Marine Reserves - Full Speed Ahead

[Salty Walty]

I am posting;
a letter to OPAC from the Govs Office Rep to OPAC Jessica Hamilton
Marine Reserves Process Coordination Meeting Minutes
letter to Coastal Rep from Coos County Commissioner





Dear OPAC,

The Governor’s office recently called together a focused meeting in which the Marine Cabinet, several members of OPAC, and two members of the STAC discussed implementation of OPAC’s marine reserves plan.

The meeting provided an opportunity to clarify the Governor’s intentions regarding the establishment of marine reserves, and to discuss a potential process for identifying the “special places” he described in his April letter to OPAC.

During the meeting, the Governor’s office requested that OPAC move forward with one of the four goals STAC identified in their April 17 memo to OPAC: preservation of Oregon’s natural heritage. We believe it is important to protect special marine habitats and biodiversity for future generations.

The Governor’s office encourages the public to nominate marine heritage reserves that should be protected as permanent no-take marine reserves, and submit those proposals to OPAC. We believe this can be a successful bottom-up approach to identifying potential locations for these protected areas.

OPAC’s Marine Reserves Working Group will discuss the draft marine reserves process in more detail on June 29th. Over the next few weeks, STAC will also identify what would be an appropriate role for them in the public nomination and site selection process.

Please review the attached minutes for the complete discussion and offer you thoughts to Frank so that he can provide them to his committee members prior to the 29th. As always, if you are not a participating member of this OPAC subcommittee, please still feel free to attend.

We also invite informal comments from members of the Coastal Caucus on this draft process and look forward to working with them as planning progresses.

Thank you,
Jessica


Jessica S. Hamilton
Natural Resources Policy Advisor
Governor Ted Kulongoski

(503) 986-6543 ph
(503) 378-3225 fax
jessica.hamilton@state.or.us

900 Court Street NE
Salem, Oregon97301

Marine Reserves Process Coordination Meeting
June 1, 2007
Key Points, Decisions, and Immediate Actions (Taken and Needed)

Participants

Governor’s Natural Resources Policy Director

: Mike Carrier

OPAC Executive Committee:

Scott McMullen (Chair), Jim Good (Co-Chair), Jay Rasmussen (Sea Grant), Greg McMurray (DLCD), Jessica Hamilton (Governor’s Office)

OPAC Marine Reserves Working Group Chair:

Frank Warrens

OPAC Science and Technical Advisory Committee members

: Jay Rasmussen, Selina Heppell

Marine Cabinet (OPAC agencies):
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Virgil Moore, Ed Bowles, Patty Burke
Department of State Lands: Louise Solliday
Department of Agriculture: Dalton Hobbs
Department of Environmental Quality: Dick Pedersen
Department of Land Conservation and Development: Bob Bailey
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department: Jim Myron, Laurel Hillmann
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries: Vicki McConnell
Oregon State Police: Jeff Samuels
A. Governor’s Commitment to Marine Reserves (Budget/Legislative Session)

2. • The Governor is eager to establish marine protected areas such as marine reserves. He sees ocean protection as a part of his environmental legacy.
   
3. • Governor will seek funding for marine reserves in the 2009-11 budget and will investigate opportunities to seek funding for the Feb. 2008 session as well.
   
4. • Governor looks forward to receiving budget and policy recommendations (for the 2009 legislative session) from the Marine Cabinet.

B. Goal of Marine Reserves

2. • The Governor likes the direction OPAC’s Marine Reserves Working Group (MRWG) and OPAC’s Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) have been heading regarding identifying the overarching goal of marine reserves.
   
3. • Based on OPAC discussions, he believes the goal of marine reserves (no-take areas) should be for preserving our ocean heritage for future generations.
   
4. • This goal means two things: One, establishing reserves to permanently protect the habitat and biodiversity of specific places in Oregon’s Territorial Sea; and two, establishing more than one reserve for each of the major types of bottom habitat in our Territorial Sea.
   
5. • It was noted that the idea of establishing marine heritage reserves is similar to designation of wilderness areas on land.

ACTION NEEDED:

Governor’s office will clearly define the heritage goal.

C. State Land Board

2. • State Land Board is interested in receiving OPAC’s recommendations of special places to be protected as marine reserves. There is no plan or map of sites at this time upon which the Land Board will act; they look to OPAC to move forward with that process.

D. Initial Process Discussion for Nominating Heritage Reserves

1. • Scientists and policymakers need to define sideboards (criteria) for how a site could qualify as a marine heritage reserve. Examples of criteria: habitat types, size of reserve, distance apart, proximity to ports, enforcement requirements. Key Actors: STAC and other scientists, OPAC MRWG, Marine Cabinet.

2. • Initial decisions such as determining a "total percent" of Territorial Sea to be designated as reserves could help frame the process.
   
3. • Once ecological and socioeconomic criteria are established, begin a public 6-month nomination process. Public will be asked to use the criteria during nomination process.
   
4. • With STAC assistance, OPAC’s MRWG would review nomination applications to determine whether the criteria were met.
   
5. • OPAC would review and comment on the combined nominations, and forward to the Governor’s office.
   
