Rec. fisher strategy .. marine reserves

[Pilar]

This question has been asked by cooler heads on other threads.

What is our position on Marine Reserves. Taken from the viewpoint of Recreational Fishers.

Do we want Marine reserves?

Do we understand the agenda of Jessica Hamilton and those she
reperesents?

Do we have a position we can rally behind and support?



Here's my position for what it is worth.

1) The existing regulatory structure is not perfect but it is doing a credible job of protecting the fisheries. This may not have always been true but the sins of the past are just that .. in the past. We have already voluntarily closed some areas for bird sanctuaries and rockfish conservation. Management is done based on science and with the best science and population assessments available. This process is open and public comment and participation is welcomed and considered.

2) The concept of Marine reserves as envisioned by those pushing for the quick enactment of them is an end run around the PFMC, ODFW and the Magnusen Stephens act. Another layer of bureauracracy which will override the professionals currently doing the job. Most significantly the 'board' that will manage the reserves is not overseen in any way and is not open to public comment.

3) The real agenda of the Marine reserve campaign is a 'no take' zone. Any statement of concern for coastal community by thse pushing this agenda is lip service. The real unstated agenda is imposing values that do not reflect the traditions and reality of coastal residents and others who actually spend time on the ocean.

4) There is no evidence that supports the imposition of Marine reserves with respect to fish conservation. All of the results seen so far point to getting the reserves installed and then restricting fishing to no take levels. Regardless of whatever was promised during the process of pushing them through.

Your thoughts?

I am opposed to Marine Reserves for the sake of some politicians legacy or environmentalism gone crazy. Show me that there is a measurable benefit that outweighs the economic consequences and I'll listen.

[corrirod]

Ditto Pilar.

It may behoove us to join forces with the RFA on this matter or at least see what actions they plan on using? John H., are you out there? I'd hate to be reinventing the wheel here if they've already got a good start on this.

Unfortunately letter writing goes nowhere with these reps or Mr. K. I think our only shot is to get face time with those involved and/or try to get the public to back our stance and/or get some sort of legal action started against the leaders of this boondoggle.

There are much smarter folks than me out there who understand the politics better so if someone leads I will follow.

[Grain of Salt]

The devil's advocate in me says the the National Wildlife Refuge system works pretty good (although some hunting is allowed in some of them) and we would be much worse off environmentally without it...Thanks Teddy R...(one politician whose legacy I can respect).

The pragmatist in me says pretty tough to quantify results that you can't really see. I have fished sport/commercial for 40 years and the numbers offshore are not what they once were...mostly due to commercial mismanagement, but the increasing sport pressure cannot be ignored...be nice to leave something for our kids, other than museum pieces.

Tough call, but the politcal drive for it leaves me with concern.

I say error on the side of conservation...its like money in the bank. Don't spend the principle, just the interest.

Ok...now teach me something and prove me wrong.

[corrirod]

BrownTrout,

I'm all for conservation to save a resource for future generations but that is not what this is about. This is about shutting down the fishing for good without using any scientific reasoning.That's the part that worries me. That is why I would rather see my ODFW personnel decide what needs to be shut down and for how long, not someone with no understanding at all of the resource. If they decide it has to be shut down for good then I can live with that. I won't like it but if science says it has to be done then so be it. But if things rebound I would like them to be able to reopen it, without 10 years of red tape.

[ron m]

My main concern is that it be science driven, not emotional nor driven by slick media. I agree that we presently have good management based on science, not necessarily perfect science, but the best science presently available.

I'm also very disturbed by the change in political direction. It's subverting the process that was in place, the process was deliberate and many folks had a chance to provide input and their opinions on what should be done and why. The new process, or perhaps the new task for OPAC, jumps over much of what they were supposed to do. I prefer an inclusive and democratic process that examines what is a complex situation.

If marine reerves or MPAs will help fish populations or ecological systems, then ok, let's have some if we need them. I think many of these folks don't know what the present ocean restrictions are and as someone said, they view the sins of the past as something that is still occuring when many or most of those sins are no longer happening.
ron m

[Bill Monroe]

Brown Trout offers sound thinking, as does John (Pilar).

I have to also agree with 5-Salt on another thread when he warns against exploding before the primer is ready. You wouldn't want this to erupt into view by a show in Salem of parading boats driven by those whom the public will immediately perceive as opposed to marine conservation. Bad move.

Many of these same arguments inflamed Willamette Valley residents in the late 60s when refuges were created.

The notion of marine reserves, undersea parks, etc., is not an inherently bad one.
We need to be on the high ground, however, in establishing them as well as ensuring they come under the focus or at least purview of existing agencies.

I suggest you begin by lining up the issues (ala Pilar) and identifying the positions. Right now the only creation is helter skelter paranoia. No one is even sure what's being proposed, just that (this is the perception) they're against it and against the governor and those ?!@#$ environmentalists and it's gonna be my way or the highway.

