Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[JustinW]

Such a sad move through a flawed political process. Transparency my behind!

YouTube - MLPA FGC Final Hearing PSO Attorneys.wmv

The Blue Ribbon Task Force is filled with board members from oil companies and other corporate special interests, the least being "preservation." Sickening how our oceans are being taken from us.

They came first for the xxxxxx,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a xxxxxx.

Then they came for the xxxxxxx,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a xxxxxx.

Then they came for the xxxxxx,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a xxxxx.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 

[divin dirty]

(i have to agree with dr bill) for quite some years now ive heard all these stories from my very experienced 25+years dive friends of interesting things that use to be seen daily in and around our waters. stories of a guy in catalina that would sell you abalone and simply dive down and pick em fresh where ever he was? sea turtles around catalina and san diego, ive heard they use to be so abundant that there was actually a resterant in san diego that made fresh turtle soup? giant black sea bass where seen at every dive site??Maybe these are just some fish tales but these days we are now starting to see better numbers of gsb but as for some of the others very rare if at all!! when you listen to well seasoned divers and their history of events ,it makes you want to experience what they did and it just doesnt seem the same as it was back then????

 

[JustinW]

The MLPA process has already been used to strip divers of their rights to dive and even navigate some waters in the North Central Region. Hear that, NO DIVING and only anecdotal science to backup effectiveness and no scientific evidence that it is effective for our coastal species. In fact, to the contrary, studies done have shown that protected areas in the North Atlantic had a negative effect (Rijnsdorp AD, Piet GJ, Poos JJ. Effort allocation of the Dutch beam trawl fleet in response to a
temporarily closed area in the North Sea. International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2001. ICES CM 2001/N:01)

The effect can be seen as well already in Northern California MPA's and sport divers that pursue abalone. Areas have been shut down, further concentrating diving efforts into fewer regions, which increased pressure will result on large areas of the coastline having lower success in broadcast spawning.

"A prime impetus for the MLPA was concern about the status of demersal species, especially rockfish off of California. There is management concern regarding a range of species, including those listed in the “species likely to benefit” of bocaccio, cowcod, and cabezon. What the DEIR fails to discuss is that the abundance of these species is primarily in Federal waters, where large scale reductions in catch have led to the rebuilding of these species. Any actions from the MLPA will be insignificant in relation to the actions taken in Federal waters."
(Ray Hilborn, Professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences 2010)

Flawed science has brought up MLPA's. Turtles, Black Sea Bass etc. are not going to have any greater protected with MLPA's, so don't run to them hoping to increase those species numbers. Numbers have been on the increase for some time now with the help of greater Federal management in Federal waters.

See the attachment, it lays out some very good reasoning to support alternatives to the ill funded, ill conceived, unscientific process that has lead to the public losing access to our coastlines. Funny enough, in the same process, those oil companies secured their access to minerals and petroleum while serving on the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Remember the MLPA process has been a political process and has been corrupted by the same forces that corrupt most political processes, including influence from large corporations. They have spun it to the public that MLPA's are necessary, even without sufficient scientific evidence to say so.

 

[JustinW]

These "closures" ensure that both the sport and commercial fisheries can be sustained in the future. If we continue to take take take with no thought of what were doing, these industries will surely disappear. MPA's have shown to increase the abundance of many target species. Australia went through similar legislation and the fisheries tried to block it from being enacted. Years later the fishermen changed their tune when catch levels skyrocketed from the spill over from the protected areas. Why must we be so short sighted?

I understand your fear that the areas left available will now be fished more frequently & more intensely. I hoped that the MPA's would be more evenly distributed between the Islands and the mainland, both north and south and that there would be more Reserves then Conservation areas. But inaction and the continuing allowance of mass commercial take everywhere can only result in disaster.

Stating that MPA's "ensure that both sport and commercial fisheries CAN be sustained in the future" presupposes that there aren't already conservations measures in place or other alternatives and implies the false dilemma that MPA's are the ONLY way to "save" the oceans.

The science demonstrates that MPA's don't necessarily have a positive impact. Very little commercial fishing happened in what are now MPA's and the MPA process went forward with incomplete science or funding to support the system to begin with.

Not trying to be contrary, just hoping to open a few eyes. If MPA's are for future generations, why are we already destroying opportunities for our future generations to enjoy the oceans. My introduction to the ocean was through fishing, in what is now an MPA. Already in my lifetime, I have lost the opportunity to be able to take my children out and share with them what I did when I was a kid. This is saddening, especially since MPA's aren't necessary to achieve the end result. I could go on and on about this. I really want my friends here to see behind the curtain, to see that just because they, as divers, are not losing access to the oceans, that other people that also love the ocean are, and unnecessarily at that. If there is solid, complete, irrefutable evidence that the one and only way to achieve a conservation (versus preservation) objective is through MPA's I will support it, but the given science just doesn't support that.

