MR Discussion Gold Beach

[black magic]

There are some very good comments here, especially by Jim Relaford and Ralph Brown.


LOCALS TELL GOVERNOR KULONGOSKI'S REP TO NIX MARINE RESRVES IDEA
Published: January 19, 2008
By Valliant Corley
Pilot staff writer

GOLD BEACH – Gov. Ted Kulongoski's chief of staff didn't get the reaction he hoped Friday when he spoke to more than 70 Curry County fishermen and business people during the third day of stops in towns along the Oregon coast to promote marine reserves.
"Every town I've been in has responded to this differently," Chip Terhune said. "It's amazing to me how differently the people along the coast differ. Some people seem supportive. You folks, frankly, aren't."
Terhune said the governor told him "I want you to go to the coast and listen to people."
He said he was hearing support in some communities, but "all of them don't want this to have a negative impact. He (the governor) believes every problem has a solution. ... The governor believes there can be an Oregon solution to this problem."
Jim Relaford, Port of Brookings Harbor commissioner, said he had attended the last two meetings of the Ocean Policy Advisory Council, which he says is following the governor's demand to recommend up to 10 marine reserves along the Oregon coast.
"I would advise the governor to determine there is a problem before we seek a solution," Relaford said. "We are all conservationists. We depend on the ocean."
Relaford said maybe it would be appropriate for the governor to replace OPAC's mission.
"Now, it's responding to the governor's request for 10 or less marine reserves. Why doesn't he revise that and say ‘go find a way to make the ocean better?'"
What was planned as a one-hour stop stretched to almost two hours as those people packing the Gold Beach city council chambers had their say. Only one person, Peg Reagan, former Curry County Commissioner and now executive director of Conservation Leaders Network, spoke in favor of marine reserves.
"I know I'm in the minority at this meeting," Reagan said. "I think reserves are based on science. What I'm hearing represents fear."
Curry County Commissioner Lucie La Bonté said she fears marine reserves could harm the county's economy.
She said the county had three legs of its economy in the 1990s – timber, tourists and fishing. She said when timber was cut off, the economy suffered and she said tourism has been reduced because of fishing restrictions.
"Other counties on the coast have brought in industry," La Bonté said. But she said they have access to Interstate 5 or railroads while Curry County suffers because of lack of transportation.
Ralph Brown of Brookings said he has been interested in fishing resources for a long time.
"I've met a whole lot of people. Earlier this year we got to talking about what's going on in the ocean. There's a whole lot of uses being proposed for the ocean. The fishing community is not involved in a lot of them. There's a lot of fear."
He said he put together a meeting of interested parties to talk and planned a meeting.
"I invited the governor's office, a mix of environmentalists, fishing types," Brown said. "I got an e-mail that I was trying to use this on the marine reserve process. I felt only the need of a comprehensive plan. I got calls from people that they were concerned. It came from the governor's office."
He said he was asked to cancel the meeting.
"It was because of lobbying from the governor's office. They felt it would get in the way of marine reserves," Brown said. "We had an opportunity to get together and talk. The governor's office, for whatever reason, killed that opportunity."
Rep. Wayne Krieger, R-Gold Beach, said Brown's experience is an example of what legislators have found: "Working relationships and trust that does not exist in the Legislature, Coastal Caucus, the fishing community. The lack of conversation between the Legislature and the governor's office."
Krieger said he and other legislators were working on the marine reserves bill last Monday.
"One of the things that came up Monday: It was explicit the state should take no funding from environmental groups or anything else. If it's needed, the state should pay for it. You can't rely on the Sierra Club to put up $11 or $12 million to do this. It brings credibility, accountability and a bit of trust in this process."
John Wilson, a local processor and commercial fisherman, said he felt the whole marine process is directed at adding regulation that is not needed to fishing.
"We're just a pittance of what we have been in the past. Certain stocks are rebuilding. We'd like to see that the ocean return to be productive."
Mark Lottis said the fishing industry needs less restrictions.
"A lot of people don't think we're already restricted," he said. "We're highly restricted. We turn tickets in every day on the number of fish caught. There's people on the docks counting fish. There's this huge process in place and has been in place over the years. Fish are responding to this and have rebounded."
Port of Brookings Harbor Director Rich Drehobl said scientists need a plan before they begin research.
"For 32 years, it was my job to sort out junk science from pure science," Drehobl said. "To date, no one has articulated what is to be studied (in marine reserves)."
Port of Brookings Harbor Commissioner Roy Davis said he does not support marine reserves and believes the fishing industry would suffer with those reserves.
"If it impacts us economically, how are we going to pay the state back what we owe them?" Davis asked. "More regulation. I don't know if we can take it. You are going to have marine reserves, buffer zones, fish farms. Where are these people going to earn a living?"
Port of Brookings Harbor Commissioner Sue Gold said if there must be marine reserves there should be a test site first.
"Why not have one as a test site on a county that wants it? Why not that instead of impose on the whole Oregon coast?" she asked.
Terhune said the governor is not saying where marine reserves should go.
"He's depending on OPAC to sort this out," Terhune said.
"This should not be a political process," Port of Gold Beach Commissioner Bill McNair said. "We're trying to protect fisheries."
Brown said that, contrary to what some people think, there are no endangered species off the Oregon coast except salmon.
"It has nothing to do with endangered species," Brown said. "They are not threatened or endangered. Canary rockfish we're harvesting one-tenth of 1 percent annually."
He said most fish are harvested 1 percent or 2 percent each year – "5 percent is considered extremely high."
Brown said overfishing is created by regional councils.
"It was due to harvest policy," he said. "It has nothing to do with threatened or endangered."

[KChookem]

Thanks to RFA (Recreational Fishing Alliance) for keeping everyone informed and on top of this important issue. The best thing about the MR issue is that it has given a lot of different groups something in common.

Seems to me that the Oregon Legislature is the next place to try to stop the MRs as proposed. The Leg starts Feb. 4, but it is alrady working on MR.

I found this statement the most amusing, for several reasons...

The governor believes there can be an Oregon solution to this problem."

The Governor's MR proposal was not a problem until pesky citizens started asking silly questions like, "why?". Gee, I wonder what "an Oregon solution" will be? (That is a rhetorical question - too often we've seen what government does when it wants something even when the public does not)

[Tuna Buster]

I for one would very much like to know what science they have used to determine why these so called MR's are needed in the first place. Are there any real studies in hand to show that there is a need for protected areas along the coast and how they came up with the those areas if they have been chosen already. It has been my experience that most of the Oregon coast is fished rarely (by sport fisherman) and many places not at all due to fact they are virtually inaccessible to most sport fisherman because of their distance from a port or launch facility. The weather also plays a major role in where and when sportsman and women are able to fish. It is not uncommon for many ports to be completely shut down for months at a time. Most people who venture out of port rarely find it necessary to venture more than a few miles from port to catch their limit and return. Oregon already has some of the strictest bag limits for sport fisherman on the West Coast as well as some of the best sport fishing to be had anywhere. Unless someone can show me credible scientific proof that these MR’s are necessary, then allowing them on our coast is just a way to allow the start of the end of our sport fishing on our coast. If I were not half way around the world right now, I would be attending these public meeting and would be asking these same questions to the powers that be. I hope that many of you will attend any future meetings and ask these same question and demand answers before we are restricted even further from what we love and eventually thrown off the water all together.

