Marine Protected Areas Coming to Southern California

[jennfeinberg]

Hi everyone,

I work for the Natural Resources Defense Council on a historic process that is happening now to create Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), like the ones at the Channel Islands, along the entire coastline of Southern California. The process to create these areas is a collaborative effort between a broad range of community groups including fisherman, divers, kayakers, surfers, and conservationists, and public participation in the process is essential.

MPAs are like underwater parks for the sea and will create areas where the ocean ecosystems can rebuild. These areas will remain open and available for divers to enjoy.

I wanted to see if anyone has ideas about how to communicate the value of MPAs to divers and how to best provide information to them about how to get involved in the creation of ocean wilderness in Southern California. My goal is to inform the public that this process is beginning and to encourage their support and direct involvement.

Additionally, I would love to get input from any of the Beach Crab divers about your personal experiences in the water in Southern California. The collaborative group of community members mentioned above (also known as the Regional Stakeholders Group) is going to start drawing preliminary lines on a map at our next meeting in January. In preparation for this meeting, I was hoping to get your thoughts on where the "special places" are (ecologically or aesthetically) based on your diving experience and what areas you feel strongly about wanting to protect.

Thanks so much for your time and I hope to hear from you all soon.

Best wishes,

Jenn

 

[covediver]

I hope the Beach Crabs will forgive this intrusion into their space from an Alaska Polar Bear and former Socal diver, albeit one who still has ties to the area and watched the CI process evolve from its inception as an informal group of a couple of people getting together at Channel Islands National Park HQ in the early 90s to talk about a concept called "harvest refugia"....

Your participation in this process is quite necessary. Although California has had marine protected areas for decades (a new name to expand an old concept) the Channel Islands process was pretty significant and the results are indeed remarkable. It is a pretty good first step. (It remains to be seen whether or not adequate funding for Cal Fish and Game and others given the current economy will keep these areas from being more than just "paper sanctuaries.")

The fact that the process has the attention of national public interest groups like NRDC makes it even more necessary that local voices not only be heard for the audience, but that they actually occupy their seats at the table. The presence of these public interest groups can mean the scope and level of the issues widens and becomes nationalized. Your involvement will be crucial to keep the process focused. So please, get involved. You may be frustrated along the way, but in the end you will have been part of something that can be really neat.

 

[jennfeinberg]

Thanks for your message covediver. I encourage people to contact me at jennfeinberg.nrdc@gmail.com to talk more on this subject.

 

[Teamcasa]

MLPA are really needed in specific areas off our coast, that's not in dispute. Protected areas rebuild quickly and are joy to visit.

Reef Check and Santa Monica Bay Keepers have done an amazing job working toward that end and really need our help.

For me, any area where a deep trough provides upwelling near shore should be part of the MLPA. The problem is that fishermen are far more active and vocal in where the MLPA's and on fishing restrictions. We, as divers need to get more involved as stakeholders and let the DFG know how we feel.
Count me in.

Note: I moved this thread to the main SoCal forum.

 

[jennfeinberg]

Dave, can you shoot me an email so we can chat and figure out how to get you plugged in?

 

[ligersandtions]

I'm a little torn on this. I absolutely LOVE diving in MPA's because everything is so full of life and looks great. But I also know that if someone were to tell me I could no longer do what I love because it's an MPA, I would be upset. I don't fish, so it doesn't bother me if other people can't fish either....but I do know and understand that people who do partake in that activity would be upset, and understandably so.

I think the NRDC would be hard-pressed to make the entire southern California coast an MPA. There would be so many angry people, from people who fish, to people who spear fish, to people who grab the occasional lobster....and probably others that I'm not thinking of right now. I think it's a nice idea, from my (diver's) point of view, but like I said, if someone was taking away the thing I love the most, I would be one upset diver....and would probably be tempted/willing to break the regulations.

Unfortunately, I also think that restricting (instead of eliminating) non-MPA areas will cause a good amount of anger as well. Can you imagine 100 fishers fighting over a 100 foot length of unprotected land? I know where I wouldn't be diving....heh.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what an MPA is though....but correct me if I'm wrong, and MPA is an area where you can only look and not touch or take, right?

 

[dpbishop]

MPAs are look but don't touch areas. The problem is balancing the need for protected areas that allow fish stocks to repopulate while leaving enough open area to serve the needs of the sport fishing industry. We have protected areas now, but many of them are isolated and to small to make a serious impact on fish populations.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is the differentiation of local and transient species. Tuna, for instance, are seasonal and breed in the central and western pacific, so restricting tuna fishing in some areas of the California coast will have little or no positive effect on the tuna stock, but could be very costly to the sport fishing industry. Can you allow fishing for some species in an MPA but not others? How could this be regulated.

I think we should look at levels of protection, some areas of limits to all fishing, some allowing sport fishing but not commercial fishing, and some areas open. The same would apply to sport divers/spear fishers. The lobster taken but divers, for instance, is a small percentage of that taken by lobster boats. Some of the areas more accessible for beach diving could be open for divers to take lobster, but closed to lobster boats.

I would like to see the MPA program coupled with greater development of artificial reefs. This would replace some of the fishing locations that are removed from exploitation with new ones that will serve the sport fishers/divers.

 

[covediver]

MPAs are look but don't touch areas.

This is true if that is what the management plan calls allows. Recall that part of the ballot initiative to do away with gill nets in California, the state was directed to establish four marine protected areas where only scientific research could be undertaken. As a result, the attorney general issued an opinion that stated the only diving activity that would be allowed would be for bona fide scientific research. As a result we ended up with four sanctuaries placed in areas that no one could get to (like the Vanderberg AFB coastline) or that no one wanted to go to anyway (sand flats off of Pt. Mugu coast). That is why public scruitiny and participation is so very important.

A few years ago, a study was undertaken in the Monterey Bay NMS to test the hypothesis that recreational diving was damaging the kelp beds. The outcome was inconclusive, so no further action was undertaken. I don't know that access would have been restricted in a management plan revision had the study indicated otherwise, but my hunch is that at least it would have been considered.

Some people see us as invasive species...

 

[drbill]

MPA's take many forms. Most allow diving, some even allow some extractive use.

This is an extremely important process to ensure that we have healthy ecosystems in the future, both for non-consumptive and consumptive users. My input has already been submitted in the form of a proposal put together by the Kelp Forest Coalition years ago. It is specific to Catalina where I have lived and dived for almost 40 years. I don't have enough experience in mainland waters, so I can't make any intelligent recommendations there.

I've written in the past that I think we should adopt the wisdom of King Solomon, take the sword and cut the marine environment into halves. One "side" for consumptive use and one for non-consumptive use and regeneration of both. Of course this is politically unrealistic, but the current process generally only sets aside 20-30%.

 

[DwayneJ]

I'm unsure what will be accomplished with MPA's that cannot be accomplished via fishing licensing and seasons since fishing seems to be the topic of conversation?

Does this affect commercial or recreational fishing?

I dive for lobster so I'm assuming this would be banned even though lobster "fishing" is controlled via licenses, seasons, daily catch numbers and minimum sizes?

Dwayne