Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[drbill]

JustinW: Keep in mind that the title of this thread is "Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs" You keep referring to regions much further north, and although they may be appropriate points to discuss in those regions, they are not necessarily equivalent to the South Coast situation.

In this region we have examples of long-term MPAs or de facto MPAs that provide proof, both observationally and scientifically, that marine reserves here HAVE worked for the species/ecosystems intended.

Another difference is that there is a huge population in SoCal that borders these waters. Fishing pressure, at least in terms of recreational anglers, is probably many orders of magnitude large than in the regions you reference further north.

And the anecdotal observations of long-term divers like the Meistrells are indeed valid even if not scientific. They are mirrored by many other long-term divers, several of whom were or are avid spearos, in our region... including myself with 40+ years of experience in these waters (as a diver, spearo, boat angler and scientist).

I know of several anglers, including the owner of two charter fishing boats, who decry the changes they have observed in our waters. The boat owner sold his boats because, as he told me "I don't want to be the one to catch the last fish."

As for the rights of the rest of the planet, keep on your path of self-interest and athropocentrism and we'll (unfortunately) see where that leads us. PLENTY of examples already exist in other regions of the country (as here) and the world.

 

[JustinW]

Lemon,
Why even mention a specie in a totally different ocean. I don't see how it is relevant here. We manage our fisheries differently. A complete red herring (do you like the pun?).

Dr Bill,
As I previously mentioned above, I concede that the need for stricter conservation guidelines may be more important on the south coast than in other regions. However that doesn't change the most important objections to the process.
The decisions are being made in part by land developers and big oil. Not a single line was written that has anything to do with the major objectives of the MPA, to stop water pollution and land development. Not only did they ignore the objectives, they wrote in policy that does the opposite. When you combine that with violations of SEQA, the Bagley-Keene Act, Treaties with indigenous peoples and on and on and on. That is where I have major issues with the process. If the goal is lower catch rates in a region, we already have the infrastructure to do that. DFG has regions setup for the management of Federal Groundfish.

If we want to change how we manage fishery stocks lets do that, but lets not use a sham process. The MLPAI is from what I have seen, a fraud through and through.

 

[lemon]

Hey Justin,

Again, the reason why I brought up the collapse of the atlantic cod fishery specifically was its use as an example of a catastrophically failed fishery. It is unclear if it will ever recover at this point. Pretty much everyone got that one wrong. It was thought that it was being managed sustainably. Oops.

You keep bringing up Big Oil Justin. Where in the legislation does it approve new offshore drilling? When will that be starting?

As for the rights of indigenous peoples, would you support an exemption for artisanal fishing by the tribe(s) in question if it still excluded you? in other words, how sincerely are you concerned about this issue, or is it more of a useful argument against the proposed rules?

As for land developers, why do you think they are so opposed to fishing? I'm curious on this. Whats your view point?

 

[drbill]

JustinW: I must admit that the composition of the BRTF had too many individuals on it without the necessary ecological knowledge to really make informed decisions, and many whose direct interests probably precluded much desire to really conserve the oceans. When I first saw the list of members of the BRTF, I made similar comments on other SCUBA-related boards. However, I don't feel that development and Big Oil were such a strong factor.

An important point here. You argue that other methods can better serve the conservation needs than establishing MPAs. While there certainly are others that would be good to include, such as slot limits, this argument looks mostly at FISH species.

The MLPA system is designed not to protect individual species, but entire ecosystems. A lot more goes into an ecosystem than just fish (or else what would the first eat unless it was other fish). One has to look at these MPAs in that perspective... ecosystems of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and algae; not just individual fish. How many non-diving anglers can assess the health of these ecosystems?

 

[JustinW]

JustinW: I must admit that the composition of the BRTF had too many individuals on it without the necessary ecological knowledge to really make informed decisions, and many whose direct interests probably precluded much desire to really conserve the oceans. When I first saw the list of members of the BRTF, I made similar comments on other SCUBA-related boards. However, I don't feel that development and Big Oil were such a strong factor.

An important point here. You argue that other methods can better serve the conservation needs than establishing MPAs. While there certainly are others that would be good to include, such as slot limits, this argument looks mostly at FISH species.

The MLPA system is designed not to protect individual species, but entire ecosystems. A lot more goes into an ecosystem than just fish (or else what would the first eat unless it was other fish). One has to look at these MPAs in that perspective... ecosystems of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and algae; not just individual fish. How many non-diving anglers can assess the health of these ecosystems?