[Metal Manipulator]

That is what I asked in the Newport meeting. My Question. "How can you determine if MR's are needed when you do not know how many fish are out there?" (Then stated) "Don't we not need to get a stock assessment first to determine this." Yes we do need people to show up and give them a knowledgeable ear full over whelming any proponents of any unnecessary reserve, From sports fishermen, to commercial fishermen and all those in between.

Ron feels that there is some one behind the scene's pushing Ted to do this. As the changes to the MR direction shows, they have no data to work with which shows any need to help any stock which fisheries management cannot maintain. There have been lawsuits filed over such unnecessary actions and handily won.

Building another Park which no body can see, feel, commune with or drive over. Must be Roosevelt envy. Maybe having the name Teddy has some psychological personality trait causing this.

[Salty Walty]

One of the main problems with this whole issue is the fact that the parameters and direction have changed 5 times in the last 2 years. The constant monkeying from the Govs Office has kept OPAC from doing their job. The best that we can do now is to go to the Outreach Meetings and voice your opinion. My main concern is the Process is flawed and until there is a clear and definable reason for these areas and there must be a way to permanently fund them before any implementaion is considered.

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by Salty Walty

One of the main problems with this whole issue is the fact that the parameters and direction have changed 5 times in the last 2 years. The constant monkeying from the Govs Office has kept OPAC from doing their job. The best that we can do now is to go to the Outreach Meetings and voice your opinion. My main concern is the Process is flawed and until there is a clear and definable reason for these areas and there must be a way to permanently fund them before any implementaion is considered.

FYI This letter from Bob Rees was in last nights Daily Astorian.

Bob Rees is the president of Northwest Guides and anglers


"Letter: Save the resource
At age 27, when I made the decision to become a charter boat captain, I knew there was a risk associated with wholly relying on a natural resource to drive my income. My business has suffered through the crash of the wild coho, the closure of the world-famous Buoy 10 fishery and the downturn of our offshore rockfish species.

There have been good times and there have been bad, but overall, the recent trend of our ocean resources is headed in a dangerous downward spiral. The Oregon recreational fleet went from no bag limits on rockfish prior to 1976, to an allowable catch of 25 rockfish per person per day. In 2000, we were allowed 10 and currently, we're only allowed 6 rockfish. These restrictions were put in place as a necessary measure to prevent the collapse of the stock.

Fishery managers feel they have a grip on this downward trend but I feel there are two important criteria in their management scheme that are missing: changes in ocean temperatures and acidity and a growing population with an insatiable appetite for seafood.

With these two very real threats to our ocean ecosystems, it makes so much sense to approach our ensuing crisis in a pro-active manner. That is why our coastal communities should be taking a hard look at the benefits of marine reserves.

As the science shows, older, larger females contribute almost 10 times the number of juveniles to the ocean, as older fish and their offspring are more capable of enduring a changing marine ecosystem. Marine reserves provide the opportunity for fish to grow larger and produce the kinds of numbers to feed our people and sustain the population - a sort of offshore rockfish hatchery. This is just one of many reasons why the establishment of marine reserves is a critical tool in rebuilding fish populations and ensuring a resource for our children's future.

In the coming months, it will be important for Oregon's citizens to participate in the public process to consider the establishment of marine reserves.

My grandfathers took me fishing and introduced me to a world I had no idea existed. My hope is that there is a resource that allows me to continue to make a living and feed my family, but more importantly, a resource to share with my grandchildren so they have the same opportunities that I did. To learn more about the science behind marine reserves, go to www.pisco web.org/outreach/pubs/reserves

Bob Rees
Bay City

I have recinded my membership based on this and the fact that Bob did not respond to my enquiries on this issue

We have to be very careful who we associate with these days

Hank Mills

[wak'm&stak'm]

What I noticed from the Newport meeting was, that those in favor spoke of MR in the same way that a person say..." I want world peace and a end to hunger"....and to save the earth.
When one man said he was in favor of MR's because we need to stop the destruction of the ocean floor and save the eco system, I interrupted and ask if he could Please tell me what area he was referring to and what species of fish. Because if he has a pet area or knows soming I have not heard about, I would like to know..... he answer was he didn't have an area, and it was not is area of expertis. I never hear one person in favor of MR's say the name of a fish or a geographic area. Honestly..... they really don't know anything.

SECONDLY......Newport News Times isn't worth hanging on the bathroom wall. The article about the MR's was anything but true....it sounded like everyone was for it.

[TGFwriter]

Folks:

Here is the letter I finally returned to Hank. I will stay engaged on this issue and hope to have friendly dialogue with Salty Doggers in this forum.

Thanks!

Bob Rees

Hey Hank,

Sorry to be so tardy in returning your email. I was at a STEP meeting this weekend when you originally emailed.

I am a proponent of MR but NWGAA board wishes to remain neutral at this time.

I was skeptical at first but once I saw the science behind MR, it was an easy sell to me. I am sorry you don't feel the same way but as an outspoken opponent, I hope you take a look at both sides of the story. There will be extensive outreach in the coming months and with that outreach, some very credible science will show the benefits of MR. There is a lot of mis-information out there surrounding MR, we'll have to weigh through that but if the Governor sticks to his directive; adequate funding for enforcement and research, less than 10 and little or no econmic impacts to coastal communities, it will give us a real chance to see how effective MR will be for ocean ecosystems.

My personal belief is that MR will have an economic impact to coastal communities- a POSITIVE one. The purpose of a MR is to maintain biological diversity in the ocean ecosystem and allow for recruitment of larger, more fertile females to more efficiently repopulate the designated area and allow for spill-over when that designated area reaches its "carrying capacity".

The PISCO document has a great graphic on a vermillion rockfish demonstrating this science. A 14.6 inch female can produce about 150,000 juveniles while a fish a little older and larger, a 23.6 inch female will produce 1.7 MILLION juveniles. These older, fatter females also produce eggs that have larger fish "oil" reserves embedded in them that ensure higher survival rates in the brood produced. This document can be viewed at: www.piscoweb.org/outreach/pubs/reserves.

I hope you get a chance to look at it. I know you are busy.

On recinding your membership, if you feel that strongly about it, we can refund last years dues but I hope if you remain an opponent of MR, that you still value the work the NW Guides and Anglers Association is doing on behalf of sportanglers and our industry.

Feel free to contact me anytime on these issues. I value your feedback.

Bob

[Deeman]

As an outspoken opponent of MRs I have taken a look at both sides of the story. On one side I see Agenda driven XXX masquerading as Science and on the other side I see hard working Oregonians and Sportsmen saying WHY? Show me where our nearshore species are crashing off the nearshore Oregon coast. In fact just show me ONE species. Explain why, according to the scientist doing our recent black rockfish assesment, the deepwater reefs show a corresponding rise in population of large older females when compared to nearshore populations. Explain why the male population is a negative image of that data. Explain how "spillover" will work given the geology of the Oregon coast. Large expanses of sandy bottom punctuated by rocky out croppings. When they spillover from the rocks will they travel 30-40 miles to the next rocks, or will they change their nature and begin to colonize sandy bottoms? Tell me how moving rapidly from zero catch limits to the 6 fish we have now shows a lack of resource management. Tell me how our managers are so poor that when they recognized an issue with Lingcod they could not effectively address and solve the problem in a rapid and efficiant manner. I need you to explain why I should rely on the Packard funded PISCO foundation to be honest or even right about whether the sun will rise tommorrow, let alone believe their agenda driven psuedo-science and mis-information about these issues so near and dear to their heart. Explain how data from South Africa, or the North Atlantic, or the Gulf Coast has any relevance to Oregons Coast. Tell me about how our "Biodiversity" in the nearshore environment is shrinking and needs to be maintained. Tell me how a no take, no travel, unseen underwater reef structure will help local economies. Ive seen the California MRs and they look about like the rest of the Coastline, with the exception of no people practicing age old traditions their Grandfathers taught them. I need to understand how and why I can trust a Governors office and his lackeys that have done nothing but lied, obfuscated, and mainipulated a process to drive a personal agenda in place of sound public policy. If you want to have a dialogue you might start with a few of these questions, and one other. Why should I take seriously the opinion of a man who makes his living primarily fishing freshwater and stands to benefit financially from the imposition of MRs. If you want me to take you seriously, propose Tillamook, Nehalem, Nestucca bays and the lower end of the Columbia as MRs. Then we can talk.
Donald Peabody

[roadsend]

I would like to see what some of the other guides including the coastal charter boat folks have to say about this.
How is a river guide going to benefit financially from the imposition of MRs?