Not the best defense.

And yes, we (the paper) will have a closer look as the process tumbles forward.

[Grain of Salt]

Rod-
Yeah, red tape, lots of that these days. The trouble with allowing ODFW to decide is that this is the same agency that helped to allow overharvest in the first place. Who do we trust to protect the resource?

Be nice to have someone deciding without an iron in the fire (like selling offshore boats!...just jabbing at you...sent someone your way the other day). Hard to find an objective opinion on either side of the fence and it would be sad to squabble until the resource was too damaged to return.

Spent the last week at the Monterey Aquarium...I expected an anticommercial stance from them, quite the opposite...they are just for sustainabilty. Definitely anti- fish farm....wow!

I wish I could still make a living offshore, I'd still be there, and I bet you would be too. When "man" leaves things alone they tend to do better...like the Hanford Reservation. How much of the coast are we talking here?

No offense intended here...just trying to make up my mind...keep battering me, I might learn a few things!

[fishtales]

My vote comes from a view that says we can NEVER trust politicians to do what they say. If implemented we can expect closures that will hurt all of us and for no good reason. Needless to say I oppose any further regulation.
FT

[black magic]

Rod,
I am at the PFMC meeting this week in Foster City, Ca. I don't have an abundance of time to address this right now.
RFA/Oregon Anglers is all over this. We don't suggest doing anything right now except letters. There are many tools in the political toolbox including public demonstration. As Bill Monroe implies, one must be very carefull in the application of these tools. Make sure the gun is not pointed at your foot before pulling the trigger. We are in the communication loop with all fishery sectors and coastal officials. Timing and perception are paramount in any public action we take. I have copied advice from a previous post.

My suggestion to deal with this is:
1. All Oregon residents
-Write/email etc. to your state senator and representative.
-Copy these communications to the Governor's Office. The strategy
here is to let the Governor's office know others of influence are
aware of your concerns.
-Get as many non fishing people as possible to write. Reserve
proponents are counting on non fishing interests to support their
agenda. Non-fishing people should be opposed to this if they buy
retail seafood and are against higher prices, more farmed and/or
imported fish, and fewer wild caught fish available.
-Copy to the Oregon Coast Visitors Association could'nt hurt either.
http://www.visittheoregoncoast.com/
2. Oregon Coastal residents
-The most important people for you to contact are your county
commissioners in addition to your state reps. They act as lobbyists
for you in Salem and do have influence there.

Be persistent. Many times persistence will carry the day when all else fails.
Salem will probably be counting on a lack of persistence. They will simply wait for the wave of resistance to pass and just carry on. Save and flag these letters then resend them again every month or so until this issue is settled.

[corrirod]

No battering here BrownTrout.

When "man" leaves things alone they tend to do better...

Would you be o.k. with the fishing being closed on the entire Willamette or Columbia FOR GOOD? After all, that would surely revive the salmon. You just wouldn't be able to fish for them in your backyard anymore.

Now if the ODFW and OPAC decide that scientifically shutting things down is the right thing to do then I will accept it. I may not like it but I'll accept it.

Be nice to have someone deciding without an iron in the fire

If that's the case lets ask someone from South Dakota to make the decision for us, because I'm pretty sure Ted has an iron in the fire?

Bill, I agree that we should load our brains before we shoot our mouthes off but lets not use the current popular business model of "lets schedule a meeting to figure out what to do at the meeting and then we'll schedule another meeting to go over the results of that meeting and then we'll schedule another meeting to decide if we should've skipped the previous meeting and then...."

It is correct that we do not know what "the plan" is but I think it's fair to say we DO know the "process" in which they would like to create the plan. That is the part I have the problem with right now, not the plan itself. Based on what I've read so far, I would like to see the process changed to put authority in the hands of the people that are familiar with the resource.

I believe that is how it was layed out before but now it seems the governor would like to change that.

[Bill Monroe]

So it would seem, Rod...
I think we need to know much more, though, to be coherent.
And think, too, about this:

It seems probable to me that a marine reserve program of some sort will happen. It's happened in other states and the concept of preservation is, in and of itself, sound.

We want to be key players on how that happens...not perceived from the outset as simply takers and users opposed to everything.

Just my thoughts.

[Triple C]

My comments about a boat prarade it to draw attention to just another
case where the government rolls up someones pet project and rams it down everyones throat. I'm not against sound management practices. I have a problem when our elected government modifies an established procedure for implementing changes, so they can nullify the checks and balances which are part of a democratic process. This is just like the way our state government handles the laws the voter's pass that don't meet their agendas. I can't remember how many times the elected government has acted to block or negated voter passed resolutions. Sound scientific management is needed. The voters have told them about what they think of their land management. So now they are going after our ocean. I agree we need to have a united front with regards to this attemp to ramrod through a process that has not be scientifically validated. Question is, how do we organize against this yoyo and his mouth pieces ?