6. • Governor’s office would work with Marine Cabinet to confirm nominations meet the conservation goals and criteria.
   
7. • Governor’s office would forward proposals to the appropriate agency commissions for action (ex: Fish and Wildlife Commission, State Land Board). Sometime in 2008, commissions will conduct rulemaking, which involves public comment, economic and social analyses, etc. [All commission processes will preferably take place at the same time, in order to schedule joint public hearings, etc. Process will be coordinated by the Marine Cabinet.]

PROCESS DISCUSSION NOTES:

2. • Criteria: a) must establish clear criteria so that later evaluation will be possible and objective, b) goals and criteria may need to be defined in a scale dependent manner, c) role of STAC in setting or evaluating criteria needs to be decided, d) should we ask full OPAC for criteria ideas before MRWG meets June 29 (ACTION NEEDED: discuss this during small group process meeting), e) July 17 meeting: does OPAC approve criteria or simply review and comment? ACTION DECIDED: Review and comment only; no consensus vote required.
   
3. • Siting: a) nomination form should include a section for requesting areas to be excluded from consideration, b) OPAC product: a comprehensive map showing compiled sites that meet overall goals.
   
4. • Research reserve: a) do we still set the reserves up to ‘test and evaluate’ their abilities to serve as a conservation tool (2002 recommendation)? b) the design considerations would be different, c) we haven’t identified the funding source for the research piece, d) Governor’s office intent isn’t to abandon this piece. ACTION NEEDED: Governor’s office needs to define how the research reserve concept fits with the heritage goal.
   
5. • Facilitation: a) Can we hire a facilitator to assist with the process? b) this is not the same type of extensive public meeting tour that OPAC drafted for the Sanctuary process.
   
6. • Submission of package of proposed nominations: The MRWG will do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to evaluating nominations. Should the package go to OPAC for review and comment or head straight to Governor’s office (with Marine Cabinet review)? ACTION NEEDED: Governor’s office consider appropriate path here.

ACTION TAKEN

: Set up ‘small group’ (mix of Marine Cabinet, STAC, OPAC) to clearly define process and timeline. Meet prior to Marine Reserve Working Group (June 29). State Police invited to these meetings. Note: This small group may need to seek further direction from Governor’s office before finalizing process. Participants Identified: Jessica Hamilton,

Frank Warrens, Jim Good, STAC rep (Selina Heppell), Patty Burke, Louise Solliday, Jeff Samuels, Greg McMurray. Added: Scott McMullen.
E. Parks and Recreation Commission

2. • OPRD will begin a "marine parks" plan, whereby a Task Force will be established to recommend places for designation. Marine parks would be established adjacent to select existing land-based state parks.
   
3. • The primary goal of marine parks is to promote recreation and education, however some additional protection may be warranted to protect the areas (working with ODFW, DSL, etc.).
   
4. • Marine parks could include rocky shores and existing marine protected areas (ex: marine gardens).

DISCUSSION NOTES

:

1. • Make sure the marine parks process is connected (and possibly integrated) with the marine reserves process.

2. • Review OPAC’s 2002 recommendations and role of OPRD to protect rocky shores.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN

: OPAC to receive briefing on the Rocky Shores Strategy.

F. General Discussion Highlights

2. • Marine protected areas could be nested within one another, as often takes place on land (ex: wild and scenic area inside a wilderness area).
   
3. • OPAC is an advisory body. Actual siting and designation decisions are made by the agency commissions/boards, with input from the Governor’s office.
   
4. • Direction from Governor’s office to OPAC during the process is desirable in order to maintain clarity of roles.
   
5. • ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Once participants have reviewed meeting notes and the small group has met, the Governor’s office will share the results of the meeting with the full OPAC for further discussion.

UPDATE

Dear coastal legislators. I have included members of Klamath and Lake county districts, and a few others, because of their concern for and past helpfulness to coastal citizens. I have also addressed this to persons who are involved in coastal issues.


Gov. Ted Kulongoski has decided to increase pressure to evict us from our traditional marine fishing areas. He has changed the nature of a condemned 2002 Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) fishing closure proposal to relieve anti-coast activists from having to justify at all the closing of fishing areas, or of having to ever show that closing them caused any change to ocean and fisheries’ health whatsoever. Please see attachment for his latest proposal outline.

BACKGROUND

Legal framework:

Rep. Wayne Krieger made positive changes to the OPAC with HB 3534 in the 2003 Legislative Assembly, by making state agencies nonvoting members of OPAC, by designating more voting seats to jurisdictions from the coast and by adding detail to the fact that OPAC cannot make fishing rules. The governor, despite signing HB 3534 into law, has declined to abide by it. He also directed OPAC to move forward with the 2002 OPAC recommendation to start closing traditional fishing areas, even though it was mostly that misguided recommendation that led to the statutory demise of the old OPAC. And he has established an OPAC executive committee and other committees whereby he has subverted the letter and intent of HB 3534 by reinstituting what are in statute the nonvoting membership to become the controlling membership.

