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

[ShakaZulu]

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.

There we go....PADI or some other organization should take this up with the authorities!

 

[Ben_ca]

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.

One or two dives there with a few sightings are not conclusive proof of the health of the fish numbers/sizes. From my diving I can tell you that I do see more/bigger fish at Lobos than at Monastery or any other dive site. I cannot say that I've ever seen a sheephead (an often taken fish) outside of Lobos.

I do about 30 dives there a year and Dan does a whole bunch more than I do. I put more weight his observations than yours...

 

[White Knight]

Like I said, I am willing to go diving with anyone and let the person of their choice count the fish at various dive sites around the Monterey Penisula. The outcome will be what it will be. No sense arguing about it. I was just pointing out my observation of Pt. Lobos vs Naples Reef in Santa Barbara and dives I have done around the Monterey area.

BTW: As far as the "Stick up your ass" comment that I believe was intended for me........A class act you are sweetheart!

 

[FrankPro1]

This type of back and forth will not result in anything but reinforcing opposition to each other. It seems obvious that everyone agrees that something needs to be done in order to insure a healthy marine environment for the future. We may differ on our opinions on what needs to be done "if its closing access to certain areas, heavier restrictions on commercial operations or more constraints on take amounts and sizes", but we all share the same end goal. Getting angry and worked up is easy when dealing with such a passionate subject as this, but it is counter productive to the issue. If we can find a healthy middle ground between our two extremes on this board, we can begin to stop the back and forth rhetoric that is seen at council meetings dealing with this issue. We all enjoy our marine environment in one form or another, why not come together for the greater good.

I cannot say that I've ever seen a sheephead (an often taken fish) outside of Lobos.

Woah I've always heard that northern California had a healthier population of marine life than down here in the south. There's not a dive that goes by that I don't see sheephead.

 

[dannobee]

Woah I've always heard that northern California had a healthier population of marine life than down here in the south. There's not a dive that goes by that I don't see sheephead.

Monterey Bay is the very northern edge of their range. Sheephead are common in So Cal, but only come to Nor Cal in El Nino years when the water temps are a few degrees warmer. The ones that stayed got fished out or ended up in Point Lobos. There are a few BIG males in Point Lobos but none anywhere else in Monterey or Carmel (except maybe the aquarium).

.

 

[Bug 'N Surf]

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.

Dr Bill,
I ran into you at the ScubaShow and said hi, but let my friend Paul do the talking with you at the MLPA Booth. I don't read this board regularly, but do find it a good resource of information. I was able to research and get good opinions on regulators which helped me decide on which one to get for myself. So I also don't know of your many posts which you refer to in this one. I read your comments here and did pick up some of your opinions on the subject. So here are mine, in relation to those.

Also I figured I should set this apart so it can have a little more notice. I am for reasonable closures. And apparently reasonable is where we differ.

I for the first part will respond to External C and it's proposed closure of Palos Verdes. As Catalina is your favorite dive spot that you honed in on, PV is mine. I just started diving and don't own a boat. I shoredive alot and most of that is in PV. Ext C in the first round closed from just south of Pt Vicente to Redondo Marina. Round 2 was revised slightly to just north of Pt Vicente to Torrance Beach - Basically the same area except now the pier and harbor was taken out. Science guidelines state that public piers and jetties shouldn't be put into to the reserves. So basically the whole west and north side of the coastline would be closed. This would force everyone to the southern side of the coast. This is where Whites Point outfall (also advised to try and avoid these with a half mile buffer)of the LA Sanitation District has its pipes. As you recall in the 70s this is where all the DDT and PCBs were dumped and there is a nice 50-200cm thick sediment layer still there. Also on the idea of coastal access, at least 12 trails that I know of and been down on the north and west of the coast would be closed. Now there are about 4 on the southern side south of Pt. Vicente that I know of, maybe a couple more. But there really isn't good access and you have to hike a lot farther and a lot steeper in some places. I've been a proponent for public coastal access and how it impacts people who like to dive from the shore.

Also there is a safety aspect involved in this. As you know in the afternoon the wind starts to pick up and the waves get bigger. Travelling to catalina, you should be aware of this. So now if people are forced to go south of vicente (besides fishing in an area with a higher level on contamination) they will have to come back against this prevailing wind and sea and it is dangerous in smaller boats. So there will be more rescues in the area.

Another point is that the southern california region has a lot of sandy beaches. Most of the coast as we all know. As you also know most of the fish hang out in the structure of the kelp and rocky shorelines where they can find hiding places. There aren't too many places to hide in a sandy shoreline. So when you factor in that aspect, Ext C was taking just about everything. Did you read the economic impact suggested by the first iteration? AND they don't consider any economic impact beyond the dock. So most of the economic data is from the commercial fishing fleet and people said that they would go out of business and starve with that proposal.