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by roadsend

I would like to see what some of the other guides including the coastal charter boat folks have to say about this.
How is a river guide going to benefit financially from the imposition of MRs?

Didn't you read this?
Bob says he is a Charter boat Captain


At age 27, when I made the decision to become a charter boat captain, I knew there was a risk associated with wholly relying on a natural resource to drive my income. My business has suffered through the crash of the wild coho, the closure of the world-famous Buoy 10 fishery and the downturn of our offshore rockfish species

The down turn was due to overharvesting commercially but that was years ago and the problems have been reversed through good fisheries management and those stocks are rebounding at a fast pace

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

Didn't you read this?
Bob says he is a Charter boat Captain


At age 27, when I made the decision to become a charter boat captain, I knew there was a risk associated with wholly relying on a natural resource to drive my income. My business has suffered through the crash of the wild coho, the closure of the world-famous Buoy 10 fishery and the downturn of our offshore rockfish species

Yes, I did but the previous poster appears to contradict this comment.

"....the opinion of a man who makes his living primarily fishing freshwater and stands to benefit financially from the imposition of MRs...."

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by roadsend

Yes, I did but the previous poster appears to contradict this comment.

"....the opinion of a man who makes his living primarily fishing freshwater and stands to benefit financially from the imposition of MRs...."

That is the same info I had about Bob
He has not responded to that ? yet

I think the part about profiting means that if MRs are put in that more people will choose to go with guides in fresh water as opposed to using ocean charters for thier fishing because there will be no salt water fishing worth pursuing

[JimM]

"The PISCO document has a great graphic on a vermillion rockfish demonstrating this science. A 14.6 inch female can produce about 150,000 juveniles while a fish a little older and larger, a 23.6 inch female will produce 1.7 MILLION juveniles."

Has anyone documented a lack of rockfish eggs in the ocean? My understanding, based on attending many groundfish science meetings, is that rockfish depend on certain ocean conditions for successful recruitment. If the temps and salinity aren't right, eggs don't do well and the juveniles don't recruit. This is the Pacific Ocean we're talking about, not goldfish in a tank.

[WP]

One of the issues that is not discussed is that as you restrict the areas open to fishing, you increase the fishing pressure on the open areas and do greater damage to the fish stocks in the open areas. This is just why we end up going further for better fishing (in general) over time. It is why boat fishing is more successful than bank fishing. It is not the overall stocks that are at risk as much as the localized ones. In the case of rockfish, they don't travel large distances so the risk is greater for local area depletion. Without a fact based need and well thought out plan, the MRs could cause more problems than they are "trying" to solve...unless of course the REAL goal is to end ocean fishing totally.
I, again would ask the gov, what is the "problem" we are trying to solve again? Maybe Terhune should study that and tell us how they discovered this problem, in the first place.

If we don't get involved and stand up for good management practices and defeat the opposition, we will all be fishing tidewater, fighting over who can catch the biggest bullhead.

Dave Starratt

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by WP

In the case of rockfish, they don't travel large distances so the risk is greater for local area depletion. Without a fact based need and well thought out plan, the MRs could cause more problems than they are "trying" to solve...unless of course the REAL goal is to end ocean fishing totally.

Dave Starratt

Many years ago when I was young I worked with a biologist from OSU doing a tagging program
We tagged a black rock fish in front of Fogerty Beach (Depoe Bay) and 74 hours later that fish was caught by a commercial boat just outside of the CR

That is 100 miles in 3 days I think those fish do travel as we got tags back from Waldport too

Sure do wish I could get into the govs head and find out where & who this idea came from

[tippet]

Originally Posted by Deeman

I need you to explain why I should rely on the Packard funded PISCO foundation to be honest or even right about whether the sun will rise tommorrow, let alone believe their agenda driven psuedo-science and mis-information about these issues so near and dear to their heart.

I wont comment on whether you can trust the governer's office, but the lead scientists associated with PISCO are reputable, and I believe, honest. Ultimately they publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific papers and their careers are based entirely on their integrity. To slander their efforts as psuedo-science simply because you disagree with their findings suggests a closed mind on the subject. If you have legitimate concerns with their SCIENCE (i.e. scientific methods and interpretation of results) that would be worth sharing with the rest of us.

Sorry - not looking for a fight just cant resist and would like to see more open exchange of ideas on this issue - both pros and cons. And for the record while I am not opposed to MR or MPA's I agree that the process has flaws. Its great that so many salty dogs are taking the time to attend meetings and getting their voices heard.

Tippet

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by tippet

the lead scientists associated with PISCO are reputable, and I believe, honest. Ultimately they publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific papers and their careers are based entirely on their integrity.
Tippet

OK Tippet, I'll call your bluff.

Site one single study by these or any other scientist, that shows a valid assessment of current fish populations. And the threat that requires Marine Reserves as the solution.

Bob

[lingslayer]

Originally Posted by JimM

"Has anyone documented a lack of rockfish eggs in the ocean? My understanding, based on attending many groundfish science meetings, is that rockfish depend on certain ocean conditions for successful recruitment. If the temps and salinity aren't right, eggs don't do well and the juveniles don't recruit. This is the Pacific Ocean we're talking about, not goldfish in a tank.

It's easy to document the lack of rockfish eggs in the ocean,...
Since many rockfish give birth to live smolt not eggs. The Vermillion in particular.
So much for the science there!

[Salty Walty]

The one common problem with nearly all of the findings about Marine Reserves is their lack of objectivity. At yesterdays presentation the presenter was asked if any of the "peer reviewed" material was reviewed by those of a different prespective. So that some form of objectivity can be claimed. The answer was that all the reviewers were experts in the science of Marine Reserves. I took that to mean No. The problem with that is that objectivity is lost when the only persons reviewing your study already believe that your conclusions are already the answer. There are other views and the questions that have been brought up in regards to the necessity of these areas. They need to be answered truthfully and not just given lip service by their advocates.

This was brought up in this essay by Ray Hilborn;

Faith-based Fisheries

ESSAY: PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
Faith-based Fisheries
by Ray Hilborn


The scientific community gave a collective sigh of relief just before Christmas 2005 when Judge John E.
Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and cannot be taught alongside evolution
as an alternative scientific hypothesis. There is no better way to unite any group of fractious scientists than
to bring up creationism and intelligent design as alternative scientific hypotheses—scientists know that
these faith-based ideas are not scientific and have no place in a scientific course. The court’s ruling is a
triumph for the scientific method of hypotheses being confronted by data and a setback for those with a
political agenda masquerading as science.

