California to restrict ocean fishing

[jigmaster]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/...tecting_oceans

[maxjax]

"Many fishermen, however, are embittered.
"They felt betrayed by the process. They felt that all their input was ignored," said Bob Fletcher, who heads the Sportfishing Association of California.
In the Central Coast port of Morro Bay, Darby Neil is worried about the fate of Virg's Landing, the charter boat operator his grandfather started more than 40 years ago.
"They've already squeezed us down to nothing," Neil said. "It's already so severe that we really can't take anymore.""


my



You all know that first, the Cali's are coming here to fish! And then to regulate! Until we have a Yosemite ocean...have any of you been to Yosemite?...You can describe it in allot of wonderful ways but "Free" and "Wild" are not any of them.

Every freedom we give up, no matter how noble the cause. WE NEVER GET BACK!

If you doubt me, start asking your inland brothers like Ranchers, Farmers, Trappers, Hunters, Off-road enthusiast... the list goes on and on...read a little about Death Valley and the "conservation" now in place there...ask the deer hunters in Nevada how that was managed...for that matter go ahead and attempt to apply for a tag.

You can debate this with all the pomp and circumstance of a UN delegation. It will get you zip...if you want to save your interest you must control your interest. Not give it to the government or the special interest groups AND YES the precious Science is a special interest...they tend to forget that humans are part of the almighty circle of life and evolution, like it or not we are a force of nature.

But, mark my words if you allow these almighty organizations a single inch, the next step will be a thousand miles and after we are all dead and gone your children will inherit vast expanses of government controlled, un-fishable, viewable only with a reservation (Yosemite park oceans).

sorry for the rant
Black Hat maxjax

[blubeast]

Sad part is there are hearings currently being held right here in Oregon to potentially adopt similar protected zones... only difference is... it would cover the ENTIRE Oregon coast. Our re-elected Gov. Ted is leading the effort.

The OPAC meetings need to be attended and carefully watched in an attempt to prevent such fishing restrictions from being adopted here too. There appears to still be time to get your opinions heard. Speak up NOW while there is still time.

[skein]

Nicely said, MaxJax.

And very true, Blubeast.

Anybody think we've got a chance in hell of stopping it?

Skein

[Mark Mc]

Uh, before y'all go too far, it is my understanding that the plan to pursue a federal reserve in Oregon, at least the one being sponsored by the governor, his staff, and OPAC, has been abandoned.

Reason being that....because of what has just happened with the Channel Islands MPA....their managers have claimed that they have ultimate authority to set fishing regulations inside the reserve, to the objection of the PFMC.

The governor and his team have stated all along that Oregon (and our reps on the PFMC) must have the right to manage fishing regulations in order for it to work. When they saw how the CIMPA managers have interpreted the law, they abandoned it, as they know how damaging this could be for Oregon, especially the coastal economy.

There will probably be an effort to set something up in state waters, that can be controlled by Oregonians.

"Come to the 2007 Salty Dogs Convention and learn more!!"

[blubeast]

Mark, thanks for updating us. That is GREAT news.

Frankly, I still firmly believe this needs to be watched very carefully. Their original map indicated areas they wanted expanded protections for, and would impact key fishing areas all along the coast.

It's much easier to remain vigilant before changes are imposed rather than loose fishing rights then TRY and reclaim them.

[bajadan2000]

One thing the last "article" did was to make people that care about the earth's future question and look at the actual studies, the scientist behind the studies and then follow the money that supported the studies.

Did you know the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, now under the control of daughter Julie Packard, has givin 54 grant awards worth $17,286,575 to study Marine fisheries.

Here is a link to the list.

http://www.packard.org/searchGrants....CategoryID=226

Select all years, all amounts, consevation and science and then subprogram Marine fisheries.

On the surface this may sound like a very generous program untill you dig further and find out Julie Packard's goal is to shut down the entire world to all ocean fishing. It is hard to fathom how scientists get further funding from the Packard foundation without supporting Julie's idea of total Marine reserves, starting in her back yard, Monterey Bay...

[skein]

Correct, Dan, and just imagine the pressure put on these recipients to come up with the "right" answer. Do you remember Phil Knight and Nike's effect on University of Oregon when he withdrew the lion's share of his grant to refurbish Autzen Stadium? Did they stay true to "academia" or did they follow the money?

Quote:
The Nike president pulled out some $30 million to $40 million in expected
donations because of battles with the university over the Worker’s Rights
Consortium, a national student-based watchdog organization. The state
board of higher education has since said universities can’t belong to
those groups, and Oregon is hopeful to get Knight, a Duck alum, back in
the fold.


Yep, they went with the money.

And so will today's universities - and politicians. Don't think for a minute our Gov (no political debate intended) won't figure out a way to do the same thing. He hasn't forgotten his stated goals! Don't let your guard down.

Oh, and don't believe your input is going to amount to a hill of beans.

Skein

[Old Salty]

Hi,

Pretty well written article?
I have one question though.
When are they going to stop the asian canning factories offshore, that is wiping everything out.
Something needs to be done on an international level, before our kids, kids
dont have a chance to go out offshore and fish for big game, tuna, or Salmon. I HAVE READ SEVERAL ARTICLES, and why aren't they stopping them? If they stopped them for 7-10 years, and went back to the old commercial fishing ways. I feel the fish population would have a better chance on recovery. Those guys in Washington need to look at this in a very serious way,
& not wait until its to late! They need to stop thinking about the dollar figures it brings in now, because there will be none in the future. It'll all be farm raised fish.




Team Old Salty
www.oldsaltytackle.com
Diving Planers - Flashers - Terminal Tackle

[bajadan2000]

The information source for the article above came from Mike Sutton.

""""said Sutton, a marine expert at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.""""





Guess who Mike Sutton @ Monterey Bay Aquarium works for???

