Thoughts about MRs

[Deeman]

This deal today about the seminar has got me thinking. Now that the "outreach" meetings are over it seems to me that we may be begining a new phase of the Ocean grab. What I believe we are going to be seeing is another kind of outreach taking place. The kind of outreach where paid shills for the Big-Enviro groups, and government minions are sent into our community to preach the message that No Take Reserves are needed to stave off disaster on a global scale. Well maybe not that bad but pretty close. They will do this under the guise of information and education.They will show up at PTA meetings, in your kids school, at Chamber of Commerce meetings, Rotary clubs, sportsmens associations, even fishing seminars. They will appear suddenly in all manner of places that they can get well intentioned but uninformed (or mis-led) organizations to give them a forum. We will begin to see more of the one-sided print and media coverage that biased and agenda driven "journalists" are more than capable of producing (our resident journalist at Ifish excepted. He is a columnist and as such is supposed to have an opinion). These efforts will make the Sec. of State efforts look small in comparison.
It seems to me that it would behoove us as allied individuals against this plan to form some sort of response points that can be used to counter those dog and pony shows. It is my studied opinion that that these points should be comprised of three prongs.
1. Facts. Facts about the process. Facts about the proposal. Facts about why MRs are a bad Idea.
2. Science. We should all be able to cite a few studies by name and date that refute what they are saying about our nearshore Ocean system.
3. Questions. A few well placed questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered will do more to sway opinion, both towards us and away from the koolaide drinkers than any name calling or arguing (no matter how much fun it may be). Having done a fair bit of public speaking and seminars over the years nothing loses a crowd quicker or is more disconcerting to the average presenter than to be confronted with a question that cannot be answered. Examples: Where is that picture from? When was it taken? How does that effect OUR ocean? What are we trying to protect? What do you mean by biodiversity? How will we decide where to put them? Follow on with incredulity in your voice. You mean they will just be guesses? How will that help the environment? Ask how much the current protected areas are being studied. How we will pay for them and the like. I believe that most people are fairly intelligent and will quickly see what the truth is, if only someone is there to point it out to them before the skewed and one sided presentation has had time to cement in their minds. Questions need not be argumentative, in fact they should not be so. Ask like you really want to know their answer. Be polite but be firm about getting an answer to your question and not a non-answer talking point for the other side.
So where does this post leave us. I dont really know Maybe Blackmagic, has some stuff already printed up for us. Maybe we need to plan a get together at some central location on a Saturday afternoon and hammer some stuff out. Maybe we can do it with dedicated threads that can be added to and then printed off. I really dont know. What I do know is that if we had not been inadverdently made aware of "the shill"s looming presentation that a good number of potential supporters of our cause would have been indoctrinated with buzz-word fluff and scare tactics that we would have had to spend time and energy to undo. Public meetings are only the begining, keep your ear to the ground and your eye on the events section of your local rag and dont be suprised when the Koolaide is being handed out at an event near you.

[KeyWest]

I totally agree. The next major push will be to spread disinformation to those that have a vote but have no real interst in the debate.

[Mark Mc]

Deeman, great post.

I have a similar suspicion..... but mine is a "geographical" hunch. Meaning....the pro-reserve PR campaign will be taken to the inland areas....not just the valley, but eastern OR. I believe there is a strategy happening to get more of the "non-ocean using" public converted, just as much in La Pine or Hermiston, as in Portland.

Therefore it will take quite a counter-balance effort in all the towns of the state, to keep it "fair and balanced."

I'd very much like to hear from some salty dogs in Bend & other far-from-coast places....about what they might be hearing in their local grocery stores & barber shops.

[Chromaflage]

So why wait to go on defense? Is there a way to get in front of it and start educating people who live inland before the proponents get their chance?

[Seahunt]

Deemans ideas above have sparked a new interest in me for Salty dog posts about MR's. The idea that we have a thread that posts Facts that counteract statements from promoters of MR's whether their statements are fact or not, is the best idea yet. They may have been mentioned or stated before, just not easy to sort out. This is a great way to get our ideas in one spot, my printer is ready.
I would like to hear the reference for the fact; most spawning females do not do so within 3 miles of shore. I have seen lingcod eggs while scuba diving nearshore. Do other nearshore bottom fish go deep to spawn? This if a fact is a big point of MR promoters.