Quoted from the Oregon Revised Statutes at the OPAC section: ORS 196.420 “It is the policy of the State of Oregon to: (1) Conserve the long-term values, benefits and natural resources of the state and beyond by giving clear priority to the proper management and protection of renewable resources over nonrenewable resources; [more on this below, AND] (6) Ensure that the Ocean Policy Advisory Council will work closely with coastal local governments to incorporate in its activities coastal local government and resident concerns, coastal economic sustainability and expertise of coastal residents.”

Gov. Kulongoski has ensured that it won’t work with coastal local governments and residents by denying representation on OPAC to the citizens of the southern half of the Oregon coast. He has also summarily dismissed “the expertise of coastal residents” because it does not align with whatever it is he thinks of as expertise.

Oregon’s statutory framework for making fishing regulations has a long and effective history: Only the Fish and Wildlife Commission can make them. OPAC is an advisory body with no authority to implement anything. It can give advice on things including, say, the scientific underpinnings (almost none applicable) of the theory and practice of no-fishing marine reserves, but that is where its authority ends. Gov. Kulongoski has not asked for its advice on the science or any reasoning for designating marine reserves even though such advice would be useful. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has, several times in the past, designated reserves of one kind or another in Oregon coastal waters through its ORS-mandated processes.

The 2002 OPAC marine reserves recommendation:
Despite advice from its coastal members, the old OPAC, controlled entirely by the governor’s office and DLCD, took a horrible idea on the road in spring 2002 with its marine reserve draft plan. I attended the public meetings in Brookings, Port Orford and North Bend, and watched VHS records of the meetings in Astoria and Newport. DLCD-controlled OPAC got hammered. Out of hundreds of comments, I heard only two favorable comments at the meetings I attended, both uttered by professional environmental activists at Port Orford. The northern venues fared no better for DLCD. Coastal witnesses said that the situation OPAC 2002 was describing didn’t actually exist in the ocean. They said that a scientific argument could not be made for marine reserves as a management tool. They didn’t want another agency added to the mix of agencies they already had to deal with. They said to give them ODFW regulations if changes are needed, that ODFW uses science and its processes are more open and adaptive, and that they work as well as any could be expected to address problems. Nevertheless, OPAC went ahead and forwarded its doomed recommendation to Gov. John Kitzhaber in August 2002, as if it had heard nothing on the coast.

OPAC 2002 recommended that “Oregon establish a limited system of marine reserves in order to test and evaluate their effectiveness in meeting marine resource conservation objectives.” Recommendation to the Governor Oregon and Marine Reserves, OPAC, Aug. 30, 2002. In my opinion then and now, and admitted by activists in 2002, a scientific argument cannot be made to show no-fishing marine reserves will help the ocean off Oregon. That is why the 2002 OPAC recommendation was to test marine reserves: to get some data, because no other rationale for closing ocean areas could be made to work.


In the past week, Gov. Kulongoski, despite ordering that the new OPAC go forward with the OPAC 2002 recommendation, has changed its nature, per the attachment and explained below.

Now, he’s saying to carve out fishing spots and take their use away from our citizens, visitors and our economy “for preserving our ocean heritage for future generations.” Attachment, page 1, at B, second bullet.

Please compare the two quotes just above: OPAC 2002 would require at a minimum a baseline inventory, some periodic monitoring and an analysis of any change(s) in marine reserves, “in order to test and evaluate their effectiveness.” The new reason for our eviction is free of science and its expenses, with no preliminary inventory, monitoring or analysis ever needed. Gov. Kulongoski is making it a case of just do it, without consideration of the existing regulatory framework, the condition of the resource or a discussion of whether marine reserves would make any difference to the resource. The governor’s latest proposal has some passages meant to assuage a concerned coastal citizenry, but we bear in mind the words spoken at the April 19 OPAC meeting in Reedsport by Louise Solliday regarding our concerns with and reluctance to go passively to our economic and way-of-living demise:

“I think it’s important to remember that the ocean resources that we’re talking about don’t belong to the coastal community. They belong to all Oregonians. And while the coastal communities certainly feel the greatest benefit and the greatest impact of policy choices that are made, these ocean resources belong to all of us.
“And I guess the other thing I’d like to say is that while I want as much coastal support as we can get for this effort, I think we need to recognize that almost every major change that’s been made in our history was made without the support of the majority when it was made, and, uh, pick one, whether it’s designation of wilderness, whether it’s the right of women to vote, or turning black people from three-fifths of a person into an entire person. I mean, just pick any of them.
“I would say that people didn’t wait for the majority to support. They did it because it was the right thing to do, and because it was going to benefit society as a whole.” Louise Solliday, transcribed from OPAC DVD, meeting April 19, Reedsport.

Besides her comparing us to misogynists and bigots, we noted that her statements are historically incorrect. They also say that disposing of democracy is required because she and the company she keeps say so.


Oregon’s three-mile wide TerritorialSea is already a “Marine Protected Area. OPAC 2002 Marine Reserve recommendation, page 2, at “Terminology.”