""""Monterey Bay Aquarium Leadership

Julie Packard, Executive Director and Vice Chairman of the aquarium's Board of Trustees, has directed the organization since it opened in 1984. """"




Guess where the money for the Monterey Bay Aquariuim and Research Institute comes from??

in 1978 Dave and Lucille Packard created the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. The couple eventually donated $55 million to build the new aquarium, which opened in 1984 with Julie Packard as executive director. In 1987, Packard gave $13 million to create the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and the Packard Foundation has since provided about 90% of the institute's operating budget.

[freespool]

[quote=bajadan2000;

On the surface this may sound like a very generous program untill you dig further and find out Julie Packard's goal is to shut down the entire world to all ocean fishing. [/quote]


Please show me some facts on this statement, I've looked and can't seem to find it.
This argument of all science is agenda driven, is quite interesting, but saying it, then proving it, seems a bit more difficult.



salmon hugger

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Did you know the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, now under the control of daughter Julie Packard, has givin 54 grant awards worth $17,286,575 to study Marine fisheries.

On the surface this may sound like a very generous program untill you dig further and find out Julie Packard's goal is to shut down the entire world to all ocean fishing. It is hard to fathom how scientists get further funding from the Packard foundation without supporting Julie's idea of total Marine reserves, starting in her back yard, Monterey Bay...

Wow, that's a lot of cash. I followed and looked, and as of yet have been unable to determine where shutting down all fisheries in the ocean is part of the agenda. I do see a group that states their mission is to help conserve and protect the oceans.

In their 2006 backgrounder, they list the Marine Stewardship Council as one of their grantees. This organizations goal is to get people to buy fish from accredited sustainable and properly managed commercial fishing enterprises. Included in their list of accredited fisheries is Alaska Pollock, Alaska Salmon, Pacific Cod LONGLINE fishery, and Pacific Halibut in Alaska, Washinton, and Oregon. Seems like this is a pretty good deal to me.

Am I missing something? So, the goal of the foundation is to shut down all fishing, and they are going to do that by giving grants to organizations that in effect give credibility to particular fisheries? That sounds like science based conservation to me, and something that gives good traction to particular fisheries in the world market, a number of which are right here in our backyard.

I would really be interested to see the information that states the foundations overall goal is the complete shutdown of ocean fishing. ???

[bajadan2000]

For the answer to your question you will need to read the studies that are funded by the Packard foundation. The scientist are careful to list the reasons for the reduced population of some of the oceans biosystems species.

The reasons stated included: exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction, and climate changes due to perturbations(cyclical changes in the earths orbit caused by other celestial bodies). All very sound science to this point...

However, that is where the studies end and the sole focus to correct the problems centers on Marine protected zones... All efforts and resources are concentrated on Marine reserves. Does this sound like sound non-political science to you????

Would not more balanced studies looking at all of the possible answers be more benificial to the oceans biosystem, and not just the wishes of the rich, with an agenda???? Oh by the way, the people to be hurt the most by Julie Packards position are the commercial and sport fishermen. Take a look at their side.

http://cafisheriescoalition.org/
http://cafisheriescoalition.org/science_review.htm



Here is a quote from ABC news

""""The Monterey Bay Aquarium supports the most far reaching marine protection option and has launched a campaign""""

http://cafisheriescoalition.org/science_review.htm


And Julie Packard influence IS felt in Oregon...and affects all of us...

CORVALLIS, Ore. - Researchers at Oregon State University and three other leading marine science universities in Oregon and California have received a five-year, $17.7 million grant to conduct ecological research aimed at improving the conservation of marine organisms. This is the largest single grant ever made to a university by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and will allow the four institutions to learn more about the vast near-shore region along the Pacific Coast

"This project represents the kind of scientific research we need to protect our coasts and oceans for future generations," said Julie Packard, trustee and vice chairman of the Packard Foundation.""""""""


Julie Packard's marine reserve philosophy goes far beyond her home in Monterey Bay..And she has a ton more of her daddy's money to spread her influence...

I think it is wonderfull she has all of this money to fund much needed research. However, given her very public stance on Marine Reserves I have to question the very obvious influence she had over the money she has given out???

[garyk]

Pretty interesting dichotomy on this board right now.

This thread seems to be asserting that foundation grants and researchers might kick us off the ocean, while a couple threads down is one touting a guy and his business that I've personally watched vote to shorten the recreational salmon fishing!

Definitely keep tabs on any public process, but personally I'm going to worry more about who I'm spending money with, and whether angler's interests are truly being represented at meetings like the North of Falcon process, rather than who is researching what.

Thinking of the Phil Knight story above, are we just more comfortable with the devil we know? Or do we just have very short memories?

[maxjax]

Saying that Science is politically/environmentally motivated is very easy to prove...find anyone who has attended one of the prominent colleges and ask them if the professors teaching any particular class (subject not important) pushed there own agenda or viewpoints ....the kids coming out of college today are groomed by some of the best extreme environmentalist on the planet...now ask yourself ....will the science they produce be unbiased and pure?

If this does not keep you up tonight... you might as well put your boat on ebay and be done with it.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

For the answer to your question you will need to read the studies that are funded by the Packard foundation. The scientist are careful to list the reasons for the reduced population of some of the oceans biosystems species.

With all due respect, you have not provided anything that anywhere near shows that the Packard foundation, and Julie Packard specifically have an overall goal to shut down ocean fishing. I provided a specific example above of something they funded that provides for sustainable commercial harvest, something that would be more difficult to reverse.

However, that is where the studies end and the sole focus to correct the problems centers on Marine protected zones... All efforts and resources are concentrated on Marine reserves. Does this sound like sound non-political science to you????

Would not more balanced studies looking at all of the possible answers be more benificial to the oceans biosystem, and not just the wishes of the rich, with an agenda???? Oh by the way, the people to be hurt the most by Julie Packards position are the commercial and sport fishermen. Take a look at their side.

http://cafisheriescoalition.org/
http://cafisheriescoalition.org/science_review.htm

Ok, I took a look at their side, and here's what I came up with.....