I'm pretty sure we are in total agreement here!! I agree the regulations such as slot limits mostly look at fish. I agree a lot more goes into an ecosystem than just fish. I agree with all of that although I'm not quite clear on exactly what you are asking in the final questions.

One of my major points of contention is the fish is the ONLY thing they have really changed, and a few target species of invertebrates, oh and a little bit of kelp here and there too. That is a major problem if your goal is to protect an entire ecosystem. As the MLPA states, water pollution and land development were named as targeted goals. Nothing within the regulations deal with changing anything with water pollution. No change in policy has happened regarding Marine Mammals and the amount of kelp that is harvested from border to border is so minuscule as to not really have an effect. Especially on macroalgaes that grow a foot or more a day.

In fact when the South Coast region still goes into effect a boat can discharge their blackwater while motoring full speed through a kelp bed while sea lions watch on the rocks. Nothing will change regarding anything except bans on fishing within certain areas and increased development rights for land and oil. The party boats you speak of, they will still go out with 50-60 people and clear out 500-600 fish in an afternoon, that will not change. The displaced effort simply means that those party boats will work what is left even harder. This isn't proper management. What will that lead to? Likely overfishing (as fish leave relatively crowded MPA's for nutrient rich waters with little competition), more fingerpointing and we still didn't do a darn thing about every other factor that makes up an ecosystem. The MLPAI is an overreaction to one element while completely ignoring the rest of the system. I'd say like replacing the dirty oil filter on a car that just went through the crusher. Well at least it has a fresh oil filter.

Like politics often does, this is divisive, creates finger pointing while really missing the entire point of what we should be working to do. The system is so incredibly flawed. If you didn't attend the MLPA meeting last week, you should watch it on cal-span. Or right here:




I doubt everyone here will ever all share the same opinion about much of anything but we all share a common love of our oceans. We all want to see healthy oceans we can enjoy. Even evil fishermen want healthy strong populations of fish, especially ones that they can enjoy as well. There are ways to accomplish that goal.
Some people will never be intellectually honest with themselves enough to do their own research into the process. Hopefully others now have a place to start learning about what is really going on. As you can very well see now, the MLPAI is not what it was intended to be.

As for the native tribes that have had their sovereign rights violated and treaties broken. The MLPAI has agreed to give them back their 12,000 year old site for 12 months. The Kashia Pomo Tribe thanks you for being so generous and giving back what we have already taken from them multiple times before. Sounds like the way our government has treated native peoples since there was a government.
State officials allow Kashia Pomo tribe access to Stewarts Point - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

 

[DwayneJ]

In fact when the South Coast region still goes into effect a boat can discharge their blackwater while motoring full speed through a kelp bed while sea lions watch on the rocks.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Blackwater discharge is only permitted more than 12 NM offshore for the larger vessels. Smaller vessels/pleasure craft, the limit is 3 NM.

Dwayne

 

[JustinW]

Can you explain what you mean by this? Blackwater discharge is only permitted more than 12 NM offshore for the larger vessels. Smaller vessels/pleasure craft, the limit is 3 NM.

Dwayne

Dwayne, I think you answered your own question. A central goal of the MLPAI is to address water pollution (the legislation lists it first actually) and nothing was done about this. Yet another reason to show this it is already failing at it's main goals.

 

[White Knight]

I'm a spear fisherman. Frankly, I just want it over. Take as many reefs from me that you collectively wish. Just do it and get it over with. That said, unless I am mistaken, my fishing license (along iwth others) pay for the entire project. Now keep in mind, as a conservative I am used to being the one to pay for everything--at least everyone else's causes. My question, "am I right." Are fishing license bearing people going to get stuck with the bill? Do we alone have to pay to clean up the pollution, moniture the fish stocks, fight disease organisms, cover the over fishing of commercial boats, etc. ? Like I said, I live in CA and I am used to it. Just curious.

 

[drbill]

Generally it is those who take that pay for such things... with the exception of issues like pollution which we are all responsible for, but are covered by different agencies than the CDF&G.

I see no unfairness in having those who fish cover the costs of managing the stocks they take. Recreational take of a number of fish species is the only take, and certainly the commercials are paying some of the costs as well. However, I believe a good portion of the cost for monitoring and enforcement of the new MPAs is being covered by private sources.

 

[spoolin01]

I'm a spear fisherman. Frankly, I just want it over. Take as many reefs from me that you collectively wish. Just do it and get it over with.

It should be clear from the discussions here, that is never going to happen...

I do like the idea that those who want parks should have to pay for them, like the terrestrial version.