[Pilar]

It's in Milton Love's book. Every species is described in detail. Colors, defining characteristics, life history and preferred habitat. It's not that most rockfish don't spawn nearshore. Some species of rockfish do. Just not the ones that are overfished. The lie is that the MR's protect the overfished species.

Rockfish settle and live in a small area. Again that is some of them. The amazing thing I got from that book is the variety of rockfish species. They specialized by species and filled every niche in our ocean. As young fish they are plankton and disburse with the currents but once they settle that is where they live.

Lingcod are a management success story. They spawn nearshore and careful management combined with short life span have combined for a quick recovery. We see this offshore with many sublegal fish released.

[Seahunt]

"The lie is that the MR's protect the overfished species."

Thanks Pilar. simplification of our statements is sometimes the answer to clarification.

Another point that promoters use that urks me is that if our primary fishing grounds are turned in to MR's that we will just fish SOMEWHERE ELSE. That is for sure a statement from someone that doesn't fish the ocean much! They do not understand the impact to fishing if primary fishing grounds are turned into MR's. We need a fact statement that displays what is lost in terms of $ and uses to coastal communities from a MR that forces fishermen to fish where no fish exist. Evaluations of the economic lose factors correctly done considering the proper factors would open some eyes. How can we address this? When I tell them MR's in these areas will ruin our fishing they still feel -The ocean is a really big place and we can just fish somewhere else.
It's not easy making fact statements or questions leading to the same.

[tailchaser]

There is also another term being thrown around, "we want to study the effects on an area when we create a no take MR." I've heard this many times.

Here's the catch (no pun intended), we have plenty of areas to conduct studies already in place and there isn't a dime left to be spent on them. Why would creating a MR give us the opportunity for funding to do the studies without outside donations?

Secondly, it doesn't take a scientist to know what the outcome would be of a study if they did close down an area completely. Regardless of it working or not, they are going to cover thier arses and say it helped not only to keep it in place, but to justify the money spent on them to do the research. No one is going to put themselves on the line of saying we wasted a bunch of money to put them in and it didn't work. Just ask the state climatologist how it turned out for him?

tc

[Irish Pennant]

I work in manufacturing and have all my adult life. I'm not an articulate person. I can design and build complex progressive dies, I can speak engineereses all day long but I can't put into words what I think about marine reserves or the organizations that are pushing for them. I am absolutely opposed to MR's. If I was to join an organization that's opposed to MR's, which one would be the most effective, local and national?

Cal has had marine reserves for a while. Have any of you articulate types been in contact with some of the Cal fishing clubs to get their input on how to battle this?

Is there a SD meeting planned to discuss this issue? Not a TA meet where every one is talking tuna but a focused SD discussing about MR's. I went to one compact meeting and the seminar at the SD convention but it wasn't enough.

Yea Yea I know, Join the CCA. They can't be effective if they are everything to everybody. I don't think that the CCA has yet to find their identity in Oregon. If they are focused on the MR's then I'll support them otherwise I'll put my money where it will do some good.

[Nalu]

I posted this on a new thread, but I'll post part of it again here.

Being against how marine reserves were implemented and funded in California should not automatically make anglers against "Marine Reserves". What myself and hopefully many others are against is NOT Marine Reserves, but rather, the improper implementation, and possible funding by out of state agenda driven entities.

Marine Reserves themselves are inanimate things. I doubt anyone here would say they are against "Wildlife Refuges", but if you say your are against Marine Reserves, you are saying the same thing. No-take zones can and do provide benefit for the habitat and ecosystem that they are located in whether it is on land or at sea. Oregon has large areas set aside as Wildlife Refuges and as many hunters know they aren't a bad thing.

I can understand why people want to say that Oregon should have areas set aside in our territorial waters that provide the same things as we have established on land. I just don't want implementation of things taking place that are driven by outside groups that provide misinformation to create areas that are not needed. A linked system of Marine Reserves is not needed to fix any current problems.

