Why Do Some Feel Entitled to 100% (MLPA)?

[drbill]

The past week or so I've been engaged in trying to address a lot of questions and statements that anglers and spearos have thrown out regarding the state's Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). This is a process near and dear to my heart as it is far past the time when I think we should have established a true network of marine protected areas in the State. I have long desired this and much of my scientific research beginning in 1990 focused on how to appropriately designated reserves to effectively restore some of the ecotem health we, and the fish and inverts, deserve.

One of the arguments that the consumptive users constantly throw out is that they have a "God given right" to take fish. They fight almost every single area suggested for closure as a no take area. Some of their proposal for the So Cal are so patently absurd (rather than add additional reserves, they actually take away some of the few areas previously designated.

Why is it that many (but fortunately not all) consumptive users feel they have a right to fish 100% of our waters and that we who enjoy healthy ecosystems to image, study scientifically or just enjoy for their sake are not entitled to a reasonable share for our non-consumptive use.

For MANY decades the cumulative effects of millions of anglers and spearos have rendered our existing fish stocks and ecosystems to a mere shred of what they once were in many cases. I've only been diving SoCal for 40 years and yet I've seen substantial change in that "short" time.

Some of the best descriptions of the way SoCal fish stocks used to be come from the writings of early angling enthusiasts. In fact one of them, Dr. Charles Frederick Holder, was so concerned about the depletion of our stocks back in the early 1900's that he pushed hard to establish a 3-mile protected area around Catalina that was passed by the State legislature in 1913... then rescinded not long afterwards due to political pressure from commercial fishing interests.

We have NOT harvested most fish stocks in our waters at sustainable rates. If we had, the incredible bounty of that early period would still be with us today. That's what sustainable means. With the population of SoCal expected to double (heaven forbid... where will the "quality of life" be then?) in the next 20-25 years, imagine the pressures that will be placed upon what fish and invertebrate stocks are still left!

When will the majority of the angling community realize this?

When will they realize that we "non-consumptive" users of the marine world have gotten the short shaft for 160 years? When will my rights to enjoy healthy marine ecosystems be returned to me?

We don't expect 100% of the ocean to be protected, but we do expect our fair share as well. The fact that so many anglers decry setting aside 20-30% of our coastline illustrates that they aren't willing to compromise, that many of them are going to act selfishly with little regard for future generations, whether they be spearos like my son or scientist/imagers like myself.

This is a sad example of what Garrett Hardin referred to as "The Tragedy of the Commons."

 

[FrankPro1]

Well said Dr.Bill., I can't agree with you more. You will probably get a lot of guff for this post, but it needs to be said. With it coming from someone as well known and respected as you, hopefully it will be taken in better view from the anglers and spear fishermen on these boards. I have seen a dramatic rise in the presence of fishing enthusiasts on the peninsula in just the few years I have been diving and it worries me when I think about the future of our local kelp beds and reefs. Though the individual spear men and anglers surely have a hand in the lowering of the local sea life population, I believe the commercial fisheries are much more to blame. Creating heavier restrictions on the commercial take of fish, would surely have a greater effect on restoring population levels. I no longer fish or consume any sea life taken commercially, I just like to photograph and observe. But I do believe that there is room for responsible anglers and spear men to continue their sport, as long as the proper restrictions and laws are followed.

 

[drbill]

I likewise feel there is room for responsible anglers and spearos... my son is one (as are several of my dive buddies and friends)! However I question whether our California marine stocks can survive the onslaught of an ever increasing number involved in that activity, especially in southern California. In the early days of our region, the number of people involved in "recreational" (including subsistence) take was relatively small, yet some species were already reduced to levels of concern by the early 1900s. As the population of our region continues to increase, the numbers going after a decreasing resource (in most cases) will undoubtedly tip the scales towards less viable populations. It's a numbers game.

Yes, the commercial fishers are a major problem in some fisheries... no question there. However, in several species the take by the recreational angler and spearo far exceeds that of the commercial take due to the numbers of individuals involved (or the fact that some, such as kelp bass, are sport fish and not commercially targeted).

 

[FishOutUvH2O]

Fishing in California isn't a "God given Right," but a California Constitution Right. I can definitely understand where you're coming from (I currently live in Texas, but SoCal is my native home), but a Constitutional Right is a Constitutional Right. Unfortunately, like many Rights, people are quick to scream "it's my Right," but slow in showing personal responsibility and good sense when exercising those Rights.

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken."

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"The Tragedy of the Commons" is as real today as it has ever been, and is one reason why the concept of "the Commons" continues to be a utopian ideal.

There will always be a percentage of any population who are willing to poach, pillage, or profit from actions or behaviors that are counter to what the majority would construe as "reasonable".

When any situation is set up as "Do As Thou Wilt", far too many are simply willing to abuse the privilege.

