Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[JustinW]

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.

Your seriousness is greatly appreciated. I have been intently watching the MLPA process for a while, long before this thread, thank you. I don't doubt that the "stated aims expressed specifically in the original MLPA act" belie everything I stated. I'm sure it says all sorts of things about gathering resources and funding etc. The plain and simple facts are that it isn't happening, regardless of what the "stated aims" said over a decade ago. Ken, don't pull the wool over these people's eyes, for they know not what they do. There are less than 200 game wardens in the state, the lowest per capita of all 50 states and every Canadian Province as well. California has 656,425 square miles (not counting the square miles that MLPA's take up which isn't factored into that figure), that is over 3000 square miles that each warden has to cover. Factor in the 840 miles of coastline by the three miles line and we throw in another few thousand square miles. Don't get me started on the lack of resources available to help wardens patrol on the water. I suppose we have different standards for adequate resources. We will just have to agree to disagree there.

Furthermore, are wardens going to spend their time patrolling empty water or patrolling areas where fishing activities are happening? Either way, increased unneeded regulation will likely breed more criminal activities. The Native American people that you have kicked out of their traditional foraging grounds have vowed to continue their subsistence fishing on traditional grounds.

A great read on this subject:
Sethi, S. A., and Hilborn, R. 2008. Interactions between poaching and management policy affect
marine reserves as conservation tools. Biol. Conserv. 141: 506-516.

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.

I figured that analogy might go over someone's head, not yours. Yes it is correct that no fish does not equal no diving, but it would sure mean no diving for a lot of people without marine life. How many people here would be diving if there was only water and sand to look at? Not many.

Those that take things from the ocean, give a lot back. So called extractors give back in the form of being the largest individual financial contributors to fish and game management in California. Organizations like the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans, the SF Tyee Club, Coastside and countless other charitable organizations fight not only for their members but for healthy fish stocks and the environment.

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!!"

So MLPA's are in effect, ways of protecting only certain bank accounts? That is a poor analogy. A better analogy would be if we didn't try to label the fisherman as a criminal, but as a bank customer. This customer invests a lot of money into the bank. During certain times of the year he likes to go to the bank with his ATM card, withdraw amounts that are limited to daily limits and to interest earned only. The security guards at the door make sure he doesn't take more out than that. That is a sustainable harvest, and as the PFMC, NOAA and DFG have been doing, they manage that bank account sustainably. The bankrobber is the foreign commercial vessel that obeys no laws, takes as much as he can and then runs away to his foreign port, or to the lesser extent, the local commercial fisherman that harvests and then exports our local resource across the world.

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.

Good thing you are anti-fishing because you missed the boat again. We would be better off having someone go out to the islands to sustainably fish than to go to the store to buy a mercury laden farmed salmon or sewage fed tilapia. MPA's unnecesarily restrict that opportunity for sustainable local foraging. See attached links, associated peer reviewed articles and studies. I said "proposed." Even if that is what I was saying, we have already demonstrated that MPA's are NOT well-managed due to the inability to be properly enforced. Placement of such MPA's has also been questioned, especially in the process itself (those meetings which were not held in private).

You can't just make stuff up so that it fits the spin you want to put on something.

Your quote not mine. See linked article from respected Marine Scientist about your process, junk science and the spin the MPA puts on science to make it fit their mold. We can expand on the idea of junk science as it relates to the MLPA process here:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/large_pelagics/Hilborn_2006(faith).pdf

Have you not noticed how many fish stocks are crashing due to over-fishing?

I have noticed that globally there are many fish stocks declining. I am deeply concerned about many of them but find it amusing when educated people such as yourself try to get average folks all riled up with oversimplifications.

Using NOAA stock assesments, exactly which California fish stock are you speaking of? NOAA data shows that demersal species have been increasing in abundance for quite a while now. The data does not support that MPA's have had much of anything to do with that.