From the CFC website:

Is the CFC opposed to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)?
No, the CFC is not opposed to MPAs. CFC members appreciate that under certain circumstances marine reserves may help fish populations. The CFC feels that the key to MPAs is implementation at a measured pace with appropriate monitoring.
Does the California Fisheries Coalition support the MLPA?
The California Fisheries Coalition (CFC) supports a full and balanced implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act. The CFC believes that with a full and balanced implementation of the MLPA, the state can have a healthy ocean, secure marine wildlife populations and strong ocean dependent businesses and coastal communities.

WOW! So are they bad too? They outright say they are in favor of both MPA's and the MLPA.

And Julie Packard influence IS felt in Oregon...and affects all of us...

CORVALLIS, Ore. - Researchers at Oregon State University and three other leading marine science universities in Oregon and California have received a five-year, $17.7 million grant to conduct ecological research aimed at improving the conservation of marine organisms. This is the largest single grant ever made to a university by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and will allow the four institutions to learn more about the vast near-shore region along the Pacific Coast

"This project represents the kind of scientific research we need to protect our coasts and oceans for future generations," said Julie Packard, trustee and vice chairman of the Packard Foundation.""""""""


Julie Packard's marine reserve philosophy goes far beyond her home in Monterey Bay..And she has a ton more of her daddy's money to spread her influence...

I think it is wonderfull she has all of this money to fund much needed research. However, given her very public stance on Marine Reserves I have to question the very obvious influence she had over the money she has given out???

For the record, the CFC had 3 marine biologists do a peer review of the MLPA. (all PhD's) One from UW, one from U of BC, and a retired member of the NMFS. All SCIENTISTS.

Seems to me that the CFC is on a good track, and that they're not crying out the sky is falling with regard to MLPA's. They are crying out that revisions need to be made, and they are stepping up to the plate to provide an opposing scientific argument to the initial implementation.

It's pretty easy to make general statements to try and discredit someone, but I just don't see the facts yet that support the statement. I'm willing to listen, I just don't see it yet.

[Fisherman_Mark]

You know I voted for Gov K. because I think it will be easier to stop him from cutting off the fishing areas than it would have been to stop Saxton from allowing big timber to **** the forests that we all hunt and fish in. If that happened we wouldn't have much are to hunt in because there would be no animals to hunt. I think what we need to do is look at the the next candidates and determine who we like that is fish and wildlife friendly, yet is not looking to stop the fish and wild sports that we all love. We need to find an someone that is not Democrat or Republican to send the message that we care about what is going on in our forests and fisheries and someone that is willing to allow a build up of those areas that will allow us to do what we love and still have the State of Oregon in mind on other issues. Maybe we need to look deeper the next time the Govenor's chair is up for grabs and start putting the money on the man or woman we like. I nominate Jenni for the office.

[Chrome Bumper]

Ya, I voted for Ted too, then took a long shower. As a OSU graduate I'm glad the Packards are ponying up some dough. Hope some of it goes to my old school there.

[bajadan2000]

Here is a research report funded by the Packard Foundation that comes to the conclusion that Marine Reserves are the answer.

http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2006Science.pdf


I have a question for everyone to ponder. Since the Packard Foundation is giving away many 10s of millions of dollars to conserve and protect the oceans. Could not this same vast amount of money go to finding ways to increase our oceans harvest to feed the world's every increasing need for food? Not for finding ways to teach people how and what to eat..

Just off the top of my head, spending money on things like increasing fish hatcheries, artificial habitat to increase fish populations come to mind. Also, studies to find the links that we can control in the biosystem that would increase fish populations. Sure you guys can come up with many more ways to spend this money and find ways to increase the fish population..

Think about what might have been if the $17,700,000 given to OSU was used to research ways to increase fish production rather than protect (find justification for Marine reserves). We have some smart kids and teachers that may be able to come up with new and innovative ways of using the oceans vast resources to feed the world, if the special interest strings were removed...

[Mark Mc]

I'm confused...several folks have made comments about Governor K. and his......plans, desires, whatever you want to call them......to constrain / end fishing off the OR Coast. I just can't seem to find anything concrete (or even speculated) that this is the case.

Could you please post a reference for this poor boy? I sure would like to see some kind of specific proof, before I go make a fool of myself the next time I speak at one of these public hearings.

Oh by the way, for those who like to spend the time keeping up on these things, here is the latest report from the OPAC team:

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/docs/...tNMSReport.pdf

Note on page 11 the comments: " In his proposal for an Oregon Sanctuary, the governor emphasized that fisheries management continue to be the responsibility of NOAA, PFMC, and ODFW."

(this has been part of the guidance document from the very beginning)

Also note the preliminary findings to his key questions.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

I have a question for everyone to ponder. Since the Packard Foundation is giving away many 10s of millions of dollars to conserve and protect the oceans. Could not this same vast amount of money go to finding ways to increase our oceans harvest to feed the world's every increasing need for food? Not for finding ways to teach people how and what to eat..

Dan, with all respect, where would you find the information that states the mission is to find ways to teach people how and what to eat? Everything I have read so far has indicated it is about conservation, as well as other philanthropic causes.

Just off the top of my head, spending money on things like increasing fish hatcheries, artificial habitat to increase fish populations come to mind. Also, studies to find the links that we can control in the biosystem that would increase fish populations. Sure you guys can come up with many more ways to spend this money and find ways to increase the fish population..

Fish hatcheries and artificial habitat. While certainly avenues of increasing potential fish populations, some would argue that they are band-aids to the real problem that is sustainable wild fish management. Right here in Oregon we have many arguments about the negative impact of hatcheries to the true biologically diverse wild runs.