You might hear marine reserve advocates refer to statements of “two blue-ribbon commissions,” the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Pew commission wasn’t a commission at all, but simply a collection of like-minded folks as a tool of environmental grant-maker Pew Trust. The U.S. commission was indeed a commission, nearly half of which members were academics, and had no fishermen on it, that made general statements of ocean health. Remember, please, that oceans cover 7/10ths of Earth’s surface. Although there are ocean areas in poor condition, saying it’s all bad is like comparing the human environment of Lagos, Nigeria, to Salem, Oregon. As a diver, surfer and fisherman, I can say that the overall health of Oregon’s ocean almost without exception is in good shape. Our fisheries are in many cases better than they were even six years ago, and in almost all cases are good.

In the legal framework section higher above, I noted that I’d give detail below.
Marine Reserves advocates say Goal 19 orders that we need to evict fishermen. That is not true. All the statewide land use goals, including the three coastal goals, are what we decision-makers use when considering new or conflicting land use proposals. ORS 196.420 (1) backs up my opinion. We have ORS 196.420 and Goal 19 prioritizing renewable resources use over non-renewable uses. All the goals address land uses. Fishing is not a land use, even though DLCD tries to say it is.

If you read this far, I thank you. If you have questions, please call. I’m at 541.396.3121 X 248 or, on the road, 541.290.9977.

We need protection from what I believe is simply a mean-spirited, unfounded assault on our well-being that has no plausible connection to any potential benefit.

Thank you
John Griffith
Coos CountyCommissioner

[Salty Walty]

It is obvious to me that the Governor has no wish to use science, the OPAC Process, coastal input, ODFW Commission and MRP or basic rationality in the attempt to implement Marine Reserves in State Waters.
Now would be a good time to write, call and/or talk to your Reps, Senators, Commissioners and Ted and give them your thoughts and feeling on this issue.

[corrirod]

O.k., so you "glass is half full" folks, can you please show me the good in this?

I'm the one who always gets accused of finding the bad in everything having to do with marine regulations so rather than rant about this <<< insert your own explicative description of the marine reserve plan here >>>, please tell me the good side of this? I'm all ears.

[Mark Mc]

It is obvious to me that the Governor has no wish to use science, the OPAC Process, coastal input, ODFW Commission and MRP or basic rationality in the attempt to implement Marine Reserves in State Waters.

Heya Walt.....what do Ms Hamilton and Mr Carrier have to say about this (your observation)?

thanks......... MM

[skein]

Well, I think our wisest choice of action would be to tie in with our coastal communities and not get too fragmented.

I'm also gonna write my reps -- and let them know that I will NEVER vote for anyone who supports Teddy's Idiocy.

And then I think I'll go ride my horse 'cause I can still do that.

The environmental movement will become the new McCarthyism. You watch.

Skein

[bait boy]

I'm not for these things at all because we dont need them.... our fish and wildlife managers are doing their job to the best of their ability.

But,

Stupid question, are there places on the Oregon coast that we can designate in this manner that are far enough from a user base? This would appease the Gubna and provide little to no impact to fishermen or users.

I dont care for setting the precedent that these types of areas being set aside may bring, but if He's dead set for it then pick your battle..

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by corrirod

O.k., so you "glass is half full" folks, can you please show me the good in this?

I'm the one who always gets accused of finding the bad in everything having to do with marine regulations so rather than rant about this <<< insert your own explicative description of the marine reserve plan here >>>, please tell me the good side of this? I'm all ears.

Rod- You got me on this one. This is rediculous.

[blubeast]

Walter... Thanks for keeping us appraised on this topic.

Folks... this is a very serious issue... that just won't go away. IF you want to retain your rights to salt water fishing... you need to learn about this issue and GET INVOLVED. There are many past messages on this topic. Do a search.

If imposed, some areas will be off limits at all times for fishing. This is a very scary proposal that will impact all of us who enjoy ocean fishing.

[KeyWest]

sent emails to all my political reps from county commissioners to the President. Joined CCA, RCFA. What else can be done?

[Pilar]

This is disheartening to say the least. Non-Opac members are invited to the meetings, but will public comments make any differences? Where is OCEAN on this? We have an organization in OCEAN .. they could be a rallying point for us to focus efforts with.

Other than letters, can any other pressure be applied?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Letters sent to Ted and the gang. This is bad stuff and needs to be stopped.

[ron m]

Jeez, this is very bad news!

Ranting on this board may get some folks fired up, but we'll need to do more than rant if we want to have any effect.

I don't know how much being involved by attending meetings and giving testimony will help, but it sure can't hurt. So, here is the OPAC site for those that want to be more informed about what has taken place or when the meetings occur.

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/workinggroups.shtml

From the MRWG portion of the OPAC website:
Next Marine Reserves Working Group meeting: June 29, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Oregon State University's LaSelles Center in Corvallis.

Talking to our state reps and state senators now is probably useful, I'll be sure to do that. Part of my message will be: "This is not a democratic/representative process, it smacks of a backroom deal or political payoff and many Oregonians will suffer as a result. I expect and want better of the goverment of the State of Oregon."

Even though it may seem hopeless, contacting the governors office won't hurt either.

