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

[drbill]

White Knight... As an ecologist, I'm sorry to say this but to think that one can compare fish stocks at Pt. Lobos and Naples Reef directly is indicative of the lack of ecological understanding by many (in both communities). These two dive sites are in completely different biogeographic zones and really aren't directly comparable at all.

Dannobee...I was just at Point Lobos last Friday. I did two dives. I donÃÕ 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 isnÃÕ something.

 

[drbill]

I thought I'd add another point to show how little RTH knows of what I think. I get my feathers ruffled when someone claims to know where I stand on the issues without actually knowing me or having read my writings.

I have gotten involved in the California Ships-to-Reefs organization out of an interest in sinking new artificial reefs in southern California. I don't enjoy diving wrecks myself... I'm a marine biologist and am far more interested in natural reef ecosystems and their preservation.

However, I saw two reasons for getting involved. One was because there are many divers who enjoy diving wrecks and I'm a member of the dive community so I am happy to see their options expand. But a more compelling reason for me (as Joel Geldin, Chairman of the California Ships-to-Reefs program can confirm) is that I want to see additional habitat created for the angling community to help make up for some of the areas set aside as marine reserves.

I don't just think of what I want... I try to think of others as well. Of course most important to me is thinking about the health of our natural marine ecosystems... not for MY sake, for their intrinsic value for the future.

 

[DwayneJ]

Well it does not seem the voting process is going too well. When a predetermined result is in danger of being eliminated, change the rules...

"Betrayal at its worst in MLPA process" by Going Outside

 

[drbill]

Why was External Proposal C important to move forward? Because at least for the region I am most concerned with, Catalina, it represented the only one of the proposals submitted that actually met the scientific criteria for designing an effective network of marine reserves. The other proposals that I have seen (are all the maps up yet) are basically revisions of the same general proposal.

You cannot stack the deck with a series of similar proposals and feel that is a fair outcome to send forward. You need balance so there is a set of real options. If this process were actually based on the best scientific data, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that legitimate proposals taking that into consideration would look much more like External Proposal C than the rest.

Keep in mind that these are merely alternatives being sent further up the chain of decision making. None of them are likely to survive intact.

 

[voice_of_reason]

Dr. Bill-
It seems to me that you have been overly broad in your criticism of consumptives and especially external proposal A. From my perspective it appears that a large part of your criticism stems directly from your obvious (and certainly understandable) bias towards Catalina. OK, let's accept that you disagree with the size and spacing of the reserve areas around Catalina in external A. If you were to set aside your affinity for Catalina and take a look at the rest of the South Coast study region as a scientist/marine ecologist, how do you feel about external A?

I think consumptives have done an outstanding job of meeting the SAT guidelines with regard to size/spacing (as well as external C) while simultaneously minimizing socio-economic impact. Please provide specific examples where you feel external A is lacking over the entire study region rather than criticizing all consumptives because you disagree with how your "backyard" is treated in this proposal. As everyone is asking, why not provide some solutions, some alternative geometries, rather than just scrapping the entire proposal and its authors?

And to answer you question:
I

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

The answer is a resounding yes! In fact, I'll bet that virtually all consumptives would be willing to give up 70% of the coast, provided that the 30% that remains is what external C is proposing to close. Therein lies the problem, 30% of the coast sounds like a reasonable request, but it contains 90% of the productive fishing areas.

 

[White Knight]

Dr Bill, we have gone round and round with this. The fact is you refuse to acknowledge the impact of commercial fisheries as compared to the minimum impact of spear fishing. You refuse to consider the possibility that a moratorium of commercial fishing and a much more restrictive set of rules and regulations for recreational fishing is a possibility that could work and has not been tried—suggesting that we have had adequate rules already. Pt Lobos in Monterey is not teaming with life! It does not have any more fish than anywhere else in Monterey! The closed to fishing areas do not work. Also, you refuse to acknowledge that the collective might of the anti sportsman will not rest until every single kelp bed and productive reef in CA has been shut down to fishing. In short, you refuse to admit that you stand with those that simply do not want people to fish-period. There is a better way. As I said before, let's try "real" management with smaller fish takes allowed, shorter seasons, and ban most of our commercial guys altogether. Go ahead; I wait for you to twist my words.........

