Fish & Game Commission approves South Coast MPAs

[drbill]

That even if sportfishing were a threat to the oceans (data demonstrates that current catch rates are sustainable)

I would strongly disagree with that. First, it is a blanket statement and thereby is worthless unless supported by facts for each of the species involved. Second, history over the last 60 years shows it simply is not true for many species.

If you take a baseline population level of the year 2000 (arbitrary choice), you are suggesting that sustainability means fishing pressure allows the population to remain around that level. However, that level is already substantially depleted for many of the species involved and therefore does not reflect true sustainability.

To refer to sustainability, one has to use a specific baseline for comparison. I suggest you are using baselines that reference already depleted stocks for many species.

 

[lemon]

Hey Justin,

You raise a number of objections to the establishment of MLPAs in your argument against them - you don't like the process, you don't feel that they do enough, etc. However, at the end of the day the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the simple fact that we have grossly over-fished our oceans over the past 100 years or so and continue to do so. History shows very clearly that attempts at managing fisheries for max sustainable yield do not work. Marine Protected Areas are an idea whose time has come and experience shows that they can be effective in helping fish stocks to recover. Hopefully these and other tentative steps can be broadened in the future to further protect our oceans so that future generations will be able to enjoy them as well.

 

[DwayneJ]

There's plenty of historical records going back 100 years on "how good" the fishing used to be around here. As some of the first scuba divers in the area, the Meistrell brothers from Dive N Surf have great stories about the local sea life - Nothing like what we observe now.

MPA's are not perfect but they are a start.

Dwayne

 

[JustinW]

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.

I can respect your opinions here Dr Bill, however they have nothing to do with the MLPA process or how we make decisions as a government. In Dr. Billland you are entitled to create and follow whatever laws you would like, but in this state and this country the rights you speak of are not recognized, however the rights that I spoke of that have been violated do.

 

[JustinW]

Hey Justin,

You raise a number of objections to the establishment of MLPAs in your argument against them - you don't like the process, you don't feel that they do enough, etc. However, at the end of the day the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the simple fact that we have grossly over-fished our oceans over the past 100 years or so and continue to do so. History shows very clearly that attempts at managing fisheries for max sustainable yield do not work. Marine Protected Areas are an idea whose time has come and experience shows that they can be effective in helping fish stocks to recover. Hopefully these and other tentative steps can be broadened in the future to further protect our oceans so that future generations will be able to enjoy them as well.

Yes, our ocean have been overfished. This is an established fact. What history shows that managing fisheries for max sustainable yield do not work? Nevermind that history anyhow because it isn't relevant to how sportfishing is managed by the state and federal authorities that manage waters on the west coast. California sport fisheries are not managed for max sustainable yield. Commercial fisheries for some species such as squid, herring and a few other species are but these are not species that are of concern. MLPA's also do not have much of an effect on the species managed in this way. It is true that they CAN be effective, but it has already been demonstrated on the North Central region that they displace effort and have a negative effect on other areas by concentrating efforts into fewer and fewer areas, this causes havoc when trying to manage fisheries and has a negative economic impact on rural coastal towns of the North Coast. I can understand your lack of compassion and understanding of this with you living in a large urban area. You don't seem to be very informed.

On the contrary to how you thought our fisheries are managed. Regulations are established conservatively and with a wide margin. For example, in the 2010 salmon season here in California, seasons were established jointly with NOAA, PFMC and DFG with a maximum target harvest of 80,000 fish for sport and commercial season. Actual harvest was estimated at 62,000 fish. This concept has been covered extensively during the MLPA process. You would know this if you actually followed the proceedings.

There's plenty of historical records going back 100 years on "how good" the fishing used to be around here. As some of the first scuba divers in the area, the Meistrell brothers from Dive N Surf have great stories about the local sea life - Nothing like what we observe now.

MPA's are not perfect but they are a start.

