Marine reserves in Southern California

[brianmeux]

Beach Crabs,
Hello good divers, I just wanted to follow up from my presentation at Vet's Park last summer. It was great to meet some of you, and I'm still hoping I can get out there and do some diving with you all. We are still pushing on with the kelp project and setting up a new restoration site in between Long Point and Old Marineland, if anybody wants to volunteer and get some work done restoring kelp habitat let me know.

We at the Santa Monica Baykeeper also have an external proposal (Prop C) in the MLPA (marine life protection act) process. We are looking for support letters before April 28th, because it was deemed the most protective proposal and can really make a difference in bringing marine life back to the way it was decades ago. I've attached the support letter for Prop C, and a general support letter for marine reserves. I couldn't upload the map, but you can find it on California Department of Fish & Game, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. If you like what you see, then please sign both and email or fax to me. Thanks,
Brian

Here's some general info below:
Santa Monica Baykeeper is dedicated to protecting and restoring our local coast. Based on our studies and kelp restoration work we believe that establishing a science-based network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), areas that provide increased protection from human impacts, is an important tool and another step towards doing what is necessary to protect this irreplaceable resource.

Over 100 years ago, the United States began to protect our most exceptional places on land by establishing national parks, such as Yellowstone and Yosemite. Today California is doing the same for our oceans through the use of MPAs.

Marine Reserves, or no-take MPAs, are the highest level of protection and have been shown to help marine reef communities around the world by increasing species diversity, abundance, and size of individuals. Additionally, MPAs may contribute spillover of important species into unprotected areas which can benefit the entire region and increase fishing opportunities. Proposal C protects 30% of southern California state waters in the form of marine reserves while still allowing 70% open to fishing.

We need your support for Proposal C. Of the 10 proposals currently being considered, this proposal was ranked by MLPA appointed scientists as having the highest conservation value! To see how the other proposals fall short of protecting local marine life and to find out more, go to California Department of Fish & Game, Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. I have attached maps and a description of the proposed marine reserves in Prop C and the letter of support that we need from you before April 28th. Please donÃÕ hesitate to call me with any questions.

All support for Prop C must be in before the Regional Stakeholder Group meeting April 28th! If you have witnessed or learned about southern CaliforniaÃÔ degraded habitats, overfishing, and declining fish populations, and want to support a proposal that can make a difference, then sign on to Prop C before April 28th!