However, before we congratulate ourselves too much for the triumph of the scientific method over belief, I
suggest the fisheries community needs to look at itself and question whether there is not a within our own
field a strong movement of faithbased acceptance of ideas, and a search for data that support these ideas,
rather than critical and skeptical analysis of the evidence.

This faith-based fisheries movement has emerged in the last decade, and it threatens the very heart of the
scientific process—peer review and publication in the top journals. Two journals with the highest profile,
Science and Nature, clearly publish articles on fisheries not for their scientific merit, but for their publicity
value. Beginning in at least 1993 with an article I co-authored (Ludwig et al. 1993), Science and Nature
have published a long string of papers on the decline and collapse of fisheries that have attracted
considerable public attention, and occasionally gaining coverage in the New York Times and the
Washington Post. I assert that the peer review process has now totally failed and many of these papers are
being published only because the editors and selected reviewers believe in the message, or because of their
potential newsworthiness.

As examples, let me choose papers by well-established professionals who have long records of significant
work beyond the papers discussed below and I emphasize the problem is with the peer review and editorial
system, not the authors of the papers. Casey and Myers’ paper on barndoor skate (Casey and Myers 1998)
argued that these skates were headed towards extinction. Analysis by others more familiar with the
data showed that the survey data came from areas that are not the core of the range of the species (Kulka et
al. 2002), and subsequent evaluation of the status of barndoor skate in New England by the National
Marine Fisheries Service concluded they were not overfished (Boelke et al. 2005), hardly headed towards
extinction. A review by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans removed barndoor skates from a
list of species that are threatened or endangered. The original paper has not been withdrawn and continues
to frequently cited as an example of near extinction of marine species.

Myers and Worm published a paper in Nature (Myers and Worm 2003) which made the front page of
major national newspapers, purporting to show that large pelagic fish stocks around the world had
declined rapidly and by the 1980s were at less than 10% of their historic abundance. Widely cited in the
scientific and popular literature, this paper raised a furor among many scientists specializing in pelagic
fisheries who knew the same data, knew it was being misinterpreted, and knew there was a large body of
other data that contradicted Myers and Worm’s results. At least three independent critiques of the paper
subsequently have been published: Walters (2003), Hampton et al. (2005), and Polacheck (2006). The
critics are not the “old guard defending their turf,” because it is not as if no one had noticed that the
catch-per-unit effort data Myers and Worm used had declined. Rather these critics have themselves long
been arguing that some of these fisheries are now depleted and overfished. What they criticized was
Myers and Worm’s analysis, their highly selective use of data, and specific conclusions about the extent
and timing of depletion of these stocks, not their concern about overexploitation.

Conover and Munch (2002) published a highly cited paper in Science showing experimental evidence that
size-selective fishing could induce growth changes in fish stocks and suggested this was a mechanism
that could lead to collapse of fish stocks. The article never looked at actual fisheries data to ask if the
laboratory selection regime imposed resembled what happens in fisheries, nor did they look at the vast
body of fisheries data which shows that fish more commonly grow faster, not slower, when fishing pressure
is high.

A paper in Science (Roberts et al. 2001) purported to show an example of how a marine protected area
(MPA) increased yields outside the protected area, when in fact the abundance of fish outside the protected
area increased within one year of the establishment of the MPA. Any competent peer reviewer would have
seen the flaw in this logic—the theory of MPA impacts on adjoining areas requires at least a generation
for abundance to build inside reserves and recruitment to spill out (Hilborn 2002). The displacement of
fishing effort from inside to outside the reserve should initially cause abundance outside to decrease, so the
increasing abundance outside the reserve after MPA establishment must have been due to an uncontrolled
effect.

These four examples illustrate a failure of the peer review system and lack of the basic skepticism needed in
science, and are unfortunately but a few of the many papers now appearing with similar sensational but
unsubstantiated headlines. The people who knew the data used in the Casey and Myers paper and the
Myers and Worm paper clearly were not involved in the review process, or the editors chose to
ignore their opinions. The complete absence of skepticism by the reviewers of the Roberts paper is a
concern. The Conover and Munch paper demonstrated that growth is a heritable trait, but failed to
demonstrate anything about how commercial fisheries operate. It did pose a testable hypothesis, but the
paper did not include the real fisheries data to see if there was support for the hypothesis.

A community of belief has arisen whose credo has become “fisheries management has failed, we need to
abandon the old approaches and use marine protected areas and ecosystem-based management.” I fear
that this belief has shaded the peer review process so badly that almost any paper showing a significant
decline in fish abundance or benefits of marine protected areas has a high probability of getting favorable
reviews in some journals regardless of the quality of the analysis. Critical peer review has been replaced by
faith-based support for ideas and too many scientists have become advocates. An advocate knows the
answer and looks for evidence to support it; a scientist asks nature how much support there is for
competing hypotheses.

Much of the problem lies in the kind of journals Science and Nature have become: commercial enterprises
covering a broad range of scientific issues. In a spoof of a Science article published on the New York Times
web site, one of the fictitious authors is quoted as saying “journal editors favor bold claims, because
these attract press attention and help recruit further bold papers, which in turn is a tonic for circulation and
advertising” (www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/science/17f rau.html?ex=1295154000&en=9ca2921bc
88fe0e3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&e mc=rss). Given the high prestige of Science and Nature and the
impact publication in these journals has on promotion and grants, one cannot blame authors for making
bold claims. Perhaps those of us in fisheries should simply not give articles in these journals the prestige
they now enjoy. Because of their general coverage, Science and Nature must have problems identifying
appropriate reviewers for an individual paper. While there is no easy solution to this, a good step would be
for journals to publish the names of reviewers who recommend publication. That would at least make it
clear if these journals are relying on a small group of like-minded reviewers who have little expertise
relevant
to technical papers. Finally, the fact that discredited papers continue to be widely cited is aggravated by the
fact the rebuttals frequently are not published by the original journal and may appear in gray literature or
technical journals. The high-profile journals need to be especially sensitive to critiques of articles they have
published and to formally withdraw discredited papers.

Although the scientific community was unanimous in its condemnation of faithbased teachings in
evolution, we need to also reject agenda-driven, faith-based publication in fisheries and revive the peer
review and publication process within our own community. Let’s go back to testable hypotheses and
evidence, and make sure that the peer reviewers know the data and the problem, and are not chosen because
of their faith.

LITERATURE CITED
Boelke, D., T. Gedamke, K. Sosebee, A.
Valliere, and B. Vanpelt. 2005. Final skate
annual review. New England Fishery
Management Council. Newburyport,
Massachusetts.
Casey, J. M., and R. A. Myers. 1998. Near
extinction of a large widely distributed fish.
Science 281:690-692.
Conover, D. O., and S. B. Munch. 2002.
Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary
time scales. Science 297:94-96.
Hampton, J., J. R. Sibert, P. Kleiber, M. N.
Maunder, and S. J. Harley. 2005. Decline
of Pacific tuna populations exaggerated?
Nature 434:E1-E2.
Hilborn, R. 2002. Marine reserves and fisheries
management. Science 295:1233-1234.
Kulka, D. W., K. Frank, and J. Simon. 2002.
Barndoor skate in the Northwest Atlantic
off Canada: distribution in relation to
temperature and depth based on
commercial fisheries data. Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
2002/073.
Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters.
1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation,
and conservation—lessons from history.
Science 260:17,36
Myers, R. A., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid
worldwide depletion of predatory fish
communities. Nature 423:280-283.
Polacheck, T. 2006. Tuna longline catch rates
in the Indian Ocean: did industrial fishing
result in a 90% rapid decline in the
abundance of large predatory species?
Marine Policy 30:470-482.
Roberts, C. M., J. A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J. P.
Hawkins, and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects
of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries.
Science 294:1920-1923.
Walters, C. J. 2003. Folly and fantasy in the
analysis of spatial catch rate data. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
60:1433-1436.