Dwayne

Dwayne, If you look at official historical records kept by NOAA that have been cited in this thread repeatedly you will notice the point you are missing or perhaps just under informed about is that fishery management has changed in the past 20 years. Many species are stable or on an upswing and have been for many years, years before MPA's were established. The anecdotal records you speak of really are irrelevant to what we are talking about here. They are nice stories though, I like hearing them. I get to tell these stories already to my kids someday. For example, I get to talk about the great spearfishing trip I had in 2011 to my kids, but then I will tell them about how they can no longer do that there because later that year it was closed down by a corrupt BRTF and an ill informed populace that blindly followed based upon anecdotal evidence and reasons like you and Lemon used above.

 

[JustinW]

I would strongly disagree with that. First, it is a blanket statement and thereby is worthless unless supported by facts for each of the species involved. Second, history over the last 60 years shows it simply is not true for many species.

If you take a baseline population level of the year 2000 (arbitrary choice), you are suggesting that sustainability means fishing pressure allows the population to remain around that level. However, that level is already substantially depleted for many of the species involved and therefore does not reflect true sustainability.

To refer to sustainability, one has to use a specific baseline for comparison. I suggest you are using baselines that reference already depleted stocks for many species.

Using the NOAA data that I multiple people in this thread have already cited shows your statement to be untrue. I understand you have a scientific background as well as a personal slant. Your statements align with your opinions and worldview but disagree with data established by NOAA. Hmmmm. By the way, NOAA data shows many species with a population at their lowest levels around 1992-1994 depending on the species but that these populations have been on an increase since then.

 

[Divebum Don]

I was a "Dead Head" on the City of Redondo and the Pursuit sport fishing vessels during the mid 70's. Sacks were full! I gutted and filleted more fish than I care to remember for "tips". Abundance and variety were a non issue. About the same time I began free diving and spearfishing. At a young age I wondered about the difference between spearfishing(Native Catch) and the "pay" boats above. It was very enlightening.

Bill points out a very distinct issue about his observations of Sport Fishing boats today. I monitored Eagle Reef for a few years as part of the CCD, and the idea that a Fishing Boat, 30 or 40 strong can "clean a reef" of all the reproductive species is a no brainer. I've seen it.

The political process is absolutely polluted, BUT that's how (sh)it gets done dude, get over it.

If you don't think this is a great first step to a better ocean, than I believe you're clueless.

Get off your deck and take a dive with us! Sincerely! Wrigley (P)reserve will take ya back 30 Years!

Be Safe Out There!

 

[lemon]

Yes, our ocean have been overfished. This is an established fact. What history shows that managing fisheries for max sustainable yield do not work? Nevermind that history anyhow because it isn't relevant to how sportfishing is managed by the state and federal authorities that manage waters on the west coast. California sport fisheries are not managed for max sustainable yield. Commercial fisheries for some species such as squid, herring and a few other species are but these are not species that are of concern. MLPA's also do not have much of an effect on the species managed in this way. It is true that they CAN be effective, but it has already been demonstrated on the North Central region that they displace effort and have a negative effect on other areas by concentrating efforts into fewer and fewer areas, this causes havoc when trying to manage fisheries and has a negative economic impact on rural coastal towns of the North Coast. I can understand your lack of compassion and understanding of this with you living in a large urban area. You don't seem to be very informed.

On the contrary to how you thought our fisheries are managed. Regulations are established conservatively and with a wide margin. For example, in the 2010 salmon season here in California, seasons were established jointly with NOAA, PFMC and DFG with a maximum target harvest of 80,000 fish for sport and commercial season. Actual harvest was estimated at 62,000 fish. This concept has been covered extensively during the MLPA process. You would know this if you actually followed the proceedings.



Dwayne, If you look at official historical records kept by NOAA that have been cited in this thread repeatedly you will notice the point you are missing or perhaps just under informed about is that fishery management has changed in the past 20 years. Many species are stable or on an upswing and have been for many years, years before MPA's were established. The anecdotal records you speak of really are irrelevant to what we are talking about here. They are nice stories though, I like hearing them. I get to tell these stories already to my kids someday. For example, I get to talk about the great spearfishing trip I had in 2011 to my kids, but then I will tell them about how they can no longer do that there because later that year it was closed down by a corrupt BRTF and an ill informed populace that blindly followed based upon anecdotal evidence and reasons like you and Lemon used above.

