OPAC Outreach, Coos Bay

[tailchaser]

I went to the meeting in N.Bend/Coos Bay tonight and was as usual a bit disheartened about the process. Here's the main things to chew on. The speakers start out in thier discussion more or less saying this train is coming and will be submitted to the gov. on potential areas for him to consider in November. They then continue to downtalk the importance of the OPAC entity itself in the decision making process which caught my attention also. Third, they mention what they do and do not have in information to make this decision. This in itself explains exactly why I'm against the proposal of them in Oregon.

Explaining these things are pretty simple. First by railing the mindset that they are going to happen and lets stop arguing against it is in thier favor to create them. One of the speakers even went as far as to mention if we all would just come together like Port Orford, Depoe Bay, and I believe Seaside then this process would be much easier. They failed to mention these were the only towns to somewhat agree to a Marine Reserve. Nice. Secondly, by downplaying the importance of OPAC will lighten the public criticism of the gov. when he oversteps them in the future to impliment the reserves without thier blessing. It's a major fupaw to do so, so he's going to need support. Just my guess, but that's what is coming in my eyes. Finally, within thier information they acknowledge they know less than 5% of the ocean floors within the areas they're making decisions on and would like our imput on where we should put them. So who is going to pony up and point out thier favorite fishing spot? Anybody? If someone could come to me with science, not political science, real science and could show what areas are critical to spawning, where the fish go, how we could help, and offer to remove the areas once certain goals were reached, I might just go along with it. Until then, it's still throwing enough crap on the wall until some sticks in my eyes.

tc

[stream]

Did they let people ask questions or was it just them telling us what they are going to do. Could people give testimony? One more question was there a lot support for or against? thanks

[Salty Walty]

Thanks TC,
The prolonging the inevitable routine is getting old. This whole process has done nothing more than show that this is being done for political reasons. Showing up and demanding some accountability and not waving the white flag is an option too. A little honesty in being dealt with would be nice.

[black magic]

Thank you TC.
They wore down the California Fishermen. The fishermen waved the white flag. They got on the train, so to speak. They ultimately lost access to 50% of their groundfish in central area. The fishermen presented all of their closure proposals which minimized their losses. In the end, all of their proposals costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to scientifically justify their positions (even hiring actual fishery scientists) were ignored. Put your white flags away. They won't buy you any favor. Keep letting your elected officials know of your disgust with this.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. It aint over. She isn't even on her way to the concert hall.

[Pilar]

Compromise with an honorable opponent is a good strategy. But in doing that you are assuming that your opponent will give something in compromise.

We are dealing with a decision already made and now implemented at any cost.

So forget about compromise. Just hearing about the spin of Depoe Bay siting a reserve as support says it all. They compromised and the ship of state is grinding them underfoot.

Just say no to Pew and Oceana.

[tailchaser]

They had an interesting way of trying to include public comment. They wanted to have 5 questions that they had already created commented on. You had colored pieces of paper to do it on and was a little confusing and did what they wanted, half of the congregation left at that point ticked. They opened the floor to "only" talk about these 5 questions, but that didn't happen very well. Out of roughly 120 people only 2 showed support. The longshorman's group openly denounced it also.

tc

[stream]

Originally Posted by tailchaser

They had an interesting way of trying to include public comment. They wanted to have 5 questions that they had already created commented on. You had colored pieces of paper to do it on and was a little confusing and did what they wanted, half of the congregation left at that point ticked. They opened the floor to "only" talk about these 5 questions, but that didn't happen very well. Out of roughly 120 people only 2 showed support. The longshorman's group openly denounced it also.

tc

Thansk Tc I was wondring how would run things

[black magic]

Thanks again TC.
It looks as if the process hasn't changed. It is very disappointing. I thought they actually were seeking candid public input. It looks as if they want to totally control the feedback. Maybe at the next meeting everyone should just get up and walk out when they are told that their input will restricted. Or perhaps ignore the instructions and let'em have it.

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by black magic

Thanks again TC.
It looks as if the process hasn't changed. It is very disappointing. I thought they actually were seeking candid public input. It looks as if they want to totally control the feedback. Maybe at the next meeting everyone should just get up and walk out when they are told that their input will restricted. Or perhaps ignore the instructions and let'em have it.