Again, I believe we all have the same general end goal. All I have repeatedly asked is that a pro MPA person come out and clearly state that they believe MPA's are the ONLY way to achieve the conservation goal. No rational person will do that. We can achieve conservation goals without the need for MPA's. That is all I am saying. Manage renewable resources as such. Of course I don't expect you to be willing to concede any of this, if you did it may invalidate all of your effort to close down parts of the ocean to certain user groups.

I do like you idea of rotating closures as it would solve some of the biological problems created by permanent MPA's. I agree that politically it would not be very feasible and that the socioeconomic impacts would be even worse than what they are with the current policy.

 

[drbill]

JustinW: You keep referring to sustainable fishing. I think the record over the past 60 years shows that this has NOT been the case for most (but not all) species.

Again, sustainability depends on the baseline you use to measure it. Most current "baselines" represent depleted population sizes and distributions. Yes, I now that is a blanket statement... but there are ways to essentially verify this simply by creating MPAs and by analyzing population trends using the baseline of when they were designated such.

Even when populations are somewhat decimated, you can extract a certain number each year and refer to it as "sustainable." There are "sustainable" numbers at most population levels. However, it is pretty obvious to anyone that opens their eyes underwater and compares fished vs protected areas today that populations are nowhere near what they should be for many species.

When one looks at the "successes" such as white sea bass and giant sea bass, these were driven to near extinction by overfishing. Only a concerted effort by some (including a number of anglers, one being a close friend of mine who funded much of this) focusing on the recovery of a single species seems to have brought the WSB back to fishable levels and "draconian" (but justified) measures like fishing closures appear to have brought back the GSB.

In addition, the management technique of looking at individual fish or invertebrate species and setting limits for them separate from the overall health of the ecosystems involved is not really a viable tool anyway.

It would have been nice if CDF&G had instituted slot limits some time back so the larger individuals in a species, the ones generally with the greatest reproductive potential, could remain within the population and enhance its capacity.

 

[spoolin01]

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.

I agree, it's all about what your target for outcome is - the definition of the issue as one of public policy, rather than an outcome somehow 'required' by science. In my understanding, fisheries management has historically had 'sustainable yield' as the objective, for obvious reasons: if there is fishing (on any scale), there will be fewer fish. If you control take such that extinction is avoided, it becomes simply a public policy issue of where the balance between take and abundance will be. I favor skewing it to the former, since people need to eat and the ocean grows food in vastly greater abundance and in far 'greener' fashion than the land. Also for the salutary human effects of retaining that individual connection to the fruits of nature and self-reliance. The fact that it's demonstrably possible to kill that goose is not cause for chicken-little hysteria in managing the process. There does not seem to be anything close to crisis in the West Coast rockfisheries (for lack of a more precise term). Of those species you mention, GSB certainly seem a good example of what lack of foresight and management produces - also what targeted management can rectify. Those others are still present in abundance - using a definition that there are still breeding populations adequate to provide for the currently allowed fishing take, when local and temporal fluctuations are smoothed out. The fact that they are not as abundant as some arbitrary historical baseline is not the public policy issue, in my preference.

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.

That sounds like a great success story, but surely it must depend as well on the fishery quality starting point (as well as the public policy objective). Much of the area closed in the North Central, and to lesser degree in the Central, is barely fished and certainly far from any lack of abundance. The drive to establish an MPA in those areas is clearly NOT driven by some current flirtation with scarcity of any species. In some areas, even salmon trolling was outlawed, because of the presumptive impact assigned to blue and black rockfish from bycatch. This was one of the 'junk science' tidbits foisted on the SAT by the political handlers. Trolling impact on rockfish approaches zero, while blues and blacks are highly abundant in those areas. That didn't matter to the science of MLPA. The problem with ecosystem management is precisely because it is so imprecise - all or nothing - whereas targeted management is demonstrably workable.

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.

Therein lies the rub and policy disconnect between the 'back to Eden' crowd and the mainstream. It's fantastic to imagine we can turn the eco-clock back 3000 years, with 7 billion humans to feed and accomodate. You may wish to impose a coastline of off-limits parks on the population of California, but that goes against what has proven to be a sustainable and venerated tradition of fishing there - one that's vital to survival. I don't see where a personal aesthetic is relevant under those circumstances, particularly when there are established parks, and areas of less human impact, for those times when that's what one wants to experience.