I'm an ill-informed blind follower? That's a bit condescending don't you think?

Anyway, you asked "What history shows that managing fisheries for max sustainable yield do not work?" One word, Cod. And guess what the fisherman were saying just before that fishery collapsed? Guess who was arguing that quotas were set way too low? Of course there are lots of other examples. if you are really interested in a historical review of the failure of fisheries worldwide you could start with The End of the Line by Charles Clover or perhaps the classic Song for the Blue Ocean by Carl Sarafina. And its not just commercial fisheries discussed, there's even quite a bit in there about how sport fisheries can and do negatively affect fisheries. Clover even makes a pretty good argument that fisheries can for a number of reasons be unmanageable (just look at the farce that is ICCAT) and that the way forward is widespread MPAs. Why not give these books a try for starters?

Obviously you're as passionate about this topic as others are on the other side of the argument. Just curious, do you have a financial stake in the sportfishing industry?

You are obviously unhappy with the methods, the actors, and the results in the MLPA process. My question for you is whether there is ANY no take MPA that you would support? I get the impression that you have an entrenched position on this.

 

[JustinW]

I'm an ill-informed blind follower? That's a bit condescending don't you think?

Anyway, you asked "What history shows that managing fisheries for max sustainable yield do not work?" One word, Cod. And guess what the fisherman were saying just before that fishery collapsed? Guess who was arguing that quotas were set way too low? Of course there are lots of other examples. if you are really interested in a historical review of the failure of fisheries worldwide you could start with The End of the Line by Charles Clover or perhaps the classic Song for the Blue Ocean by Carl Sarafina. And its not just commercial fisheries discussed, there's even quite a bit in there about how sport fisheries can and do negatively affect fisheries. Clover even makes a pretty good argument that fisheries can for a number of reasons be unmanageable (just look at the farce that is ICCAT) and that the way forward is widespread MPAs. Why not give these books a try for starters?

Obviously you're as passionate about this topic as others are on the other side of the argument. Just curious, do you have a financial stake in the sportfishing industry?

You are obviously unhappy with the methods, the actors, and the results in the MLPA process. My question for you is whether there is ANY no take MPA that you would support? I get the impression that you have an entrenched position on this.

Again, this is exactly what I am talking about. Cod is the common name for the genus Gadus, but there are many other species that are also called Cod. I hesitate to cite wikipedia but it isn't a bad starting point to understanding that Cod is not a particular specie. Saying Cod is like saying Shark. Are you even referring to a species or fishery in California? You could be taking about Black Cod, or Sablefish which can be found in a few places within MPA's but MPA's really won't have much affect on their population therefore I doubt you are talking about them. You could be talking about Pacific Hake which isn't really a Cod at all but could be confused as one. That is a species of concern but isn't targeted by sportfishers and their habitat isnt' something that MPA's cover much of. Either if those species would be poorly managed via MPA's. You could also be referring to Ling Cod, but that specie isn't considered at risk either. You could be speaking of the generic term Rock Cod which covers a variety of nearshore rockfish but those species are in recovery with increasing populations on the west coast (NOAA). The "historic record" would agree they were at one time overfished. Now there are depth restrictions, fleet harvest limits that are constantly monitored and other conservation measures that have been working without the help of MPA's. Sportfishing continues on most species and those that still need work have a zero retention limit. You could be speaking about the Cowcod, but again there is special attention paid to that specie as well. We aren't talking about the book you read, so please don't expect me to know which specie or population you are talking about when you didn't even mention the specific ecosystem affected.
I am well aware of the general state of many fisheries around the world, of which there are tens of thousands you could be referring to. There was even an article I cited earlier authored by the lead biologist from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration talking about fisheries around the world in decline, oddly enough it also mentioned the United States being the first fishery in recent history to not be experiencing overfishing. But what would a source like that know about fisheries. The thing is, other fisheries around the world are relatively unaffected by MPA's and vice versa. If you think setting up near shore MPA's in California is going to save the Western Atlantic Bluefin populations you will be putting a lot of effort into something that won't change a thing. For example, Atlantic stocks are dangerously unstable, but that has very little to do with stocks in the Eastern Pacific. MPA's will not "save the ocean."

