Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[JustinW]

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

Not only that, but following on what Spoolin said. There are seasons, only part of the year is fished, and then within that there are depth restrictions. Combine that with most recreational fishing being done on the weekends, take away historical fishing grounds with MPA's and that is the major portion. It is these regulations that have been tightened way before MPA's were put into effect that have had a positive influence on fish populations. One of the points of stakeholders against the MPA process (aside from it being bought and paid for by anti-fishing interests) is that they just aren't necessary. Species in decline have been corrected with proper management before MPA's and that MPA's simply are not required for sustainable oceans. When something that has a profound negative impact on user groups is not necessary then why do it when other methods have proven success. I have asked time and time again with no response, are MPA's the ONLY way? I suspect the reason this question is avoided is because the answer is "no, MPA's are not necessary but we like them because they do not affect us." How about this, no diving allowed in MPA's, would that change the tone of anyone here in the room?

Let's not even start on the reason the Bay-Delta ecosystem is on the verge of collapse is because the water is being sent to irrigate the lawns of southern california.

Not a word from the peanut gallery about why this so called wonderful MLPA process can only succeed by breaking California Law and violating the rights of every Californian. Dr. Bill, are you aware of how corrupt the process you endorse is? Have you been following the meetings?

 

[drbill]

As I've stated in the past, I'm not qualified to comment on the north central or central zones as I don't dive there. Those regions lack the population centers that we have in SoCal, and therefore the potential pressure placed on fish and invertebrate stocks.

For an activity that has had largely unfettered access to many of the species, and limited access only to the ones in trouble, I can not feel much sympathy. It is time to do something to reverse the trends that have been occurring not just over the last decade, but the last century.

People look at the increasing population of sea lions, but how many know they are rebounding from a period of severe exploitation when they were harvested to make oil (3-4 adults creating a 42-gal barrel of oil) or even for the male gonads and penis. Yesm they are increasing... but from historic lows.

Many of the fish stocks referenced earlier are also increasing from historic lows.

And recreational anglers have impact, often in excess of that of commercial fishers. This has been true of lingcod based on the numbers I've seen, and certainly true of sport fish such as kelp bass. The pressure on that species was so intense that back in the early 1950s the State had to take significant measures to control the take.

 

[drbill]

When something that has a profound negative impact on user groups is not necessary then why do it when other methods have proven success. I have asked time and time again with no response, are MPA's the ONLY way?

But you don't mind that your activity has had tremendous impact on the rights of users like myself who want to see healthy ecosystems? There are two sides to every story, and mine has been on the losing side most of the last 60 years... if you talk to those who began diving here in the 50s and to anglers who were fishing our waters back then.

Are MPAs the only way? No. They are a proven effective way. I'd like to see slot limits imposed so we were no longer taking the individual fish with the greatest reproductive potential out of populations. I think many of the bag limits should be reduced. I look at party boats coming over to Catalina with as many as 95-100 anglers all fishing a single reef and each one allowed to keep 10 (a bag limit set in 1959 when the population of California was much smaller). This should be stopped as they practically clean the reef of individuals above the 12" size limit. If you don't believe that, just dive adjacent areas that are protected and unprotected and if you don't see the difference, I fear you may be blind.

 

[JustinW]

But you don't mind that your activity has had tremendous impact on the rights of users like myself who want to see healthy ecosystems? There are two sides to every story, and mine has been on the losing side most of the last 60 years... if you talk to those who began diving here in the 50s and to anglers who were fishing our waters back then.

Are MPAs the only way? No. They are a proven effective way. I'd like to see slot limits imposed so we were no longer taking the individual fish with the greatest reproductive potential out of populations. I think many of the bag limits should be reduced. I look at party boats coming over to Catalina with as many as 95-100 anglers all fishing a single reef and each one allowed to keep 10 (a bag limit set in 1959 when the population of California was much smaller). This should be stopped as they practically clean the reef of individuals above the 12" size limit. If you don't believe that, just dive adjacent areas that are protected and unprotected and if you don't see the difference, I fear you may be blind.