Ray Hilborn
Hilborn is the Richard C. and Lois M.
Worthington Professor of Fisheries
Management at the School of Aquatic and
Fisheries Sciences, University of
Washington, Seattle. He can be contacted
at rayh@u.washington.edu.

Fisheries • VOL 31 NO 11 • NOVEMBER 2006 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 554 - 555

[tippet]

Originally Posted by ODIN

OK Tippet, I'll call your bluff.

Site one single study by these or any other scientist, that shows a valid assessment of current fish populations. And the threat that requires Marine Reserves as the solution.

Bob

I will be the first to admit I am not terribly well informed on this issue - and because of that I have refrained up until today from posting on this issue. Lubchenco and Menge have not been involved in stock assesments, but rather research species interactions, trophic cascade effects, and dispersal and recruitment of larval fish and other organisms in relation to ocean currents and disturbance events in nearshore environments.

My understanding is that this one of the primary reasons MR's are being promoted is that they have been documented elsewhere (I have read a number of scientific papers reviewing effects of MR's - and can provide if interested) as increasing biodiversity - not necessarily increasing populations of harvested fish species or even in response to declining stocks. Increased biodiversity is generally associated with increased resilience to disturbance and/or changing conditions and is therefore considered desireable.

In the review papers i have taken the time to read, a common thread was that MR's fairly consitently result in increased biodiversity, but not always in increased abundance of commercially valuable fish species.

Since you asked, here is some data from a WDFW website on Yelloweye rockfish based on assessment trends that suggests a population crash (I know, I know, this is already addressed by closures in some areas. However, we dont have a handle on how much bycatch there is)

Tippet (Aaron)


Oregon
Results from the Stock Synthesis model indicate that stock biomass has significantly declined throughout the time series. Current spawning biomass is estimated to be approximately 13% of the unfished spawning biomass.

Year Biomass (mt) Begin Year Spawning 90 1626 593 91 1600 569 92 1508 520 93 1357 454 94 1193 397 95 1110 362 96 903 296 97 778 255 98 603 207 99 562 198 00 500 182
Oregon
Recruitment estimates are quite variable and imprecise across the time series. Above average recruitment (age 3 recruits) occurred during 1986 and 1987, but recruitment failure is evident during the last decade.

1,000's of Age 3 Recruits

Year Recruitment 86 174.6 87 53.9 88 32.9 89 23.8 90 21.3 91 17.5 92 12.2 93 8.8 94 8.2 95 8.3 96 9.5
Oregon
Commercial exploitation rate peaked at over 30% in 1997 decreasing to less that 2% in 2000. Exploitation rate in the sport fishery has been at or below 3% across the time series.

Exploitation Rate

Year Sport Commercial 90 0.015 0.039 91 0.016 0.092 92 0.023 0.144 93 0.020 0.179 94 0.017 0.115 95 0.017 0.274 96 0.010 0.221 97 0.021 0.322 98 0.030 0.098 99 0.030 0.170 00 0.017 0.011

[Salty Walty]

There is a corresponding Lecture by Prof. Hilborn on this topic. If you have the time it is worth the time. It was put up in 12/06 here by Keywest.

http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2515

[tippet]

Salty Walty - thanks for posting that editorial. Very interesting. Indeed there are many flaws with the peer review process. Objectivity in scientists is held up as the gold standard, but of course, scientists, like all of us, are influenced by beliefs that guide what they choose to study, etc. Good ones of course stick to the data and acknowledge shortcomings in study designs or available data. In my experience, flawed papers that make it through the peer review process are usually picked apart in subsequent papers by other authors, but obviously not always and it doesnt prevent folks with an agenda from cherry picking publications to support their agenda.

And again, I dont want to be construed as an Enviro-whacko (although I do believe in sound stewardship and believe in proactive management based on a precautionary principle), nor am I a proponent of MR's. I am an ecologist, and I do believe in the scientific process and the search for knowledge about the world we live in.

Look forward to learning more about this contentious subject.

Tippet (Aaron)

[Salty Walty]

Tippet, thanks for the reply. There are many factors regarding this issue. Resistance to the subject might be greatly reduced if these areas were not portrayed as the only answer by their staunch advocates. Even some MR proponents are dismayed in how poorly this has been handled, portrayed and presented to the public. There are not many anglers I know that do not consider themselves good and responsible stewards. The fact that we are being portrayed as ignorant knuckle draggers by the advocates, who will never understand does not help their cause. Skepticism does not equate to ignorance and a little truthfulnees and honesty often leads to understanding.

[Nalu]

As Walter can attest, and a search of my past posts on this will show, I started off being a proponent of possible marine reserves in Oregon. I have SCUBA dove areas that are protected in many places (Northwest, West Coast, Canada, California, Mexico, and HI) and it is easy to see the diversity that is generated.

That being said, as someone who believes our resources should always take precedent over recreational or commercial uses of them, implementation of Marine Reserves in the manner that is taking place is a joke. If there was just something that logical anglers and users of the resource could grab onto that made sense and provided reasonable analysis and implementation, my guess is that things could move forward.

As it is, things are obviously politically motivated, and I feel that representing oneself as being in a particular industry when full disclosure shows that to be inaccurate is a deceptive practice. I've had my boots on the deck of our commercial boat in the 70's, and my boots on the deck of charter boats that I either worked on or ran in the 80's, 90's, and currently. I find it very misleading for fishing guides that don't work the ocean to represent themselves as such. That simple misrepresentation says a whole lot in my opinion. Other people on the outside might not get it, but those of us that know do.

Mike Jespersen

[Salty Walty]

tippet- on the graphs you presented they only date to 2000. They do not show any of the progress made since then. The RCA which was established since then and effectively closed 85% of the EEZ from the Mex/Ca border to the WA/Can border to bottom gear has had an effect, and stocks have benefitted. Many consider this one of the largest MPAs created. The RCA, current Management and its successes need to be recognized and not ignored or discounted. Your statement regarding Yelloweye are not correct. They are strictly monitored for bycatch in both the commercial and sport fisheries and are currently in a rebuilding process. As you eluded to, adding up columns, cherry picking data, using old data and ignoring present measures for the purpose of furthering ones agenda is not objective.

Take a look at the progress chart for quota on species Yellow eye is one of them on the ODFW site;

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/default.aspx?p=41

[Bloom]

I attended the meeting in Gold Beach and was impressed with the standing-room only capacity crowd of impassioned speakers. Mr. Drehobl summed it up nicely with his references to pure vs junk science. There has to be a needs assessment before implementing any kind of plan, in my opinion.

I'm not up to speed on the science or the dynamics of marine reserves, I'm just a lone voice who loves to fish, but it seems to me that any sort of study should include conducting that study in current conditions where we, as anglers are impacting the study area. If fishing a given area is halted, that act alone should impact that area and thereby skew the data. It seems like the governor is attempting to place a fix on a problem that may or may not exist.

I may be missing something, but I really don't understand how reserves, successful or not in other parts of the world have any bearing on our own unique coastal waters.

