Help Protect Southern California’s Ocean Gems

[TroupH2O]

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.

Thank you for the correction.

Seems there is still a large region is being identified as SMR. Goleta and Point Conception are done deal and Naples is a possibility. I'm not sure what to think about SMP at Gaviota.

I still have issue with SMR restrictions. The authority to protect a preserve should not include denying access.

 

[drbill]

Agreed that the definition of a SMR includes the option of denying all human access that might affect the ecosystem. However, it has been repeatedly stated that such measures are not very likely. I, for one, would accept such restrictions IF they were shown to be necessary.

 

[TroupH2O]

Thank you for the dialog Dr. Bill. This will be my last post. I’m thinking that if I feel this strongly I should start my own thread.

My concern is based on experiences, and bad ones at that. Historically groups will server their own needs and that is just human nature. Allowing this exception means that DFG will have the ability to put the fish count as a priority over human usage. I cannot imagine any example where prohibiting people from ocean access for the sake of fish population as a good example of fish management.

You think I’m kidding! Here are some recent examples of people taking a back seat to the regulators.
>Snowy plover nests on Vandenberg beaches cause closure from March 1 through Sept. 30 each year.
>Farmers don't have access to this water that runs right through the center of their farmland. It is being allocated to the Delta Smelt, a little fish, protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Please note I'm not against fish management. I am against providing a more restrictive authority to the DFG. Protect the fish but don’t do it by decreasing an ever limited beach access. I am surprised that groups like Surfrider Foundation are not fighting this restrictive option. I believe that reserves will naturally bring the fish population back. There isn’t a need to control anything more than over fishing the fish population. We may even want to consider stop polluting their environment. That’s gotta affect fish reproduction.

 

[drbill]

A bit of a difference between the cases you cite, which are based on single species protection under the Endangered Species Act, and the intent of the MLPA which is to create a network of protected areas to ensure healthy ecosystems.

I think you will find that CDF&G will largely come to the same conclusion you have about beach closures NOT being necessary to ensure healthy fish stocks. Besides, sandy beach areas are only ONE type of habitat being protected... many of the others such as mudflats, rocky intertidal and seagrass beds are far less likely to attract a beach crowd.

 

[TroupH2O]

Thanks once again for the dialog. My dislike simply originates from granting any agency unnecessary authority. It seems like we both are in agreement that the DFG is unlikely to impose such a heavy-handed restriction. Amazing how one little sentence in a restrictions definition can have such an impact on everyone.

 

[drbill]

Agree, TroupH20. Roger Uzun raised a good point in another diving forum. There are already existing marine reserves governed by CDF&G and to his knowledge none of them have ever excluded diving or other non-consumptive human activities. For example, the USC reserve at Blue Cavern Point on Catalina allows diving, just not anchoring.

However, I don't know if that controversial sentence was in place when these reserves were designated.

 

[dpbishop]

Dr. Bill,

I can't make the meeting, but if you go speak up for us and support proposal 3, the "conservation plan" . Anyone who doubts the efficacy of MPA's has never dove at La Jolla Cove and seen the abundance of sea life there compared to the rest of the San Diego coast. I'm willing to give up some of my favorite lobster hunting areas if I get to see Giant Sea Bass in return.

We still need to stress the need for habitat creation, like ships to reefs, and hatchery/ restocking research, like the White Sea Bass project. A coordinated approach of all three methodologies it the quickest way to restore the fish population to something approaching its historical level and will benefit everyone who enjoys the use of our local waters.

 

[drbill]

Work has kept me tied to my desk this week so I won't make the meeting either. I've submitted a number of e-mail comments to the MLPA process over the last year so I hope they will have some influence.

I agree on yours dpbishop. I support California Ships to Reefs in part because it will offer some trade-off for anglers... new locations to fish in exchange for conversion of other areas into protected reserves.

One issue I see with the hatchery/restocking effort is that it is single species oriented. You can put all the white sea bass back into the ocean that can be raised in pens, but unless the ecosystem they are put in is healthy and contains the food they need, it won't really help much except in the short-term. This is why the MLPA was passed... to ensure healthy ecosystems to support the entire biotic community and its processes.

I have worked with CDF&G on some hatchery-based efforts with salmon up in the Fort Bragg area. We manned a fish trap on Hollow Tree Creek and the fish we captured were used to supply milt and eggs for the hatcheries up there. I applauded that effort because it was done by the Salmon Trollers Association.