Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[drbill]

Spoolin01... are the terrestrial parks being designated because hunters have decimated the critters in the region? I don't think so, at least not based on the development of the national park system by Gifford Pinchot during the Teddy Roosevelt administration. Based on my studies of that subject, much of the park system was established for wildness and aesthetic values rather than out of true ecological concerns.

There certainly is some logic to having all users pay for the parks and I would not be adverse to an annual fee to support them as someone who does not hunt or fish (stopped in 1975). However, one of the primary reasons we need MPAs is due to extraction.

I mainly speak from my experiences out here on Catalina where pollution is not a significant issue. Most fish and invertebrate stocks are incredibly more numerous and have a better age distribution in areas long protected on the island than similar habitats elsewhere along the coast.

 

[spoolin01]

Spoolin01... are the terrestrial parks being designated because hunters have decimated the critters in the region? I don't think so, at least not based on the development of the national park system by Gifford Pinchot during the Teddy Roosevelt administration. Based on my studies of that subject, much of the park system was established for wildness and aesthetic values rather than out of true ecological concerns.

There certainly is some logic to having all users pay for the parks and I would not be adverse to an annual fee to support them as someone who does not hunt or fish (stopped in 1975). However, one of the primary reasons we need MPAs is due to extraction.

I mainly speak from my experiences out here on Catalina where pollution is not a significant issue. Most fish and invertebrate stocks are incredibly more numerous and have a better age distribution in areas long protected on the island than similar habitats elsewhere along the coast.

From the discussions here and just general experience, it's plain that the interest in MPAs for the Cali coast has little to do with population triage - there's still been no evidence presented of any need here. It's about a vision of nature preserves - the right to see lots of fish when you dive - analagous to terrestrial parks. You seem to prefer that any species, in any microlocale, should be protected until it's back at some arbitrary historical level, divorced from sustainable take analysis, and that everything else should be protected along with it. Others have stated the MPAs should exist simply because fisheries exhaustion is a known possibility, or simply because they like the idea.

In that sense it's elective. It's not fisheries husbandry in the traditional sense. Like it or not, natural resources are a type of property right, and paying to compromise or usurp it would be a common requirement.

 

[lemon]

Like it or not, natural resources are a type of property right, and paying to compromise or usurp it would be a common requirement.

it is quite a bit of twisted logic to argue that setting aside a small percentage of our oceans as protected areas is compromising or usurping a natural resource.

i look forward to their implementation and support their future expansion.

 

[drbill]

In that sense it's elective. It's not fisheries husbandry in the traditional sense. Like it or not, natural resources are a type of property right, and paying to compromise or usurp it would be a common requirement.

Precisely... and it's not intended to be. It is ecosystems-based management. A whole different ballgame.

You claim your "right" to "resources," I claim my "right" to enjoy healthy ecosystems. You seem unwilling to allow that in a mere 20-30% of the ocean while I'm willing to give you 70%.

 

[spoolin01]

it is quite a bit of twisted logic to argue that setting aside a small percentage of our oceans as protected areas is compromising or usurping a natural resource.

i look forward to their implementation and support their future expansion.

Precisely... and it's not intended to be. It is ecosystems-based management. A whole different ballgame.

You claim your "right" to "resources," I claim my "right" to enjoy healthy ecosystems. You seem unwilling to allow that in a mere 20-30% of the ocean while I'm willing to give you 70%.

If we're going to call on logic, how about starting with some interest in the facts - the % closure issue has been oft raised in this thread, and neither of you have supported your numbers. Let me pick the 70% and see what you think of your 30% - you can have all the sandy bottom you want, there's still good diving there. I haven't looked at the SoCal maps yet, but for the Central and North Central zones, it wasn't a small percentage, it was quantitatively the most of the best areas that were taken. How do either of you break down the situation in SoCal? Have you looked at it?

 

[JustinW]

Below is a bit of the evidence to support violations of the Bagley-Keene Act. I find it amusing that there is not one peep from the people that applaud the process about the corruption and violation of our rights. The only mention of rights was a vague, off topic statement to imply some sort of right that fish hold to congregate in some nebulous unknown number.

It is nice to know that even within the diving community, only a portion of divers support this crooked process. Spearboard and the San Diego Free Divers seem to understand the importance of this.

http://www.sandiegofreedivers.com/MLPABRTFofflinemeetingdocumentation.pdf


Dan Bacher has a few other good questions to ask as well. Feel free to answer any of them. You, as divers should rightfully be very very concerned about the questions I highlighted. Don't stick your head in the proverbial sand just because you think it sounds like a good idea.