Successful models do exist, however. The Department of Wildlife in Colorado, just to use it as one example, has done a very nice job (IMHO) of balancing the needs of big game hunters with the need for healthy habitat and herds. In Colorado intense pressure is often placed on public lands, because so much public land (open for hunting) is being lost to private interests. Still, given the competing interests, many state Departments of Fish and Game, or of Wildlife, continue to work hard to support hunting - and in fact empirical evidence suggests that the money generated from sportsmen and outdoors-interests is critical to allowing work to be performed that benefits both habitat and herds.

I suspect that California is ultimately going to need to go the same way.

Far more political support will be needed to empower the State's Department of Wildlife, especially for enforcement of laws, and generally speaking it will need to become more expensive to buy fishing licenses and tags for certain species. As you note, Dr. Bill, legislative efforts will also need to set aside sea preserves to allow species areas in which to breed and mature, but ultimately I suspect that it is not an "unworkable solution". Given the will, the revenue raised from sportsmen and anglers should be adequate to support the legislative and administrative efforts necessary to preserve the health of the sea creatures in California's offshore waters.

Best with your work,

Doc

 

[Hallmac]

There will always be some people who believe that they are important, and that they have the right to do as they please.

So far, history has yet to record the end of the world once a single person passed. Most of my reading and personal experience tend to indicate when those persons are removed from the equation, either through natural occurrence or sudden education, the world around them improves.

Free will and freedom leave a nasty sting at times, it is still better than the alternative.



Besides, If you had your way 19 years ago, you might have had to find something else to do. I am sure it would not have been as enjoyable or passionate.

 

[dpbishop]

I think the fishing industry, both commercial and sport fishing, need to stop looking at the ocean as a resource that is someone else's responsibility to care for. MPAs are just one tool for sustaining fish populations; and certainly not the most effective; but they have the advantage of being relatively cheap to establish and maintain. This is a major point with a state tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.

Hatcheries can have a major impact on fish populations. Look at the success that the White Sea Bass program has had in restoring a game fish that had almost vanished from our waters. The same thing could be done for most other game fish, but it requires funding and 100's of hours of volunteer work. I wonder how many of the posters who are vociferous in their defense of their right to fish actually contribute time or money to the organizations that run this program. Volunteers are always needed for feeding and cleaning the pens. (United Anglers of Southern California and the San Diego Oceans Foundation are 2 of the organizations supporting this)

Habitat creation is another area that can aid in population restoration. The Ships-to-Reef program, or artificial reefs like the San Clemente project, are examples of projects that create new areas where fish can live and grow to catchable size. Worried about losing you favorite fishing site to a MPA? Go build a new one.

Right now the state funds these things by a $2.50 stamp on your fishing license. Compared to the billions of dollars spent on fishing boats and equipment annually, that's not even a drop in the bucket. For the cost of one beer per fisherman per trip, we could build a network of new habitats that would double the fishable area off our coast and stock them with sportfish, lobster, abalone, etc. until the sea otter's were coming out our ears. All it takes is time and money.

 

[drbill]

Fishing in California isn't a "God given Right," but a California Constitution Right. I can definitely understand where you're coming from (I currently live in Texas, but SoCal is my native home), but a Constitutional Right is a Constitutional Right. Unfortunately, like many Rights, people are quick to scream "it's my Right," but slow in showing personal responsibility and good sense when exercising those Rights.

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken."

I understand this right, but the legislature has (finally!) realized that the methods being used in managing our marine ecosystems have produced some pretty poor results, and that fish populations are not even close to being managed in a sustainable way. Given that, they enacted the Marine Life Protection Act in 1999... which many anglers have fought against ever since.

The State through the legislature and the California Department of Fish and Game has the responsibility to manage fish populations in a reasonably sustainable way... yet we have seen species after species harvested to near extinction before they have done anything about it. Like most governments and people, they react only to emergencies rather than apply more forward-thinking policies... until now.

 

[drbill]

Dpbishop... some very excellent points made in your post.

In the early 1980's, when I had a part interest in a salmon fishing boat out of Fort Bragg, the owner/captain of the boat and I worked with the Salmon Trawlers Association up there as volunteers to help trap live salmon for the CDF&G hatcheries in the area. It was another good example of how dedicated anglers who understand the problems can help to remedy them. I spent a few hundred hours of volunteer time up in the redwoods at Hallow Tree Creek doing this work... and really enjoyed the experience.

I also work with Joel Geldin of California Ships-to-Reefs on possible sink events. I have almost no interest in diving wrecks myself, but do it for two reasons. First, I enjoy doing things for the dive community and know there are a number of divers who enjoy wreck diving. Two, I see the wrecks as potential fish habitat to help make up for the areas "lost" through the designation of marine protected areas. Joel is doing a great job developing support from angling associations for these efforts and I back them 100%.

 

[Teamcasa]

The only way we as divers will have any impact is to become active "stakeholders" and start to attend the meetings and sending a note to your local assembly person and state senator.

The fishermen have influence because they show up and are vocal, we need to do the same.