Think about what might have been if the $17,700,000 given to OSU was used to research ways to increase fish production rather than protect (find justification for Marine reserves). We have some smart kids and teachers that may be able to come up with new and innovative ways of using the oceans vast resources to feed the world, if the special interest strings were removed...

Ok, now the facts: OSU was not given $17.7 million dollars. A consortium of scientists from 4 Universities were granted the funds. UCSC, UC Santa Barbara, Stanford, and OSU.

A major focus of the group's efforts will be to study the movements and interactions of fish and other marine organisms over a 1,200-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of coastal waters from Oregon to southern California, said Peter Raimondi and Mark Carr, assistant professors of biology at UCSC and two of the principal investigators on the project. "This partnership allows us to look at marine ecological processes at the scales at which things really happen," Raimondi said.
The five-year interdisciplinary project will involve researchers from diverse fields working toward an integrated picture of the coastal environment and ecosystems. PISCO will establish a coordinated monitoring network to track nearshore ecological patterns along the coast. This is the first time such an extensive interdisciplinary effort has been undertaken to study the nearshore zone, which extends out to six miles (ten kilometers) from shore, said Jane Lubchenco, one of OSU's two principal investigators on the project.

I believe that sustainable fisheries are a reality. As a charter, I have to believe that there will be something to fish for. I also believe that for true conservation, some difficult courses of action may possibly be needed. I definitely do not want any sort of decline in my fishing opportunities, but I find it hard to ignore that in some instances that may be the best course of action for sustaining some species.

[5 Salt]

Originally Posted by bajadan2000

Here is a research report funded by the Packard Foundation that comes to the conclusion that Marine Reserves are the answer.

http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/Worm_etal_2006Science.pdf


I have a question for everyone to ponder. Since the Packard Foundation is giving away many 10s of millions of dollars to conserve and protect the oceans. Could not this same vast amount of money go to finding ways to increase our oceans harvest to feed the world's every increasing need for food? Not for finding ways to teach people how and what to eat..

Just off the top of my head, spending money on things like increasing fish hatcheries, artificial habitat to increase fish populations come to mind. Also, studies to find the links that we can control in the biosystem that would increase fish populations. Sure you guys can come up with many more ways to spend this money and find ways to increase the fish population..

Think about what might have been if the $17,700,000 given to OSU was used to research ways to increase fish production rather than protect (find justification for Marine reserves). We have some smart kids and teachers that may be able to come up with new and innovative ways of using the oceans vast resources to feed the world, if the special interest strings were removed...

I can't help but wonder again...what caused the populations decline in the first place?

Regardless of who is spending money on what, I can't help but think the fishing industry suffers from their own mis-management of the resource just those farmers suffered at the hands of the Dust-Bowl. There is no shortage of examples of this fact. Take a look at east coast where commercial Stripper fishing was banned and now the population is on remarkable recovery.

Not matter how we all want cry fowl, over harvest and harvest method s have had a huge impact on all commercially viable populations. These fish didn't have any problem maintaining their collective health prior to mankind’s arrival on the west coast of North America. Both sporty and commercial fishing groups have been in denial for the better part 40years and now that those populations are at there lowest, we argue over who's to chaperon their possible collapse?!?

Why not try protecting a few areas from harvest to learn how it will impact populations?

...And to the argument that protecting areas will only over pressure populations in other areas is paramount to a fat child whining that putting the cookie jar on top of the fridge will only make him gorge harder on the potato chips within his reach....is that best these guys can come with?!?

What an insult!

[Salty Walty]

The whole paragraph from the report;
Implications for Fisheries Management
In his proposal for an Oregon Sanctuary, the Gov emphasized that fisheries management, continue to be the responsibility of NOAA Fisheries, the PFMC and in state waters ODFW. Even if this does not turn out to be the arrangement the PFMC and NOAA Fisheries and ODFW would still have to respect the principal purpose of the Sanctuaries, namely resource protection. Fisheries management would have to be consisitent with this purpose. This could lead to further restrictions on commercial fishing, albeit imposed by the PFMC, NOAA Fisheries and ODFW and hence "lighter than if the NMS had direct fisheries management authority. Lawsuits by environmental groups would also be more likely and have higher probability for success.

I have attended all but 2 of the OPAC Meetings since Dec. 2005 when the Proposal was first given to OPAC. If I am not wrong the Channel Island Sanctuary has recently petitioned the PFMC to have sole authority for fisheries management. This was not in the original documents but was added later. Frank Warrens stated this at the last OPAC Meeting and also said the if PFMC did not grant their wish the Sanctuary believed that it held the trump card over any other body and would do so anyway.

The article in the first post is in regards to the CA MLPA and some of its impact on Sport anglers. At the MPA-FAC Meeting this Plan and the way it was implemented is being looked at as a good model for getting Protected Areas in place. Take a look at Coastside and the RFA Fish Politics boards to see what some of the sportfishermen have to say about the MLPA. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, free to attend meetings and come to their own conclusions.
www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa

[D-tangle]

Originally Posted by skein

Nicely said, MaxJax.

And very true, Blubeast.

Anybody think we've got a chance in hell of stopping it?

Skein

The voters have spoken: Ted will rule another 4 years. He will push through his agenda as the majority leader. No chance in stopping it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I have gone to public meetings held by the Leftists: it is a joke. They use up all the time with propaganda, and already know how they are going to do what they are going to do (politics as usual) They just want to sway or discourage the concerned citizens into silence. Don't be silent.

We get what we deserve.

[Pilar]

In our waters .. hatcheries are pretty much limited to Shellfish, Salmon and Sturgeon. Of those only Salmon are hatched on any large scale.

As far as I know there are no hatcheries for ocean fish like rockfish or halibut.

So adding more fish is not the answer. In any solution that I would be a part of .. cutting off access to the ocean is not an answer either. There has to be a middle road. And the middle road in any ideal situation would not be funded by groups with an anti-harvest agenda. For me anyway that is what is objectionable about the MPAs in California. And that same constellation of money, people, ideas is behind the efforts here in Oregon. We only have to look south to see what not to do. Thankfully it seems that our local government is not willing to surrender regulatory control over our waters. Say thankya.