But we need to remember that the legislature is buried with work right now, they have set a deadline and are trying to meet it, so they won't have a great deal of patience for those of us wanting to discuss policy that is not before then now. Hence we need to remember to address this issue again and then continually after the legislature ends it's session and starts the planning for future sessions. (and yes, even though I consider myself a cynic, I do think most of our legislators are working hard!)

I hope to see many of you on June 29 in Corvallis and at OPAC meetings. Be prepared for a long sit, but most of the time the discussion will keep your attention. I haven't attended a working group meeting before, but at the OPAC meetings there is an opportunity for citizen comments. I'm hoping/expecting the same will be true at the working group meeting. Bring blood pressure medication if you need it!
ron m

[Pilar]

Ron, I don't have much vacation earned yet but the meeting is in my backyard. See you there.

Maybe any interested parties would profit from a little strategy session before the meeting. At least we would all be saying the same things if we get to testify.

This worked during the groundfish emergency some years back.

[Deepslayer]

I guess I could suggest that all of you who voted for Teddy start a recall campaign. But I doubt if it would d much good with Portland & Eugene basically calling all of the shots for the whole state! Forgive me I am frustrated & bitted about this whole greeney junk. There is no common sense involved - only agendas & politics.
,Ed

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Pilar

This is disheartening to say the least. Non-Opac members are invited to the meetings, but will public comments make any differences? Where is OCEAN on this? We have an organization in OCEAN .. they could be a rallying point for us to focus efforts with.

Other than letters, can any other pressure be applied?

Pilar, my recollection is that The OCEAN is chartered as a non-profit and hence can't get involved in politics.
ron m

[Pilar]

Ron, arrgh. How did I forget that?

Maybe we can block it based on religious freedom and the right to practice same?

[Mark Mc]

Seems like a lot of folks are now willing to send some kind of message to the governor's office. I guess I'd like to know.....of those people who are willing to get involved, what kind of message are you wanting to send?

Is this one possible message:

"Please let the OPAC group do it's work, on their timetable"

Or is the message something else?

Rod? Walt? Bernie? Skein? Robin? Others?

Seems like we need to answer this before there is any semblance of "unity" from us.

thx,

MM

[wak'm&stak'm]

My blood pressure just about returned to normal, and then I read this crap.
Don't be to hard on Ted, he is doing great things for Oregon. Lets not forget he wants good things like Casinos off tribal land, and most but not least he is spending our kicker checks.

Skien, can you still ride horses? I am sure there will be a law against that pretty soon.

Rod, I thought I was known for being a negative realist.

ARG!

A 200 years ago this could be settled in a coral once and for all.

[Queeg]

" Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'"

- Bob Dylan -

[Deeman]

Here is one way to begin to apply pressure, and impact the proceedures. I attended city council meetings at North Bend. I raised the issue with the council in the public comment portion of the meeting and was suprised to find that they were not aware of the severity of the situation or the attitude of the Governors office. They did look into it and responded with a letter to the Govs office and our elected reps comming down strongly against the proposed actions. While one coastal community may be ignored, all of them will have an impact. So if you reside in a smaller community, especially one that will be directly affected by the closures take an evening and raise the issue publicly within the council. Be prepared to answer questions as the councils will surely have some. If your community is not directly affected, it can still be beneficial to raise the issue and relate it to something that may/could happen with your local situation demonstrating why your council should support the coastal communities. While I may not have an impact with my elected rep to Salem, my local elected officials certainly have a working relationship and some clout with them. Start out to affect the people you can have an effect on and then propel them to affect the people they can have an effect on. In this manner we can build a broad based support structure that is aligned to oppose these actions. The Enviros have it partly right, Act locally, by doing this we can have an effect at the statewide levels. Above all do not give in and say "it is going to happen I might as well enjoy it" Keep fighting this is a fight that we can WIN or at the least change so that little or no harm will be done to us and our rights. Take Heart it is not over yet. Don Peabody, owner Dees Diamond Flashers

[skein]

Think about this:

* They've been traveling all over the state with a SLICK Infomercial
(and we think standing up and saying "yeah, but..." is gonna have an effect)

* They are catering to the folks who have never been closer to the ocean than Mo's, and belly up to the bar to believe the worst.
(we are disjointed, fragmented fishermen who just wanna have fun - or make a living)

* They're simply adding a new verse to the company song being sung throughout the land about global warming, depleted oceans, and weapons of mass destruction. (we're fragmented on those theories as well.)

* Ted wants this as his legacy and will stop at nothing to achieve it

We MUST join with the coastal communities and fight this BS with them. We are NOT STRONG ENOUGH on our own.

Screw the OPAC meetings and attend coastal community meetings instead. And remember this crap when you vote.

Edit: I posted mine before I read Deeman's post. He said it better than I did. ACT LOCALLY.

Skein

[ron m]

When reading Jessica’s letter to OPAC that Walter posted, I had the sense that OPAC was being eviscerated even though it’s an advisory body. But I’ll continue to attend OPAC meetings (some anyway) because it’s a very visible public process and I think it may have some effect. We dogs have varied opinions on many topics, probably including this one. Because of that I hope we‘ll work on all possible fronts to make the process be scientifically driven, not the governors legacy driven.