 

[drbill]

Voice of Reason... I have always focused on Catalina and stated that the reason I do not make assessments in mainland waters is because I do not have enough experience there to give an informed judgment. You are correct that my focus on Catalina precludes my looking at the entire picture.. I agree with that assessment. The designations around Catalina, my focus, are in no way a network of real reserves and can not serve as an effective management tool to restore the ecosystems here.

How's this... if the consumptives and non-consumptives were to identify the best areas for (1) angling and (2) ecosystem recovery, and divide those areas 50-50, I could live with that.

One has to realize that the consumptives have dominated the use patterns in the marine environment for some 200 years. We are trying to restore 200+ years of damage.

 

[drbill]

White.Knight, I don't refuse to acknowledge the impact of commercial fishing, especially for most of their target species. I simply state that the recreational angling impact is a lot higher than many are willing to accept due to the numbers of anglers involved and the decades over which that activity has taken place. I am well aware of the impact of commercial fisheries on many species.

I have also said repeatedly that I think spearfishing is a much better approach to harvest... with the singular exception that it often focuses on trophy fish. Three of my top dive buddies are all consumptive and I have never had any trouble diving with them even while they are taking game.

Your statement that no take reserves do not work flies in the face of results from some 80-100 scientific studies world-wide (including locally) which say they do. In fact, I have pointed out the numerous times that party boats "fish the line" indicating that the captains of those vessels also recognize marine reserves work... why else would they be fishing right along (or often even within) their boundaries?

I'm sure there are some who agree with my position and would prefer that no one fish. However, I do not have that attitude. Please do not generalize without knowing my positions on these issues.

As for twisting your words, you do not appear to be "hearing" mine... otherwise you wouldn't keep making statements that do not reflect my positions on these issues. Please take some time to study them before you lump me with others whose perspective may be quite different from mine.

I repeat my informed opinion that it is the consumptives who have been unwilling to look at the science behind reserves, to understand the intricacies (and incorporate them) involved in designing effective networks of reserves, being quite inaccurate in their assessments of current fish stocks relative to what would be in our waters had fishing been truly sustainable over the years, and being very short sighted in terms of the long-term impacts.

I wish I could be here 30-50 years from now to hear our grandchildren ask why we didn't do the right thing for them. And yes, I truly believe that... we are already asking these questions now (including those with much longer reference baselines than you or I have).

 

[voice_of_reason]

Dr. Bill-
Unfortunately the MLPA does not call for a "network of interconnected reserves around Catalina". The idea of a network of reserves necessitates a broader view of the entire biogeographic region. Furthermore, I believe the SAT requirements regarding size and spacing have been necessarily relaxed around the channel islands (northern and southern) due to the complexity of current patterns around the islands and the clearly different and limited geography. Is it your position that the SAT has given poor guidance on how to treat the channel islands?

As a respected member of the dive community I think it is irresponsible of you to pass judgement on draft proposals for an entire study region based solely on your bias for Catalina. If areas are re-opened around Catalina it is because additional reserves are being added at other islands or on the mainland in an attempt to capture different habitat with the intent of forming an interconnected network over the ENTIRE study region. There is more at stake here than the area you call home and repeatedly posting inflammatory and polarizing comments (such as the title of this thread) only serves to make a difficult process even more so.

 

[voice_of_reason]

To address your hypothetical proposal about closing 50% of the areas that are considered productive fishing areas and/or critical habitat for ecosystem recovery.

External proposal A has (I believe) roughly 17% of the study region in reserves while external C has close to 33%...about twice as much. If, as has been claimed repeatedly, external C represents close to 90% of the productive fishing areas then it would seem that external proposal A is pretty close to the 50-50 split you would advocate. It is certainly more complicated than this simplistic analysis, but my point is that I believe external proposal A is much more aligned with the compromise that you would like to see than is external C. Perhaps this is why it received 100% of the RSG votes to go forward to the BRTF while external C received a mere 45%.

It seems unfortunate that your entire position is based on Catalina and you can't set aside your personal bias and look critically at each proposal in its entirety.