As far as proving the intent of the philanthropists go. This is pretty difficult. Even for some of the more extreme groups like PETA, you will have some difficulty finding overt statements about the true focus of the group, on the internet or elsewhere.

The true aim of any of these groups is only apparent in their actions.

[crabbait]

This is not about partisan politics so lets keep the partisan politics out of it.

Fair warning.

(I was not referring to your post, Pilar.)

[bajadan2000]

Yes, middle ground to this dichotomy would be the ideal solution. There must be some way to properly use the ocean without having to protect it with reserves...The answer is still beyond the thinking of our system..so far..

This reminds me of the how we overused our land for gardens. Then science came up with fertilizers to make the land more productive. Then science told us fertilizers where bad for the environment. Did I stop planting gardens, create a protected reserve in my yard and wait for the land to naturally regenerate itself?? No. The correct thing to do was to make natural fertilizer using compost heaps. So I still use the same amount of land, with healthier results by natural means. One large problem turned into a win-win-win situation.

We need to find this same kind of natural remedy for our oceans. This is what I meant by using the money in a more productive manner. Maybe hatcheries are not the answer. And just like using our land we will not get it right the first few times. What we need is to find answers and natural remedies, not protection by creating reserves...and science and research is a necessary part of finding this answer, because the truth is, we know very little about our oceans compared to what we know about our land. To achieve a win-win-win situation in our oceans, the resources/money need to be targeted in the right direction...

The earths population is growing larger and there is a growing need for more food. The ocean must play a part in this or many will suffer. Without food from the oceans, land farms/ranches can not feed the growing earths population forever without serious damage to the entire system...we need to use the ocean...

Anyway, I am out the door and out of town for the holidays, enjoyed the banter, everyone have a safe and fun holiday...

[freespool]

Why are these ocean stocks crashing? Are they being depleted by sportfishers?
Or are these large population drops the effect of over harvest by commerical interests?
In other parts of the world enviromental issues are at fault for stock depletion.
But here in the Pacific Northwest, what are the causes for our stocks crashing?
Mismanagement, changing ocean conditions?
I don't always agree with everything Gov K does, but in this case, he's correct.



salmon hugger

[Nalu]

I agree wholeheartedly with Pilar, and Bajadan that the middle ground is the answer. An ocean with abundant stocks for both recreational and commercial use is what we all want. Agreed? Unfortunately, that is not what we currently have.

I've said it before, and at the risk of being flamed, or sent another nastygram, I'll say it again: I can understand and see the point in MPA's. Does that mean I want them, and our entire coast to be a MPA? Of course not. But seeing firsthand the effects of areas closed to fishing for periods is astonishing.

The Channel Islands MPA is quite astonishing to see. SCUBA dive in one area, and you have waters teaming with life, and just outside it the life is reduced significantly. In Hood Canal and Puget sound there are areas closed to fishing in both Underwater Parks like Sund Rock, or Edmunds that absolutely are filled with fish, cod, cabezon, etc. Just outside their boundaries, life drops off significantly as well. It is tough to escape the fact that areas closed to fishing and in a complete natural state are much healthier.

If you are not a fisherman, and don't understand the way of life that a commercial fisherman or even a passionate sports fisherman has, the concept and current implementation of a Marine Reserve would have to be pretty overwhelming, especially if you see it first hand. I just have a hard time believing that every person or group that might belive Marine Reserves are ok are also anti-harvest. I'm not. I'm for sustainable harvests.

Listen, I apologize for being so wordy. I've already gotten one nastygram because of this thread saying my points are useless. My intent is not to inflame, but to actually understand why some people think certain groups are "out to get us". As Pilar said, sometimes you have to look to their actions, like PETA. Very valid. But try as I might, I have had a hard time finding fault with the Packard group. According to their grant proposal statement it seems like a group such as OCEAN would be able to apply for a grant from them.

[crabbait]

Very well said, Mike.

[Salty Walty]

It seems to be a pretty bad Idea to me to enter into a system NMS that has had a moratorium on new Sanctuaries since 2004. The current one proposed by the Gov is 4 times the size of all of them put together. The system lacks funding and faces more cuts. The NMSA also has provisions that the SAnctuary is to seek out independent funding once established. Are we to believe that a Group who might pony up the $$$ for helping this project would want to have some sort of say.

The CA MLPA was somewhat the same in that it was pushed through the State Legislature and given to a poorly funded CA DF&G in 1999. There were already some Reserves and protected areas in place. DFG struggled to implement the MLPA but due to funding and staff shortages was unable to get the ball rolling. 5 years later a special interest group offered to put up funding for implementation. In doing this they were able to choose staff, advise and gather information. There was a lawsuit by the CFC which was lost citing conflict of interest.

At the MLPA-FAC Meeting the OR Contingent gave their presentaions on how we are progressing in the realm of Ocean Protection. One of the big reasons that the Govs Office has cited is that the NMS and entering into the MPA System will increase funding. They were told by more than one FAC member that if this is one of the main reasons you are going to be disappointed. Once entering both systems it will be up to the State to fund some of the initial costs and seek funding for operating these areas. There is no big pot of money available to access once you join.

There are some stocks that have seen some great declines but there have also been some ones that have rebounded. Lingcod stocks were recently changed from over fished to recovered. If any long time halibut anglers can attest the season and quota we have now is 10 time what it was 10 years ago. We have strict quotas, season closures and smaller limits to further restrict harvest. There have also been some drastic cutbacks in the commercial fisheries. They are now fishing 10% of the ground they fished in the past. These have ben in place for less than 5 years. As far as I could find out there have been no studies to date to see if this is having an effect. Does anyone want to discuss the adundance, lack of or Stock Assessment of Canary or Yellow Eye?