ACT LOCALLY is great advice, Deeman said it well. The word will travel up the political ladder and while the governor may not be able to run for another term, our legislators can and many will. So will county commissioners and other elected officials.

The process they are promoting includes running over small communities, that should be scary (and probably not new) to small communities all over the state, not just on the coast. Hopefully that will get many elected officials to express their concern even if it’s only about the process.

Our lack of organization makes it more difficult for us to work on this issue over a lengthy period of time. We seem to be more reactive rather than proactive. But reactive will have an effect, hopefully more than just a temporary one.
ron m

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally Posted by Mark Mc

Seems like a lot of folks are now willing to send some kind of message to the governor's office. I guess I'd like to know.....of those people who are willing to get involved, what kind of message are you wanting to send?

Is this one possible message:

"Please let the OPAC group do it's work, on their timetable"

Or is the message something else?

Rod? Walt? Bernie? Skein? Robin? Others?

Seems like we need to answer this before there is any semblance of "unity" from us.

thx,

MM

Mark, I don't have any pat answers of wisdom to throw you a bone here. In the past I have attended a few meetings (which were poorly attended in salem) and offered imput or concerns only to be shot down just like many of us here on ifish often do. It is a frustrating process and my time is pretty tight as it is. I'm not backing away from the challenge but I guess I felt it was a waste of time going since these folks already had their minds made up. Have done the same darn thing with CR compact meetings. I've written letters, had been attending some meetings and the same thing happens. I will be the first to admit that I have not been to any of the meetings for about a year now. Perhaps I need to somehow make time for them.

Short of letter writing I have no clue what else to do Mark. I sent off my letters to Teddy and the gang voicing my unhappiness that they did not let the scientist do their work and that they are jumping the gun to Californicate our oregon coast line. Letter writing is what I can do now and hope that it helps. When there is a meeting in Salem I will try to go and bring my thicker skin.

[Salty Walty]

Letter to the OPAC MR Working Group and STAC from Frank Warrens Chairman of the MRWG;

"Dear MRWG & STAC Members,

As most of you all ready have been notified, the Governor's Office has instructed OPAC and the MRWG to immediately move ahead with establishing a relatively new concept in marine reserves for Oregon. Specifically, these reserves will be called Marine Heritage Reserves and may be established through a nomination process by members of the public, community organizations or NGOs once we have completed drafting the nomination criteria. Following submission of nomination of sites, there will be a selection process which will undergo a separate set of criteria yet to be established.

The MRWG will be dedicating all of its time during the next two meetings, June 29th and July 16th, to draft criteria for the nomination process. This task will be challenging and require the MRWG to focus our efforts far more than we have in the past, given a very short proposed timeline. Hopefully we can meet this challenge by demonstrating a willingness to work cooperatively in order to achieve a reasonable level of compromise from our respective former positions on the issue of marine reserves.

I will be attending a PFMC meeting from June 10th to the 16th and will attempt to field any questions you may have after Tuesday of the following week."



"Specifically, these reserves will be called Marine Heritage Reserves and may be established through a nomination process by members of the public, community organizations or NGOs once we have completed drafting the nomination criteria."

The above is one of the worst scenarios that could come out of this newest chapter. Anyone can submit sites that will be considered for these no-take Heritage Reserves and it will be reviewed and considered. I shudder to think about whose proposals will be looked at and selected.

[Triple C]

Maybe it's time for a Salty Boat Parade right down and around the capitol.
Maybe an any boat parade. I'm not talking anything like breaking the law but a 1000 boats or more driving through the heart of TK's Kingdom might just raise more than a few eye brows. It will certainly get some news coverage, and that will lead to questions from people who don't read this board. I'm willing to burn 100 dollars worth of fuel to make the point. I didn't spend a lot of money on a boat to have someone with an agenda limit my reasonable use of it. I'll stop here because my blood pressure is starting to rise.

[Mark Mc]

Thanks Walt....I'm just trying to understand what the role of OPAC is anymore. From your Warrens letter:

once we have completed drafting the nomination criteria..........
............The MRWG will be dedicating all of its time..........to draft criteria for the nomination process.

So it says here that OPAC has this role to decide nomination criteria yes? We can think of lots of criteria. Why don't we come up with OUR list? I'll start:

1. Since good ocean stewards must be familiar with the ocean, nominations shall not be accepted from anyone who has never been on the ocean.

[Smoked Salmon]

I'm an environmentalist. By that, I mean that when I make a decision, one of the things I consider is the long/short term effect it will have on the environment. I don't act to degrade the environment. I do things that improve the environment.

But, [insert a good half dozen random expletives here] and the horse they rode in on can go to [more of the same]. Below is the phrase that sticks in my craw.

The Governor’s office encourages the public to nominate marine heritage reserves that should be protected as permanent no-take marine reserves, and submit those proposals to OPAC. We believe this can be a successful bottom-up approach to identifying potential locations for these protected areas.

Any (and I mean any) common sense approach to change includes the ability to change the approach if it isn't working right. It appears that this plan doesn't have that sensible provision. What a bunch of [.....]