[SecondSeason]

it seems to me that if the environmentalists really want to save the ocean life than maybe they should put down their chop sticks wipe the wasabi from their chins and try to stop or reduce the demand for fish from the sea not the other way around.

maybe the MR zones should start in downtown Ptown and other cities around that have more sushi bars than latte stands. Lets use science to prove that sushi comes from the ocean and that we should close off blocks around each sushi bar first then we can move on to other areas.

[Irish Pennant]

Nalu, with all due respect, I am against Marine Reserves. They are a tool to be used to gain a beach head in the assult by groups that have a slash and burn mentality when it comes to pushing their over all agenda for their vision for eutopia. I will not entertain the idea. MR's are not about the resource, they are a movements vision of eutopia. I have drawn my line in the sand.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Irish Pennant

Nalu, with all due respect, I am against Marine Reserves. They are a tool to be used to gain a beach head in the assult by groups that have a slash and burn mentality when it comes to pushing their over all agenda for their vision for eutopia. I will not entertain the idea. MR's are not about the resource, they are a movements vision of eutopia. I have drawn my line in the sand.

That's fair enough. You have every right to your opinion and your beliefs.

Unfortunately that means that you also oppose people such as myself and many like me. We are the type that believe that areas set aside are important not merely for the value of what they can provide, but also because socially we would like the opportunity to see pristine environments. Just as I like the ability to visit Yellowstone, Glacier, or the myriad of other parks, I also enjoy visiting areas that are natural marine environments. These marine environments are a public resource, and as such John Q. Public is entitled to their say in them just as much as the extractive users. If their say is that they would like to have areas that are non-extractive, then that is not an unreasonable request.

You also lump in a great many people that are legitimately interested in the resource that perhaps do not fish, but do understand the needs of those who do. Labeling these people as only agenda driven does nothing to move forward with reasonable solutions that benefit everyone.

[Chromaflage]

Mike, you can still go to Yellowstone, correct? You can still drive through it, camp in it and enjoy it for what it is. And if I'm not mistaken, you can even "take" some things from the set aside. The line here is MRs Vs. no-take/limited take zones. Based on the definition of MRs, you wouldn't even be able to navigate across them.

Further, with all due respect, your comment:

" Unfortunately that means that you also oppose people such as myself and many like me."

First: So? Not trying to be rude, Mike, and I do have a lot of respect for you, but statements like this perplex me. How dare someone oppose you?

Second, how about an MR that's 1 square mile in size plopped right in front of the hole at Depot?

I think there's a disconnect in what people are saying about MRs and what you're thinking they are saying about no-take/limited take zones, Mike.

[Grain of Salt]

Just curious if a person's time spent in Oregon affects their position in MR's.

I have lived here 45 years and watched many good resources and opportunites vanish. Maybe some that are more recent additions see things from a different benchmark and feel things arent as bad as I do.

not yet for or against MR'S yet, but either way, it must be a science (accurate) based approach.

no offense intended to anyone.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Chromaflage

Mike, you can still go to Yellowstone, correct? You can still drive through it, camp in it and enjoy it for what it is. And if I'm not mistaken, you can even "take" some things from the set aside. The line here is MRs Vs. no-take/limited take zones. Based on the definition of MRs, you wouldn't even be able to navigate across them.

Further, with all due respect, your comment:

" Unfortunately that means that you also oppose people such as myself and many like me."

First: So? Not trying to be rude, Mike, and I do have a lot of respect for you, but statements like this perplex me. How dare someone oppose you?

Second, how about an MR that's 1 square mile in size plopped right in front of the hole at Depot?

I think there's a disconnect in what people are saying about MRs and what you're thinking they are saying about no-take/limited take zones, Mike.

What I was trying to say Kerry is that if you oppose any concept of no-take zones or Marine Reserves you are in fact on an opposite side of the fence from me. I have said again and again that I completely respect the right of anyone to have a different take than I have. Stating that if you do not believe in no take zones simply means that your differ from me and do oppose my stance.

