Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[drbill]

While I can understand the complaints raised by many anglers about having their favorite fishing sites closed to them, there is another argument from my side of the fence which deserves consideration.

For FIVE DECADES I Have watched the gradual erosion in the quality of the dive sites I dive off Catalina. I have seen species disappear from over fishing. I have had MY RIGHT to enjoy a reasonably unaltered ecosystem taken away from me.

To ask that we get a mere 30% (we got much less than that in SoCal) of the waters for such purposes as scientific research, pure enjoyment of marine life, photography, etc. is not anywhere near as unreasonable as anglers expecting 100% access to the marine waters of the state.

 

[Teamcasa]

....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.

I'll just comment on the beef aspect.
Beef is NOT harvested naturally. Its sustainability is a direct result in ranching. Fish, in all but a few cases are naturally reproducing. The taking of fish commercially has devastated populations and unlike beef, their survival is dependent on avoiding being caught the the number one predator.

No one likes restrictions but the MPA's are a good start. Let's give the fish and other marine life a fighting chance or the only fish we will see will be the ones raised on some massive fish farms in Kansas and Mexico.

 

[FrankPro1]

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.)

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.

I can only comment on my own familiarity within Southern California and nowhere close to even 20 percent of the prime shallow water habitats will be closed due to our MPA initiatives. This may be the case in the Central and Northern regions but down South the commercial and sport fisheries clearly won.

You mentioned the Channel Island MPAs are small and few. Sadly those are the largest MPA's we have down here. The mainland habitats, as well as the Southern Channel Islands were largely ignored for the most part.

 

[JustinW]

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.

The pro-closing the oceans crowd really likes to gloss over and ignore just how badly the process has been corrupted. The mineral resources and property development interests involved oddly enough made sure that their interests were protected in this process. Seems strange to close an area to fishing but then very much intentionally leave access for mineral and petroleum access within these very same areas. So we can't fish there, but it would be okay to dredge the area. These are the facts that I wish the supporters knew they were supporting. If they knew just how unscrupulous the process has been to get where it is and how the entire MLPA process has been perverted to achieve their personal goals. I know it seems warm and fuzzy to "protect" something but the dirty truth is the public has had public access to public resources stripped while at the same time, handing that access to large corporations.

Do a search for MLPA corruption and just see what you can find. Stick to reliable media sources, you don't need to find some obscure blog to learn about it. Lawsuits are in the works, justice was thrown to the curb to get these unneeded closures.

This is just sad. Native Peoples in the North are being stripped of their traditional subsistance and ceremonial fishing grounds they have used for generations. Junk science and a corrupt process is being used to push around a people that have been beat up by this government for hundreds of years now.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force made it illegal for a Native American to gather turban snails from the beach but at the same time made sure that the interests of the Western States Petroleum Association and the Harbor Real Estate Group were met as both corporations had members on the board making the decisions. Take a look at who the members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force also work for.

The Chair of the South Coast is also the COO of a petroleum interest group. Come on people!!! What sort of Kangaroo Court are we running here. You can't be serious! These same corporate interest representatives served on the boards for multiple MLPA regions. Viewing footage of public meetings that are available you can see the smug looks on their faces as they brush off passionate debate and concern from citizens. Big money and fixed agendas caused the rushed process, junk science and complete disregard for the framework in which the MLPA process was supposed to have been operated under. Really though, why should they follow the rules? Nobody has been able to stop them, the political will and flow of money within the state has all but guaranteed that nothing will come of their malfeasance.

 

[drbill]

You keep referring to "junk science." Give us some examples. There is plenty of good, peer-reviewed science out there. How many other disciplines and perspectives on these issues involve evaluation by other experts in the field to verify or question the findings? I get really tired of hearing the phrase "junk science" when I see no links to substantiate that claim.

I've published on the science of marine reserves since the early 90s. My work has been reviewed by other scientists. In fact, a group of scientists recommended one of my papers along with nine others on the topic to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, current head of NOAA, for review in the federal process of designating marine reserves.