[tippet]

Originally Posted by Salty Walty

tippet- on the graphs you presented they only date to 2000. They do not show any of the progress made since then. The RCA which was established since then and effectively closed 85% of the EEZ from the Mex/Ca border to the WA/Can border to bottom gear has had an effect, and stocks have benefitted.
http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/default.aspx?p=41

Salty Walty - yes - unfortunately I couldn't find data on available biomass or recruitment for more recent years - its probably out there somewhere though. I was not intentionally cherry picking to make my point, simply responding to Odin's request for a study that demonstrated that any of our local stocks were in trouble.

The web site you referenced is all based on quotas and I dont know how they relate to population estimates. So while I would agree that the aggressive management you talked about has probably improved things it seems unlikely that available biomass has recovered to 1970 levels in the top graph I posted. If recruitment is increasing then we should expect recovery of biomass over time. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

If anyone comes across the data for 2001-2007 it would be interesting to see.

I gotta get back to work for now. I appreciate the thoughtful responses to my original posts.


Tippet

[Salty Walty]

Tippet I am sorry, my cherry picking comment was not directed at you. Much of the information that is being presented by the advocates is old and not always presented in its entirety. I and many others would call 85% more than agressive as far as the RCA is concerned. The quota process was to illustrate the fact that bycatch for that species is being addressed and monitored. As of the last PFMC meeting nearly all species were reported to be responding to current management and are ahead of their rebuilding plans. Here is a link to the PFMC Newsletter from the most recent meeting.
http://www.pcouncil.org/newsletters/currentnews.pdf

With the rebound occurring under current management it will need to be quantified by the MR proponents exactly how much faster these stocks will recover under their regime.

[Jennie@ifish]

PLEASE NOTE:

We realize and respect your opinion. However, we insist that you discuss things on ifish without insults against any opposite thinking party.

Could you take the time to please delete any name calling or other statement that might be considered offensive or rude and not conducive to a healthy debate?

At ifish we steer clear of demeaning remarks about people or groups when disagreeing. We don't want everything sanitized, but a good discussion is trading ideas, not calling names.

One thing I really pride ifish in is our ability to discuss things without name calling, or insults. It really helps us to be heard and respected in our fishing community. Your cooperation and compliance not only really appreciated, but it is part of our acceptable use policy.

Besides, and you may want to seriously consider this, -We find that people are more apt to listen and even change their tune if they aren't being insulted along with being disagreed with.

We are going to be doing some house cleaning, but before we do... we'd like to give you some time to do this yourself. We would rather have the person(s) who wrote the remarks edit, rather than have us editing for you. If you would avoid group or personal insults in the future, we'd appreciate that, too!

It would save us several personal PM's if you'd take the time to review your opinions here, and delete any remarks that only serve to anger, insult, or degrade.

In appreciation,

Jen

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by Jennie@ifish

PLEASE NOTE:

Isn't this exactly what is occuring here?

[Pilar]

I would not take my car to the dentist for a tune up. And I would not trust inexperienced in fisheries management persons to manage the fisheries on our coast.

Wp makes a very salient pont. And we have seen this borne out in recent history. When you close areas to fishing the effort shifts to other areas. When the 40 fathom restrictions and Stonewall bank closure went in the black rockfish nearshore were caught in larger numbers. By fishermen who stopped for a little bottom fishing after a limit of Halibut or salmon. This shift in effort to the areas nearshore actully closed the ocean for bottom fishing on a Labor day holiday weekend.

Luckily we had some professional and experienced fisheries managers to monitor the increased Black Rockfish take and close the season before the quota was exceeded. Even in the face of controversy and outraged charter fishers they closed it and managed in a conservative way.

Thier efforts continue to steward the resource and allow commercial and sport fishing off our coast in a sustainable fashion. The damaged rockfish populations restrict fishing for other species in the form of bycatch limits. Limits that drop year to year on Yellow Eye and Widow rockfish. The Magnusen Stephens act compels our fisheries managers to develop recovery plans for these rockfish populations. This effort is well under way for Yellow eye and other species. We've all experienced this conservation effort in closed areas and rule changes for halibut fishing.

The thing about rockfish is thier longevity. Recovery times for these long lived fish are 75 years in some cases. The real issue is how many fish were in the unfished population and how many now. It's a big question since all decisions about allowed catch are based on those things.

It comes down to this basic question. Who would you want to take care of our wild ocean and outdoors? Do you want the folks who are doing it now and in my opinion doing a good job or do you want people who do not have experience here locally who may not understand the effects of closing areas off our coast. We have a system of regulations and quotas. Overfishing has been a problem in the past but the huge closed area off the entire west coast has drastically reduced the commercial rockfish catch. These measures were done by the people we have now.

We have a marine reserve already, the rockfish conservation area.

Imagine the shift if areas that are habitually fished are closed.

[KChookem]

Originally Posted by Jennie@ifish

PLEASE NOTE:

... she may be referring to a few comments about researchers, scientists, and at least one very respected guide who is known for his tremendous volunteer effort for fish estuary preservation and restoration (and it is not MR).

We who are concerned about MRs should be able to persuade people without attacking a person’s honesty, integrity, and moral character. “Attack” or debate their research or data – no problem. Attack the person and they will likely withdraw from the discussion, and many will simply discredit everything else we have to say.

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

That is the same info I had about Bob
He has not responded to that ? yet

I think the part about profiting means that if MRs are put in that more people will choose to go with guides in fresh water as opposed to using ocean charters for thier fishing because there will be no salt water fishing worth pursuing

I do not see where I insulted or called any one names
But to clairfy I have continued my discussion w/Bob in private
And I have provided him with links to info and he was open minded enough to state he would research that info

There will be no further mention of him in my posts

[Mark Mc]

One issue I do see here is that.....when somebody takes a very public stand it should be very clear for whom they are speaking. If a person says he represents himself (e.g. "this is my opinion only") then that is fine. But if somebody gives the appearance that they represent a larger group of constituents, then it is fair game and expected to ask some clarifying questions.

In the example of this Mr Bob Rees, the water is a bit muddy (for me anyways). I doubt very, very much that he speaks for the constituency of ocean charterboat operators & operations, when it comes to the statements on marine reserves. But his bio & story include comments about the ocean charter business, so it could be construed / interpreted by some to mean that he is speaking for them.

I think it would help to keep the discussion civil, and a lot easier to follow, if Mr Rees would clarify whom he is speaking for regarding his stand on marine reserves. Is it:

- just himself?
- a group of freshwater / lower Columbia guides?
- others?

Thanks,

Mark

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Mark Mc

One issue I do see here is that.....when somebody takes a very public stand it should be very clear for whom they are speaking. If a person says he represents himself (e.g. "this is my opinion only") then that is fine. But if somebody gives the appearance that they represent a larger group of constituents, then it is fair game and expected to ask some clarifying questions.

In the example of this Mr Bob Rees, the water is a bit muddy (for me anyways). I doubt very, very much that he speaks for the constituency of ocean charterboat operators & operations, when it comes to the statements on marine reserves. But his bio & story include comments about the ocean charter business, so it could be construed / interpreted by some to mean that he is speaking for them.

I think it would help to keep the discussion civil, and a lot easier to follow, if Mr Rees would clarify whom he is speaking for regarding his stand on marine reserves. Is it:

- just himself?
- a group of freshwater / lower Columbia guides?
- others?

Thanks,

Mark

Here's a direct quote from Bob Rees.

"Hey Hank,

Sorry to be so tardy in returning your email. I was at a STEP meeting this weekend when you originally emailed.

I am a proponent of MR but NWGAA board wishes to remain neutral at this time."


