No Take Fishing Zone forming along Palos Verdes?

[DwayneJ]

There have been great successes in New Zealand with these types of projects.

Can you explain the NZ references? I'm an expat Kiwi and just got off the phone with my family in Christchurch to ask about this. MPA's are very new to NZ so I think its way to early to suggest any success let alone implementations. There are some marine sanctuaries along the east coast of the South Island but these are very small when compared to what is proposed here.

Attached is the NZ MPA Q&A...
Ministry of Fisheries Internet | Environmental | Habitat Protection and Research | Marine Protected Areas | MPA Questions and Answers

 

[drbill]

Not really that new to NZ... the Goat Island reserve was set aside in the 1970's and apparently has been very effective. Dr. Bill Ballantine (who I've met and talked with) was responsible for getting that one established.

 

[DwayneJ]

Not really that new to NZ... the Goat Island reserve was set aside in the 1970's and apparently has been very effective. Dr. Bill Ballantine (who I've met and talked with) was responsible for getting that one established.

We have had marine and wildlife sanctuaries in New Zealand for decades but specifically "MPA's" are very new to NZ. If you look at Christchurch and up the East Coast of the South Island, there are a few sanctuaries - Akaroa and a small area around Kaikoura but nothing to the extent of what was shown in the proposed MPA map of SoCal.

Again - This is what the NZ government fisheries dept have to say:

...work will begin to identify sites that are already protected that meet the protection standard. Next, these habitat and ecosystem types (e.g. marine reserves, fisheries restrictions, cable protection zones, etc.) will be compared against the Protection Standard. If they meet it, those areas will become part of the marine protected area network. An inventory of protected areas will be up-dated regularly and be publicly available.

This inventory of marine protected areas will be compared against the range of habitats and ecosystems identified by the classification system, and the gaps in the network identified....


Like I said, MPA's are new to NZ. I do agree NZ has had considerable success with traditional marine and wildlife sanctuaries.

 

[Teamcasa]

While I trust Dr. Bill's opinion more than my own on this I would hope that these proposed no-take zones rotate in such a way to allow the marine life to recover while still providing the sport fishers a livelihood and divers the chance to hunt as well.

Being a former abalone gatherer (It was not really hunting) in the late 60's and early 70's, I gave zero thought to the impact on the abalone population. Today, I see just how devastating the practice was. We do need more controls and if the setting up of these MPA's will help, I'm all for it.

Carry on Dr. Bill, you have my proxy on this issue.

Side note: My wife and I were diving near the East Quarry (Catalina) and I pointed out three huge, beautiful abalone. She had never seen one before and thought I was pointing at a pile of rocks. Nice to know the abs are making a bit of a recovery.

 

[dpbishop]

You really have to read the descriptions in the table to see what each proposal allows and prohibits. For instance, some of the SMCAs allow recreational fishing and lobster diving, some seem to limit it by depth. I haven't had time to review them in any depth, and won't until I get my taxes done, but is is certainly not as draconian as some seem to suggest.

 

[covediver]

However, the process is supposed to be based on the best possible science (as stated in the law itself).

Careful examination of the process of designating MPAs reveals that "best possible science" is usually translated as "the science that supports the outcome x desires, everything else is junk science."

Science usually sets the widest boundaries of the debate, after that the boundaries are winnowed through successive rounds of bargaining. In other words, science seems most relevant at the beginning of the process rather than at the end and after the beginning quickly loses its relevance in decision making.

MPAs are the newest "sexy" ocean managment tool. Everyone wants one in their backyard to protect their pet resource area and if the next door neighbor has one, then we have to have one too. Pretty soon you may just end up with the patchwork of MPAs that plagued the system in the late 90s and was one reason for the overhaul to the new system.

Once established, MPAs will at least grow incrementally because science can always justify expansion at the margins.

On the other hand, recall the four marine protected areas that we got out of the gill net initiative where science played no role whatsoever. These were very strict "no entry except for scientific research" areas. As a result, we ended up with MPAs that were not needed since no one could get there in the first place (area off VAFB) and thus did not need protection or there was nothing there worth protection (sand flats off Ventura county) so the MPA designation was wasted.

 

[shoupart]

A rotating no-take zone is an interesting idea. Is that practice being done elsewhere?

 

[spoolin01]

If you value your fishing grounds and tradition, you'd better be prepared to fight like mad to keep much of it. The process is ultimately a political one paid for almost exclusively by private anti-fishing money from people who also heavily lobby the politicians (State Senator Flores is initiating an investigation into the process, mission-creep, and possibility of corruption). The intervening showy stakeholder process produces some data, discussion of 'science' (if you think study of scarce natural resources produces much that can properly be called science), and public input, but is heavily managed by the allies of the bill-payers and in the end is merely advisory to a political committee. Check into what happened in the first region, Central, to the work product of the science/stakeholder process, and the similar manipulation currently going in the North Central process.

You can expect the recommendation to be for no fishing in a minimum of 50% of productive habitat, with mostly all of the best habitat off-limits to any fishing (with some exception for pelagic species) - ever again. The maps documenting this outcome for the Central and North Central regions are on the DFG website.

 

[White Knight]

Most sportsmen will not take illegal game. However, that is assuming they are allowed to take, at least, some game. Shut it down totally to all fishing......and watch what happens! This is stupid. Enough areas are closed to fishing now. What needs to happen is a "reduction in fish take." Who catches the most, "commercial guys." Start there. Why do we let the commercial fishing industry drive our fish stocks down into oblivion and then stop "everyone" from fishing? Personally, I think it is just easier to address the problem this way. Kind of like a worthless school teacher keeping "all" the kids in from recess instead of just addressing the problem child. Not guts! Go ahead. Ban the whole state to fishing. I dare you. I hope you do. And while we are at it, let’s ban all boats for the ocean too-I’m sure they cause some scientific, statistical harm too. Better yet, let’s just ban the whole damn thing to anything and anyone. Stay out of the ocean. I don’t want you there.

 

[drbill]

If you value your fishing grounds and tradition, you'd better be prepared to fight like mad to keep much of it. The process is ultimately a political one paid for almost exclusively by private anti-fishing money from people who also heavily lobby the politicians (State Senator Flores is initiating an investigation into the process, mission-creep, and possibility of corruption). The intervening showy stakeholder process produces some data, discussion of 'science' (if you think study of scarce natural resources produces much that can properly be called science), and public input, but is heavily managed by the allies of the bill-payers and in the end is merely advisory to a political committee. Check into what happened in the first region, Central, to the work product of the science/stakeholder process, and the similar manipulation currently going in the North Central process.

You can expect the recommendation to be for no fishing in a minimum of 50% of productive habitat, with mostly all of the best habitat off-limits to any fishing (with some exception for pelagic species) - ever again. The maps documenting this outcome for the Central and North Central regions are on the DFG website.

You've GOT to be kidding. The major lobbying is being done by the commercial and recreational fishing interests, not the no-take people. Get a grip on reality.

50% would be a very fair recommendation. However it is not politically expedient and most likely no more than 30% of the coastline will end up protected. Why can't the fishing interests accept 70% instead of demanding 100%.