It seems to me that they could spin walking out to their advantage. They should somehow be told that restricted input is unacceptable.

[black magic]

Originally Posted by roadsend

It seems to me that they could spin walking out to their advantage. They should somehow be told that restricted input is unacceptable.

Valid input. Thank You

[polepole]

Originally Posted by black magic

Thank you TC.
They wore down the California Fishermen. The fishermen waved the white flag. They got on the train, so to speak. They ultimately lost access to 50% of their groundfish in central area.

BM, that's not how I saw it in CA. There was no flag waving going on. We got hoodwinked there. In the end, it didn't matter what we did. The train rolled over us.

In the central CA MLPA, it turned out the BRTF didn't really listen to, or was not required to listen to all the feedback that was coming in. It seems they just did as they pleased.

I don't mean to discourage people from participating. Find out how you can really influence the system and work it as best you can.

-Allen

[black magic]

Allen. You are right, with respect to the MLPA. I should have been specific. I was referring overall to the 18+ years of history that fishermen have in California with environmental interests concerning fishery constraints in marine reserves and federal sanctuaries. There was a lack of popular outrage directed to elected officials.

[polepole]

Originally Posted by black magic

Allen. You are right, with respect to the MLPA. I should have been specific. I was referring overall to the 18+ years of history that fishermen have in California with environmental interests concerning fishery constraints in marine reserves and federal sanctuaries. There was a lack of popular outrage directed to elected officials.

Yes indeed. I got the feeling that we thought we could work within what we thought was the system. Probably should have had more "popular outrage directed to elected officials".

We're right in the middle of the North Coast MLPA process right now, with decisions being made in the near future. There was a series of public meetings similar to what we're talking about here. Here's one piece of feedback I saw on them.

"The meeting structure was horrible. After beating the crowd into submission with a 1.5 hour "briefing" they did not allow any meaningful input from the public. The main table of interest was overrun and you could hear or say squat. You had to write your concerns on a form, no opportunity to say your peace, or hear what others had to say. Many folks that came, left in frustration."

Time to release the outrage directed to elected officials?

-Allen

[polepole]

Oh .... looks like we're getting hoodwinked again in the CA MLPA. Geez, I feel some outrage coming on.

Here's a letter from Bob Franko, Chairman of the Coastside Fishing Club.

And yes, now there is a lot of white flag talk. Many people are feeling like just walking away from the table.

-Allen

--------------------------------------

Secretary Mike Chrisman
California Resources Agency
1416 Ninth St., Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814


Dear Mr. Chrisman:

When Fish & Game Director Ryan Broddrick and Deputy Director Greg Hurner asked me to get involved in the MLPA process because of Coastside’s moderate approach and demonstrated conservation values, they also told me that lessons had been learned from the Central Coast process. I honestly believed that erring on the side of Conservation, protecting recreational fishing, and letting science be our guide was the correct course. I went forward with these goals in mind; contacting other leaders of my community, and the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans was born.

Speaking on behalf of the Coastside Fishing Club and its 14000 members in this study region, I couldn’t feel more abused than I do at this moment. I have made speeches up and down the coast, have written articles, and have been often quoted; always saying we must endorse the process and proceed with our stated goals.

We have worked very hard to produce, and were about ready to unveil, the latest revision to our MPA proposal. In conservation value and economic value it would have topped them all. I believe it would have even gotten some environmental support. It was the sweet spot on the bat that everyone was looking for. So what happened? We could not get beyond the bias in the SAT or the BRTF. I will give you two examples where bias and not science is driving the process, and which are now making it impossible to successfully achieve the balance that we have always sought.

The first and most important is that salmon trolling in waters less than 50 meters was assigned a Level of Protection of only Moderate High. It should be noted that salmon are not a “species likely to benefit” from an MPA because they transit through it and there will be others that will enter the MPA even if one should be caught; therefore there is no impact by removing an occasional salmon. But the issue that SAT member Dr. Carr raised was not one of removal of salmon, but one of excessive rockfish by-catch while salmon trolling. He caught everyone that fishes by surprise, citing a workshop he had participated in where fisherman said they had by-catch of rockfish inside 50 meters. The salmon community was stunned because we know that just is not correct.