Another point you (drbill) brought up is the decline in fish populations since WWII. Let's think about this. When did new technology like sonar and fish finders come out. Who had the money to buy them first when they were really expensive (the commecial industry). And as usual management and government are behind the technology curve. As the government is now trying to catch up with the Internet and how to deal with this. So there was a heyday in the fishing industry. They also used longlines and gilnets which devestated huge swaths of fishing areas and are now banned. The ocean is starting to recover from that. As many people have mentioned to me, there are many more 50+ lb white sea bass (a commonly targeted gamefish) now than there was even 10 years ago. The program of growing and releasing them seems to be helping as well.

AND now to the point which got me writing this long comment. Wow I didn't realize how long it is(and how long I've taken to write this), and yet I still have so much more to say. So here we go.

About the best scientific data. If you've been to a few MLPA meetings it is now the best public readily available (if you can format it to our liking) scientific data. And the data isn't all the great. It is lacking especially in the area from the shoreline to 30m depths. This is where all of my shorediving is done and most of the fishing as well. Also just about half of the stakeholders in the process asked for more time to let the data catch up and for them to be better informed in making their decisions. They asked for a month and were denied. This MLPA is a calendar driven process. And if you actually look at the "scientific" data they are using, there are a lot of extrapolations and models which they are relying on. And it's not that great and mostly old outdated data.
If this process was truly scientifically driven, it wouldn't be forced to move forward and they would be able to take their time and do it right. A lot of the "guidelines" were made up magical numbers for the stakeholders to shoot for. Like the preferred size guideline.

Oh and don't forget that when a reserve is in place, they can change the rules whenever they like. They recently revised the rules for the Channel Islands reserves put in place about 5 years ago, and they certainly didn't ease up. They usually don't. It's not out of the realm of possibility for them to forbid surfing and diving as much as not anchoring at all as well.

Anyways, lets have the scientific members tell us how well Ext. A meets the scientific guidelines. I know it won't meet yours. I'm not sure if Ext. C met yours either. And that where most of the coast was proposed. Don't forget that Ext C is not gone forever. The ideas live on. The BRTF made sure of that this last meeting. It was also the one that compromised the least in the changes made from round 1 to round 2. And how "stacking the deck" is people trying to compromise and come up with ideas that are similar are bound to happen. There are only a few places where you can put these reserves, so you need to compromise exactly where. I love the Legitimate proposals wording. As I mentioned before, I'm for the reserves but not the huge ones that destroy an economy and targets mainly fishing.

Time for me to go. I need a drink after all this.
Mike

 

[Hetland]

Some of it seems pretty sick, but I have little problem with those who fish for food and do not need to take the biggest fish out there (which often have the highest reproductive potential AND in some species don't taste near as good as the tender young 'uns).

I read somewhere that animals and fish are actually evolving to be smaller because the smaller critters have a better survival rate vs. fishers/hunters. I also agree that medium fish taste better than big old fish (probably safer to eat as well considering build up of toxins, etc)

Most of the divers I know wouldn't have a problem with no-take zones, but fishermen seem to be crankier over the subject. Must be all that time in the sun....

 

[Bug 'N Surf]

Bump.
Hmm it's been a month and I still don't see a reply from the person I intended this for, I haven't really checked that often either. I guess I'll pm it to him and see if I get a reply.

 

[drbill]

Got your PMs Bug 'N Surf. Somehow I must have missed the thread when I logged on, or I would have responded earlier... perhaps it was my aging eyes. I remember the discussions and felt they were handled well by your group.

Understand your focus on the areas you know, since that is my focus as well. I thought the PV area had received some recent updates from one of the agencies regarding areas that should not be closed and those that should. I can't remember what I read about it.

Certainly angler safety an element to consider just as diver safety is. However, one must also use the right "tools." Just as I would not go out in certain seas in a small dive boat, an angler should only venture out in a boat safe to use in waters under any "normal" weather or sea condition.

The issue of public access via trails is an interesting one. I wonder if the MLPA team gave any guidelines regarding that element. Access to beach areas whether for no-take diving, spearfishing or beach fishing seems a reasonable element to consider as long as there are ecosystem regions of equal "ecosystem value" to be compared.

As for economic impacts, while they should be given notice, they are not a major criterion that was supposed to be used in the process as it was originally defined. Of course I would hope conservationists, scientists and anglers would want to minimize those impacts wherever feasible, they will by necessity be introduced. Given the impacts over the decades, such impacts have to be imposed given a history of relatively few restrictions.