1. Why did Schwarzenegger and MLPA officials install an oil industry lobbyist, a marina developer, a real estate executive and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interest on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast to remove Indian Tribes, fishermen and seaweed harvesters from the water by creating so-called “marine protected areas” (MPAS)?

2. Why was Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, allowed to make decisions as the chair of the BRTF for the South Coast, a panel that is supposedly designed to “protect” the ocean, when she has called for new oil drilling off the California coast?

3. Why has the MLPA Initiative taken water pollution, oil spills and drilling, military testing, corporate aquaculture, habitat destruction and all other impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering off the table in its bizarre concept of marine protection?

4. Why is a private corporation, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, being allowed to privatize ocean resource management in California through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DFG?

5. Why do MLPA staff and the California Fish and Game Commission refuse to hear the pleas of the representatives of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, who oppose the creation of any new MPAs until they have enough funding for wardens to patrol existing reserves?

6. Why were there no Tribal scientists on the MLPA Science Advisory Team and why were there no Tribal representatives on the Blue Ribbon Task Forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast or South Coast MLPA Study Regions?

7. Why does the initiative discard the results of any scientists who disagree with the MLPA’s pre-ordained conclusions? These include the peer reviewed study by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Boris Worm and 18 other scientists, featured in Science magazine in July 2009, that concluded that the California current had the lowest rate of fishery exploitation of any place studied on the planet.

8. Why did the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force hold illegal secret meetings, including those held in April 2007 and on November 3, 2008, December 10, 2008, February 25, 2009, October 20, 21 and 22, 2009, as revealed in a 25 page document presented to the California Fish and Game Commission on February 2?

9. Why did it take a lawsuit by a coalition of fishing organizations to get the emails and correspondence by MLPA officials documenting these private, non-public meetings disclosed to the public?

10. Why did it take the outrage over the arrest of an independent journalist last spring to open work sessions of the MLPA to coverage by video-journalists?

 

[JustinW]

http://www.sandiegofreedivers.com/MLPABRTFofflinemeetingdocumentation.pdf

By the way, these documents, along with 10 gigabytes more of information that was finally received after a public records act request was honored (after much delay and subsequently a lawsuit filing) will be used as evidence demonstrating corruption within the South Coast Region's process. Should get very interesting. Of course, if they simply followed the law as the MLPAI was intended we wouldn't be reading these documents.

 

[drbill]

In response to some of JustinW's points (the ones I feel I have any competency to answer):

1. I agree in general on the constitution of the BRTF. I thought it had far too many groups represented that favored exploitation rather than conservation. That included the fishermen.

2. One of the individuals I objected to on the BRTF, but she was the chairperson and her job was to make decisions.

3. Because for the most part those elements are not within the jurisdiction of the CDF&G which will be enforcing the newe MPAs? I've responded with this several times but you ignore that. These factors are all the jurisdiction of other agencies, both State and Federal (but certainly should be addressed)

6. How many tribes in SoCal had a vested interest in the process here? I'm not aware of any. The situation is different in other regions of the State of course.

 

[JustinW]

3. Because for the most part those elements are not within the jurisdiction of the CDF&G which will be enforcing the newe MPAs? I've responded with this several times but you ignore that. These factors are all the jurisdiction of other agencies, both State and Federal (but certainly should be addressed)

Not exactly true as far as jurisdiction is concerned. Enforcement of the MPA's will fall into the jurisdiction of several agencies. DFG (which also enforces pollution), Coast Guard, CHP, local law enforcement agencies (which patrol from land, water and air) etc. That of course begs the question of why the MLPAI's primary missions is to protect the ecosystem from land development, water pollution "and other human factors." If as you say, the main objectives of the MPA's are not within the jurisdiction of the agencies charged with enforcing them, and the MLPAI is ignoring it's very objectives, then that further reinforces points that have been made about the ineffectiveness of the MLPAI in the first place.

What a terrible process we have when we have written a law to do something, created regulations that do not achieve the objectives of the law and have no plans to do anything about it. The MLPAI, as it was originally written, is quite possibly the best attempt we have had at really doing something to protect our nearshore waters. It really is sad that for all the reasons we have already talked about, the process has been hijacked, gutted, and rendered pretty much worthless.

 

[DwayneJ]

Not exactly true as far as jurisdiction is concerned. Enforcement of the MPA's will fall into the jurisdiction of several agencies. DFG (which also enforces pollution), Coast Guard, CHP, local law enforcement agencies (which patrol from land, water and air) etc.

Given these authorities already patrol the coast, what changes? I have not seen any reference to additional patrols or funding for such for any of the authorities.