature and cooler temperatures, the protections are pretty sketchy. As one whose research involved marine reserve siting issues back in the 90s, I contacted the commission, DFG and those involved in the process about the inappropriateness of the reserve along the coast at China Point (near Farnsworth). While Farnsworth itself needed protection, placing a reserve at the widest point on the windward coast of Catalina was not a particularly bright idea. The currents which sweep past that location will undoubtedly carry many of the larvae out to sea where they will either die or settle in more distant locations rather than helping to re-establish other sites along the windward coast of the island as desired in the spill-over effect. The failure to establish several sites along the windward coast in locations where larval and juvenile spillover will intercept unprotected areas downstream is IMHO a glaring error in the reserve siting there.
I applaud the effort of those who worked hard to get these protections in place. I just wish my country (and human beings in general) would stop taking the short-term view and look at what is best for our children, grandchildren and their descendants.
The damage that has been done to many fish and invertebrate stocks over the past 120 years, and especially the past 60 years (following the beginning of the population explosion in our State after WWII) is fairly well known. We need to use benchmarks that reflect this, not benchmarks from a few years ago.
Last edited:
Having dived in SoCal waters and studied their ecosystems as a marine biologist since the late 1960s, I'd have to differ with your characterization above.
First, El Nino waters being warm water masses are nutrient depleted, not nutrient rich. Anyone who has dived inshore waters during strong El Nino and other warm water events knows that conditions for resident species are often very poor during those times. I have been through a number of such events and have video documentation of the more recent ones to verify this.
Yes, El Nino events do bring up warm water species from the south. These species are seasonal in nature and few remain in our waters after the cool down in late fall. This summer is a good example. The marlin tournaments normally scheduled for early fall in Avalon had to be relocated to San Diego because this summer saw colder than normal water temperatures. Marlin and most warm water species did not come this far north.
The cool summer temperatures DID favor giant kelp growth and it was as thick as I've seen it perhaps in decades (dating back to the pre-1978 thermal oscillation that caused water temps to increase after a cool period). Kelp forests in the dive park and elsewhere along our coast, especially in the normally warmest areas off Catalina (Long Point to the East End) were luxuriant.
Do you have any idea when this will take effect?
OP
Ken Kurtis
Contributor
This is PURELY a guess but I'd say 6 months at the earliest, and perhaps up to a year.
Genererally it seems with things like this, bureaucrats are fond of either July 1 or January 1 as implementation dates.
- Ken
--------------------------------------------
Added info:
Just saw this indirect quote from the story in the Orange County Register:
"Fish and Game officials said the new protections should take effect sometime in mid 2011."
Sounds like July 1 to me.
Last edited:
Yes, a step in the right direction certainly, but I sure would like to read an explanation from the BRTF re how they (the BRTF) could claim the expertise to craft their own, alternative zone proposal... One which doesn't meet even the minimum science guidelines.
Although this happened months ago I'm still stunned by it.
And since when has meeting the minimum guidelines (something the "winning" proposal doesn't even do) been an indicator of success? Have our standards, as a culture, really fallen that low?
Sure, I look forward to the day they implement these new zones... and look forward even more eagerly to the day the authorities figure out it wasn't enough and gear up for still more closures because of the complete mismanagement of our fisheries for the last 50+ years.
Bill
Although this happened months ago I'm still stunned by it.
And since when has meeting the minimum guidelines (something the "winning" proposal doesn't even do) been an indicator of success? Have our standards, as a culture, really fallen that low?
Sure, I look forward to the day they implement these new zones... and look forward even more eagerly to the day the authorities figure out it wasn't enough and gear up for still more closures because of the complete mismanagement of our fisheries for the last 50+ years.
Bill
H2Ocean
Contributor
hi dr bill. again thanks for your scientific expertise and input. there must be something strange going on then in the way of a massive influx of say, baitfish to migrate north in massive numbers due to the el nino effects and then to remain here with out nutrients to support them.. strange. i know there were resident pelagics that still today remain in areas where there were practically none before the 97 event. i didn't do scientific analysis of testing the waters for nutrients. if you say that in warm waters its a nutrient depleted scenarios, i wonder what supported the massive increase in numbers and size of sardines and squid? i seen huge sardine baitballs last weekend and before the 97 el nino i could never find them. anywhere in southern california. i know this is not the most elegant of replies, yet it seems odd that the natural cycles that influence our local waters are practically left out, when it comes to people that want to "save the ocean." You know i agree there are species that can use some direct and imediate protective measures, one- black seabass, and 2 scallops who are both about as easy to collect. that being all said. how long is it before the effects of all the new closures can be realized and seen? any idea? because i know it'd be nice to see a big increase in what species are here now.
Similar threads
