Dr. Bill in the LA Times, Good Job Bill!

[drbill]

Thanks, Red Vette.

White.Knight... in some respects you and other divers who spearfish are somewhat unique because you spend time underwater and see not only the reduction in the target fish populations, but also any concurrent impacts on the supporting ecosystems. I do understand your thoughts, and quite frankly I worry about how well CDF&G can monitor the new reserves for violations. If you get a chance, look for my columns on the reasons we need reserves. Part I is posted both on my web site and here on ScubaBoard in the Ocean Conservation forum.

 

[White Knight]

drBill, I'll check out your articles--truly. And as I said, I am not in need of convincing that the ecosystems of our oceans are imploding—they are. That said, I am always aggravated because I do not believe that our ecosystems and fish populations are in such disarray because of free divers and scuba divers who spear a fish every now and then, nor is it because my grandfather used to take me fishing as a boy each summer for a trip or two. Moreover, I don't believe it is from the collective fishing of all the scuba divers, free divers and grandfathers with rod and reel in world either. As quoted earlier, Monterey lost their sardine fishery. Yet, I don't imagine a single sardine was speared by a free diver or scuba diver, and other than for bait, I also don't imagine too many of them found their way onto the boats of rod and reel sportsman? The Department of Fish and Game posts past commercial catches for the state of California waters. It is easy to find and simple to read. The total biomass of pounds caught is staggering and, clearly, suggest spear fishing isn't causing the problem. (All the spear fishermen in California simply are not capable of reloading their guns that fast and often.) Moreover, when was the last time anyone saw a spear fisherman come back to the harbor with 10,000 lbs of halibut in his cooler--such as with the Commerical boats? Of course, what we all have to deal with is what is at hand. We can all argue about what caused it, but that won't fix anything.....The fish populations are a virtual wipe out in many areas of the Channel Islands and along the Santa Barbara Coast where I dive the most. I agree that something must be done. I am willing to take part in the sacrifice. I am willing to catch less--much less. I am willing to obide by seasons, etc. I hope to be part of the solution. I just ask, that--in some manner--I be allowed to catch a couple of fish every now and then. I never take more than I need and I am very conscious of the ocean's ecology. If we all don’t find a way to get a long nothing is going to get done. Thank you drBill for not attacking me and being reasonable with your response. I have found it so uncomfortable to spear fish on many of the dive boats that I finally bought my own boat--problem solved. I'm not going to take a fish from a popular dive location, nor am I going to take one that I don't want or need. I always know exactly what I am looking for and will not launch my spear unless I find what I am after. Thank you to everyone who is trying to save our oceans with workable solutions. As I said, I will give up more than you may imagine to bring our oceans back. Just don't forget I am a person too.

 

[drbill]

As you will see in my column, my opinion is that our waters in SoCal are decimated not due to the fishing activities of any one person, but the cumulative impact of millions of fishing days over the last 120 years. It all adds up over time. Also, overfishing needs to be seen as the reduction of fish populations such that the fishery is no longer sustainable.

Spearfishing is probably the most ecologically appropriate way to capture food... it is selective in terms of species and size and doesn't involve by catch.

 

[Teamcasa]

I have no issues with spear fishermen, provided they eat what they catch and leave protected species alone. It is clear that the commercial fishermen have been the single largest contributor to the reduction in fish populations. Regulation and the rotating closures of fisheries will not only benefit the marine life but insure a future for commercial fisheries as well.

Even the commercial sport fishing boats need to pay more attention to the areas and species they target. I have been out on many local sport fishers where barracuda's (or other species) were caught by the hundreds and clearly not all of the catch went for food. However, many of us forget that the bait barges we pull up to were stocked by bait fish netted earlier. Stricter restrictions on bait fish will go a long way to replenish fish stocks.

If we protect the bait and their food supply, the larger predators will return.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Congrats, Bill. Link your newspaper articles here, if you don't mind.....

I'd like to read them...

Thanks,

Doc

 

[drbill]

Dave, you'd be surprised. For several fisheries (lingcod being one example), the recreational catch actually exceeds the commercial catch. This is largely a factor of the many recreational fishers out catching the fish.

Doc, here's a link to the first column in the series on marine reserves.

 

[White Knight]

Yes, Lingcod should be closed until their populations come back. I used to see a Ling almost every single dive. Now hardly ever and "never" along the coast. Then the catch should be controlled and monitored to ensure healthy populations going forward. But again, most lingcod are caught rod and reel--not spearfishing. Teaching the class to the lowest common denominator never has worked. Identify the problem, and then fix it.

 

[White Knight]

drBill, read your article. It is good and I don't disagree with most of your points. I appreciate your commercial fishing past experience but I do disagree with (if I understand this correctly) the notion that everyone contributes to the problem. Yes, every fish caught is one less in the ocean. And yes, the human population growth leads to an ever increasing group of sportsman setting out to catch a fish with their son or grandson each weekend. But, a few stats from 2007 for California waters. Commercial fishing caught the following (just a sampling of various species): Lobsters 663,000 lbs; Sea bass 460,000 lbs; Dover Sole 6.1 million lbs; Petiale Sole 2 million lbs; Albacore Tuna 1.9 million lbs; Dungeness Crab 11 million lbs; Mackerel 12.3 million lbs; Chinook Salmon 1.6 million lbs; Sardines 178 million lbs and Squid 109 million lbs. My point being here is that spear fishermen and rod and reel guys simply don't have the numbers to do the damage to our ecosystems that has been done, nor do they possess the numbers to fix our ecosystems through restrictions in fish take. “The” issue is commercial fishing. Fix/stop commercial fishing and we have a chance to heal our oceans. Allow commercial fishing to continue to catch the millions of lbs of biomass is does each year in California waters and it really won’t matter what else anyone has going on. Look at the evidence. Identity the problem. Fix the problem.

 

[drbill]

White.Knight, probably can't argue with the stats for the species you have chose. Certainly it is the commercial catch for those species that overwhelms the recreational. It has to be looked at on a species by species basis.

For example, kelp bass are a sport fish target only... no commercial catch. Although the numbers of kelp bass can be high in areas outside protected zones, the numbers usually consist of small pre-reproductive and newly reproductive individuals. It is rare to see the big bull bass anywhere but protected zones. In fact as early as 1950 or so, the bull kelp bass had been seriously fished down by recreational fishers following their build up to natural levels during World War II.

 

[dpbishop]

Dr. Bill,

Don't know if you saw this article:Old Photos Document Dramatic Decline in Trophy Fish Size | LiveScience but it highlights the problem with limiting catches as opposed to protected areas. In an open area, even with catch limits, the large fish are often the first to go. In a protected area, if it is large enough, each species in the ecosystem has a chance to encompass the full range of age/size, and can benefit from the greater reproductive potential of the larger members.

One of the sad things about the argument is that the fisherman are right when they say we don't know enough to design the MPA's to optimize the effect of fish population, but we do know that it is too late to wait until we do. If they really want to see the fish population sustained they should be writing their congressmen/women demanding that the budget for studying the life cycle of fish be increased ten fold. At a recent lecture on the migration patterns of the California Lobster I learned that their larval stage lasts almost a year and nobody knows where they go. Given the economic importance of the commercial and sport fishing industry, it is ridiculous that we don't fund marine biology enough to accomplish even the most basic research into fish reproduction and sustainability.