I'm not a bit confused over what Bob said, he said he's for the MR''s, but NWGAA board is neutral.

[Nalu]

freespool- I concur with Mark Mc on this, and take issue with the way Mr. Rees has presented himself in different venues the last several years. I do not begrudge Mr. Rees his opinion, just the way he has chosen to present himself.

Mr. Rees has presented himself in different panels as "licensed charterboat owner" and in written statements referred to his "decision to become a charterboat captain".

These are in fact not untrue statements. What I take issue with is simply the presentation of these true statements in such a way as to imply that Mr. Rees is a fair representation of a typical Oregon charter boat owner/captain, or that he represents the common beliefs of a typical Oregon charterboat captain or owner.

It is humbly my opinion that the letter that Mr. Rees wrote to the Daily Astorian while containing factual information is written in such a way as to give the reader the opinion of an experienced "charterboat" operator in Oregon. It is also my opinion that most experienced anglers would define a coastal guide that will operate in the ocean as being singularly different than a dedicated "charter" operator regardless of the "charterboat" sticker that may be applied to the side of a boat.

Marine Reserves are already a hotly contested item. I think it is a fair assesment that Oregon "Charterboat" operators as well as the ports they work out of are universally united against the current mode of Marine Reserve implementation.

I respect Mr. Rees opinion and his right to express that opinion. If his conviction and belief leads him to fight for Marine Reserves, then by all means he should do so.

I do feel that if any individual is pursuing Marine Reserves on behalf of a group or foundation than those motives should be made clear, and that includes announcing the group or foundation that they are representing. If the group or foundation that individual represents has in the past been directly involved in providing grants to help plan and implement Marine Reserves than that information should also be shared. In a public forum I believe it is ultimately unfair if those being asked to choose a side are not aware of what the end game is.

Mike Jespersen

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Nalu

freespool- I concur with Mark Mc on this, and take issue with the way Mr. Rees has presented himself in different venues the last several years. I do not begrudge Mr. Rees his opinion, just the way he has chosen to present himself.

Mr. Rees has presented himself in different panels as "licensed charterboat owner" and in written statements referred to his "decision to become a charterboat captain".

These are in fact not untrue statements. What I take issue with is simply the presentation of these true statements in such a way as to imply that Mr. Rees is a fair representation of a typical Oregon charter boat owner/captain, or that he represents the common beliefs of a typical Oregon charterboat captain or owner.

It is humbly my opinion that the letter that Mr. Rees wrote to the Daily Astorian while containing factual information is written in such a way as to give the reader the opinion of an experienced "charterboat" operator in Oregon. It is also my opinion that most experienced anglers would define a coastal guide that will operate in the ocean as being singularly different than a dedicated "charter" operator regardless of the "charterboat" sticker that may be applied to the side of a boat.

Marine Reserves are already a hotly contested item. I think it is a fair assesment that Oregon "Charterboat" operators as well as the ports they work out of are universally united against the current mode of Marine Reserve implementation.

I respect Mr. Rees opinion and his right to express that opinion. If his conviction and belief leads him to fight for Marine Reserves, then by all means he should do so.

I do feel that if any individual that is pursuing Marine Reserves on behalf of a group or foundation than those motives should be made clear, and that includes announcing the group or foundation that they are representing. If the group or foundation that individual represents has in the past been directly involved in providing grants to help plan and implement Marine Reserves than that information should also be shared. In a public forum I believe it is ultimately unfair if those being asked to choose a side are not aware of what the end game is.

Mike Jespersen

I guess I don't know what a charter boat captain is. My interpretation has been guides work inside, and charter boats work outside.
Is there some other identifier?

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by freespool

I guess I don't know what a charter boat captain is. My interpretation has been guides work inside, and charter boats work outside.
Is there some other identifier?

freespool- In a nutshell you are absolutely correct. Now, as long as you have your Near Coastal OUPV license and have sent the $50 to the state of Oregon to get your charterboat license, you are legal to work seaward of the jetty tips.

My point is that guides working seaward of the jetty tips is not uncommon at all. If you see a guy in a 24 foot sled on the ocean with clients, do you think "guide" or do you think "charter"? Well, technically, they are classified as charter boats. Does that make them a "charter" in your opinion? This is the same way as the big boats working sturgeon in the CR are not "guides". They're charterboats working in the river.

My perception of a "charter" is a boat that typically would normally cross the bar to fish for ocean species including salmon and bottomfish, but also perhaps halibut and tuna. Crossing the bar on nice days and for bubble and Buoy 10 fisheries is not the same.

My final criteria would be to look and see how the individual identifies themselves in the business community. If they are a "guide" then that is typically what their company name implies and the species that are being fished for are "freshwater (or estuary/bubble) species. A charter will typically identify themselves the same way, and the species they go after will primarily be Ocean species.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Nalu

freespool- In a nutshell you are absolutely correct. Now, as long as you have your Near Coastal OUPV license and have sent the $50 to the state of Oregon to get your charterboat license, you are legal to work seaward of the jetty tips.

My point is that guides working seaward of the jetty tips is not uncommon at all. If you see a guy in a 24 foot sled on the ocean with clients, do you think "guide" or do you think "charter"? Well, technically, they are classified as charter boats. Does that make them a "charter" in your opinion? This is the same way as the big boats working sturgeon in the CR are not "guides". They're charterboats working in the river.

My perception of a "charter" is a boat that typically would normally cross the bar to fish for ocean species including salmon and bottomfish, but also perhaps halibut and tuna. Crossing the bar on nice days and for bubble and Buoy 10 fisheries is not the same.

My final criteria would be to look and see how the individual identifies themselves in the business community. If they are a "guide" then that is typically what their company name implies and the species that are being fished for are "freshwater (or estuary/bubble) species. A charter will typically identify themselves the same way, and the species they go after will primarily be Ocean species.

Thanks Mike for the explanation. One more question, if you have your OUPV, what does the state call it, a guide license or a charter licenses?

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by freespool

Thanks Mike for the explanation. One more question, if you have your OUPV, what does the state call it, a guide license or a charter licenses?

I don't think it is called either. Since that is a Coast Guard endorsement it is an "Operator" license. Operator of Uninspected Passenger Vessel. The rest of the world simply calls it a "6 Pack".

When you apply for a Charter License it is a pretty basic form as is the Guides License. The one cross-over in terminology as far as I can see is the on the Lower Columbia where a guide can apply for "Lower Columbia Charter" but this doesn't allow them to go in the ocean. To go in the Ocean you need to have the Charter License.

Again, this is the semantics I was addressing. Any fishing guide that has the appropriate license from the USCG and the sticker from the State of Oregon is absolutely a "charter". For the sake of defining groups with respect to where and how they typically operate, there are 2 distinct groups- guides and charters. Since I only take 4 people on my boat, I fish with high end gear, and typically act more like an ocean guide I'm in the minority, but I still consider myself a charter.

Just for the sake of putting it out there, the main difference between a "6-Pack" and a "Master" license from the USCG is experience required for the license, as well as some additional testing.

OUPV Inland- 18 years old, 360 days on the water, 90 days in the last 3 years
OUPV Near Coastal- 18 years old, 360 days on the water, 90 of which must be seaward of the boundary line, 90 days in the last 3 years
MASTER Near Coastal- 19 years old, 720 days on the water since the age of 16, 360 of which must be seaward of the boundary line, 90 days in the last 3 years.

I have held my Masters license for 18 years and I turned 37 this year. I earned the bulk of my sea time crossing the Tillamook Bar and I am pretty familiar with that area.