One other point. If we wait to see what they come up with, We may not have a chance to
change it after the fact. Season the pot while it's cooking, not when your serving. The feed back and inputs need to be part of the decision process. Ted and his crew are streamlining the process so they don't make that a part of the process.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

So it would seem, Rod...
I think we need to know much more, though, to be coherent.
And think, too, about this:

It seems probable to me that a marine reserve program of some sort will happen. It's happened in other states and the concept of preservation is, in and of itself, sound.

We want to be key players on how that happens...not perceived from the outset as simply takers and users opposed to everything.

Just my thoughts.

I think Bill has it right, let's see what is proposed as far as fishing restrictions are concerned, before we say we are against it.
And for credibility's sake, don't use the term "Lock Up The Ocean", it only serves to diminish our position.

[Pilar]

I'm not defending the causes of the rockfish overfishing we all know about. For a variety of reasons ... ignorance being the most obvious ... commercial take of rockfish overfished some populations. They did so by following the rules and quotas of the time. And now we have more enlightened management. And now we have wide areas restricted to certain types of commercial fishing. That decision was made and implemented by the current system.

Although all of us have some trepidation about wide area closures .. it may make sense from the conservation standpoint to do some closures. As a user of these resources I would get behind any such closure if the process was open to public input and there was a clear scientific basis for the closures.

What we have now is a power grab. State lands is being given dominion over the nearshore and the reserves are 'Permanent'. This is an error of the most fundamental kind IMHO. No flexibility and no involvement of the people who are trained, experienced and already involved.

You would not take your computer to the gas station for repair. You would hire an IT expert to do that. Why in the world would you allow people who have no training or experience in Marine resources manage the nearshore of Oregon?

I guess the thing that bothers me most is the bulldozer approach. We are getting this thing shoved down our throats and have nothing to say about it. Or that is the program of those behind the efforts to implement reserves. They do not wish to deal with the existing agencies they seek to bypass them.

SO what do we stand on? Marine reserves based on science? No Marine reserves at all .. status quo? Marine reserves sited and managed by results for fish populations?

Where are we going? First step is to decide what we want as a group and go on from there.

[Grain of Salt]

"Would you be o.k. with the fishing being closed on the entire Willamette or Columbia FOR GOOD? After all, that would surely revive the salmon. You just wouldn't be able to fish for them in your backyard anymore."

After the last couple of seasons, yes I would be for it... but doubt it would have much impact on the long term survival of salmon...to make a better comparison you would need to remove all the people from the Willamette Valley.

I think ISLANDS of protection are good...even if the resource is off limits for good...I'll use the Refuge system in the valley as a comparison. Most of the better hunting occurs around the refuges...why? Protection.
Now ducks and geese arent fish, I know that and the movements of each are unlikely similar, but providing an area of protection is sound fisheries management. It is done all the time.

Closing the entire Oregon coast to harvest is wrong.
Providing some protected areas (forever) I can agree with...I have just seen too much decline in numbers to agree to the status quo.

Will it change sport fishing? Yes. But one thing I learned at OSU and commercial fishing is if you are going to hang your hat on a resource, be prepared for change.

Hope I havent misguided this thread...hard to get a direction when you don't know the destination.

One thing that concerns me is that Bill Monroe agreed with me...hmmm

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally Posted by black magic

Rod,
As Bill Monroe implies, one must be very carefull in the application of these tools. Make sure the gun is not pointed at your foot before pulling the trigger. We are in the communication loop with all fishery sectors and coastal officials. Timing and perception are paramount in any public action we take. I have copied advice from a previous post.

My suggestion to deal with this is:
1. All Oregon residents
-Write/email etc. to your state senator and representative.
-Copy these communications to the Governor's Office. The strategy
here is to let the Governor's office know others of influence are
aware of your concerns.
-Get as many non fishing people as possible to write. Reserve
proponents are counting on non fishing interests to support their
agenda. Non-fishing people should be opposed to this if they buy
retail seafood and are against higher prices, more farmed and/or
imported fish, and fewer wild caught fish available.
-Copy to the Oregon Coast Visitors Association could'nt hurt either.
http://www.visittheoregoncoast.com/
2. Oregon Coastal residents
-The most important people for you to contact are your county
commissioners in addition to your state reps. They act as lobbyists
for you in Salem and do have influence there.

Be persistent. Many times persistence will carry the day when all else fails.
Salem will probably be counting on a lack of persistence. They will simply wait for the wave of resistance to pass and just carry on. Save and flag these letters then resend them again every month or so until this issue is settled.

Black Magic, this is golden stuff you have outlined here. It is so easy to have a knee jerk reaction to this and fire off out of line letters that are uninformed but well intentioned. Been there done that oh so many times.