Grrr. But I am still an environmentalist. Just a little more level-headed than some.

I'll be voicing my stern disapproval in the manner of skein, except without the horses.

Bill

[Billfisher]

"Maybe it's time for a Salty Boat Parade right down and around the capitol."

Now that is a helluvan idea! I would concur that anyone in this group has spent ENOUGH for the privilege to enjoy our coast. What next? Must we go to Washington to fish inshore? I DON"T THINK SO!

I will be at the 29th meeting, and hopefully hitting all the wackos here in the people's republic.

-D

[Smoked Salmon]

Originally Posted by ron m

Pilar, my recollection is that The OCEAN is chartered as a non-profit and hence can't get involved in politics.
ron m

This is only true if they receive grants from the governments. There is NO rule against non-profits spending time lobbying their elected representatives where it is in line with the charter of the organization. I would think OCEAN would be well within its rights to lobby when the subject is ... the ocean.

Not a lawyer, or a Holiday Inn Express patron. Just a guy that used to work under state grants.


Bill

[GoneCoastal]

this post is a lot to read and understand, it raises my Blood Pressure and now I have a headache-
my point is -can we ask jennie to post a new thread, asking that to post on it that the post contains info for action( links,etc..) and updates ( where we are at)? does this make sense? is there something else or some other way? maybe a post just for actions with a simple explanation?
Help....

[Moldy45]

Originally Posted by Billfisher

"Maybe it's time for a Salty Boat Parade right down and around the capitol."

Now that is a helluvan idea! I would concur that anyone in this group has spent ENOUGH for the privilege to enjoy our coast. What next? Must we go to Washington to fish inshore? I DON"T THINK SO!

I will be at the 29th meeting, and hopefully hitting all the wackos here in the people's republic.

-D

Lets do it

[corrirod]

Last "boat rally" I attended was for the hatchery program and about a million people from the community board signed up for the event and we had a total of 12 boats show up. :frown:

Now this being the Salty Dog board and the fact that we all pretty much know each other, I'd be more inclined to do it because I trust you guys to show up. In fact, it just so happens I've got a few extra boats for others to tow if you don't have your own! :grin:

Count me in but lets make sure old Ted is in town when we do it.

[Mark Mc]

From all these posts, it's still not clear what the one message is, or what the top 3 "talking points" are. Whether it's at a rally, at a meeting, or you happen to catch a legislator in the hallway, what do you say? Is it:

1. ZERO MARINE RESERVES IN OREGON! ? or is it

2. "Only carefully planned marine reserves, following the original OPAC process!"

3. Slow down! Curve ahead!

What do you say if the news reporter sticks the mic in your face, camera rolling?

[skein]

What do you say if the news reporter sticks the mic in your face, camera rolling?

We tell them that this is an attempt for Teddy to produce some kind of legacy, since he's mostly been an ineffective leader. We tell them that in spite of all the hoopla, Oregon's ocean fisheries are either already recovered or in recovery, and in fact are doing pretty well under the current management processes.

And we tell 'em that while the bureaucracy burgeons, and law enforcement is trying to patrol the ocean, their car is likely to be stolen.

And then we ask them what they think about that.

PS. It might not hurt to mention CIM and CAM and the millions that went down the tube supporting that "great idea."

Skein

[Lucky one]

Tell them that we don't need more managers of an already highly managed area. Arent there enough science based agencies out there setting cap limits for sustainable fisheries? Why create another agency with a director that knows nothign about what it is managing?

[SeaSparrow]

What is the limit of Oregon's jurisdiction regarding territorial waters? The Feds economic (fishing, oil/mineral exploration) territorial waters extend 200 nautical miles offshore. Does the state follow the same limits?

From wikipedia:
Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles (but possibly less, at the coastal country's discretion) from the mean low water mark of a littoral state that is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state.

Does Oregon follow the 12 mile limit or are we talking about a federal marine reserve that follows the 200 nm limit? Obviously the rockpile is outside of the 12 mile limit. Just wanting some clarification.

[Metal Manipulator]

Oregons jurisdiction extends out to 3 miles, then it is federal jurisdiction.

[albacore]

not to sound negative here but i would think that a boat parade would only have an effect if the governor was willing to change his mind or was open to suggestion. i dont think ted is. he doesnt care about what effects it will have one the ocean, fish, fishermen or coastal commuities! he just has delusions or grandure and wants his legacy, and to hell with whats good for oregon.

[ron m]

I'm not sure, but I think there is an agreement between OR regulators and the Feds that OR rules will apply in Fed waters as long as the Feds are ok with the OR rules. Don't remember where I read that, but I'm fairly sure I did sometime. That was for ODFW rules I think, not sure how or if it would apply to MRs or MPAs or Heritage MRs.
ron m

[Salty Walty]

Here is another response to this situation from one of the Local OPAC Members. I think it gives some good perspective on how some of the members feel about how this is going down;

OPAC and Coastal Caucus members,

Some have asked for clarification of my previous e-mail, in which I indicated the draft process (attached) appears to somewhat redefine the role of OPAC (and the governor’s office), as outlined in the Oregon Ocean Resources Management Act (which was amended in 2003 by Or Laws ch. 744).

