Diving for Scallops at the Long Beach Oil Rigs

[Power Scuba]

...There is certianly informed consent on the part of the diving community as the captains and even shops and clubs were involved in the decision chain when this was all being drafted. Aera Energy was certainly involved and I'd suggest that any agreements and protocols agreed upon by Aera carry forward - much as their oil lease agreements do - to the new owners... - Ken

Well, in this fact-check world we live in, I took it upon myself to call some dive boats and ask them what their take on this "Gentleman's Agreement" was.

The captain of the very first (L.A./OC) boat I called stated they were never a party to any agreement, Gentleman's or otherwise, and furthermore they gave no one permission to speak for them or to be their representative in talks with the rigs owners. Ever. Still further, this captain said he/she was quite sure there were some other boat captains/owners who gave no one "consent to be represented" either.

I didn't even bother to call any more boats. Ken, in this very thread you took someone to task for not having their facts straight and yet it seems you're playing loose with the facts yourself. Please don't do that anymore. I'm done fact-checking this issue and I'm satisfied that as long as individual boat owners maintain proper relations with the rigs... and as long as individual divers act as good stewards and are safe... we don't have much to worry about.

*Drops mike and walks away*

Bill Powers

 

[Ken Kurtis]

The captain of the very first (L.A./OC) boat I called stated they were never a party to any agreement, Gentleman's or otherwise, and furthermore they gave no one permission to speak for them or to be their representative in talks with the rigs owners. Ever. Still further, this captain said he/she was quite sure there were some other boat captains/owners who gave no one "consent to be represented" either.

Who did you talk to Bill? Not to get in a pissing match over this but here's my recollection of I talked to directly: Gary Jackson, Jerry Lewis, Ray Arntz, Tim Burke off the top of my head. That doesn't mean they all necessarily agreed with everything or thought we'd get anywhere or even wanted to participate at all. But they were consulted. (And as I mentioned previously, Gary Jackson was the first to suggest it be a voluntary no-take zone.) Some said "I don't do oil rig trips so I don't care".

And EVERY dive boat in the area - those mentioned plus Bottom Scratcher, Cee Ray, Pac Star, Second Stage, Encore (at that time still a dive boat), Mr C, Horizon, Sand Dollar, and perhaps a few I'm forgetting - were coped by e-mail numerous times to let them know what was going on and to ask for input. Now whether they read the e-mails, I don't know. And I'll be the first to admit that very few of them, if any, replied.

But to suggest that none of this happened after quoting your anonymous source simply doesn't wash. But back then, no one was doing anything about the situation, I took some initiative and did, others had input so it's wasn't just "The Ken Kurtis Show" and if it doesn't sit well with you or others now 10 years later, then don't follow the protocols or take some initiatuive and YOU get a new agreement. Or just leave things the way they are and hopefully things will continue to work out.

- Ken

---------- Post added June 27th, 2013 at 12:27 PM ----------

. . . were coped by e-mail numerous times to let them know what was going on and to ask for input. Now whether they read the e-mails, I don't know.

Quick story for my frustration with this kind of thing some times:

One year just before Chamber Day I got a call from one of the boat captains who was participating who was really upset. "No one's telling me what's going on, I don't know who I've got on the boat, or what time we're supposed to be at the Chamber. This isn't right!!!" And I replied, "But XXXXXX, I've been sending you e-mails about all of that stuff for the past four weeks and left you a couple of phone messages too." And he said, "Well I don't have time to read e-mails or return phone calls."

So sometimes even with the best of intentions, people will either say they weren't in the loop or will feel they were left out or whatever.

- Ken

 

[Power Scuba]

Ken: Name of boat owner/captain sent to you privately as I don't want to drag anyone else into the conversation.

I know full well the dangers of trying to represent those who don't want to be represented. My answer to that type of situation has been to ALWAYS caveat my missives: "I speak for aaa, bbb, and ccc only when I say.... blah".

There's a huge difference in "being consulted" and giving "informed consent". The latter of which you state as a fact earlier in this thread.