If you weight the area closures for habitat quality, the closures are closer to 50%. As well, fishermen have never had 100% access (there have always been closed zones, closed calendar months, closed species, and size and bag limits on take) - indeed it is not inaccurate to say that even BEFORE the MLPAs began closing the coast to all fishing, 90+% of the waters were closed to most recreational fishing (the cowcod and rockfish closure areas - anywhere deeper than 120/180/240 ft., and the seasonal closures in shallower water for 1/4 - 1/3 of the year).

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.

The fish farms may well be part of why the corporate natural resource players are involved here, but that aside, I think exploiting wild fish is far preferable to seeing cows on every patch of marginally exploitable terra firma. It seems more efficient, in the broadest sense. While it's true that commercial take has the proven power to decimate stocks, recreational fishing does not, and even combined, the record on the West Coast shows that traditional bag and season limits are capable of carrying most of the weight for management.

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 believe the historical record and explicit preference of fishing interests is a resounding YES to that question. I'd also note that neither turtles nor GSB are especially representative as fisheries management challenges. But as to 'has shown a diminution of available stock' as the benchmark, if the whole world is simply a nature preserve, where will food come from? I'd like that imaginary realm as well, but it's not possible.

I say, let the recreational fishermen fish. They won't destroy the fisheries, not even close.

 

[drbill]

I guess we will just have to disagree. I do not accept the arguments that fisheries are currently sustainable nor the "public policy" debate that providing recreational benefits (or food) over 100% of the ocean is preferable to maintaining some areas where wild ecosystems can develop naturally to full productivity.

With 7 billion people, we need to look at the issue of population. While the developed countries have addressed this to a degree (out of economic desires mainly IMHO), the world needs to if we are going to "sustainably" feed all those people.

And with respect to the issue of population... when a region like SoCal grows to the extent it has over the last 60 years, there is no way one can maintain sustainability even at current depressed population levels without some serious management. Prior practices will simply not do. Of course that is MY opinion as a scientist... you're entitled to yours.

At some point we need to "uncenter ourselves" (in the words of my favorite poet Robinson Jeffers) and realize we live on a planet with more than just one species, and that they have a "right" to exist as well.

 

[drbill]

I say, let the recreational fishermen fish. They won't destroy the fisheries, not even close.

They already have seriously damaged several of them and as human population increases in the region, it will be worse without measures like the MPAs IMHO.

 

[spoolin01]

I guess we will just have to disagree. I do not accept the arguments that fisheries are currently sustainable nor the "public policy" debate that providing recreational benefits (or food) over 100% of the ocean is preferable to maintaining some areas where wild ecosystems can develop naturally to full productivity.

Perturbation is already long in the cards, yet still the coastline remains quite rich (with a few bleak spots). This an aesthetic preference, not a scientific imperative. I don't think you can make the case that a ecosystem mildly depleted in a few species of fish (among many that are not targeted, btw) is not wild and 'natural' or at full productivity, except by tautology. That some species thrive while others struggle or fail, due to competition, is a hallmark of ecosystems - is that unnatural?

But the primary point remains you don't have to stop all fishing, anywhere, to control most problems. A few parks here and there would be great - the MLPA is wholesale closure.

With 7 billion people, we need to look at the issue of population. While the developed countries have addressed this to a degree (out of economic desires mainly IMHO), the world needs to if we are going to "sustainably" feed all those people.

QFT, it can only get much worse for some time to come. A far more compelling battle, I'd say.

And with respect to the issue of population... when a region like SoCal grows to the extent it has over the last 60 years, there is no way one can maintain sustainability even at current depressed population levels without some serious management. Prior practices will simply not do. Of course that is MY opinion as a scientist... you're entitled to yours.

It seems more like a burr in your britches, scientist or not.