As for your second point. The Depoe Bay NSAT has already identified an area. It has been proven time and again that by providing a solution it is much easier to reach agreement than not providing anything. NSAT decided on an area that they felt was a worthy location and has put it forward. An attempt to pull other areas into the mix that are outside of this area and areas that have been designated as fishing grounds will now be a really tough fight.

You may be right about a disconnect, and that is my point. There is a lot of good information that was provided at the Seagrant meetings the last few weeks. Much of this information should give people lots of ideas of how to go about fighting improperly implemented MR's. It also provided what I felt was good, unbiased information from credible people including Patty Burke, Ginny Goblisch, and Jeff Feldner.

What did you learn at the OSU Seagrant Outreach Meetings Kerry?

[Metal Manipulator]

Don't forget that Stone Wall Bank has already been set aside for no take untill certain stocks recover. We are taking care of our own buisness and we don't need any holier than us inviro's telling us what to do.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

Don't forget that Stone Wall Bank has already been set aside for no take untill certain stocks recover. We are taking care of our own buisness and we don't need any holier than us inviro's telling us what to do.

Robin- You are absolutely correct and that point should be noted again and again. Also it should be noted that there has been no baseline research prior to shutting down the Stonewall Banks High Relief Area, and no research now. This information is important when the concept that Marine Reserves will be used for "research" purposes is put forward.

The next thing would be to make sure people know WHY no research has been done....because there is no money for it. So if we can't currently research the areas that are closed, why would research be a factor to closing more areas?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

Don't forget that Stone Wall Bank has already been set aside for no take untill certain stocks recover. We are taking care of our own buisness and we don't need any holier than us inviro's telling us what to do.

Making this a Us against Them fight will only hurt your cause.
Many folks on this board are very environmentally active, we have been doing it for a really long time, making disparaging statements about inviro's tends to lump us in with many groups that are unfriendly toward sportsmen, and their desire to hunt and fish.
Many of the fishing advocates on this board have not taken a stand on the MR issue, myself included, using a broad brush to label environmentalists as the enemy, really doesn't seem fair to me.
However, as Nalu have shown, sticking to the facts, and being respectful, shows me he's got the right idea.

[5 Salt]

I think what Nalu is advocating is that, to straight out oppose any effort to curtail extractive activity is not in our collective best interest.

MR proponents will continue to leverage our collective un-willingness to compromise in the eyes of voting public, leaving us out of the negotiation if no other reason than because we are selfish resource horders. Always a favorable light in which to be painted in this State.

John Q public does in fact own the resource, not just sport and commercial fishing interests. To appear not in favor of some additional set-aside would be foolish and ultimately play in to MR supports political manuvering and lobby efforts. Set asides are good thing....try fishing the edge of set-asides sometime.

The question is:
How are we going to best negotiate a win-win so as to curry favor with the one entity without whom we will not succeed - Oregon voters.

- By bringing compromise solutions to the table. Dig in and fight and you risk alienating John Q voter and ultimately play into the hands of MR supporter.
- Submit win-win solution in concert with a public campaign exposing the money behind MR proponents and you increase your odds of win-win.
- Balanced approach win's the support we need.

1 square mile in front of Depoe Bay type protection zones is a damn sight better that losing all the near shore.

The "Dig in and Fight" to date has had zero success.

[Metal Manipulator]

My apoligies let me clarify

The enviro's that I am talking about is the people from PEW, Oceana, Surfrider etc. No one one this site that I am aware of is pushing for any MR's accept those who are being paid.

Freespool I am an environmenatalist I fight against extremists that want to take away my right to fish present allowable areas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by freespool

Making this a Us against Them fight will only hurt your cause.
Many folks on this board are very environmentally active, we have been doing it for a really long time, making disparaging statements about inviro's tends to lump us in with many groups that are unfriendly toward sportsmen, and their desire to hunt and fish.
Many of the fishing advocates on this board have not taken a stand on the MR issue, myself included, using a broad brush to label environmentalists as the enemy, really doesn't seem fair to me.
However, as Nalu have shown, sticking to the facts, and being respectful, shows me he's got the right idea.

