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

[White Knight]

Dr Bill.....One last time.....Do you not believe that our fish stocks and habitats couldn't be restored to their past glory by stopping commercial fishing and by substantially limiting recreational fishing catch limits as opposed to closing down reefs and kelp forests to sport fishing all together? Not using failed catch limits and season restrictions as in the past, but a new set of them?

 

[scjoe]

Does the 17% under Proposal A cover a little less than Ž½ of the productive areas covered by Proposal C or does it cover different areas?

Is the difference that Proposal A proposes to close just bits and pieces of each zone it lists, whereas, Proposal C proposes to close entirely each zone it lists?

Could someone explain the voting process? If it is the stakeholders, then the Proposal C people must be voting for Proposal A, for it to get 100% of the vote, which does not look like they are unwilling to compromise as has been suggested.

 

[drbill]

True on point 1. However, because Catalina is separated by at least 19.7 miles from the mainland (and even farther if you follow directions based on "as the crow flies" or as the current flows), the reserves on the island NEED to be much larger in size to have any impact in the proposed network within the biogeographic region as a whole.

The reserves proposed in External Proposal A do not seem of adequate size or spacing to adequately capture the "network" concept of interconnectivity as is required.

Reserve size and spacing must be viewed within the constraints of adequate population containment for the species involved, the dispersal distances of the larvae or other pelagic forms, the duration of drift required to reach adjacent reserves (given actual pathways determined by currents rather than straight line distances, etc.

I stand by my position that the Catalina reserves are too small to be contributing elements in the overall network for the SoCal region. After looking at the entire regions covered in the other proposals, I also think the mainland reserves in many of them are both too small and too widely spaced.

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.

 

[drbill]

Dr Bill.....One last time.....Do you not believe that our fish stocks and habitats couldn't be restored to their past glory by stopping commercial fishing and by substantially limiting recreational fishing catch limits as opposed to closing down reefs and kelp forests to sport fishing all together? Not using failed catch limits and season restrictions as in the past, but a new set of them?

Simple answer... I do not. The cumulative damage is too severe.

 

[drbill]

Could someone explain the voting process? If it is the stakeholders, then the Proposal C people must be voting for Proposal A, for it to get 100% of the vote, which does not look like they are unwilling to compromise as has been suggested.

Seems to be a very telling and valid point IMHO.

 

[drbill]

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.

While I understand your reasons for thinking this, I have explained why larger reserves around Catalina are important when considering their influence in the mandated network of reserves for the entire region.

Another consideration. So many mainland residents come to the island to fish hear. Why? In large part because the waters off the mainland coast have been even more seriously overfished than those here. Of course also in part because anglers, like non-consumptive users, enjoy being out on the water in a boat!

When I see the number of commercial party boats fishing the reefs off the island, it disturbs me. When I see the number of private vessels fishing the leeward coast, it bothers me. Why? Because I don't wish to see the islands devastated to the extent much of the mainland is.

I again appeal to consumptive users to think carefully about what "sustainable fisheries" really mean. If we had been fishing our waters sustainably over the past 200 years, we would still be seeing the kind of fish stocks reported BY ANGLERS at points in time from the late 1800's to the early 1900's to the immediate post World War II era.

I have spoken with many long-time anglers over the years since fishing has been a favorite activity out here on the island. I wish I had done oral histories with them since most have gone to the great pond in the sky (hope it is well stocked). To a person they had tales of how incredible fishing was here in the early 1900's and up through the 1950's.

One angler who is now in his mid-90's often recalls the days between World Wars I and II when fish stocks here were still pretty incredible... but not what they were as described by the real old timers like Zane Gray or Charles F. Holder.

It is all a matter of the baseline you choose. If you look only 5-10 years back, you should still notice declines in that short period. I only look back 40 years in our waters and I see a substantial decline. If you look back 60 or 100 or 150 years, it is pretty evident that fish stocks are substantially reduced from those periods for almost all species. And that is why I say that fishing in our State (and most of the world) has NOT been done in a sustainable fashion and we need a radical transformation of how we manage our ecosystems to truly turn that around.