In the future we are facing some pretty ugly facts already in regards to YE rockfish. The allowable impact is going to drop for the next 5 years from 3.2mt to 1.6mt. This will impact halibut and groundfish seasons and areas able to fish. In 2007 we will see a loss of 2 months of access to beyond the 40 fathom line as well as a year round closure of the Stonewall Banks High Relief Area. As some of the other members here will attest the make up of the Rockfish Season will be drastically different once the allowable impacts drops to the lowest level. Some of the choices were 3-6 month season, closures at the 30,20 or even 15 fathom line, enlarging the Rockpile Closure Area closing Nelson Island, Closures on the Chicken Ranch, Banana. No halibut season? Every where these fish are encountered will have to be looked at, choices and sacrifices will have to be made. If any or the other SAC Members on here would care to add more please do.

In my opinion for it to be said that it is still the wild west with rampant over harvest on our Ocean is not very accurate. There are and will be further restrictions to come on our fishing without imposing or electing for further restrictions.

[tailchaser]

Salty Walty has it summed up pretty well, but I wanted to impliment one thing, the reserves issue has not died, it simply was toned down for election time. Kulo didn't want to rattle the coastal communities too much until he was re-elected. Secondly, the feds have come into the picture a little bit (not sure how they got that call?), but Kulo has been stepping back the attack so to speak because if they impliment one, it's almost untouchable from the state level and the first person who you can complain to is the Vice President. The behind the scenes battle still rages about this issue and hasn't gone away in the slightest bit, so don't forget about it when it comes to the table. That's what the other side is hoping for.

tc

[Onokai]

Originally Posted by Salty Walty

(The CA MLPA was somewhat the same in that it was pushed through the State Legislature and given to a poorly funded CA DF&G in 1999. There were already some Reserves and protected areas in place. DFG struggled to implement the MLPA but due to funding and staff shortages was unable to get the ball rolling. 5 years later a special interest group offered to put up funding for implementation. In doing this they were able to choose staff, advise and gather information. There was a lawsuit by the CFC which was lost citing conflict of interest.

There are some stocks that have seen some great declines but there have also been some ones that have rebounded. Lingcod stocks were recently changed from over fished to recovered.

Walter did his homework as back in 99 I was asked to possably join a local mlpa info team for F&G. A friend took the post and many meetings later the funding went away. I know more about these mlpa than I'll type here but what I will say is that they can work for some species but not all. I'm all for science driven attempts to enhance our resources but politics usually overrun the final goals
Many of our inshore fish woes have been from long term bottom dragging and then a onslaught of inshore live juvinale fish gathering for the asian fish markets. Booth have finally be curtailed here
If you catch the babies in the rookeries your stocks go to H---l I can say F&G dropped the ball on regulating this. The are great at regulating species when they are almost gone but thats not the best way to manage anything.
I'm on ice here as my wife works for F&G. And I often have different views. What Mike said is so true
Quote: "I've said it before, and at the risk of being flamed, or sent another nastygram, I'll say it again: I can understand and see the point in MPA's. Does that mean I want them, and our entire coast to be a MPA? Of course not. But seeing firsthand the effects of areas closed to fishing for periods is astonishing.

"The Channel Islands MPA is quite astonishing to see. SCUBA dive in one area, and you have waters teaming with life, and just outside it the life is reduced significantly. In Hood Canal and Puget sound there are areas closed to fishing in both Underwater Parks like Sund Rock, or Edmunds that absolutely are filled with fish, cod, cabezon, etc. Just outside their boundaries, life drops off significantly as well. It is tough to escape the fact that areas closed to fishing and in a complete natural state are much healthier."

I must say I have seen this 100% as well being an avid diver and underwater photographer
What I also see if we do nothing -we may end up with nothing. I have traveled enough in just my lifetime to see myself that sharks and rays are getting decimated thoughout the world. Fish that were once abundant to take pictures of are gone-abalone alone have almost disappeared in the southern part of ca-just in a few short years in my dive experence-70's to present.
I must add that this is true in all oceans
-and lets not even talk about the huge plastic trash balls and flotsam I've seen in the most distant remotest places on the planet-this is not from any source but my own eyes

Whether MPA's will work is not my call. I do think they need to be tried on a limited basis to see.I am also afraid that we will have more of them than I want
As far as the Packards trying to close all fishing-give me a break-I am not a huge fan of fish prisions (aquariums) yes we need a few to show the dry landers whats out there but not one in every city as they take a huge draw on all the resource's to keep them going.
The packards fund a huge childrens hospital at Stanford anyone got woes with that??
I'd like to take the high ground and and hope science can drive the research needed to let our children be able to fish for all human lifetimes-but am realistic enough to know change is required for this to be a truth.
This is one area that politics should not be allowed. Mark Cortright

[Mark Mc]

Tailchaser, interesting perspective about...the federal sanctuary being "toned down" vs abandoned. You're right...we have to pay attention and see exactly what progresses here, esp. over the next few months.

Maybe the "reality" is that..... the new OPAC sub committee & charter (to come up with proposals for state reserves, inside of 3 miles) is both a parallel and a backup plan. It is indeed a plan though.

Think about this one aspect: You have a specific, local reserve somewhere on the central coast....let's say a nearshore reef with your typical mix of black & blue rockfish, your mix of China, Copper, Quilback & lingcod. It now serves as a "control".....just like in an FDA / drug approval test, some people are given placebos (the control group) and some given the real medicine.

When you consider all the phenomena that have happend (like the dead zone, red tide, el nino, no upwelling, too much upwelling, alleged global warming, cyclical fish populations, etc.)....it could actually be very helpful to understand what is REALLY happening when a fish stock "appears" to be changing or in trouble.

