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

[White Knight]

Dr Bill....I do not misstate the facts. Every single kelp bed/reef along the coastline in Santa Barbara County has been listed as a proposed closure site. Do you know of one that isn't? As far as catch limits by the State, that has been a joke. Way too many fish have been allowed to be caught--especially by the commercial guys. Before we close “all” the kelp bed/reefs along the Santa Barbara coast let’s stop commercial fishing and instill real seasons and sensible fish catch limits. Dispite your claim, we have never done this. If that doesn’t work, then go ahead and close all the reefs down. But let’s do it for everyone. Don’t just restrict fishing, restrict scuba diving and free diving too. Everybody stays out. Then we all share in the pain.

 

[drbill]

Ah, now I see what you meant White.Knight. Proposals are one thing, final selections another. The scientific advisory group and the great "deciders" will bring that down to a much more reasonable level when they evaluate the final proposals. Those final proposals will be selective and certainly not represent either extremes (such as every kelp bed which I, too, would find a bit too much).

 

[White Knight]

We shall see........

 

[dannobee]

...But let's do it for everyone. Don't just restrict fishing, restrict scuba diving and free diving too. Everybody stays out. Then we all share in the pain.

So how does non consumptive scuba diving negatively affect fish stocks?

While I agree that the commercial guys come in and vacuum up an entire reef, we're long overdue for eliminating or severely restricting fishing in many spots. That includes hook and line and spearo guys.

Up north we have Point Lobos, a "no take" State Park. The fish are more numerous and larger than those outside the park. Even though its whereabouts are well known, commercial and party boats, along with sport fisherman are STILL frequently seen inside the park boundaries.

.

 

[White Knight]

Dannobee...I was just at Point Lobos last Friday. I did two dives. I don’t get the big deal? I saw more fish when I dove Naples Reef (an unprotected piece of ocean) in Santa Barbara two days later than I did at Lobos? My belief is that many of the people attempting to stop my right to spear fish in most of the ocean's productive habitat isn't because they want a workable solution....it is because they just don't want people to fish--period. The issue at hand is commercial fishing, not spear guns or rod and reel. As far as "non consumptive diving" you still drop anchor and damage the sea floor, you still upset the natural activities of fish with your very presence under water, the boats at the reefs pollute the water and the noise from there on board generators upset the natural state, etc. In short, the very existence of a human presence is harmful to the reef. I suppose I am just frustrated as to everyone's quick jump to shut down the most selective form of fishing (spear fishing) instead of going after the main culprit--commercial fishing. Recreational fishing needs to be more restrictive and monitored as well. But a total shut down? This may be hard for you to hear, but here it comes never the less.......I will abide by the laws that govern our fisheries as long as I believe them to be reasonable and they allow me to fish in a manner that awards me the ability to "actually" catch a fish. If you/they take that from me, then I quit trying to comply with the laws. Then I use my resources to not get caught, and I'll spear whatever I want and take whatever I want. The way to control someone isn't to take everything away from them. You must leave them something. And leaving them the mud between reefs isn’t something.

 

[RTH]

So how does non consumptive scuba diving negatively affect fish stocks?




.

Anchor damage to the bottom....

Scuba divers have much more contact with the bottom - grabbing, flapping of fins, etc, than freedivers (which the majority of spearos are)

Pollution from boats, litter (unintentional as well as intentional), as well as potential oil and fuel spills.

Disturbing bird and marine mammal life (Look at anacapa - boats are not allowed within a certian distance of the island during parts of the birds breeding cycles so as not to disturb)

Boat props cutting kelp

Divers cutting kelp when tangled

Divers disrupting feeding patterns by breaking up urchins to get that great photo

Chemicals on and in gear

Tidepools being disturbed by beachgoers, and by people entering and exiting the water - scuba divers have literally worn all the life off certain rocks by walking over them in laguna.

The list goes on and on and on....


To all of you that want to hang consumptives out to dry in this thing, remember, THE MLPA IS NOT ABOUT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, IT'S ABOUT THE ENVIORNMENT. to get the best bang for the buck in terms of protecting the enviornment, we need to limit or eliminate ALL activities that are destructive to the enviornment in MPAs. This includes nonconsumptive activities as well as consumptive ones.