I do have to agree that some commercial interests seemed to retain the rights. The commercial squid fishery is one of them. Since squid are a primary seasonal food source for many fish and some invertebrates, this sadly undermines the benefits to the ecosystems as a whole.

 

[dpbishop]

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.

This is an excellent point. Turtle and GSB increase has not been the result of MLPA's, it has resulted from a total ban on their take. Would the fishing community prefer this as a conservation strategy? Leave all areas open to fishing, but ban the take of rock fish, sheepshead, abalone, crab, lobster, and anything else that has shown a diminution of available stock. I'd vote for the MLPA's.

 

[JustinW]

You keep referring to "junk science." Give us some examples. There is plenty of good, peer-reviewed science out there. How many other disciplines and perspectives on these issues involve evaluation by other experts in the field to verify or question the findings? I get really tired of hearing the phrase "junk science" when I see no links to substantiate that claim.

I've published on the science of marine reserves since the early 90s. My work has been reviewed by other scientists. In fact, a group of scientists recommended one of my papers along with nine others on the topic to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, current head of NOAA, for review in the federal process of designating marine reserves.

I do have to agree that some commercial interests seemed to retain the rights. The commercial squid fishery is one of them. Since squid are a primary seasonal food source for many fish and some invertebrates, this sadly undermines the benefits to the ecosystems as a whole.

Dr. Bill, I respect your work and you as a person. When I refer to junk science, I am talking about the incomplete data that has been used to make decisions. The decisions have used SOME science but has been heavily politicized so that decisions haven't been based on science.
I am happy to hear that some commercial interests RETAINED their rights, especially the squid fishery (as opposed to the petroleum, real estate and other industries that served on the decision making board). You are also assuming MLPA's benefit, and that a carefully observed and regulated fishery that is not overharvesting a species that is in no danger at all undermines that assumed benefit, which I did post an attachment citing a peer reviewed scientific article that demonstrates that MPA's are not necessarily beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole. Again, the junk science I am referring to is that we don't know if there is a benefit, but we know of several downsides. I hope I cleared that up.

This is an excellent point. Turtle and GSB increase has not been the result of MLPA's, it has resulted from a total ban on their take. Would the fishing community prefer this as a conservation strategy? Leave all areas open to fishing, but ban the take of rock fish, sheepshead, abalone, crab, lobster, and anything else that has shown a diminution of available stock. I'd vote for the MLPA's.

I understand the dramatization of this statement as an attempt to illustrate a point, however that isn't a conservation strategy at all! You seem to be a bit confused on the definition of conservation. That would be an excellent preservation plan though.

I don't know of any interest group that is anti conservation or that isn't working on maintaining healthy fish stocks. Look at the central valley and how we are up here fighting to save our salmon stocks from So-Cal water groups wanting the water out of the Delta. It is the fishing community that is working so hard to protect fish stocks. It is the fishing community that donates time, money and effort to protecting fish stocks. Look at the efforts achieved for WSB and the San Francisco Tyee Club.
My point, the point of many others, and rationally you as well is that we are rushing the MLPA process without proper science, without proper planning, without proper funding to support the success of the project and without a defined goal that has been determined that cannot be achieved any other way. How you can be in full support of a process that has been implemented the way the MLPA process has is beyond me. Again, we all want to see healthy stocks of marine life. Anglers and divers (and many of us that fall into both categories) have common goals. We should both be defending each other to protect our opportunities to enjoy the ocean. No fish=no fishing, no fish=no diving. You should much rather have someone catch and take a ling cod out of a proposed MLPA over buying a farm raised salmon or tilapia.
A well regulated hook and line fishery is the most sustainable fishery, overall we have a very well maintained fishery. Just because today hook and line is the enemy doesn't mean that tomorrow a special interest group won't declare divers a threat as well. Can't you see how easily it could be argued that the average new diver plowing up silt, bumping into rocks and flooding their mask with their knees in the seabed could also be considered a threat to marine life? You might not think so, but the public could very easily be pursuaded that it is true. How about a simple ad campaign showing divers interrupting the breeding of certain fish species. Throw in a few special interest groups, a good slogan and bam, faster than you know you may find a california smattered with no diving areas. We would be foolhearty to think it isn't possible and the farther these interest groups go, the closer divers come to being the enemy.