I don't necessarily agree we need to wait and see. Many times we have done this on some issues and basically got a kick in the head for it. Stonewall banks is a good illustration of this. Government needs to let the science play out and then take action if at all necessary. Not act out of emotion because California wants or is doing it.

This is strickly a case of our governor acting out on his own to appease special interests groups. We have to send the correct message.

[skein]

There are millions of dollars behind this grab. Millions. How much do you guess it cost to produce that infomercial they've been touring with? How much do you think the tours themselves cost? Who do you suppose is footing the bill?

There are groups that want our ocean and they are waaaaaay ahead of us. Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight - ha! We don't even have fingernails and besides that, we're in a dark, unfamiliar room and they've got nightvision goggles. Get the idea?

When our elected officials refuse to stand up for principles and process, they create and foster an environment of apathy and distrust.

Our best offense is to demand that they follow the guidelines that have been set forth. Period.

Oh, one more thing. Declining fish stocks didn't happen overnight, nor will they be restored overnight. We should celebrate the fact that our fish stocks have, in many many cases, turned the corner and are on the road to recovery. We should rally behind the scientists and staff (Patty Burke and Crew) who have been instrumental in that success. And we should get the word out about that recovery.

Don't tell me to wait.... that only guarantees failure. You can bet the other side is not waiting.

Skein

[Nordic Sun]

OK I realize I'm not the brightest student in the class, but......

My question is WHY?

What does the public gain with a Marine Reserve, that we can't achieve through sound management with current agencies?

Isn't there a very strong possibility that these permanent sites will do a tremendous harm to the state and it's economy. How will it be funded?

What if these reserves cause a population bloom in Sea Lions. We all know how unmanageable the Marine Mammal Protection Act has become.

To me there are too many unanswered questions. It all comes back to one question, WHY?

So If I catch some proponent in the hallway I would ask......

What is the perceived benefit?
What problem will it fix?
What problems will it cause?

WHY
Bob

[Sled Dog]

There was a great issue of National Geographic on with worlds oceans and in particular it's fish stocks, last month, or the month before I believe. Worth the read in my opinion no matter where you stand on the issue. One article detailed what New Zealand has done with marine reserves and its results. Once again, worth the read for the perspectives of what others have done regarding this issue, reguardless of where you stand on marine reserves. And it has some cool info about the worlds Tuna.

[ron m]

I went back and read the letter from Jessica Hamiliton and the minutes of the June 1 meeting in the post by Salty Walty. I am a careful reader, but by rereading it I noticed some things I had not noticed the first time I read it. I think I was so aggravated the first time I read it that it made it more difficult to catch all the info and implications. I probably still haven’t caught all of them. I recommend you reread the JH letter and minutes., especially if you were “upset” while reading them.

It’s important that we develop a strategy, a well thought out strategy for dealing with this situation. I personally think it also would be smart to realize that it’s almost certain that some MRs are going to happen and do what we can to influence the placement and size of them and especially important to get the Marine Resources program part of ODFW to be the agency tasked with managing them. (a part of me wants to say to the governor, “What is it you don’t understand about MARINE Resources program?” but I know that tone will not be helpful for achieving a favorable outcome!)

I’m developing a personal strategy that I’ll use while the group is figuring out a strategy. I’m doing this because I want to start ASAP. Parts of the strategy I’ve come up with so far:
1. participate as much as possible to exert what influence I can on the process that will be used and also how much area will set aside for reserves of any type.
2. try to convince my legislators (and the governor) that the process used for marine reserves of any type should be a democratic process and should follow existing laws. Also that the management of any marine reserves should be done by ODFW MRP.
3. I’ll do what I can locally to garner support for a reasonable process and a reasonable outcome.

There is a meeting of the marine Reserve Working Group (MRWG) of OPAC on June 29 in Corvallis and I plan on attending that meeting. But by rereading the JH letter and the minutes, I see there is also a meeting of a “small group” that will meet before the MRWG meeting. I’ve emailed Jessica asking for the date, time, and place of that “small group” meeting. I have no idea if I’ll be given that info, but gotta ask to get it. People can also provide input to Frank Warrens before the MRWG meeting and he will forward it to the group.

If a process for public input is going to be established, then I want to give input on what that process should be, what is important to consider in determining possible sites and what should be considered in EXCLUDING possible sites. So I’ll attend the small group meeting if possible and will also attend the MRWG meeting. Some among us will not like the idea of attending and participating in way, but if it’s going to happen, then I want to do what I can to influence how it happens and how much of it happens.
ron m, who would much rather be fishing than worrying about being able to fish

[ron m]

Originally Posted by skein

Our best offense is to demand that they follow the guidelines that have been set forth. Period.

Skein is right (IMO) about this being the best strategy for us. I'd make clear though that it's the guidelines that WERE in place before this last action by the governors office.
ron m