Loaded language and false dilemma in your first sentence indicated faulty logic. You contradict yourself by saying you have a right to "healthy ecosystems" but then later admit that MPA's are not the only way to achieve them. MPA's do not equal a healthy ecosystem, especially because they do not address the ecosystem, or pollution or oil drilling or anything other than fishing. Cruise ships can still dump their sewage right in an MPA, oil companies preserved their rights to drill within MPA's etc. Stopping sustainable fishing does not equal a healthy ecosystem. How silly is it to suggest that by closing off sections of the coast to sustainable fishing that the ecosystem is magicly wonderful.

If that right you suggest exists, then water exports to southern california should be shut off TODAY because thirsty so-calers are killing the California delta, endangering the delta smelt and causing the population decline of our Salmon. Again, if one user group is banned from an area, I propose that diving should be banned as well. I respect your overall opinion but what you just said doesn't hold water.

Also, I don't leave the responsibility to you solely to answer but again why, if MPA's are so wonderful and necessary (by your own admission they are not), why can't they be established in a legal manner? Why must there be so much corruption within the process? For something that is supposed to be so wonderful, you would think it wouldn't take violating the rights of Californian's to get it done. Which by the way, when the rules and laws of California were violated to get it passed, your RIGHTS were violated as well. Those rights do exist and are a lot more concrete than the nebulous right to swim with a arbitrary number of fishies.

I have not seen anywhere ever, that Dr. Bill or anyone else has a RIGHT to dive with a certain arbitrary number of fish surrounding them. Who established the number? Where is that written? If you can provide me with where in case or common law or any constitution it is written that you have that specific right to dive with a specific amount of fish around you, I will eat my hat and dance on top of the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

[drbill]

I stated that MPAs are not the only way, but I never stated they were not needed.

I don't drink water from NorCal... we trap our own rainwater here on the island.

As for our "right" to experience reasonably unimpacted marine ecosystems, and that species themselves have a "right" to exist in reasonable numbers... if you don't see it, only your own "rights," you are illustrated my very point of self-interest on your part.

 

[lemon]

Wish these MPAs were much larger. Again the fishing special interests remain exceedingly short-sighted.

 

[lemon]

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...

Marine life is a lot more than "food" and should be viewed with a less narrow mind-set. Healthy marine populations are essential to healthy oceans and healthy oceans are essential to climate, atmospheric co2 levels, and a healthy world.

I understand that it is frustrating when someone tells you that you can't fish wherever you'd like to. Unfortunately, with the dire shape of our oceans drastic measures are needed. Commercial fisheries are the worst, but there's also evidence that sportfishing can have significant negative impact on marine ecosystems. Blame the people who have depleted the majority of the worlds fish from our oceans, not the people who are trying to save them.

 

[JustinW]

Lemon,

Why not ban all human activities? Do you have any idea what the MPA's actually do? Did you know that they have done nothing to stop, prevent or clean up pollution in the ocean? You say that commercial fisheries are the worst, do you know that as the law is written, the BRTF and MLPA taskforce has no authority to regulate commercial fishing? Did you know that the areas within MPA's have historically not had much commercial fishing pressure anyhow and thus will not change commercial fisheries? Do you know that petroleum rights were protected within MPA's? Maybe that has something to do with the Chief Operating Officer and Chief of Staff for the Western States Petroleum Association being on the BRTF and being a major part of the decision making process. Do you know that land development rights were protected along these sections of coast? Perhaps that has something to do with Land develops and corporate property owners being on the BRTF. We have already established the fact that MPA's are not necessary. I really don't think you know what you are talking about although your heart seems to be coming from the right direction, just misguided. How much do you really know about what is going on with the BRTF and the MLPA process? Do you know what the BRTF is or is this the first you have heard of it?

Please do your homework on who is making these decisions and ask yourself why before you blindly follow.
California Department of Fish & Game, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, Blue Ribbon Task Force Member Biographies

Just so you don't have to clicky click it yourself, let me give you some highlights.