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by Nalu

....My perception of a "charter" is a boat that typically would normally cross the bar to fish for ocean species including salmon and bottomfish, but also perhaps halibut and tuna. Crossing the bar on nice days and for bubble and Buoy 10 fisheries is not the same.
My final criteria would be to look and see how the individual identifies themselves in the business community. If they are a "guide" then that is typically what their company name implies and the species that are being fished for are "freshwater (or estuary/bubble) species. A charter will typically identify themselves the same way, and the species they go after will primarily be Ocean species.....

But what really concerns me on this issue is the apparent neutrality of "sportfishing" organizations on this very important issue; especially when the leadership of these organizations is perceived to be in the anti-harvest camp.
Whether said leadership might be speaking as a private individual or not, perception is what counts.
With divisions like this in the fishing community, the PETA type folks will likely win in the long run by eliminating harvest fisheries one at a time.
This approach is working on hunting activities and will work on fishing also unless we support each other.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by roadsend

especially when the leadership of these organizations is perceived to be in the anti-harvest camp..

I'm probably a big sucker rising to this troll....but....

Nah, nevermind.

[Pilar]

Sportfishing associations

There really aren't any that represent saltwater anglers as they exist in Oregon. Oregon Anglers and RFA being the only things even coming close.

RFA in particular is active at the NMFS level.

That's one of the issues IMHO. No one to represent us and an organized, well funded group to mow us down.

[Chromaflage]

Join C....aw, never mind.

Originally Posted by Pilar

Sportfishing associations

There really aren't any that represent saltwater anglers as they exist in Oregon. Oregon Anglers and RFA being the only things even coming close.

That's one of the issues IMHO. No one to represent us and an organized, well funded group to mow us down.

[JimM]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Sportfishing associations

There really aren't any that represent saltwater anglers as they exist in Oregon. Oregon Anglers and RFA being the only things even coming close.

RFA in particular is active at the NMFS level.

That's one of the issues IMHO. No one to represent us and an organized, well funded group to mow us down.

Thank you, Pilar.

The RFA is the only recreational sportfishing organization active on marine reserves, wave energy -- basically we fight for your basic public access to marine resources against overwhelming odds.

It's a shame we often have to tangle with "conservation" groups when we should all be on the same side.

John Holloway, Salty Walty, Dennis Richey and Oregon Anglers have been tying the Governor in knots recently, with your support. You know that the anti-fishing interests have raised millions to shut us down. We haven't gone anywhere; the RFA is committed to advocating for the saltwater fishermen and public access and we need your support.

Join the RFA. Give it a try. They won't mow us down if you get involved.

[Metal Manipulator]

I hope that a representative of RFA will be at the convention to sign up renewals and new members. I myself need a renewal. I just like the personal touch.

[black magic]

Wet Fly,
We will be there. Why if you renew your support for our work then maybe we could even give you a big hug. But that's as far as we are willing to go in the personal touch department.
Cheers,
John Holloway

[Metal Manipulator]

[tailchaser]

I found a couple of snippets from Bob Rees' recent posts in areas he fishes, this comes from the Kilches discussion....

"Bottom line, we are not efficient as a harvest management tool."

"When these decisions become a choice led by government or our agencies, THAT SUCKS! Personal choices would certainly help the matter but keep in mind that over-harvest is likely not the issue and when we point the finger at ourselves, we are not doing ourselves any favors in a society where the vast majority would tend to agree with you! It's bad enough a large segment of the public want to limit our access to these magnificent fish, we would we advocate for it if it wasn't necessary?"

"How about we look at the real limiting factors in fish production:"

"We're still on habitat here...... you think mudslides are bad, try and survive the killer (and I do mean that literally) summer water temperatures that happen in these watersheds. Last year, we had a large number of days when the temps exceeded 72 degrees. In those cooking temps, a fish will die in just a matter of hours- I guarantee it. Now, that also doesn't hold much water since our fall chinook are the only species (besides our friendly chum) that don't oversummer in our watersheds. Chum, coho, cutthroat and what's left or a next-to-non-existent wild run of spring chinook are all oversummering salmonids. Have you seen those numbers lately?"

"Finally, ocean harvest. Ya know it ain't sporties on this subject as I know it's been mentioned before here on ifish. There is some pretty significant ocean interception going on in our northern waters. Rumors of 400,000+ fish in the pollock trawl fishery are false (I actually do have the numbers somewhere in my over-bulging Inbox) but between ocean trawl (I think it's closer to 100,00 this year) and commercial troll/sport harvest in SW Alaska/British Columbia, believe me, it's significant."

So, what's the best thing to do? If you don't have the time to advocate on your own behalf (like so many of your great family/hard working people) join a group that is taking up these issues:

NW Guides and Anglers Association: www.nwguidesandanglers.org
NSIA: www.nsiafishing.org
CCA: www.ccapnw.org

All good choices.


Bob Rees


I'm not here to bag on Bob, because I don't know him from Adam on the street corner, but what I did notice is he's like so many of us, going along with something as long as it's not in our backyard. Well, this is in my backyard and I'm not happy about the reserves one bit. Contradiction in his statements is noted when comparing the Kilches to the Ocean Policy. Same figures can hold true on both ends when comparing Commercial vs. Sport harvest. I'm also against his public stance when he knows he represents a large community in the guides association and it's not hard for someone to link the two together, especially for a proponent on the other side of the coin who will use it to thier advantage. If he wanted to write that, fine, do it as an unidentified source and not proclaim things that may or may not be true. What guts me the most is how someone on one side of the fence is all for sportfishing rights and protection in the rivers and can be for the horrible science and politics on the other cheek when it's in an area he doesn't really fish. Anyhow, very annoying to me personally........

Jim Pex

[Pilar]

Yep lets make the first reserves between the jaws of every major bay. Completely shut down the sled head fishery.

That would change the tune of these 'Ocean charter fishers'.

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Yep lets make the first reserves between the jaws of every major bay. Completely shut down the sled head fishery.

That would change the tune of these 'Ocean charter fishers'.

Sounds like a good compromise.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Yep lets make the first reserves between the jaws of every major bay. Completely shut down the sled head fishery.

That would change the tune of these 'Ocean charter fishers'.

That's a really interesting idea Pilar! Since some of the greatest biodiversity is in the area immediately inside and outside the line of demarcation, the area between the tips of the jaws and perhaps 1/2 a mile inside and out might be a good area to propose....

Instead of silence from the guides, I image the outcry would be deafening.

[Pilar]

OK, I propose the Columbia from Astoria Megler bridge to the Sparkplug. Where do I get a MR nomination application?

[KChookem]

I propose the Columbia from Astoria Megler bridge to the Sparkplug.

That area, and far upriver, could come under the Marine Reserve Act, if my recollection is correct. Admittedly, it has been a few years since I did any research of the MR Act, but I do recall a mental picture that the MR Act could come into play for every drop water that can work its way to the ocean. In Oregon, that is pretty much everything but the Oregon portion of the Great Basin.

It may seem preposterous to think that an Oregon MR Act would affect irrigation in Hermiston, or lawn fertilizing in Medford, but ??? Think Snowy Plover, Spotted Owl, plus Darters, Salamanders and fungus whose names I do not recall.

I also recall a concern the MR would come under Federal jurisiction rather than just Oregons control. I believe that even Oregon MR supporters did not want that to happen.

[tailchaser]

All tributary waters was the original proposal from the gov's office. That has since been dropped due to the initial uproar it caused.

tc