My point? There are other options, ridiculous proposals like in the quote above easily become policy. We don't need MLPA's to maintain healthy fish stocks. MLPA's don't address pollution or exotic invaders or other threats. The only thing they do address is an already carefully regulated fishery with State and Federal oversite. State and Federal biologists already enact conservation measures such as depth restrictions, seasons, limits and minimum sizes. We all share the ocean and need to consider options that don't unfairly impact one user group over another. I don't think I have an extreme position. I have the same goals as the majority of rational people, we all fight the good fight. We all want healthy oceans but pointing to other responsible user groups and campaigning to take away their rights while maintaining your own just isn't right.

Those that are die hard fans of MLPAs, will you concede that there are other less invasive ways to achieve our goal of proper management of renewable natural resources without impacting the rights of Native Americans and other responsible user groups? If not, I will accept a claim that you believe MLPA's are the one and only way to manage a resource.

 

[drbill]

The "incomplete data" you refer to is indeed a problem, but it is generally not the fault of science. Many have been calling for the acquisition of such data for decades. However, for a scientist to conduct such baseline studies requires funding. If the CDF&G has not seen fit to fund such studies, there isn't much the scientists can do.

Much of science is based on "large scale" (what most refer to as "small scale") studies conducted in a restricted study area. What is truly needed are "small scale" (in the geographic sense of the phrase) studies that encompass much larger geographies. Such studies are especially costly since we have no effective methods of mechanizing them. They are labor intensive.

I applaud the efforts of groups such as REEF and Reef Check that are conducting surveys over large geographical areas. These will be beneficial and are conducted with volunteer labor. However, they still require analysis and often that needs to be done by scientists who know the proper methods and can publish them for peer review.

As usual, money is a limitation here. It might be nice if the fishing interests helped more in funding and conducting such studies in cases other than species-specific fisheries. I do applaud efforts like the white sea bass grow pens and billfish studies which are partially funded by friends of mine who are anglers.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

The "incomplete data" you refer to is indeed a problem, but it is generally not the fault of science. Many have been calling for the acquisition of such data for decades. However, for a scientist to conduct such baseline studies requires funding. If the CDF&G has not seen fit to fund such studies, there isn't much the scientists can do.

We've gotten off on a good tangent here and it points outs one of the big issues regarding all of this.

The caveat for those who don't know is that I've been directly involved in the MLPAI since around 2003, and am an offcially apointed member of the Statewide Interests Group. This is one of the three main user-groups (the other two being the RSG and the SAT) driving the whole process and doing much of the work of crafting MPAs and initially recommending placemnt to the BRTF. I've been on all four of the SIGs so far for each of the four study regions.

First of all, don't lose sight of the fact that this is a POLITICAL process. It's transparent and DF&G and MLPAI staff bends over backwards to insure public access and input but it's still POLITICAL. Anyone who thinks it isn't is in for a rude awakening.

Now, just because it's POLITICAL, that's doesn't mean it's a bad thing. But what it means is that if you come into the process with a narrow point of view and you just want to argue that and hope you'll prevail, chances are you're going to be sorely disappointed. However, if you're willing to step back and view the larger picture and realize that the engine that drives all of this and which will make it manangeable is COMPROMISE, then you might emerge with your senses intact. "If you can live with this, I can live with that" goes a long way to forging alliances and making for a workable solution.

But there's also a lot of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) going on. Closures and limited take is fine . . . except not in MY favorite spot.

But back to the science question, that's the biggest red herring around.

First of all, you have to decide if you'll accept "Citizen Science" (loike that from REEF and reef Check to mention two) or if you only want scientifically-validated data and studies. With the former, you'll get a large quantity of data that should be generally correct and can hopefully give you a good overview of general trends. It's like shooting with a wide-angle lens: You get a big picture but as you crop and zoom in, some of the details may become a little fuzzy.

