D_O_H
Contributor
Not sure whether this has been posted already and I'm not really sure what the underlying facts are, but figured I'd pass this e-mail from MBDC along:
Save the Ed Rickett's Marine Reserve
- Thread starter D_O_H
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I hope interested divers will attend or offer input on this. It would be a fitting tribute to "Doc" (even though he was a collector himself).
JustinW
Contributor
I don't see what the benefits would be of making this a no-take zone. There is already weak protection. Why should spearfishing be banned in Carmel? And if it should be banned in Carmel, why is it being banned through a political process and not by the DFG biologists on a scientific basis. I am immensly distrustful of the mixture of politics and biological science. Every example I can think of in California that involves protection or some sort of regulation affecting california wildlife decided by politicians or any sort of political process has been less effective than sound choices made by the biologists that study the ecosystem within a given area.
Wildlife management is a scientific process, the political process is an inappropriate way to apply science, because special interest groups on every side of the issue will pressure until someone wins. The only loser here will be science and the ecosystem. Leave scientific decisions to the scientists. With all due respect,Berkley White, Backscatter, Chuck Tribolet, BA_Diving, Phil Sammet, Cypress Sea,Ryan Koonce, Monterey Bay Dive Center etc. are not biologists and are not qualified to make decisions of this nature. Of course, my opinion will not be popular with some in touchy feely northern california.
Wildlife management is a scientific process, the political process is an inappropriate way to apply science, because special interest groups on every side of the issue will pressure until someone wins. The only loser here will be science and the ecosystem. Leave scientific decisions to the scientists. With all due respect,Berkley White, Backscatter, Chuck Tribolet, BA_Diving, Phil Sammet, Cypress Sea,Ryan Koonce, Monterey Bay Dive Center etc. are not biologists and are not qualified to make decisions of this nature. Of course, my opinion will not be popular with some in touchy feely northern california.
You are correct, JustinW, that the best sites for reserves would be designated largely on the basis of science. However, politics has already torpedoed much of the attempt to do just that in the form of political resistance from fishers to the MLPA, which was supposed to be scientifically based rather than based on politics.
However, sites designated for other reasons, just as enjoyment by no-take divers, are also valid. We have several sites gere on Catalina that were established in a somewhat unscientific manner for recreational, educational and even commercial (Lover's Cove) reasons. I have conducted scientific research into the "best" (using my criteria) scientific manner in which to designate reserves here on Catalina, and several of them would not be where the current reserves exist.
It is the attitude of many fishers (that there be NO restriction of their use) that defies logic IMHO. To say that there should be "open season" everywhere in the ocean has largely led us to the situation we are in now. This is especially true down here where the historical accounts, largely by fishers, of what our ecosystems used to be like tell a very depressing tail of the decline in stocks due to their take.
Reserves should largely be based on science, but there is nothing wrong with the designation of some (such as Catalina's Casino Point Dive Park) for largely recreational reasons.
If I had the wisdom of Solomon, I would simply propose that the oceans be "cut in half" so that fishers can enjoy 50% of them and no-take divers the other (not to mention the need for reserves to restock the take zones!).
However, sites designated for other reasons, just as enjoyment by no-take divers, are also valid. We have several sites gere on Catalina that were established in a somewhat unscientific manner for recreational, educational and even commercial (Lover's Cove) reasons. I have conducted scientific research into the "best" (using my criteria) scientific manner in which to designate reserves here on Catalina, and several of them would not be where the current reserves exist.
It is the attitude of many fishers (that there be NO restriction of their use) that defies logic IMHO. To say that there should be "open season" everywhere in the ocean has largely led us to the situation we are in now. This is especially true down here where the historical accounts, largely by fishers, of what our ecosystems used to be like tell a very depressing tail of the decline in stocks due to their take.
Reserves should largely be based on science, but there is nothing wrong with the designation of some (such as Catalina's Casino Point Dive Park) for largely recreational reasons.
If I had the wisdom of Solomon, I would simply propose that the oceans be "cut in half" so that fishers can enjoy 50% of them and no-take divers the other (not to mention the need for reserves to restock the take zones!).
1. While we are not biologists, if we don't fight for something, there won't be ANYTHING
to speak of because the fishers will fight to protect all the places they don't fish (and
we don't dive).
2. Science is being applied. There's a science advisory committee that evaluated the
four main proposals against a set of science criteria (habitat types, spacing size, and
some other stuff).
Chuck
to speak of because the fishers will fight to protect all the places they don't fish (and
we don't dive).