You regularly cite your profession as if you consider it a kind of trump card in this arena, as if only a biologist can look at the record and the various analyses, and have an informed opinion about the choice between widespread no-fishing zones and alternate approaches, in the California setting. How do you respond to those scientists like Hilborn who seem to disagree with both your assessment and recommendations? I don't know what your specific field is, is it fisheries management? If you can't make the chicken-little case, there's little to distinguish your input on the public policy matter from anyone elses.


{/quote]At some point we need to "uncenter ourselves" (in the words of my favorite poet Robinson Jeffers) and realize we live on a planet with more than just one species, and that they have a "right" to exist as well.[/QUOTE]Everybody has a sense of this, but typically apply both phylogenetic prioritization and sense of balance. We're not talking about extinction here, or anything remotely close.

 

[spoolin01]

They already have seriously damaged several of them and as human population increases in the region, it will be worse without measures like the MPAs IMHO.

Such terms. If you take a fish population down by 80% say, is that 'seriously damaged'? In what sense? Do the fish have a sense of loss, of what could be, but they are denied? Is there a quality of life issue for them, with lower density? What exactly are the damages? Don't they bounce back once the pressure is altered? As tasty as they are, I think those are important questions.

I guess what I'm asking is, where is the evidence that the battle is imminently lost for any species of concern, and if there is/are those, that simply reducing the specific take won't fix that?

Commercial fishing occurs on such a scale that it can demonstrably get out of hand (yet the Hilborn study says that those populations are rebounding along California). Recreational take is far more measured, and tunable. Would you rather have the cows scalping and stomping every bit of flat land with a blade of grass on it? I get more of a sense of ecosystem transformation when I drive the rural countryside or walk the Sierra meadows than when I dive the coast.

 

[drbill]

Perturbation is already long in the cards, yet still the coastline remains quite rich (with a few bleak spots). This an aesthetic preference, not a scientific imperative. I don't think you can make the case that a ecosystem mildly depleted in a few species of fish (among many that are not targeted, btw) is not wild and 'natural' or at full productivity, except by tautology. That some species thrive while others struggle or fail, due to competition, is a hallmark of ecosystems - is that unnatural?

Yes, of course species come and go... change is inherent in natural systems. So much that has changed in SoCal ecosystems has been the result of overharvesting of key species, and we can start with the sea otter back in the 1700s and 1800s. As a keystone species, its removal changed a lot.

But the primary point remains you don't have to stop all fishing, anywhere, to control most problems. A few parks here and there would be great - the MLPA is wholesale closure.

I would hardly call what was set aside a "wholesale closure."

QFT, it can only get much worse for some time to come. A far more compelling battle, I'd say.
It seems more like a burr in your britches, scientist or not.

You regularly cite your profession as if you consider it a kind of trump card in this arena, as if only a biologist can look at the record and the various analyses, and have an informed opinion about the choice between widespread no-fishing zones and alternate approaches, in the California setting. How do you respond to those scientists like Hilborn who seem to disagree with both your assessment and recommendations? I don't know what your specific field is, is it fisheries management? If you can't make the chicken-little case, there's little to distinguish your input on the public policy matter from anyone elses.

I consider my 40 years of experience diving and fishing (yes, fishing... I had my own fishing boat and was a partner in a salmon troller up in Fort Bragg back in the 80s) to be a trump card. I have that perspective, and most of the time viewed the ocean as an ecologist. You may not accept that qualification, but it is a real one... and my scientific peers have acknowledged that some of my research in our waters down here has been ground breaking.

The anti-science bias I see in many fishermen and in the general public saddens me. I have always gone to fishermen with questions about what I see in our waters because I do consider them a valid source of information. I have learned many things by talking to them, and by working with them to enhance certain species (including volunteering on salmon traps up in the redwoods north of Fort Bragg).

One of my favorite co-workers was a fisherman. He would often see things I didn't, and describe them to me. I would then put a scientific explanation to them. We both learned from one another by using our difference is perception and understanding to try to come to a better understanding of what was happening out there.

I didn't see that from many of the fishermen in the MLPA process... especially the ones who spit on one of the most recognized kelp forest ecologists in the world.

I usually only claim a level of expertise for the areas I know intimately, over time. I rarely comment on the MPAs designated in mainland waters since I seldom dive there.

