Help Protect Southern California’s Ocean Gems

[SD_diver1]

The south coast Marine Life Protection Act process is nearly complete, but we need your help to ensure the ocean protection plan adopted by California really works for our region.

Local stakeholders worked for over a year to map out a network of marine protected areas that will keep special places like Naples Reef, Point Dume, and La Jolla healthy for future generations. There are three plans on the table now, and the conservation plan will give us the most bang for the buck.

If you dive, surf, swim, tide pool, kayak, or just love to eat sustainable local seafood, you have a stake in this effort. The future of our coastal ocean hangs in the balance, and we have to get this right.

A strong marine protected area plan will do for our ocean what state parks have done for our most treasured landscapes—preserve their unique beauty so that everyone can experience nature at its best…now, and 100 years from now.

Policy advisors on the Blue Ribbon Task Force will review the three plans on October 20-22 and identify the best choice for our area. Please consider attending the meeting or sending them a letter to support a strong, science-based ocean protection plan like the one proposed by conservationists.

October 21, 2009
Hilton Long Beach & Executive Meeting Center
701 West Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90831
Guidelines for public comments

To learn more, visit caloceans.org online or check out this great 20-minute film (google: The Baum Foundation - A Sheltered Sea )

 

[drbill]

I hope to attend the meetings, or at least some of them. I've been educating about this for years and am once again hopeful that things may indeed change for the better before it is too late. This is a long overdue move on the part of California and I am hopeful the rest of the states with coastal regions will follow suit. We know the federal government is preparing to look at establishing a federal network as well. In fact, one of my research papers was recommended to NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco as one model for evaluating marine reserve networks.

 

[White Knight]

Thanks guys....I look forward to only being able to fish in “the mud” that you leave available to me after you successfully close Naples Reef and the like. Bravo to you. Congrats to you and your well balanced cause! You who have contributed zero dollars into the protection of habitat. Protect Naples for the dozen or so SCUBA divers who will brave the tar seeps to take pictures in the 10 foot visibility at the expense of the thousands who would have enjoyed the resource otherwise! And by the way, how much does "your" conservation license cost? Nada, right? At least I buy a fishing license and help contribute toward the safekeeping of our waters. But never mine me....looks like you are going to win! Looks like you are going to be able to shut down virtually every single accessible reef along the coast and islands. Bravo! Kudos to you! Congrats to you and your cause! Excellent organization! Way to think about that next generation! Bask in the glory of your victory!

 

[drbill]

White Knight, extractive users have taken from the marine environment for MANY decades. Their cumulative effect has been to leave few if any truly healthy ecosystems out there. I don't think it is too much for extractive users to curtail their activities in 20-30% of the coastline so these areas may recover, become more healthy and even offer spillover into the adjacent unprotected areas where you will be able to fish for them.

I stopped all take back in 1975. Prior to that I did indeed contribute to the decline (albeit in a very small way). I saw the light quite early. I AM thinking of the future and the coming generations including my son who likes to spearfish.

You sound too selfish to see that, and that the establishment of these reserves should actually improve fish stocks available for you to take. I suppose you feel entitled to the nearly 100% of the coast that anglers have had for 150 years of our State's history? You should leartn more about the decline of fish stocks not only in our coastal waters but pelagics as well.

It is not marine reserves that will kill the future of fishing... it is the cumulative overfishing that has been occurring for decades.

 

[White Knight]

DR Bill....I'll give you 20 the 30 percent of the Ocean's reefs as you claim you ask--But not of the Ocean. I'll give you the mud--as you offer me--but not 70% of the kelp as you desire for yourself. We've gone around with this issue already. There are many other ways to deal with the decline of our fish stocks and the rebuilding of them than closing the majority of the reefs to "recreational" fishing and "pretending" to meet the sportsman half way by leaving the mud for him/her to fish and dive. But as I said, have no fear....you will win! You will be awarded the reefs all to yourself. These meetings that are being held and the accompanying research are a joke. Create the illusion of a fair trial....and then hang'em. Just hang in there a bit more....You will get it all. Then I'll call you and you can show me around the awesome mud holes you've left me to fish and dive.

 

[drbill]

Well, you can't argue against a position like that since it really doesn't address the reality of what is happening. Looking at the maps for Catalina which I am most familiar with, having llived and dived here for 40 years, there is plenty of unprotected and high quality kelp forest available for fishing. You need to move from the propaganda spouted by so many in opposition to MPAs to the actual facts. Of course I can't speak for your specific region, but I can for mine.

 

[White Knight]

Dr Bill, Then we have no disagreement! You keep your promise to not take more than 20% - 30% of the accessible reefs and kelp forests and the world will be good. You will be a man of your word! Somehow I don't find the true goal of the environmental movement to be creditable. I believe they use false science and deception (perhaps you are caught up in it too). I don't believe they are interested in sustainable fisheries. I do believe they're ultimate goal is to stop all hunting and fishing of virtually any kind--everywhere. The MPA's are but a step in that direction. When it is all done, I will await your public post on SCUBABOARD highlighting the “75%” of the reefs and kelp forests in Santa Barbara that you have “kept your word” and left available to recreational fishing.

 

[drbill]

If you'd spent more time underwater in SoCal over the past 5 decades, you'd not need science to convince yourself tha substantial damage has already been done. Of course diving the Casino Point Dive Park should prove that as well. I can't speak for your area which has much smaller human population and I assume far less demand on its marine life. If you could see what has happened here, you might understand our issues more.

I'm not "the decider" in these things so I have no control over the final results of the MLPA process. However, I'd sure appreciate it if YOU would make a promise that none of your friends in the consumptive community will poach... whether it means fishing or spearing in protected areas or taking more than is legally allowed (many of course do observe these rules).

 

[TroupH2O]

How can I support this process when it has the possibility of closing beach access? Sounds like a crazy comment? That is the authority worded in the SMR restrictions. Then I became more concerned. I started by reviewing the South Coast proposed regions and found some of the proposals disturbing. For instance "Draft External Proposal C" defines SMR status from North of Santa Barbara to Point Conception. This affects nearly every beach access point. Why should I support the possible closing down of my local diving? I am concerned with a subtle wording which allows the plan to transition from conservation to prohibition and the possibility of a “Proposal C” plan being approved.

BTW, If you think my concern is over-exaggerated just look and the affect of "Snowy Plover" protection. Beach access is closed based on the protecting a species.

Definition extracted from the MLPA site.
[FONT=&quot]Restrictions [36710(a) PRC][/FONT]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.

 

[drbill]

If you are referring to Draft External Proposal C from the previous round, that is not one of the current options. Look to Proposals 1 through 3. They are the current ones.