ORS 196.438(1) provides “[t]he Governor shall establish an Ocean Policy Advisory Council” staffed by certain state agencies and composed of both voting and nonvoting members. The governor’s office and state agencies are nonvoting members. Prior to the 2003 amendments, this provision provided “[t]here is established in the office of the Governor an Ocean Policy Advisory Council which shall be composed of * * *.” All members, including the governor’s office and state agencies, were voting members. Subsection (4) was also changed regarding selection of the council chair from appointment by the governor to election by voting members.

The 2003 amendments not only changed the voting dynamic of OPAC but also separated OPAC from the governor’s office. Changes were also made to ORS 196.443 (duties of council) regarding the issue of marine reserves and marine protected areas. The role of OPAC, under the statute, is to initially determine (although not mandated) whether amendments to the state ocean plan related to marine reserves or marine protected areas are needed and to advise or recommend accordingly. My understanding is the above changes were due, in part, to issues concerning OPAC’s 2002 recommendation on marine reserves.

The reason for this overview is my sense the draft process is redefining the role of OPAC (and the governor’s office) to that which existed prior to the 2003 amendments. For example, under the heading “process discussion notes,” it indicates a decision was made that OPAC would “review and comment only” on criteria with “no consensus vote required.” Later, it indicates the governor’s office would consider whether OPAC should “review and comment” on proposed nominations or whether the package should go straight to the governor’s office once proposed nominations were evaluated by the marine reserves working group. It also refers to a “small group” that will meet prior to the June 29 meeting of the marine reserves working group in order to “clearly define process and timeline” with possible “further direction from Governor’s office before finalizing process.”

These along with other “actions” outlined in the draft process reveal a shift away from OPAC as a separate advisory body to one operating within the governor’s office, as was the case prior to the 2003 amendments. Moreover, a continuing unfilled south coast counties seat on OPAC impacts one of the state policies amended in 2003, current ORS 196.420(6), which is to ensure that OPAC works closely with coastal local governments “to incorporate in its activities coastal local government and resident concerns, coastal economic sustainability and expertise of coastal residents.”

[5 Salt]

I am with Mark Mc on this one...we are somewhat all over the map.


Current Need:
In short order we need to post the three top methods for getting this process de-railed. Then clearly communicate those tactics, methods, action items, and advisories.

From what I am reading it's not so much that we are opposed to protecting habit for future generation rather we all oppose the underhanded measures and tactics implemented to impose the Gov will on those directly impacted with zero regard for those who will be hurt.

Sport Fishing is a 3-billion dollar per year industry in the Northwest but I can't help feel like we are squandering our collective economic and potical influence.

Focus?:
That said we need to focus on first on defeating/detaining/delaying this process as quickly and effectively as possible. The executive branch is circum navigating the current process - so what.

We three actions can we take to stop him?

Clear Definition of Scope:
I had read a lot of speculation about what the reserves will and won't encompass but I have yet to read a clear indication of just what exactly the Gov is seeking to protect in terms of percentage, geographical coordinates/regions, etc...

Some concise inside insight would be very helpful

Knive to a Gun Fight:
My fear is that, in not clearly establishing what we need to do to turn this thing, we will show up to a gun fight with knives in our hand and 6months late.

Enough Belly Aching:
Clearly grousing about the OPAC this, and State agengy that, is not going to have the desire effect so lets drop that part of the discussion in favor of identifying precise and effect points of attack that will net results



These are rough and smack of my ignorance - please add/enlighten the list!

1. Letter Writting (Is this the best we can do or is there more effective tools?)
2. Join Lobby group (I don't know how truely effective they are, and which one)
3. File suit to prevent the circumvetion of ORS 196.438?
4. ???
5. Meet with Key lawmakers solidify support (One-on-one meetings do have immediate impact)
6. Get the word out to Coastal Community leaders and legslators (Is a guy here or there attending a public meeting the best method? Seems like it takes to much time and has high failure rate - missed meeting).

[pablofeesh]

what is the proposed closure that you guys are talking about? the inside 3 miles or undecided? if it is the inside 3 miles then you guys are talking of a proposal, if it the undecided area then it is an action that will occur, i'm not sure the scale of this debate, can someone clarify, i have some insight on the subject possibly.

[Mark Mc]

The OPAC group has been asked to put together proposal(s) of....what marine reserves within state waters (3 miles) might look like. Before that, they were working on proposals for reserves in federal waters.

You might want to read up on OPAC - the Ocean Policy Advisory Council.

[pablofeesh]

i heard last year that there was a proposal coming up for all oregon waters inside 3 miles to be designated for a marine garden, the one i am active in is the undisclosed area that will be designated as a marine garden, looks like port orford reef is the popular vote, we will lose a piece of coastline within 3 yrs and it looks like it is orford reef, i was just wondering which this thread was reffering to. again, commercials dominate the decision, i am a commercial fisherman but totally different, we are selective harvest and we groom the population of of our target species with zero by catch, we are divers not fisherman. anyhow i was just curious how credible the info on this thread was.