As for Hilbron, I will acknowledge not having read his work (yet). I wonder what he knows specifically about my area and will be interested in learning that.

 

[drbill]

Such terms. If you take a fish population down by 80% say, is that 'seriously damaged'? In what sense? Do the fish have a sense of loss, of what could be, but they are denied? Is there a quality of life issue for them, with lower density? What exactly are the damages? Don't they bounce back once the pressure is altered? As tasty as they are, I think those are important questions.

I guess what I'm asking is, where is the evidence that the battle is imminently lost for any species of concern, and if there is/are those, that simply reducing the specific take won't fix that?

Strange argument.. no one is talking about a fish's "sense of loss" or "quality of life." Don't even see why you'd raise such a silly issue. This isn't about a fish's perception, it is about the health of ecosystems as a whole.

Does talking a population down 80% cause damage. You bet it does for many species. It can have rather serious impacts on reproductive potential and the ability to bounce back. I'm surprised you'd even ask that question. Look at the mortality studies done by Love and Schroeder on giant sea bass under various regimes of fishing pressure. Even small changes in harvest rates can lead to extinction.

Reef associated fish may (or may not) be even more affected by this since if you reduce the population size by 80%, they may not have much mating success. I'm sure a similar thing would be observed in pelagics, but I generally focus my studies on demersal and reef associated species nearshore.

Another factor is that when you reduce a species' population 80%, you also impact the species it competes with or feeds on. These effects ripple through the ecosystem. This is why tradition species-based conservation measures are inadequate... one needs to look at the health of the entire ecosystem that supports these species.

Fishers often complain here about the impact of squid fishers on food sources for white sea bass. I agree with them. The commercial squid boats are applying greater pressure in our waters due to the closures off Anacapa and the fact that the MPAs approved for Catalina did NOT include the areas of intense squid harvest as both local anglers and myself requested.

One of the reasons we don't have abalone (we need to look at species other than just fish) in our waters is that the populations have been drastically reduced in size and density. Abalone need to be within about 18" of one another for successful spawning. I know of only one site on Catalina's leeward side where there is a reasonably sized population of abalone close enough together to spawn.

Commercial fishing occurs on such a scale that it can demonstrably get out of hand (yet the Hilborn study says that those populations are rebounding along California). Recreational take is far more measured, and tunable. Would you rather have the cows scalping and stomping every bit of flat land with a blade of grass on it? I get more of a sense of ecosystem transformation when I drive the rural countryside or walk the Sierra meadows than when I dive the coast.

I will have to read Hilbron.

Disagree on recreational take being more measured... for a number of species it exceeds commercial take and for some species the only real take is recreational rather than commercial.

Many of us worked for decades to get cattle, feral goats ad feral pigs removed from Catalina Island so the native ecosystems could recover. I understand your point about less fish meaning more beef consumption. We all need to eat lower on the food chain if we are to have reasonably sustainable food sources whether they come from land or sea.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

But the primary point remains you don't have to stop all fishing, anywhere, to control most problems.

A favorite tactic when someone is trying to confuse an issue is to claim it's something it is not, and then oppose that thing which it isn't.

Nowhere in the MLPA legislation is wholesale closure of all fishing ever advocated. It has never been advocated by anyone on the RSG, SAT, SIG, or the BRTF.

You're raising/creating a phony issue.

A few parks here and there would be great . . .

Which is exactly what you've got. I think around 20% of the coastline (maybe a little less) was the final figure. So what exactly is your beef?

. . . the MLPA is wholesale closure.

At best, your statement is a mangling of facts. At worst, an deliberate distortion of truth.

Yes, there are SOME Marine Protected Areas (like the Avalon Underwater Park) that are designated as no-take zones. There are, plenty more, like Farnsworth, where restricted take is permitted of specified species. And there were even more areas that were proposed/contemplated that were never touched and remain totally open to fishing under current bag/catch limits.

As I said previously, having a different opinion is one thing. Having different "facts" (especially when they're untrue) isn't right nor does it help a reasoned debate.

- Ken (Member of the SIG)