There is an org down here in San Diego who purports to speak for the San Diego diving community... but they have virtually NO buy-in from area dive clubs or... more importantly... area divers.

It really rubs me raw.

Bill

 

[red_instead]

Actually, I'm going to jump in here and say that I was on the Great Escape several months ago and was talking with the crew about where to get scallops, and they unanimously said "oil rigs."

I said that I'd heard they were no-take zones, and the crew said that wasn't the case. So... ?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I said that I'd heard they were no-take zones, and the crew said that wasn't the case. So... ?

I think it's all pretty straight-forward as has been outlined in numerous posts here. The over-arching view is that the rigs have never LEGALLY (as in legislativley and enforced by DF&W) been declared a no-take zone. (Nor has anyone ever made such a claim.) The general timeline:

1. In 2001 the rigs announced - for "security" reasons - no more diving would be allowed.
2. In 2003(ish), at my behest after two years of dive community (boats/shops/clubs) grumbling, negotiations were started with Aera Energey, USCG, and MMM (Dept. of the Interiro) to find a middle ground that would allow us to resume diving the rigs.
3. All the area boats, shops, clubs were invited to participate.
4. All the area boats, shops, clubs were kept apprised (e-mail) of the progress.
5. All the area boats, shops, clubs were given a copy of the protocols which included (at the request of Aera Energy) a no-take provision.
6. I know that many of the boats/shops/clubs were not happy about no-take but begrudgingly accepted it as the price to pay to dive the rigs.
7. Over the years, owners of the rigs changed, memories faded, people started slyly taking scallops, etc.
8. Now some people openly take game at the rigs, no one on the rig side seems to be concerned about it, and people are either going "Why do we need this agreement" or "I never agreed to that so I'm don't have to abide by it."

So I think from a practical standpoint, we're back to where we were pre-2001. Do whatever you want within DF&W regulations. I will say that on any Reef Seekers rig trips, we will still follow the no-take provisions and if that's an issue for you personally, don't dive with us but go with someone else. But I'm guessing we're going to be in the minority.

- Ken

 

[OkByMe]

I think it's all pretty straight-forward as has been outlined in numerous posts here. The over-arching view is that the rigs have never LEGALLY (as in legislativley and enforced by DF&W) been declared a no-take zone. (Nor has anyone ever made such a claim.) The general timeline:

1. In 2001 the rigs announced - for "security" reasons - no more diving would be allowed.
2. In 2003(ish), at my behest after two years of dive community (boats/shops/clubs) grumbling, negotiations were started with Aera Energey, USCG, and MMM (Dept. of the Interiro) to find a middle ground that would allow us to resume diving the rigs.
3. All the area boats, shops, clubs were invited to participate.
4. All the area boats, shops, clubs were kept apprised (e-mail) of the progress.
5. All the area boats, shops, clubs were given a copy of the protocols which included (at the request of Aera Energy) a no-take provision.
6. I know that many of the boats/shops/clubs were not happy about no-take but begrudgingly accepted it as the price to pay to dive the rigs.
7. Over the years, owners of the rigs changed, memories faded, people started slyly taking scallops, etc.
8. Now some people openly take game at the rigs, no one on the rig side seems to be concerned about it, and people are either going "Why do we need this agreement" or "I never agreed to that so I'm don't have to abide by it."

So I think from a practical standpoint, we're back to where we were pre-2001. Do whatever you want within DF&W regulations. I will say that on any Reef Seekers rig trips, we will still follow the no-take provisions and if that's an issue for you personally, don't dive with us but go with someone else. But I'm guessing we're going to be in the minority.

- Ken

Like I said in my first post... Only in California... All that gentlemens' agreement crap is nothing more than a smokescreen. Can't change the law, can't alter the rules... so lets start a practice and try to make it acceptable. Sounds like someone is on another NOBLE mission to interfere with fishing rights because they grew up believing food can only be acquired in the grocery stores. How did all that food get there in the first place?. Yes things are harvested, or killed and transported just to feed the hungry. I hunt, I fish, I pry scallop. I pay license fees that fund the management of the ecosystem. No different than farming or raising livestock.