Thank you,
Brian

~~~<(((<~~~<(((<~~~<(((<~~~
Brian M. Meux M.S.
Kelp Project Director
bmeux@smbaykeeper.org
P.O.Box 10096
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
Office phone: (310) 305-9645 X 7
FAX (310) 305-7985
Santa Monica Baykeeper

 

[Tailchaser]

Brian
I agree that there needs to be a change in the take policies... but the current mpa's are going to the extreme in my opinion.
I will be and have been writing letters and will be at the next meeting in oxnard but my support goes towards the other side. Like I said I do agree that changes need to be made but lets not go to overboard here.
I grew up sportfishing both hook and line and spear and I will be very upset if In a few years I will not be able to share that with my kids!

I also noticed that you are posting this in mulitple sections thats cross posting and not allowed

 

[Kevfin]

Another view on MPA's:

California Fisheries Coalition - Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Peer Review

 

[drbill]

Another view on MPA's:

California Fisheries Coalition - Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Peer Review

Based on the following executive summary statement: "Resulting from precautionary 'ecosystem-based' fishery regulations enforced by both State and Federal fishery management agencies in recent years, there is now no evidence that current fishing practices upset the 'natural' biological diversity of the marine ecosystem." I'd have to say that the PhD's they assembled (none of whom I'm familiar with) must be in the pockets of the industry rather than truly objective. That statement alone is pure poppycock.

I'm amazed any real scientist could make that statement in view of the mountains of evidence that contradict it.

 

[covediver]

I'd have to say that the PhD's they assembled (none of whom I'm familiar with) must be in the pockets of the industry rather than truly objective. That statement alone is pure poppycock.

I'm amazed any real scientist could make that statement in view of the mountains of evidence that contradict it.

Ouch!

I usually agree with you Dr. Bill, but I find these types of ad hominem statements on those who disagree erode the very foundation of the principle of the "best available science" that is supposed to be that standard in setting up MPAs. I also recognize that the discussion on both sides rapidly deteriorates into this type of name calling.

I recall when Gary Davis was a voice in the wilderness calling out for MPAs. He was attacked in print in the Ventura paper with the same invective with which you describe the other side.

As I have said in previous threads, science is often the starting point in the process, but is usually gone in the end as the process becomes one of bargaining among affected interests. "Best science" is the science that agrees with my preferred outcome, everything else is "junk" and the proponents of that science are on the take.

 

[Tailchaser]

Ouch!

I usually agree with you Dr. Bill, but I find these type of ad hominem on those who disagree to erode the very foundation of the principle of the "best available science" that is supposed to be that standard in setting up MPAs. I also recognize that the discussion on both sides rapidly deteriorates into this type of name calling.

I recall when Gary Davis was a voice in the wilderness calling out for MPAs. He was attacked in print in the Ventura paper with the same invective with which you describe the other side.

As I have said in previous threads, science is often the starting point in the process, but is usually gone in the end as the process becomes one of bargaining among affected interests. "Best science" is the science that agrees with my preferred outcome, everything else is "junk" and the proponents of that science are on the take.

Well said I generally agree with Dr. Bill but not in this case... I agree that steps need to be made to better control and limit what is pulled from the oceans. What bothers me is that they jump to the conclusion that we need to shut it all down no more fishing, Once you loose something its real hard to get it back...

 

[Teamcasa]

"Resulting from precautionary 'ecosystem-based' fishery regulations enforced by both State and Federal fishery management agencies in recent years, there is now no evidence that current fishing practices upset the 'natural' biological diversity of the marine ecosystem."

I'm amazed any real scientist could make that statement in view of the mountains of evidence that contradict it.

I agree with you Bill on this point. No one who has dived in or fished our local waters 30 years ago would never make such a misleading statement.

I have dived and fished our local waters since I was a kid and I can tell you even without a degree, our marine life populations have suffered greatly from commercial over-fishing. Setting up some sort of protected areas does make sense, despite the what the commercial fishermen say.

That said, our local sport fishing industry should be allowed to work in some protected areas with rotating schedules, increased bag and species limits.

 

[Tailchaser]

I agree with you Bill on this point. No one who has dived in or fished our local waters 30 years ago would never make such a misleading statement.

I have dived and fished our local waters since I was a kid and I can tell you even without a degree, our marine life populations have suffered greatly from commercial over-fishing. Setting up some sort of protected areas does make sense, despite the what the commercial fishermen say.

That said, our local sport fishing industry should be allowed to work in some protected areas with rotating schedules, increased bag and species limits.

I agree with both of you on that statement... Yes things have changed from 30 years ago... no doubt about it.

I think your idea of lowering limits is great... One thing that really sticks out in my mind is the public fishing boats "cattle boats" should not be able to charge for fish cleaning... By charging for fish cleaning you are promoting over fishing and producing a ton of wasted fish.

 

[drbill]

May I suggest reading the California Sea Grant notice "Sport Fishing Hammering Large Male Sheephead" that just came out today. Sure shows the impt SPORT fishing has had on just this one species.

If I had the time, I'd look into the credentials of the PhD's who authored that report and the review. They may be perfectly legit and the fact I have never heard of any of them may not mean much. However, one can easily select a few "PhDs" who will do the bidding of the group that pays them... after all, the last 8 years have been pretty lean in terms of grants to scientists.

 

[Tailchaser]

Bill
that is an interesting article however... It states that its sportfishing that is targeting and taking all the large sheephead. After working in the sportfishing industry fishing in your back yard and the island behind you I can tell you that sheephead were never a "target" fish. Sure we caught some but never any great numbers.

I do know that sheephead were targeted with the commercial live fisheries as stated in the article. Now I dont have a phd but if you take a bunch of smaller fish in a species does that mean in the near future the number of larger fish will go down?

I do not need to look into the credentials of the PhD's who authored that report and the review to know that they never spent much time if any on a sport boat to observe the slaughter of sheephead... In the hundreds of charters that I have run and been on we have never once targeted sheephead. Sure we catch them but just a few a trip at the most... its just not a target species for the sportfishing industry.

Like I said I agree with you that things need to change but not to the extreme of what the current mpa's are purposing...

Now these are just opinions and real world experience in the exact location of the study... But it does not mean much since I do not have a phd behind my name...