I love the energy, the passion that we all have and the common goal of protecting our oceans for a sustainable future but there are alternatives that achieve the same goal, alternatives that have been in place and have been working for years before MPA's. We have rushed into MPA's half cocked without complete science and without the funding to see to it that they can even be successful. We do not have the resources to enforce them and we do not have the data required to have made intelligent decisions planning them. Plain and simple.

**end rant**

 

[spoolin01]

Very interesting, especially the graph showing rebuilding of stocks over the last several years, from existing management methods. Hilborn was part of a large group that analyzed fisheries rebuilding efforts around the world and concluded the West Coast fisheries have the lowest exploitation rates (this may take a free subscription - here's the citation: Rebuilding Global Fisheries, Boris Worm, et al, Science 31 July 2009: 325 (5940), 578-585). Science Magazine: Sign In | Science/AAAS

Hilborn thinks science is being perverted in pursuit of ideological and political goals
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/large_pelagics/Hilborn_2006(faith).pdf

Don't forget, the MLPA process in Cali is bought and paid for by private anti-fishing money - which also funds fisheries research. There are lawsuits ongoing over the patent and often clumsy manipulation of the process (11th hour firings and appointments before key votes, political operatives over-riding the process behind the scenes, illegal private meetings, corruption of the Science Advisory Team - there is plenty of information about this scandal if you care to search). The part that hasn't been made clear is what sort of devil's deal was made between the eco-money and the mineral resource and property development interests that were also appointed to ride herd over the process. One speculation I've heard is that the Governator and Central Valley pols threw this bone to the Packards and such, letting them run the show, so they'd lay off his massive Peripheral Canal water development ambitions.

There's also a movement to stop the process because it is an incomplete implementation of the MLPA act, creating only no-fishing areas as the sole result, without the important context they were meant to be a part of. (see attachment). From what I understand, other organizations are submitting similar letters, with lawsuits no doubt to follow.

 

[FrankPro1]

I too was introduced to the ocean through fishing with my father and also worked for a sport fishing boat during my teenage years. For not one second do I believe that MPA's are the only sure fire way to conserve our ocean's resources. We already have catch and size limitations, seasonal restrictions and now finally a series of no-take zones. These are all small steps which we've taken to ensure future generations can enjoy the various activities we today have on and in our beautiful Pacific Ocean. The puzzle is not complete and there is still further legislation that needs to be enacted in order to secure the sustainability and health of our ocean. For instance, agricultural run-off which flows into the ocean is one of the biggest un-checked threats to marine life "look up Hypoxic zones". These low oxygen conditions create huge areas devoid of almost all life, something which sport fishing could never do.

Not only do many studies show that MPA's are beneficial in theory, but there are documented cases in which they have shown to work in practice "look up the various papers published on New Zealand fisheries post-MPA" With science there will always be disagreements on approach and effectiveness. You provided a letter written by Professor Hilborn. He brings up some interesting arguments, such as ineffectiveness due to lack of enforcement and how MPA's can create more pressure on non-restricted area's fish populations. The crack-pot logic behind we shouldn't have MPA's because we can't enforce the restrictions and that poachers defeat the intended benefits baffles me. Its like saying we shouldn't have DUI laws because idiots still drive drunk and kill people Now his point on non-restricted areas being put under increased pressure due to MPA's is a shared concern but why not fish just outside the restricted area? He says that not all habitats continue outside the MPA's and therefore fishing isn't possible there but where is he referring too? PV and the Channel Islands all have huge fishing/diving sites that are not effected by the MPA legislation and many of the protected areas lie within a greater network of reefs . The rise of target populations that Hiborn's data shows is a great encouragement that stocks are starting to recover due to current management tactics, but why not add more to the effort by closing down a small percentage of reefs to fishing?

Even though I gave up all hunting years ago and consume no ocean products beyond salt & sea-weed, I can still understand why sport fishermen are so very much against the MPA's. If someone told me I couldn't go scuba dive at my favorite dive site, I'd be pissed. The government is now effectively telling fishermen that they can't enjoy their sport in what are some of the best local areas to do so. Or are they? From what I've experienced on the Northern Channel Islands, this simply isn't true. Every summer I go to Scorpion Anchorage, Santa Cruz Island for a week long scuba, hike, kayak extravaganza. For four consecutive years I've encountered fishermen just outside the MPA boundary pulling up the big boys. Last year there was a couple kayak fishermen staying at the campsite and I questioned one of them about his catch. He said he's been fishing the Northern Islands for over thirty years and since the Scorpion Anchorage reserve has been put into place he's consistently had better catch from the surrounding waters. I know from scuba diving Scorpion Rock and Scorpion Pinnacle that the abundance of adult fish found there are extremely greater then elsewhere on the island. My first hand experiences at Scorpion Anchorage have reinforced my belief that MPA's benefit both fish populations and fishermen.

