Save the Ed Rickett's Marine Reserve

[drbill]

lonerider00-

In this case, the "politicians" voted to enact a process whereby the "scientists" could use their best knowledge to designate the appropriate reserves. When many of the fishers (who selfishly seem to believe they are entitled to 100% of the ocean despite overwhelming evidence of the serious reductions that have already occured from commercial, and recreational fishing over the past 100-300 years) decided to get involved in a political way, they torpedoed what should have been a science-based process.

 

[JustinW]

lonerider00-
Thus, bunnyhuggers and treehuggers are now out to outdo the "torpedo." Mushy bleeding heart eco-freak groups from all over are fighting to completely close fishing along large areas of the coast. Now they haven't paid attention to the fact that these will be virtually unenforceable and that controlled take would have a similar outcome. Eco groups forget that the fishermen are the ones who finance the conservation in the first place, recreational sportsmen (in general) are constantly fighting to protect game species as has been historically observed in the wild turkey, wood duck, whitetailed deer, antelope, elk etc. Lonerider, don't be misled that this is anything but anti-fishing pressure groups taking one more stab at stopping fishing. Notice they point the finger at commercial operations, but then attack the recreational areas. They may try to muddy the water, but to some, it is still crystal clear.

 

[drbill]

JustinW- I rarely criticize another SB member's posts in a personal way, but I must say yours is one of the more mindless one's I've read here.

Yes, fishers and hunters (as I've acknowledged previously) have greatly assisted in the conservation of some species. However, most of them have focused on single species conservation rather in preserving the ecosystems which are essential to support any species. Ducks, Unlimited I think is a significant exception to this (and a number of the billfishing interests have recently turned towards a more ecostem-based approach).

To think that by raising fish of a given species in hatcheries and releasing them into the wild will preserve that species smacks of ecological illiteracy. For example, with the white sea bass efforts there is a growing recognition of the need to curtail the harvest of market squid which are a major food source for these fish in the wild (at least on a season basis).

It should also be clear to anyone, fishers included, who take the long-term view of our marine environments that unbridled fishing (as has largely been the case in California for the past 100+ years) has left our ecosystems nearly devoid of many common target species and thereby significantly impacted the composition and balance of the ecosystems involved. I have talked to a number of the old timers who have fished Catalina waters for as much as 80 years. I can't remember ANY of them saying fishing is better now than it was previously.

I repeat... it is the need to preserve ECOSYSTEMS, not just individual species, that was recognized by the MLPA as opposed to much of the historical regulation that CDF&G has imposed.

Although it is obvious that commercial fishers are a major cause of some of these changes, recreational fishers have a far greater impact than most people realize. How do you account for declines in species that are illegal to take commercially, but fair game for recreational fishers?

Also keep in mind the example I stated previously. We see a fairly large number of party boats out in Catalina waters. Often these vessels are very close to our existing reserves for some strange reason... could it be the captains realize that reserves do work and can also benefit fishers through spillover? If a large party boat has 90-100 anglers on board and they fish a given site to the point where each angler gets 1-2 fish, that means that 90-200 fish have been removed from that site within a few hours. Add up all the other party boats fishing our waters. Anyone with a basic understanding of simple math (or a hand calculator) can figure out that such pressure can cause serious impacts on local stocks... especially if there are no reasonably sized reserve areas to serve as sources for spillover into the non-reserve areas.

As for non-take, non-consumptive users paying fees to maintain reserves, etc., I would be happy to pay an annual fee to help support these efforts. However, we are not the ones who remove from the ecosystem... we appreciate what is there. Fees should be largely levied on those who take, and who in many cases are the cause of the problem requiring remedial action.

I wonder how long you have been diving the State's waters? I have dived them for nearly 40 years and have seen the changes that have occured just within that period. Your argument (and that of many very selfish fishers) simply lacks any real rigor in terms of logic or science.

Again, I call upon King Solomon to make the fairest division of our waters: 50% for non-consumptive use and 50% for fishers and others. And if the fishers and other consumptive users are really smart, they will eventually realize that the 50% set aside for marine reserves actually benefit them tremendously in the future when their children (and mine) go fishing.

 

[JustinW]

Bill,
I respect your opinions and you are certainly entitled to them. In general, I agree with your statements in your first 3 paragraphs. However, you seem to only have knowledge of DU. You must know that every year, billions of dollars are spent on habitat restoration and preservation publicly and privately by most all sportsman's organizations. This forum is not the place to discuss the contributions of each one. You should know, however, that the impact is far greater than you believe.

As far as accounting, do not neglect the bycatch of commercial fleets. Commercial party boats, if you believe they are a detrimental, can easily be moderated by the DFG and DFG biologists. Their harvests are carefully recorded and reported, and the RCG complex populations are monitored under a watchful eye. I am not here to defent party boats and am not a fan of them myself. Remember, it is the entire MLPA that is in question here, so to reference it begs the question.