I do not have a financial stake in fishing. Realisticly, if all fishing was shut down I would probably save money. Fishing is a natural extension of my diving. Take a look at this issue over on Spearboard. You will see that there are many many divers affected by these silly MPA's.

Would I support any no-take MPA? No I would not support ANY, but there is a compromise in which I would support MPA's. I can think of several specific places where MPA's could be established where all stakeholders could be accomodated better. In some cases I would expand MPA's even.

The thing about the MLPA process as it has been conducted is that it is clouded with special interests making the decisions. Big Oil and land developers did a lot of the decision making. Tell me how a complete conservation plan to preserve the health of an ecosystem can include not one line or policy about pollution. Tell me why it was important to make sure language was included that protected the rights to develop a wave farm within the borders on an MPA? Tell me why oil producers had their rights to mine and drill for oil within MPA's protected? I can't support an "environmental plan" that supports the complete exploitation of darn near every natural resource in and on shore bordering the MPA's? The ONLY thing that MPA's do is ban already closely controlled fishing.

The text of the legislation states very clearly, "Coastal development, water pollution, and other human activities threaten the health of marine habitat and the biological diversity found in California's ocean waters." Coastal development was not addressed, water pollution was not addressed. The only thing that was addressed was one of the "other human activities." The way I read that line of legislation, diving is also an "other human activity."

What we have is NOT a complete environmental plan. Supporters argue "it is a start." I will argue we should not start by protecting the interest of land developers and oil companies first. That is a terrible start! MPA's do NOTHING to protect California's ocean waters from pollution or coastal development. The leaders of major oil developers and coastal land developers were appointed positions and made sure that their interests were protected.

Direct from the head of the BRTF (and oddly enough the head of the Western Petroleum Association)"Without added offshore oil development, the state would have to bring in more oil by tanker, and 'we don't want that,'" ~Reheis-Boyd
(Obama revives local oil drilling fears | PressDemocrat.com).

What will be said here in SB if there is a BP style oil spill facilitated by language adopted by the BRTF for the MLPAI? I suspect your tune will change and you will ask how this could happen. Well here is how it happened.

How and why would you as divers sit back and allow this? Combine the poor excuse for a plan with the human rights violations to indigenous peoples, violation of local, state, federal and international law and multiple treaties and I'm not sure how supporters sleep at night. I can only assume that you just aren't fully informed. Do you understand all of this and still support the MLPAI or is this new to you? Have you attended the meetings and followed the science and legal issues? Perhaps the human rights violations don't bother you. Dr. Bill mentioned something about the rights of fish. We all have differing world views. I don't feel it is right to simply bury my head in the sand and accept the status quo. I could support MPA's but I think this is a dangerous and unnecessary process for our coastlines. I want a plan conducted and put in place as the law was originally written. Why not only take off the table any sort of pollution protection but actually write in language that encourages it to happen. Might as well write legislation and title it "Protecting bunnies from disease" when the legislation actually just lays the groundwork for a commercial meat rabbit farm where rabbits are given antibiotics. Not only are we missing the ball completely on this issue, but we are actually supporting policy that accomplishes the opposite of what most all of us want.

So Lemon, given what you are (hopefully) just learning, are you happy "with the methods, the actors, and the results in the MLPA process?"

 

[lemon]

I was referring to the northwest stock of atlantic cod which is the obvious and classic example of a fishery collapse. You might have heard of it. We were discussing historical examples of failed fisheries, remember? I never said this was in California. I never said california's mpas as they stand now will affect this population. Again, read the books.