Please excuse the run-on sentences, bad grammar, spelling etc.etc. My insomniac clouded mind doesn't work well at these wee hours

 

[spoolin01]

I wouldn't doubt that MPAs may well improve fish stocks (though I'm no fisheries expert) in some situations. Whether they would or not in this or that place for this or that species is a case by case issue of fisheries dynamics - the scientists can debate that.

But especially when stocks are not threatened with collapse - that is one of Hilborn's points I believe - fishing vs no-fishing is a public policy issue more than anything else. I think the fishing tradition deserves respect. It's in the Declaration of Rights of the State Constitution, and it's certainly a long-standing cultural and social tradition. Instead it's being stolen in a corrupt process. Recreational fishing, as historically regulated, has proven sustainable.

This is not trophy hunting of rare and slow reproducing mammals with nowhere to hide, these are abundant, fast reproducing animals that are only inefficiently caught by recreational hook and line or spear fishermen, and the catch is healthy fare and substitutes for less-efficiently derived animal protein like beef. It should take a lot more compelling case than 'wouldn't it be nice' or 'I want to be sure' to set that on its head.

Hilborn and others seem to say that not only has that case not been made - stocks are being sustained and even increased (not at every site, but overall - remember, the MLPA process has closed down roughly 50% of the prime shallow water rockfish habitat in the Central and North Central regions, much of which receives little fishing pressure anyway. 100% of the deeper habitat is closed, and has been closed for years.) - but the conduct of the current MLPA process hasn't even made a pretense of justifying its decisions in the context of existing management practices. Those existing practices are long-standing, studied and debated, and derive from a collaboration between parties that has been evolving for decades. The MLPA schemes are cobbled together over a few months by amateurs and hacks with essentially zero expertise in the subject. They just want to close as much of the State waters to fishing as they can get away with, and for some reason, Schwarzenegger gave them the green light.

From what I can tell, the Channel Island MPAs were small and few, and left lots of prime habitat open for fishing. That's not so true in the rest of the state - most decent rockfish habitat is now closed to fishing.

 

[drbill]

...stories of a guy in catalina that would sell you abalone and simply dive down and pick em fresh where ever he was?

Back in the late 60s and 70s I could walk out to the intertidal at low tide and find green abalone without even having to dive for them. I was very conservative in my harvest of abs (even though I loved to eat them), and of lobster as well. Stopped taking all game in 1975 (although don't object to others doing so within the rules).

It really is too bad that we don't have good baseline studies of marine life from say the early 1950s when population in the State of California really began taking off. As early as 1953 the impact of increasing population on lunker kelp bass was already evident, resulting in protections being enacted. How many lunkers does one see today (unless they are diving in a long-standing marine reserve)?

 

[drbill]

Recreational fishing, as historically regulated, has proven sustainable.

I would have to dispute this for many species... GSB, kelp bass, lingcod, sheephead, most rockfish just for a few.

Again, the notion of "sustainability" depends to a large degree on where you set your baseline. If you want to look at just the last decade, you'll get quite different stats and perspective than if you look at the last 50-60 years.

There are good examples of where the angling community has stepped in to replenish overfished stocks such as the white sea bass. The problem with such efforts is that they address conservation on a species-specific basis rather than an ecosystem basis. It would do little good to keep restocking white sea bass if the squid industry continues to extract so much tonnage of market squid from certain areas like from China Point to the East End on Catalina. A species needs food to survive, which is why ecosystem-based methods like MPAs are important.

 

[drbill]

The MLPA schemes are cobbled together over a few months by amateurs and hacks with essentially zero expertise in the subject. They just want to close as much of the State waters to fishing as they can get away with, and for some reason, Schwarzenegger gave them the green light.

I think it would do you good to read the extensive and growing scientific literature on the effects of MPAs on ecosystems throughout the world... and learn more about how a number of commercial and recreational fishers have reacted to the benefits created by them.

Perhaps one of the best examples is Dr. Bill Ballantine's work in New Zealand. He established the first Goat Island reserve back in the 70s and the commercial crayfish (lobster) fishers were so pleased with the results they lobbied for and supported the creation of even more reserves due to the positive impact on their commercial take in adjacent unprotected areas.

Remember, MPAs are not just about fish... they are about entire ecosystems. Not only do the eggs, larvae and juveniles of targeted fish species "spillover" from the reserves, but also the eggs, larvae and juveniles of many of the other fish and invertebrates that provide the targeted fish with food.