For example, if the black rockfish population suddenly crashed in the areas frequented by private sport boats & charter boats, you would then examine the black rockfish population in the "control" area (the reserve). If you saw the same population crash in the control area, that would lead to one set of conclusions (i.e. it was not from over-fishing but from some other cause; maybe completely natural, maybe human-caused or exacerbated, but not from fishing).

So you can see that, if used appropriately, the reserve idea could in fact help sport fishers, fishery managers, and conservation, by getting to the real reasons behind stock fluctuations.

Of course, a big questions is "how many reserves" in this "network", how large, etc. I, nor anyone I associate with, wants to see a network so large that it makes sportfishing un-feasible. To get consensus / approval from all the local stakeholders, I think it would have to be pretty modest. And you proceed carefully, see how it works, see how it affects stakeholders, see what benefits are gained. A PDCA cycle if you will (Plan - Do - Check - Act).

[bajadan2000]

Originally Posted by Salty Walty

Th. 5 years later a special interest group offered to put up funding for implementation. In doing this they were able to choose staff, advise and gather information.

Took one last peak before leaving and see I need to clear a few things up. Like someone said. Just the facts please...

The private interest group Waltry is correct in mentioning is the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF) which has recieved $12,000,000 from the Packard Foundation during this time. Another $1,250,000 was given to the Resource Legacy Fund (RLF) by the Packard Foundation. It is not clear the difference between RLF and RLFF since they have the same address.


Here are quotes from the Ca. Marine Life Protection Act Intiative blue ribbon task force.


""""Mike Chrisman, began working with representatives from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF), a private philanthropic group and L. Ryan Brddrick, the new director of DFG, to implement the MLPA using a public-private model""""

Key elements of the memoradum of understanding (MOU)

"""Private funding and contracting through RLFF rather than through state mechanisms.."""

Recommendatin 5.

""""C. The executive director should continue to have significant flexibility in hiring project staff and consultants and should not be constrained by DFG hiring and contracting requirements.""""

You can read the whole memoradum here

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_090606c.pdf

For information on the Packard Foundation funding of the FLFF & RLF, just go to there website, it is public record...I will let you form your own opinions on this....

[Pilar]

MarkMc .. that is a good example of common sense applied.

As long as our local reserve was funded and managed locally we could bank on common sense. Where this all goes sideways is when outside interests are invited to fund and manage the reserves.

Look south and get that picture.

We already have some good things to talk about as far as regulating our fisheries go. Halibut stocks are good to go and IPHC keeps it that way as they have for a long time now. Quotas are increasing anually. Our marine resources program, working within the federal oversight and with the help of local fishers, changed the regs regarding the rockpile and halibut all depth days.

This was done to reduce YE bycatch. YE bycatch is the limit on most fishing outside 40 fathoms. A limit which is being reduced annually.

There are many other examples. We have smart and dedicated managers here in Oregon. They could do as you suggest and continue the history of working with the shareholders. The question is will the NMS and others pushing the sanctuary agenda let them?

Is a giant closed area off our shore the answer? I say no.

States rights!

[backlash442]

As someone who fishes the Channel Islands I think I can add something that most of you can't; actual experience fishing around the MPA's. Honestly they aren't bad and will help the fish stocks recover. The closures are only a small fraction of what is still available to fish. You can still go out and catch limits of various species. In many respects we are seeing some of the best white seabass and halibut fishing in years. Both have benefited not just from the MPA's but probably more importantly the banning of gill net fishing within 3 miles of the coast which I believe covers the Channel Islands.

The problem with MPA's is the issue of expansion. Some would like to see the areas expanded. There is a big fight taking place with regards to Central Ca. closures right now. I know there is talk about expanding the closures around the Channel Islands as well. You should have seen one of the commercials the enviormentals (can't remember which group) put out. It showed a guy holding a 6" fish asking if this is what you want to leave for your children or something like that. Ted Danson was the narrator I believe. I think it's only a matter of time before the closures are expanded.

Another issue is the scientific data that they base these closures on. Or should I say lack of. It doesn't appear that the State or Federal government has actually conducted any in depth studies. I'm sure they don't take into account the natural occurences that can damage a fishery like the 97 El Nino. It literally wiped out kelp beds around many of the islands. Friends brother in law is a diver for the National Parks and he said it was like a desert. That type of event can ruin a few season's worth of spawn and habitat in which to hide.

I'm no expert in this area that's for sure. However, I have been fishing for a number of years and I do see the difference between what you were able to catch 30 years ago in certain locations and what you catch now. For some species it's worse (rockfish) and for others it's much better like the wsb and halibut. Over fishing has had an impact on the inner islands but am not convinced at the outer ones. It's still pretty good fishing. I'd even say it's great.

[jacksalmon]

To me, the fish come first. So, whatever is necessary to preserve the fish deserves our support. But, we don't want to see unnecessary restrictions on sport fishing because that is our lifeblood. But, if necessary, we should support restrictions. People on this site have spent a lot of energy working out some reasonable regs on Oregon rockfish and hopefully, the fish will eventually benefit from the reduced harvest. Whether they need a sanctuary as a control area for measuring what is happening to them remains to be seen and I will trust that any scientific proposal to do just that will be tempered by a need to keep the sport fishing going.
But, having said this, we need to keep two other things in mind. Commercial fishing usually has much more of an impact on fishstocks than recreational, so I believe commercial activity should be regulated before sport activity. As an example, look at the thread a few weeks ago about the number of tons of tuna taken by commercials versus the sport catch. I believe the sport catch was estimated to be about 5% of the total catch. So, when regulating recreational tuna catch comes around as an idea, I tell the regulators that they are looking in the wrong place. The focus for regulation should always first be on the commercials. Then, if necessary, the sporties can be regulated. I realize, though, that the impact of commercial vs. sport on individual fish stocks may vary and may not be as obvious as with the tuna.
The second point to keep in mind is that there are too many humans on the planet. I don't care what anyone says, we need to have a few more fish and few less people. We are growing in population and keep hammering all resources on this planet, including fish. They are now even mining krill in the Antarctic to feed farm salmon to the detriment of South Pole marine life. The U.S. just passed 300,000,000 and in another 45 years is supposed to grow to 400,000,000 with a sizable number of people coming to the Northwest. We aren't going to grow more ocean fish because the resource base out there is not going so well. So, why encourage the presence of more people to hammer what may hopefully be a stable base of fish? Go ahead hammer me for the last point, but it's the truth.