Subsequently the two specific anglers Dr. Carr referred to both sent letters to the SAT and BRTF saying that their comments had been taken out of context and had been completely misrepresented. Then party boat captains showed up with log books in hand and testified that their rockfish by-catch is less than 1%. Coastside asked for, and received DFG data for the most recent six years of salmon trolling in the month of May (when rockfish is not open); and analyzed it to determine the by-catch rate that would be expected in an MPA where take of rockfish was prohibited. That data clearly showed a by-catch rate of less that 0.2%. This did not even take into consideration that in shallow water rockfish can be released unharmed. Then Marine Game Warden Lt. Dennis McKiver, who has been the boarding officer in this region for the last 18 years, wrote a letter testifying that he has never seen more than 1% by-catch rates – and that was inside 10 fathoms (20 meters). I testified, as a man that spent most of his adult life on the water, as to what the by-catch was; and volunteered to poll our membership if they wanted numbers from a thousand anglers. NOAA spoke up, indicating their commercial data showed 1% by-catch rates. We have talked with everyone from Director of F&G John McCamman to the vice president of Oceana - all salmon fishermen - and all said never, or very rarely, was there any rockfish by-catch while trolling for salmon. Not one shred of scientific data was ever produced to indicate that significant rockfish by-catch occurred while salmon trolling. In the end the most respected Scientist on the SAT, Dr. Ray Hilborn, did an analysis and determined that even assuming a worst case scenario using by-catch rates 50 times the documented rates, there would still be no measurable difference to the ecosystem – and called for establishing the Level of Protection for salmon trolling at all depths to be Very High.

Yet even in the face of this data, testimony, and analysis the SAT refused to raise the level to High – and now the BRTF has made their policy decision to affirm the earlier Moderate High rating, a rating that excludes salmon fishing from most areas. They made this decision not because the data shows an impact from salmon trolling, but in spite of the data that shows it does not have impact. And then they said because other “unknown” data might show an impact we must be precautionary. The MLPA requires the use of “best readily available science,” not speculation or, in the words of Dr. Mark Carr, “feeling” or “precaution” as was stated by Meg Caldwell. We no longer have a recreational fishing option available with this ruling made contrary to the scientific evidence.

My second example has to do with Dr Gaines’ testimony to the BRTF on modeling. He showed three conditions: one under sustainable management, and two with different degrees of unsustainable management. Under the sustainable management scenario there was little difference between the various proposals regarding the abundance of rockfish, but there was an economic disparity between the more and less restrictive proposals. However that economic disparity was neutralized or even reversed under the two unsustainable conditions – while showing that even the most restrictive of the MPA concepts could not attain the rockfish abundances achieved with sustainable management. To her credit, the DFG representative spoke up and said the State does not manage for unsustainable conditions. Dan Wolford, a sitting PFMC council member, testified that by law the Council must manage to achieve a sustainable fishery: so the two unsustainable cases are completely unreasonable and not realistic – calling them lose-lose cases, unlike Dr. Gaines, who somehow managed to portray the worst of these as a win-win, and torpedoing any possibility of using the only credible option!

That’s two examples of violating or at least ignoring the law apparently to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

Here’s the worse part. In my world, a man’s word is everything. I keep my word and I won’t do business with someone who does otherwise. Before and during the BRTF meeting, we were misled. We were told by your staff that “everything is going to be all right.” We, and everyone attending the hearing, were told by Chair Golding that the salmon matter would be taken up early so that all members of the BRTF would be present for this important vote. However, this important vote was not taken up until the last of the meeting after a task force member had departed. You can’t expect us to have trust in a process when the person in charge can’t be trusted.

Speaking only for Coastside, I now question why we and other consumptive users should stay involved at this process. I see no opportunity to work toward our original objectives. I only see our presence as validating a process that appears set on a specific predetermined outcome.


Bob Franko, Chairman


Coastside Fishing Club

[John H]

We can't just walk away. That is a good strategy for them. Ask your questions no matter what they try to get you to do. If they are going to ram it down our throats, then at least make them suffer along.