2. Science is being applied. There's a science advisory committee that evaluated the
four main proposals against a set of science criteria (habitat types, spacing size, and
some other stuff).
Chuck
JustinW
Contributor
With all due respect, we will disagree. I can see why politics is being brought into the fray, as all sides are now bringing their own version of "scientific evidence" to the table. The roots of the issue go way beyond the scope of this forum and wouldn't be appropriate to disguss in this sub-forum anyhow.
Respectfully,
Justin
P.S. Chuck, you have a great weather website, a blessing for all divers in the region.
Respectfully,
Justin
P.S. Chuck, you have a great weather website, a blessing for all divers in the region.
I don't think any of the stakeholder groups are claiming any special "scientific evidence" .
The Science Advisory Comittee has set some parameters, and the stakeholder groups
are trying to come up with proposals that optimize to those parameters while protecting
their own special interests. There are some areas where they stakeholder groups are
quite close (and are being leaned on to come to agreement) and other areas where they
are quite far apart (Cannery Row, North Carmel Bay, Yankee Pt.)
The Science Advisory Comittee has set some parameters, and the stakeholder groups
are trying to come up with proposals that optimize to those parameters while protecting
their own special interests. There are some areas where they stakeholder groups are
quite close (and are being leaned on to come to agreement) and other areas where they
are quite far apart (Cannery Row, North Carmel Bay, Yankee Pt.)
lonerider00
Contributor
personally, I don't see what the arguement is. It is NOT the politician's job to decide what areas should be take/no take! That belongs to the Dept. of Fish and Game. If they decide stocks are low, or have a scientific reason, they close the season, or just make an area no take. There is no discussion, arguement or question about it. They are VERY effective, and very accurite on conducting surveys and deciding these matters. adding politics (and politicians, lawers, and lobbyists... the 3 lowest life forms on the planet) into this issue just muddy the waters (pun intended).
Also the area in question runs directly past (argueably) the best marine biology lab in the country. You would think they would have an opinion on whether or not this proposal holds scientific merit?
Being a NAVY vet. on a nuclear submarine, I have had many dealings with green peace and other so called "environmental" groups that have a lot of passoin, but no real understanding of what govornment regulatory orginisations (like the Dept. of Fish and Game) do. Whether the lobbyists supporting this are like that? I don't know, nor does it matter much. my point is WE SHOULD LET THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DO THE JOB OUR TAXES PAY THEM TO DO!!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT!!!! There is nothing wrong with controlled take in an area, and unless a solid scientific reason becomes apperant, this should NOT be "protected".
Also the area in question runs directly past (argueably) the best marine biology lab in the country. You would think they would have an opinion on whether or not this proposal holds scientific merit?
Being a NAVY vet. on a nuclear submarine, I have had many dealings with green peace and other so called "environmental" groups that have a lot of passoin, but no real understanding of what govornment regulatory orginisations (like the Dept. of Fish and Game) do. Whether the lobbyists supporting this are like that? I don't know, nor does it matter much. my point is WE SHOULD LET THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DO THE JOB OUR TAXES PAY THEM TO DO!!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT!!!! There is nothing wrong with controlled take in an area, and unless a solid scientific reason becomes apperant, this should NOT be "protected".
There's a lot wrong with take when the populations are spiralling downward. I've got
over a thousand dives in Monterey, and every year the fish get smaller and fewer.
What's happening isn't politicians but politics. The legeslature passed the MLPA directing
DFG to establish reserves based on the best available science. The MLPA process is
accepting input from the various stakeholder groups. There's a lot of politics going on
between those groups. But no politicians.
Where were you at the MLPA meetings last week and the week before? I was there and
spoke my piece.
over a thousand dives in Monterey, and every year the fish get smaller and fewer.
What's happening isn't politicians but politics. The legeslature passed the MLPA directing
DFG to establish reserves based on the best available science. The MLPA process is
accepting input from the various stakeholder groups. There's a lot of politics going on
between those groups. But no politicians.
Where were you at the MLPA meetings last week and the week before? I was there and
spoke my piece.
lonerider00
Contributor
Chuck Tribolet:
If that's the case, then fish and game should modify limits, or close the season for the spiecies in question. politics should not be an issue! They're responsible for controling take and they do a VERY good job!!! Also "legislature"... another word for politicians, lawers, and lobbyists. I'm sorry but this is a non issue to me, unless there is an overwhelming scientific reason, this no-take proposal should NOT go into affect!!!!!!!!!!!
Similar threads