On the OT - I'm a consumptive and Bill, you are certainly getting a little free with that broad brush of yours. In fact, you are just plain LYING in the way you characterize the majority of consumptives, and it speaks volumes about your character. If you've actually gone to any of the MLPA meetings then you know that the majority of consumptives agree that SOME reserves are a good thing, but taking 90-100% of all the reef and kelp in So Cal and leaving only mud flats is not reasonable. The vast vast majority of consumptives do not in fact feel entitled to 100%, we just want enough area and access to be able to do what we love, and REASONABLE closures we can all live with.

Closing everything from Dana to Newport is NOT reasonable. Taking away 27 out of 34 beach access points and ALL the handicap beach access points in that region from shore based consumptives is NOT reasonable. Taking away any area that doesn't require people to walk 1/2 mile, pay 10 bucks a day, or go down and back up 200+ stairs is NOT reasonable.


You know what is reasonable? Taking 3-4 mile long closures, and then doing the active management that the MLPA calls for (stated in the goals if you even bother to read the damn thing), improving fishery management through slot limits, smaller daily bag limits (20 fish a day is retarded - nobody needs that), instituting captive breeding programs, complete bans on certain reef fish that control urchins (Sheepshead), promoting commercial operations that benifit the ecosystem (urchin harvest helps kelp forests in areas where large lobster and sheepshead are depleted), etc etc etc.


That's the thing. Consumptives are willing to do all those things, and keep bringing them up as options at MLPA meetings, only to be ignored by antiaccess, anticonsumptives like Bill who keep saying they want compromise, but who never budge an inch. Anyone who thinks all consumptives are anticlosure, or that they want "100%" eithier has not been to these meetings, or is in denial (Bill's case, IMO), has been mislead by untrue comments like the one Bill has made here. I highly suggest that people make up their own minds instead of relying on lies like Bill is spewing about the consumptive community.

Consumptives don't feel entitled to 100%, what we do feel entitled to is SOME reasonable access. What's so hard to understand about that? Why do you feel consumptives should get 0% of the kelp and reef Bill?


Oh, and since I'm new to this Board: Hi all, My names Dave Ploessel. I've been diving the california coastline for 30 years. My family has been diving the area since the 1930s and we've seen a lot of changes in the fish populations over the years - in fact, we have a pretty good long term grasp on whaere ithas bee and where it's going.

I primarily freedive, but I've ben scuba diving for a little over 17 years now as well. Since I'm usually ot walking around underwater banging a couple pots together (what scuba sounds like to me), I know what's out there, and let me say this as someone who spends 20-30 hrs a week in the water: The fishery, for the vast majorty of species, is the strongest now that it has been in my entire lifetime. The single biggest problem we face is not consumptives, but enviornmental damage due to WATER QUALITY, and the MLPA unfortunatly does not address that. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP THE ENVIORNMENT, STOP THIS LYNCH PARTY FOR CONSUMPTIVES AND TRY TO WORK ON CLEANING UP OUR WATERSHEDS.


K I'm Done.

 

[White Knight]

RTH....Thank you for joining the Board! I have been standing virtually alone on this issue--agreeing with 99% of what you just said and disagreeing with 99% of everyone else's comments. Refreshing to learn of your existence. That said, your points will be ignored and taken out of context when responded to. Hope your skin is thick!!!

 

[Empty V]

You're reaching out pretty far.

Anchor damage to the bottom....

Anchoring on reefs does cause some damage but you'll never get anyone to stop anchoring. The majority of the boats I've been on, including my own, try to anchor off the reefs in sand if possible.

Scuba divers have much more contact with the bottom - grabbing, flapping of fins, etc, than freedivers (which the majority of spearos are)

Yeah there are many divers who have either not been properly trained or just don't care and tear up reef everywhere they go. I'd like to think most divers are conscious of their surroundings and how they're affecting it but who knows.

