Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[JustinW]

 

[drbill]

JustinW... an interesting read, but it seems to be full of holes from a logic standpoint. I point to the following quotes which made little sense, at least to me:

"Murawski said it's a nearly ironclad rule of fishery management that species become far more abundant when they're being fished at the appropriate level, which is determined after considering factors such as a species' life span and death rates."

"To say you can't rebuild stocks while overfishing is occurring is an outright lie. We did it," Marciano said.

I see the distinction between "overfishing" and "overfished" but fail to see that ending overfishing of already decimated stocks has brought us to such a critical inflection point.

The fisheries discussed here are not the kind of nearshore species that would be protected in the MPAs established in our state.

 

[JustinW]

JustinW... an interesting read, but it seems to be full of holes from a logic standpoint. I point to the following quotes which made little sense, at least to me:

"Murawski said it's a nearly ironclad rule of fishery management that species become far more abundant when they're being fished at the appropriate level, which is determined after considering factors such as a species' life span and death rates."

"To say you can't rebuild stocks while overfishing is occurring is an outright lie. We did it," Marciano said.

I see the distinction between "overfishing" and "overfished" but fail to see that ending overfishing of already decimated stocks has brought us to such a critical inflection point.

The fisheries discussed here are not the kind of nearshore species that would be protected in the MPAs established in our state.

NOAA studies have already indicated a trend of increasing populations in the federal groundfish stocks targeted by MPA's. These upward population trends have nothing to do with MPA's and the success of these species cannot be attributed to MPA's. Of course, we will see the data twisted in a few years with MPA's given the credit. That is of course, given that we even have MPA's as they exist today with the new round of lawsuits filed in the last week again DFG and the corrupt process that brought us to where we are with public access to our oceans.

 

[spoolin01]

The problem with MPAs isn't whether they 'work' by any given analysis, it's that they simply aren't justified in the context they are being implemented. As such, they represent a taking of an important historical and legal access right for little except the aesthetic satisfaction of their proponents. Overall and in almost every locale, they are a 'solution' in search of a problem, since the fish stocks are plentiful enough to be sustained through season and bag limit tools, which have the important benefit of being targetable at individual species. MPAs close an area off to all fishing, except occassionally for pelagic fish, regardless of fishery conditions. That is unconscionable.

 

[drbill]

Overfishing over many decades is what is unconscionable. And yes, it has happened for many species as one can see from the simple evidence provided by the existing reserves. If you can't share 20-30% of the ocean with others who do not hunt, I just don't see that as playing fair.

You seem to think that bag and other limits have worked because there are still fish to be taken. I saw they haven't because fish stocks have declined substantially, at least in many areas, over just my lifetime. That does not suggest sustainability to me. And as the stocks decline, any possibility of sustainability goes out the door.

 

[spoolin01]

It's not overfishing if the fish are still thriving - look at the NOAA population estimates Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses | Pacific Fishery Management Council. They've all been on the rise for years, since well before the coastal MLPA initiative. This is no doubt thanks to the changes in fishing regulations made around the time of the lows, which included closing the entire California coastline to recreational fishing for all groundfish species (with a couple of insignificant exceptions), with the sole exception of the nearshore shallow water fisheries. This shows that a measured approach - where take is permitted, but regulated by annually adjustable species/bag/size/method/season constraints - produces the desirable effect without the wholesale closure, for all species, of the areas most accessible and safe for rec fishermen, the shallow water nearshore grounds.


So far as the recreational fisherman is concerned, the California coastline is already one big MPA, from Mexico to Oregon. The nearshore shallow water habitat is the only area left to the rec fishermen. I'm sure that MPAs can play a role in addressing specific deficiencies in key micro-locales, in creating marine parks in popular areas, and as valuable experiments to reveal unique benefits they may offer. Unfortunately, it does not appear that these were the objectives or outcome of the current MLPA process. It was simply a fiat taking of a major portion of the fishing grounds, divorced from integration with existing management and apparently also without the intent to implement the statutorially required evaluation of outcomes, as the current lawsuit contends.

Here's a link to the current MPA map for the region between Point Reyes and Mendocino.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccmpas/nccmpas_north.pdf
and here is the evaluation of the rockfish habitat value (hard bottom or soft bottom) of that area
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/nccrsg-options/zero_maps_071026.pdf

This is where the assessment that MPAs have closed off ~50% of prime habitat comes from. The fishermen were left mostly with the shoreline that doesn't hold rockfish!! Due to the cliffs between the Russian River and Ft. Ross, the access closures along the lengthy and posh Sea Ranch district, the road locations north of there, and the lack of boat launches between Salt Point and Ft. Bragg, pretty much the only areas accessible to small boat rockfishing (or even shore fishing and diving) are between Ft. Ross and Sea Ranch. Guess where one of the biggest MPAs in the whole program is? Yet this is probably one of the most lightly fished areas along the entire coast already.

It doesn't trouble me that fishing takes fish out of the ocean, nor is it a compelling justification for MPAs that fish stocks increase when no-fishing zones are put in place. Like all food resources, they should be managed for food yield rather than some nostalgic aesthetic. The risk of overfishing has been sadly realized over and over around the world. Not here, not even close. MPAs for most of California are a solution in search of a problem...

 

[JustinW]

I keep talking about the corruption with the whole MLPA process, I mentioned there would be lawsuits regarding the injustices committed by the BRTF and the commission. The commission has over and over and over again denied any wrongdoing although they have been caught multiple times. Well as promised, the lawsuits are here and coming and the evidence is just starting to be shown. Take a few minutes to educate yourselves on the corruption within the process.

We can't simply disregard law to implement an anti-fishing agenda. Even the commission cannot deny they are corrupt. Again, if MLPA's are so wonderful and necessary, why does it take corruption and disregard for California law to get it done? Sadly the transparency within the process that is required by law takes a lawsuit to be achieved.

YouTube - PSO Confronts MLPA Corruption at Feb Commission Meeting


This is a clip pulled directly from a meeting within the last week.

 

[drbill]

It's not overfishing if the fish are still thriving - look at the NOAA population estimates Stock Assessments and Rebuilding Analyses | Pacific Fishery Management Council. They've all been on the rise for years, since well before the coastal MLPA initiative.

I looked at the report. Almost none of the species in the current report would be ones affected by MPAs in southern California because they are generally not nearshore species, at least in my experience. Of course that is quite different in the colder waters up north where they may well be found in shallower, nearshore waters.

 

[drbill]

So far as the recreational fisherman is concerned, the California coastline is already one big MPA, from Mexico to Oregon. The nearshore shallow water habitat is the only area left to the rec fishermen... It was simply a fiat taking of a major portion of the fishing grounds, divorced from integration with existing management and apparently also without the intent to implement the statutorially required evaluation of outcomes, as the current lawsuit contends.

Oh please... since when does less than 20% constitute a "major" portion?

 

[spoolin01]

Oh please... since when does less than 20% constitute a "major" portion?

Look at the hard bottom assessments in the North Central and Central zones, then look at the overlay of the approved MPAs, and THEN try to defend that BS 20% number... I keep making that point, you keep citing 20% without addressing habitat, rather than simple coastline distances.

I posted a link to one such 40 mile stretch, above (notably also an area NOT fished much at all due to distance from boat harbors, so hardly defensible as one where these no-fishing zones have anything to do with amelioration of over-fishing - even if you were to accept the chicken-little definition of over-fishing.) It was a fiat grab of fishing rights, since the opportunity presented itself (more correctly, was paid for over and under the table).


Oh please, indeed!!