Regarding fees of non-consumptive users, it is well known that with the areas the MLPA want to ban are too vast and scattered to be effectively enforced. The meager fees that reserve users will pay will certainly not be able to cover the costs of this additional area. Furthermore, closing the areas of the coast that the MLPA wants to will not reduce overall fishing, instead it will concentrate fishing into fewer areas, putting more pressure on the REST OF THE ECOSYSTEM. So while we might have some areas that do alright, those too will eventually suffer. Again, hearts are in the right place, but dearly misguided.

How long have I been diving these waters? Mexico gave what is now Santa Cruz county to our family in a land grant when what we now know as California was Mexico, so as a family, we have been enjoying the very areas in question here for quite some time, more than most.

King Solomon is irrelevant in today's society. What would the result of your call upon King Solomon be if this was done with forests. Instead of selective, harvest, we clearcut half the forests and leave the others to become so thick, that they are unchecked and burn completely during the first fire. Solomon logic is already used in southern california and it doesn't work well, and certainly doesn't help the ecosystem!

~Respectfully

 

[drbill]

Bill,
You must know that every year, billions of dollars are spent on habitat restoration and preservation publicly and privately by most all sportsman's organizations. This forum is not the place to discuss the contributions of each one. You should know, however, that the impact is far greater than you believe.

I'd say that this forum is indeed the place to discuss such things... whether in this thread or a new one, perhaps started by yourself. While there are many examples of habitat restoration in the terrestrial environment, I'd be interested in hearing how many angling groups have done anyting similar in the marine environment. And I'm not referring to single species conservation measures but to ecosystem management and real habitat restoration.

I have already discussed the issue of commercial bycatch in another thread... certainly one of many reasons I prefer spear fishing and catching your own food for those of us lucky enough to be able to do so.

While you have mentioned your family's long tenure in the State, you did not answer my direct question of how many years you have been diving so I could get a better sense of your personal "baseline" on changes in the marine environment which is what we are discussing here.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

Regarding fees of non-consumptive users, it is well known that with the areas the MLPA want to ban are too vast and scattered to be effectively enforced. The meager fees that reserve users will pay will certainly not be able to cover the costs of this additional area.

It's the DFG scientists that set the size and spacing of the reserves. Enforceability has
been a significant factor in determining the boundaries of all three proposals.

It's not the reserve users that should have to pay for enforcement, it's the potential
reserve violators that should pay.

And enforcement WILL be necessary. At last Tuesday's MLPA Stakeholders meeting
the first public speaker was a fisherman who said that the the fishers proposal should
be passed because they were going to fish, even if it meant breaking the law.
Almost any day I launch at Pt. Lobos, and the
water is flat enough to get down from Monterey, I'll find a fishing boat or two inside
the reserve. Once, I even found one of the party boats had snuck in under cover of
dense fog.
I've found them in Hopkins, which is marked with buoys and visible from Cannery Row.

 

[drbill]

Chuck- I agree. This is one of the things that really aggravates me about some fishing operations. They are willing, almost eager, to break the law to ensure their fishing (and therefore economic) success.

We see such encroachments frequently here in Catalina waters, too. However, on the bright side, after watching one boat fish in or just outside marine reserves for nearly 20 years, I launched a campaign to get divers to contact the owner and request that his captains cease that practice.

Apparently it was quite successful as both the owner and the captain contacted me, and after talking to the Avalon Harbor Dept. to get a clarification of the rules, they have agreed to abide by the laws now that they understand them. It has been 5-6 months and I have not seen them violate their agreement, so they have made good on their word.

 

[Ben_ca]

It's the DFG scientists that set the size and spacing of the reserves. Enforceability has
been a significant factor in determining the boundaries of all three proposals.

It's not the reserve users that should have to pay for enforcement, it's the potential
reserve violators that should pay.

And enforcement WILL be necessary. At last Tuesday's MLPA Stakeholders meeting
the first public speaker was a fisherman who said that the the fishers proposal should
be passed because they were going to fish, even if it meant breaking the law.
Almost any day I launch at Pt. Lobos, and the
water is flat enough to get down from Monterey, I'll find a fishing boat or two inside
the reserve. Once, I even found one of the party boats had snuck in under cover of
dense fog.
I've found them in Hopkins, which is marked with buoys and visible from Cannery Row.

Do the Rangers at Pt Lobos have enforcement powers? I don't remember seeing a boat anywhere in the park.... What's the procedure for encrouching fishing boats....

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

Do the Rangers at Pt Lobos have enforcement powers? I don't remember seeing a boat anywhere in the park.... What's the procedure for encrouching fishing boats....

The Rangers and State Lifeguards are sworn law enforcement officers. Note the badge,
gun, handcuffs, and citation book. I have personally seen Ranger Bancroft cite two
people for fishing off the cliffs in the SE corner of whalers. They were cited both for
fishing in the reserve and fishing without a license. However they don't do a lot of
heavy-duty busts. Ranger Bancroft recently did his first felony bust (ADW - transient
threatened some State Parks science types with a knife.) and he's been a ranger
a long time.

There's an inflatable in each of the two little sheds at the beginning of the whaler's
parking lot.

My practice has been "Say, do you fellas know you're fishing in Pt. Lobos State Reserve?
It's a no-take zone." But I'm considering a change to providing transport to the rangers.
The word will get out in a hurry on the Coastside Fishing Club list, I'm sure.