Pollution from boats, litter (unintentional as well as intentional), as well as potential oil and fuel spills.

I've never seen a boat intentionally or unintentionally pollute the water. To my knowledge the only thing that entered the water when I've been on board is exhaust and human waste outside of the legal distance from shore.

Disturbing bird and marine mammal life (Look at anacapa - boats are not allowed within a certian distance of the island during parts of the birds breeding cycles so as not to disturb)

You're Reaching

Boat props cutting kelp

Props cutting kelp on the surface is pointless to bring up. At the rate kelp grows and what's being damaged is doubtfully affecting anything underwater.

Divers cutting kelp when tangled

Yeah it happens. Often enough to have a derogatory effect, I highly doubt it.

Divers disrupting feeding patterns by breaking up urchins to get that great photo

IMO divers killing urchins for entertainment is wrong. I don't agree with this practice at all and it has to stop. Now the "relocation" of urchins is another story.

Chemicals on and in gear

Still reaching.

Tidepools being disturbed by beachgoers, and by people entering and exiting the water - scuba divers have literally worn all the life off certain rocks by walking over them in laguna.

You're reaching so far out that at this point all I hear is "He's got the whole world, in his hands"

Billy - fisherman of 24 years, diver of 4 (I think)

 

[dannobee]

Billy, we're wasting bandwidth responding to these guys. Their minds are already made up and they've admitted that they'll poach if they're denied access.

I've been diving and fishing longer than I care to admit (but not quite as long as Dr. Bill), but I will say this; I had a commercial salmon license for a few years in the late 70's. We also fished for rockfish, lings, and the other usual suspects. That is my baseline. There were few days when we didn't limit out. Fish stocks have dramatically dropped. If you don't believe my first hand assessment, go review the data that the scientists use. Or look at the recent Salmon seasons.

.

 

[drbill]

To all of you that want to hang consumptives out to dry in this thing, remember, THE MLPA IS NOT ABOUT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, IT'S ABOUT THE ENVIORNMENT. to get the best bang for the buck in terms of protecting the enviornment, we need to limit or eliminate ALL activities that are destructive to the enviornment in MPAs. This includes nonconsumptive activities as well as consumptive ones.

Yes, it is about ECOSYSTEM management. And I agree that non-consumptives do have impacts on the environment as well. Unless the intensity of diving is fairly high, the impacts are minimal and repairable. Removing fish is not unless the harvest is done in a sustainable manner. The data show that is not the case for many species. If it were, we'd still be seeing the tremendous fish runs of 60 or 100 years ago. We don't.

On the OT - I'm a consumptive and Bill, you are certainly getting a little free with that broad brush of yours. In fact, you are just plain LYING in the way you characterize the majority of consumptives, and it speaks volumes about your character. If you've actually gone to any of the MLPA meetings then you know that the majority of consumptives agree that SOME reserves are a good thing, but taking 90-100% of all the reef and kelp in So Cal and leaving only mud flats is not reasonable. The vast vast majority of consumptives do not in fact feel entitled to 100%, we just want enough area and access to be able to do what we love, and REASONABLE closures we can all live with.

Interesting... I'm lying. Now this IS typical of much of the consumptive patter. Back that up or apologize.

I don't know a single "enviro" (it's bad to be FOR the environment? since when?) who has spit on an angler or spearo. I don't know a single "enviro" who has yelled down an argument from an angler (may have happened). I do know of "enviros" who have been spat upon, threatened by and had their p[ersonal p[roperty saboutaged by extremists in the fishing camp.

The FIN proposals are actually quite ludicrous. They do not seem to comprehend what an effective network of marine reserves really requires. External Proposal A actually removes some currently protected areas and substitutes an area where fishing normally doesn't occur anyway. The size and placement of the reserves are fairly meaningless in terms of their ecological effectiveness. They show no sign of compromise if they are the best that the angling community can come up with.

External Proposal A shows how little the anglers are willing to sacrifice (at least in the area of my greatest concern, Catalina).

I just wish the anglers would understand the degree to which reserves have been effective not only in our State but in other areas of the world. They might find that these reserves can actually enhance their consumptive activities in the unprotected areas (and I'm in favor of that).