Catherine (Cathy) Reheis-Boyd is the chief operating officer and chief of staff for the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Affiliated with WSPA since 1990, she currently directs WSPA's government affairs, assists the president in media affairs, oversees all office and committee operations, manages WSPA's staff and financial resources and provides strategic oversight of key issues.
(What do you suppose may be key issues for big oil?)


William (Bill) Anderson has been president and chief operating officer of Westrec Marinas since 1989. Westrec Marinas is the nation's largest owner and operator of waterfront marinas.
(Hmmm, what special interests might a waterfront developer have? Sure would help their pocketbook to setup preserves, especially if they can then build resorts on top of them)

Gregory F. Schem is president and chief executive officer of Harbor Real Estate Group, specializing in marina and waterfront real estate investments, including a marina, fuel dock, and boat yard in Marina del Rey, in addition to other California assets. Schem has had a successful career in the national real estate market as an investor, developer and manager, including the re-development of loft residential units and hotels in Los Angeles, marinas, office buildings, shopping centers and industrial facilities.
(What special interests might a real estate developer have? Surely he wants to establish tighter regulations for his on the water fuel docks. What do the oceans have to do with real estate portfolios? Plenty if you are helping to protect your right to develop it)

So we have land developers and big oil doing the heavy lifting for the MLPA process. So we have as you called them "fishing special interests" (read: recreational boaters, native tribal people, families etc.) fighting against corporate big oil and oceanfront real estate development interests....and you. You really think Big Oil and real estate developers have your interests ahead of their wallets and stock portfolios? Since when did oil companies become so altruistic? Maybe it was when they realized they could fool you and secure oil rights and land development rights at the same time.

species themselves have a "right"

Dr. Bill, are we now assigning rights to fish? Now I know I haven't seen that in any constitution. Still looking for that quote from the constitution you were speaking of.




The MLPA Initiative has violated numerous state, federal and international laws, including the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act, the California Public Records Act, the State Administrative Procedure Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The commission does not have the statutory authority to adopt, modify or delete
marine protected areas under the MLPA's main rulemaking provisions until it has
approved a final Master Plan for the state. The final Master Plan has yet to be written or
approved.
-The other statutory authorities that the commission relies on do not provide the
commission with the authority it needs to adopt these MPAs.
-The privately‐funded "MLPA Initiative" process has been conducted in a manner
inconsistent with the process the state legislature directed in the MLPA, and meetings held by MLPA planning groups that should have been open meetings were closed to the public.
-The South Coast study region regulations were adopted on the basis of an
environmental review process that is in violation of CEQA.

Are you beginning to see that the MLPA process does a lot less to protect oceans than you thought, and a lot more to protect corporate interests. That even if sportfishing were a threat to the oceans (data demonstrates that current catch rates are sustainable) that you should support an effort that actually addresses the larger issues of protecting the oceans. When Big oil and land developers are cheering the process on and telling you it is all fuzzy bunnies and fluffy clouds, you need to think critically. We all live here together, lets come together and come up with a plan that works for everyone.


The corruption is floating to the surface every day, the entire process is looking like it might blow up in the faces of the BRTF

View the Special Meeting of the Fish and Game Commission and the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force from February 2nd, 2011.

http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=CFG&date=2011-02-02

 

[Jim Ernst]

The Fish & Game Commission has literally just now (at 3:15PM) passed the South Coast MPAs. They adopted the BRTF's IPA (Integrated Preferred Alternative) with some modifications.

It will still be a while until these take effect, but now it's on to the next step.

- Ken
-------------------
Ken Kurtis
Member - SIG (Statewide Interests Group)
MLPAI (Marine Life Protection Act Initiative)

I think this is a great Start!!!

 

[drbill]

Dr. Bill, are we now assigning rights to fish? Now I know I haven't seen that in any constitution. Still looking for that quote from the constitution you were speaking of.

Humans and the constitutions (federal and state) are only one species and a uniquely human set of laws. Why do you think they apply to the millions of other species that also occupy our planet? Your thinking is far too self- and anthropo-centric for my tastes.