[backlash442]

I asked a friend of mine who is in the commercial fisheries business on what he thought about the MPA. He certainly has much more direct knowledge than I do. However, I still feel the fishing is very good and that the limits haven't really restricted me as a recreational fisherman.

Anyways, this is what he said:

Yes there were detailed studies but it was a cut and dry process to get the ecosystems the conservationists captured in m.p.a.'s and the sanctuary. Fishermen were given lip service mostly (commercial and sport). Economic ramifications weren't analyzed fully. There were conflict of interests- closed areas already were being utilized by eco-tourists.

It really gets frustrating when people get behind something to feel good - but don't take into account who is effected. A few squeaky wheel fishermen were thrown a bone here and there with a couple closed areas being open to lobster trapping or a strip of halibut beach being left open at Miguel.

There's just way too much overlap- defacto closed zones at Vandenburg, Nicholas and 1/2 San Clemente Isle (often). Refuges in Laguna Beach and elsewhere, places you can't often fish anyway due to weather, Marine Reserves in the C.I. sanctuary, Cow Cod Conservation area, Rockfish Depth closures, seasonal closures,gear closures (no gillnet or no dragging, for example) and now the M.P.A. network. The list goes on. F-ing redundant restrictions and funded through multimillion dollar grants funneled through relatively small shell organizations.

I don't argue some stocks are overfished but way too much redundancy- throwing baby out with bathwater. Give regs. a chance to work...it's death by a thousand pin ******. These same enviros blast other county's harvest practices and harmful fish farming practices (many wholesalers /retailers want only "wild caught"- we put it on all our packaging for U.S. market) but then they choke fisheries with proven sustainable fishing practices.

That's sort of how I feel about it. I've been to many meetings since Jim Donolon started the ball rolling in '96 or whenever. We lobby through the Calif. Wetfish Producers Association. I want all fishermen to boycott and fight them at this point- enough is enough. Some should be rolled back or allow sustainable fisheries to proceed.


Reserves and regs are poorly conceived in my opinion. Pacific Fisheries Management Council does one thing, DFG another, NMFS another, Park Service another, enviros/legislation another...enough already. We pay them. They can't enforce what they enact. That's why we finance our own science/research with DFG's blessing since they can't do it themselves- too broke- permit, license and landing tax revenue robbed by general fund.

||

[skein]

I agree with what your buddy says, Backlash. Lip service to the fishermen, but in truth a done deal before it ever gets to the table. The track record speaks for itself.

I think our only hope is to get a sunset clause added on that will force them to open things back up - and I don't mean in 75 years either.

Or.... we could find someone with an extra $17,000,000 lying around who would fund our own studies.

My researchers, by the way, would be encouraged to determine that:

* Non-selective commercial fishing should be stopped. (gillnetting, trawling, longlining)

* Predators need to be managed and controlled. (cormorants, sea lions)

* Habitats, nurseries, and spawning areas need to be enhanced and protected (not necessarily locked off but rather managed)

* Obstacles between ocean and spawning beds need to be reduced or removed.

I'd fund it myself, but I'm about $16,999,997 short (probably because I have a boat and spend all my money chasing tuna) :o

Skein - who doesn't believe his input amounts to a hill of beans

[Sallysea]

The next OPAC meeting is in Depoe bay on ll/28. As a voting member, I don't take anything for granted when it comes to good intentions. The major problem with the Feds is that they do not need to respond to state agencies when it comes to marine sactuaries.
Until the Feds change the rules by which they work. Be careful of who is here to help you.

[abalone-girl]

Originally Posted by Old Salty

Hi,

Pretty well written article?
I have one question though.
When are they going to stop the asian canning factories offshore, that is wiping everything out.
Something needs to be done on an international level, before our kids, kids
dont have a chance to go out offshore and fish for big game, tuna, or Salmon. I HAVE READ SEVERAL ARTICLES, and why aren't they stopping them? If they stopped them for 7-10 years, and went back to the old commercial fishing ways. I feel the fish population would have a better chance on recovery. Those guys in Washington need to look at this in a very serious way,
& not wait until its to late! They need to stop thinking about the dollar figures it brings in now, because there will be none in the future. It'll all be farm raised fish.




Team Old Salty
www.oldsaltytackle.com
Diving Planers - Flashers - Terminal Tackle

I am only 44 years old. I am from the Bay Area. Can you believe that when I was in my 20's I was fishing for Dungeness crabs in the bay? Or better yet, I was catching 5 foot sharks off of the San Mateo bridge. It's a sad day to think that there is nothing to keep anymore let alone being allowed to. I think this selling of our resources to the highest bidder has contributed dramatically to the demise. The fact that we do not allocate the resources to curb the rampant poaching that has occured for years is a very big issue. We need more grassroots and activism when it comes to who we pick to represent us.
abalone-girl

[ron m]

I wonder how many among us that think the charitable foundations shouldn't be contributing to the sanctuaries or to fund science also think we should pay more taxes if we want public funding for research and managing resources. We'd also need to realize that while funding fisheries research is high on our list of priorities, it might not be so high on the list for non-fishers.

My point is that if we truly want (and I think we do) research and scientific based decisions on fisheries management and marine reserves, we have to both advocate for it and be willing to pay for it.
ronm

[skein]

Without going political, let's ask 'em to trade a couple of smart bombs (sic) for ocean research. The money, tax and otherwise, is there. All we need to do is convince them we want and need it spent that way.

Skein - who prolly just got this thread shut down.