Or you can only want scientifically-reliable data. The problem there is that while it may have a tremendsously high degree of accuracy and reliability in the data, it will be miniscule in volume and it's expensive to produce.

Now the poltiics come in to play. "We need another study" is a time-honored delaying tactic. Because if you're not in favor of something and you lack the votes to kill it, delaying it's implemntation is almost as good as killing it because you've at least bought more time until the next delyaing tactic can be implemented.

So those who have opposed the creation of MPAs (for whatever reason) can point to Citizin Science and call it "junk science" because it's not scientifically validated and peer-reviewed. And then they can look toward the scientifically-based studies and claim that there's either not enough of them to form a conclusion, or that the study was flawed (usually because it didn't support their position) and that another study is needed.

I remember being at one meeting where an anit-MPA guy was claiming that the BRTF refused to look at the study he submitted. That wasn't correct. They looked at the study but it was done by a special-interest group, had flawed data, and didn't meet peer-review. But it supported this guy's position. So when they said, "This isn't valid data," he heard that as "We won't listen to you."

In his closing speech before the formal vote, outgoing F&G Commissioner Richard Rogers said it best when he said (paraphrasing), "MPAs work. There are countless validated peer-reviewed studies showing they work. Stop wasting your time and ours arguing that they don't work."

Personally, I've got a very simply way of implementing the process but it'll never fly poltically. It's very simple: Every calendar year, you totally close to ALL take (commercial & recreational) one Southern Channel Island and one Northern Channel Island. The other six you leave open with traditional fishery management regulations and catch limits (and already-pre-MLPAI-reserves) in place.

Enforcement becomes fairly easy. If Catalina's closed for this year, and you see someone taking anything, they're in violation. It's pretty much black-and-white. And by closing an entire area for one year still means there'd be access for the following three years so it's not like you're permanently closing something and denying access to people forever.

But like I said, doubtful this would ever fly politically.

Enough of my rambling . . . for now.

- Ken

 

[Ken Kurtis]

My point, the point of many others, and rationally you as well is that we are rushing the MLPA process . . .

The process has been going on since 1999. Since when is more than a decade "rushing" things?

. . . without proper science . . .

There's plenty of science. That you may not like the data doesn't make it not proper.

. . . without proper planning, without proper funding to support the success of the project and without a defined goal that has been determined that cannot be achieved any other way.

In all seriousness (and this really isn't intended to sound mean or angry, but . . .), have you been paying attention to any of the MLPA process prior to this thread? The amount of public meetings, funding for the process and the overall stated aims expressed specifically in the original MLPA act belie everything you stated in the quoted section.

We should both be defending each other to protect our opportunities to enjoy the ocean. No fish=no fishing, no fish=no diving.

Which is exactly the goal of the act. And just FTR, no fish does NOT equal no diving. It may equal no hunting while diving but for a non-consumptive user, I could still go look at kelp, rocks, inverts, etc. One of the biggest problems with this whole process is that it directly impacts the folks who are sometimes referred to as the extractors - those that are taking things from the ocean - and they don't think they're part of the problem.

The (admittedly perjorative) analogy I've used is that there's a town bank and a guy robs it a little bit each day, slowly depleting the amount of money in the bank. The townspeople decide that this has to stop or there won't be any more money left in the bank and the robber's reply is, "But this is what I do. Don't deprive me of my livelihood!!"

You should much rather have someone catch and take a ling cod out of a proposed MLPA over buying a farm raised salmon or tilapia.

I'm not sure if you're arguing for poaching or simply admitting that well-placed and well-managed MPAs will produce more and bigger fish than can be legally caught outside the boundaries of the designated MPA.

A well regulated hook and line fishery is the most sustainable fishery, overall we have a very well maintained fishery.

Have you not noticed how many fish stocks are crashing due to over-fishing? You can't just make stuff up so that it fits the spin you want to put on something.

As they say in promos on MSNBC, "You're entitled to your opinion. But you're not entitled to your own set of facts."

- Ken