In the gulf, rig owners don't care what you take as long as you don't screw with their equipment. The states, Texas, Louisiana, principally make a lot of money off recreational fishing around the rigs. NOBODY has first dibs on what is there, as long as you have a license and stay to the limits and method of taking. If it were not for the oil rigs, drilling and pumping platforms, that "life" would not be there in the first place. The same group of people that pitched a fit with building them in the first place, are the same ones attempting to restrict access to them, Now that they have discovered the marine life flourishes there.

 

[merxlin]

Like I said in my first post... Only in California... All that gentlemens' agreement crap is nothing more than a smokescreen. Can't change the law, can't alter the rules... so lets start a practice and try to make it acceptable. Sounds like someone is on another NOBLE mission to interfere with fishing rights because they grew up believing food can only be acquired in the grocery stores. How did all that food get there in the first place?. Yes things are harvested, or killed and transported just to feed the hungry. I hunt, I fish, I pry scallop. I pay license fees that fund the management of the ecosystem. No different than farming or raising livestock.

In the gulf, rig owners don't care what you take as long as you don't screw with their equipment. The states, Texas, Louisiana, principally make a lot of money off recreational fishing around the rigs. NOBODY has first dibs on what is there, as long as you have a license and stay to the limits and method of taking. If it were not for the oil rigs, drilling and pumping platforms, that "life" would not be there in the first place. The same group of people that pitched a fit with building them in the first place, are the same ones attempting to restrict access to them, Now that they have discovered the marine life flourishes there.

You are on the wrong soap box. This is not about whether you should hunt or not. And this is not the gulf. The debate is about whether the rig owners could take exception to people harvesting there. And I am not sure about the law and if the game on the rigs belongs to them. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If it does they can keep you from taking them. But they certainly have the right to protect the rigs themselves, and something as simple as a scallop knife could be considered damaging to the rigs. I know that is a stretch, but not to someone looking for a reason to restrict access.

Ken, do you know the F&G regulations and if what's on the rigs is "free game" or does it belong to the rig owners?

The point I and I think a few other were trying to make was that if we respect the wishes of the rig owners and try to "play by the rules", even if they are arbitrary and not legal, we have a much better chance of keeping the rigs open to all of us that dive them. I'd hate to be shut out because a few decided their need to hunt superseded the rights of all divers.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Ken, do you know the F&G regulations and if what's on the rigs is "free game" or does it belong to the rig owners?

I don't know but would tend to think that would be more of a legal question rather than a regulatory (DF&W) one.

- Ken

 

[dytis-sm]

Huh ??!!?? A handful of "hunters" have died in Northern California in the past 6 months, trying to get "the catch". I don't know of any underwater photographers that have died trying to get "the shot". Not trying to hijack here, or send this off into a whole 'nother discussion. ANYTHING can happen to ANY diver, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANY PLACE. Just sayin'

In Northern California most hunting accidents are related to free diving for abalone. The rules for fishing abalone do not allow the use of scuba equipment. Some free divers get entangled in kelp while fishing for abalone and this is the typical fishing/diving accident you will hear about.

Agreed that anything can happen anywhere-anytime and diving is a risky sport. It is about managing the risks and having a good time and some good eating sometimes!

---------- Post added July 1st, 2013 at 08:13 AM ----------

Yeah, seriously, that was a dick thing to say

I laughed at both comments, but both reaffirm what I thought earlier, that this argument is about photographers vs. "hunters". As a photographer I would also have no interest for someone "hunting" my subjects. But for the rest of us, the subjects also are part of the food chain which truthfully is quite disturbed by unsubstantiated regulations (do not mean F&G) and agendas. It is nice every once in a while to be able to follow our primal instincts and reach for some real seafood. This is where our worlds collide but I do think that we can all have fun next to each other and follow rules and laws where those exist. For the rest of the places just follow your concience...

 

[red_instead]

I don't know but would tend to think that would be more of a legal question rather than a regulatory (DF&W) one.

- Ken

I've said it before, but I think there's a good argument that the companies who own the rigs own the things growing on them. Doubt you could say the same for finfish that are hanging out on the rigs.