It would not be External Proposal C that would cause these commercial interests to go out of business, it would be the cumulative over fishing over decades that would be responsible. If "the resource" had been properly managed in the past, this should not have become the problem that it has.

Regarding the use of new technologies, this and the rapid growth in population are partial causes of the problems we are trying to address and remedy with the MLPA. New technologies have aed ever increasing yields which have diminished fish populations to levels more difficult to rebound from and thereby take longer to do so. There are some who point to the early development of nets managed by more than one vessel, a technology that begin in the 1600s, as a major watershed in the decline of fish populations in European waters.

I'm sure most of us, anglers or non take divers, are glad to see the gill; nets and long lines banned from our nearshore waters. They have had serious impacts and we will see improvements (as we already area) in certain of the targeted (or bycatch) species they took.

As for there being more large white sea bass than there were 10 years ago, I'm sure you are correct. I've even seen them (smaller ones) several times on SCUBA recently. The elimination of the above certainly helped. The establishment of white sea bass rearing programs certainly helped. However, can you tell me how current stocks compare to 20... or 50 years ago? An improvement over the last 10 years is great, but is it a "full" recovery? I don't think so.

I agree that the scientific data could certainly use some fleshing out. It's too bad that the revenue taken in by DF&G wasn't used to generate more of that, or that manufacturers of fishing tackle didn't fund objective research on the stocks (yes, not really in their self interest to do so, is it)? Something like the work that Ducks Unlimited has done, or even the Salmon Trollers Association that I worked with up in Fort Bragg a few decades ago. Of course there are those like the Pfleger family who have indeed funded research on several different fish stocks (kudos to them, especially Tom who I went to Guadalupe Island with). My good friend has funded much of the world's research on billfish. These are good examples for the fishing industry to follow.

One should have the best possible scientific data. However to wait another decade for more studies to be funded, when the anecdotal and existing scientific data clearly point to serious reductions even over the near-term, would be foolish. This situation has been developing over MANY decades, and will only accelerate as the population increases (assuming it does in California as projected by some).

I'm not sure why you say the "preferred size" guidelines were "magical numbers." We do have egg production values for various size females in a number of different species. There is little question that most (but not all) larger fish produce more eggs than smaller fish. Unfortunately it has been the larger fish that many consumptives have targeted.

I agree that it is possible that even diving or surfing might be restricted from some areas in the future. I can live with this, although there is usually far less reason to prohibit such non-take activities and the MLPA officials have frequently corrected statements by fishing interests that this is a likely evolution. Yes, I know... you can't always take governments and their officials at their word ("read my lips" comes to mind). My overwhelming interest is for the ecosystems to recover even if it isn't in my lifetime, but that of my son or grandchildren. I look to the future, not just to my own enjoyment.

External C was not "ideal" on any way and "only" protected a little over 30% of the coast. Yes, I know to anglers that is a lot, but it is near the MINIMUM recommended by most scientific studies. And reserves need to be of a certain minimum size in order to function effectively to create both the healthy ecosystems we want within them, but also the spillover that will yield higher fishing values in the adjacent, unprotected areas.

OK, I've responded with my thoughts. I can't really address your specifics regarding the impacts of External C on the PV area because I've never spent any real time there. You may well have raised a number of very valid points that I not only couldn't refute, but might be in agreement on.

When the stakeholders' group for the south coast was first announced, I raised a protest over its composition. Conservation and scientific viewpoints were greatly under-represented. Based on its own statistics, the composition of that group was 1/3rd (and I'd question the credentials of several included in that designation). Recreational anglers were 1/2rd and commercial interests were another 1/3rd. The 66.7% majority of consumptive users on the stakeholders' group was a clear sign that nothing "objective" was going to come out of the deliberations. I think the Scientific Advisory Team made that point with their evaluations of the proposals carried forward. There was almost no compromise from those users, only cloning of several very sumilar proposals none of which even came close to meeting the scientific guidelines which are supposed to be the driving force in the process.

Whew. Hey, if you haven't finished that bottle you drank from a month ago, pour me one and we can drink together!

 

[TroupH2O]

Keep up the battle Dr Bill. I'm with you... mostly.

My family has fished and hunted California since the 30's "ish" and what I have learned from their stories is that game is not as plentiful. The exception has been hunting on private land, which I consider similar to a game preserve. If we are going to restock the game there will need to be some protection provided. I hope that "responsible" planning for game protection will benefit the hunters and non-hunters.

My personal preference is to see more "smaller" protection zones across the state. I believe this would increase the cost to the state but would best stimulate the game reproduction without shutting-down large fishing areas.

How ever MPLA rolls out we will all pay to restock our ocean. Fishing stocks won't recover without some change.