Closing everything from Dana to Newport is NOT reasonable. Taking away 27 out of 34 beach access points and ALL the handicap beach access points in that region from shore based consumptives is NOT reasonable. Taking away any area that doesn't require people to walk 1/2 mile, pay 10 bucks a day, or go down and back up 200+ stairs is NOT reasonable.

I would agree and I doubt that would happen in the FINAL proposals.

You know what is reasonable? Taking 3-4 mile long closures, and then doing the active management that the MLPA calls for (stated in the goals if you even bother to read the damn thing), improving fishery management through slot limits, smaller daily bag limits (20 fish a day is retarded - nobody needs that), instituting captive breeding programs, complete bans on certain reef fish that control urchins (Sheepshead), promoting commercial operations that benifit the ecosystem (urchin harvest helps kelp forests in areas where large lobster and sheepshead are depleted), etc etc etc.

The MLPA calls for a network of marine reserves to implement the active management necessary to reverse 160-200 years of non-sustainable harvest in our waters. It will also require other management activities in the unprotected areas. Your comments above are good ones... I agree with most of them...for the unprotected areas. They do not accomplish what the reserves will however.

That's the thing. Consumptives are willing to do all those things, and keep bringing them up as options at MLPA meetings, only to be ignored by antiaccess, anticonsumptives like Bill who keep saying they want compromise, but who never budge an inch. Anyone who thinks all consumptives are anticlosure, or that they want "100%" eithier has not been to these meetings, or is in denial (Bill's case, IMO), has been mislead by untrue comments like the one Bill has made here. I highly suggest that people make up their own minds instead of relying on lies like Bill is spewing about the consumptive community.

Do you know me? Obviously not. I have dive buddies who are spearos, including my own son. I am not anti-consumptive... I am against over consumption. The cumulative affect of millions of anglers over decades of time has diminished fish stocks to a mere shadow of what fish stocks were as recently as 20-30 years ago (not to mention baselines of 60 or 100 or 160 years)

I have seen many spearos and anglers who say theu are unwilling to give up anything. 50% would be a fair compromise... not 10-20%.

If you are going to continue to call me a liar, I think you need to back up your statements with facts regarding the fish stocks, ecosystem health, etc.

Consumptives don't feel entitled to 100%, what we do feel entitled to is SOME reasonable access. What's so hard to understand about that? Why do you feel consumptives should get 0% of the kelp and reef Bill?

In my mind (and King Solomon's) fair might be a 50-50 split. Will you accept that?

I don't feel consumptives should get 0% of the kelp and reef. I've never said anything like that... please don't try to put words in my mouth. Read my scientific and popular articles on the subject and learn what I actually think before you make untrue statements. Read what I have said and written about things like spearfishing... you might be very surprised.

Oh, and since I'm new to this Board: Hi all, My names Dave Ploessel. I've been diving the california coastline for 30 years. My family has been diving the area since the 1930s and we've seen a lot of changes in the fish populations over the years - in fact, we have a pretty good long term grasp on whaere ithas bee and where it's going.

I primarily freedive, but I've ben scuba diving for a little over 17 years now as well. Since I'm usually ot walking around underwater banging a couple pots together (what scuba sounds like to me), I know what's out there, and let me say this as someone who spends 20-30 hrs a week in the water: The fishery, for the vast majorty of species, is the strongest now that it has been in my entire lifetime. The single biggest problem we face is not consumptives, but enviornmental damage due to WATER QUALITY, and the MLPA unfortunatly does not address that. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP THE ENVIORNMENT, STOP THIS LYNCH PARTY FOR CONSUMPTIVES AND TRY TO WORK ON CLEANING UP OUR WATERSHEDS.

K I'm Done.

Your statement above could hardly be substantiated for most species. The data would not support that statement... in fact would demolish it for "most" species.

However, I do agree on the issue of pollution. The MLPA legislation was not intended to address that. It requires other legislative acts (many of which have already been implemented) and many other agencies outside the realm of the CDF&G.