 

[dannobee]

Pt Lobos in Monterey is not teaming with life! It does not have any more fish than anywhere else in Monterey!

You are full of it. I don't know where you dived in Point Lobos, but just off the boat ramp is not indicative of anywhere outside of Whaler's Cove. There are FAR more fish in Point Lobos than in Monterey Bay. Period. End of Story.

If you don't believe me, PM me the next time you're up here and I'll show you first hand.

The fish in Monterey Bay are GONE. Where'd they all go? We ate them.

Go to the Monterey Aquarium and look at the sardine/cannery row display to see what happened to one species that supported the rest of the ecosystem.

And more local to your area, look at the difference between the kelp forests in SoCal and NorCal. Overfishing let the urchins take over and kill many of the kelp forests in So Cal. This isn't news, you should know this, or you simply refuse to believe it.

.

 

[Pacific Taco]

As an angler and a business owner who's vast majority of income is fishing-related (own a kayak shop) my view of the MLPA process is both personal an commercial.

Personally, as a bleeding heart liberal, I understand the desire for the MPAs. As an angler I don't support the complete closure of huge tracts of near-shore fishing grounds. It is beyond me why the state has not looked more seriously at the systems in place around Texas and especially Florida with their gamefish situations. Slot limits are proven to be very effective methods for maintaining and growing fish populations (check out the red drum) and they would work well here, I believe. It's sad that this approach wasn't given more serious thought. The close/no-close issue will always create havoc by it's very divisive nature. Incidentally, if the closures go into effect it's very likely we'll shutter our biz because some of these closures remove the vast majority of kayak-range fishing grounds.

I'm a catch and release guy 99% of the time (seriously) and I run a series of kayak fishing tournaments that are no-kill events. We preach sensible practices. Eat what you catch and don't feed the neighborhood with your fishing license.

These views aren't hard to spread and the money that will be wasted in attempting to patrol and manage these closures (yeah right - like CA is going to start funding the DFG appropriately) could be better used for education of the public on smarter consumption.

The white sea bass hatchery and size limits worked while allowing take.
Rockfish seasonal closures are working while still allowing take.

My business partner and many of our friends will be at the meeting tomorrow AM, speaking our piece. I hope many others do the same - it's a public process and requires LOTS of input. The process is appearing to become tainted with Ken Wiseman attempting to change the rules mid-game and tomorrow will be an interesting day, for sure. I wish I could be there but someone has to keep the doors open. Remember, your votes count (unless they don't).

 

[drbill]

Pacific Taco... I agree entirely that slot limits would be good to apply rather than minimum size limits. This management practice makes much more sense than our current approach to size limits. Of course I would want them applied in areas outside of the no-take reserves that I feel need to be established. I hope they do not result in the closure of your business of course!

As for catch-and-release, this is highly dependent on the species targeted and the degree to which the fish is stressed in the process. For a number of smaller game fish which are caught fairly quickly and released, this is probably not a great problem in terms of survivorship.

However, for larger fish like billfish, it can be a practice that is not as successful. A friend of mine funds about 60% of the global research on billfish. He and I debated whether catch-and-release methods were appropriate. I claimed that the mortality was high in released fish, estimating it at about 50% based on input from other anglers and scientists. He didn't think it was anywhere near that high until he funded a project on survivorship and the results showed higher than 50% mortality in the released fish. Of course fighting a billfish involves a LOT more stress to the animal than "fighting" a calico bass or sheephead so the results wouldn't be the same with them.

 

[White Knight]

Dannobe...I did two dives to 90 feet depth at Lobos. I never even submerged "until" swimming out of Whalers Cove. My buddy and I saw "one' Ling and two Vermillion. That was is by way of large fish. Same story the other two times I made the four hour drive to Lobos. I see just as many fish at Ball buster (with my boat) and Monastery as I do at Lobos. I'll take you next time. I'll let "you" count the fish.....I'll give you Breakwater and other "blasted" dived and fished out sites, but regarding the rest of the penisula--perhaps it is you who sees what you want to see.