[Salty Walty]

Yes, unfortunately this has become an Us against Them but from where I have been sitting in the audience for the last +2 years it has not been the fishing community doing the majority of the table pounding and finger pointing. One side has portrayed the others as not getting it, heads in the sand and that their way of looking at it is the way to go about it. Many of the fishermen have merely asked for a simple explanation of how their way is better and how much better it is than our current way of doing things. Their answers are vague and much of the attitude that I have personally been witness to is that unless I see it their way and do it the way that they think it should be done my opinion does not matter. There are 2 members here on this board who saw one of these people confront me in Newport. My only offense was to call him on some of the facts he had been stating in many of the OPAC Meetings. There was also the time in Pacific city when members of Surfrider had a coniption over the text in one of the definitions. He discovered that "human disturbance" might mean that his recreation could possibly be curtailed. Instead of accepting the fact that human presence might disturb some creatures he lobbied Robin H, Paul E and Jessica H and for his continued support of the Process the definition of disturbance was changed. It now meant that you had to kill it before it was "disturbed" this has since changed but I hope that you can see the disingenuiness of this attitude. There was also their opposition to HB 3609 which would have done nothing more than assure that the Legislature was involved and that the steps for setting up MRs in OR water were followed as per HB 3534. Up until a few months ago this been one way, from the top down and with few concessions.

[Metal Manipulator]

I will appose any one who wants to take away any area without scientific proof that the present job that PFMC and ODFW does cannot manage the fishery and without these set asides we will lose our fish stocks.

Originally Posted by 5-Salt Fever

I think what Nalu is advocating is that, to straight out oppose any effort to curtail exactive activity is not in our collective best interest.

It wuld be foolish to let them take away fishing areas just because outside interests want it done!!!!!!

Where is the Science to show that it is a management tool.

First they will take away small areas then the fishing pressure shifts and the stocks where we are fishing decrease then they will take away more area to protect these fish. Forcing us into even smaller areas to fish untill there is little left. We will be bobbing around on the sandy areas waiting for the fish to leave the rocky areas so we might catch a few. This is missmanagement, if the stocks are down curtail fishing. Keep a watch on the stocks as they change from year to year and manage our fisheries!

MR proponents will continue to leverage our collective un-willingness to compromise with the non-stake hold voting public and we will left out the cold if no other reason then because we come off as selfish resourse horders. Always a favorable light in which to be painted in this State.

John Q public does in fact own the resource, not just sport and commercial fishing interests. To appear not in favor of some additional set-aside would be foolish and ultimately play in to MR supports political manuvering and lobby efforts. Set asides are good thing....try fishing the edge of set asides sometime.

The question is: how are we going to best negotiate a win-win so as to curry favor with the one entity without whom we will not succeed - Oregon voters.

Bring compromise solutions to the table, you gain support of the general public. Dig in and fight - you risk losing it all. Bring compromise along with a public campaign showing the money behind MR proponents and you increase you odds of win-win.

1 square mile of Depoe protection in a damn sight better that losing all near shore.

Bring compromise solutions to the table because to date - the dig in and fight has had zero success.

Remember every Oregonian owns the resourse....let's not anger those who vote based on how they feel vs. the facts. Fact's are easily diluted and the other team has a lot more money to continue the dilusion lobby. We need to appear in favor of protection and simply the oppose the no-compromise position of our opponents.

[Nalu]

No doubt about it, we owe a bit debt of gratitude to people like Salty Walty who have been heavily involved in this process and have been asking questions from the start. Without people like Walter and John we faced getting run over.

Has that completely changed? No. We still need to keep up the pressure to define the need for MR's, how they will be funded, and how they will be enforced. In addition, we need to keep people like Rep. Jean Cowan moving forward with bills such as HB 3609 as Walter references.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/08ss1/mea.../hb3609.a.html

Forcing the Legislature to be involved in the process opens up additional doors for open forums and processes that help maintain that the legal process is followed.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

I will appose any one who wants to take away any area without scientific proof that the present job that PFMC and ODFW does cannot manage the fishery and without these set asides we will lose our fish stocks.

Robin- With all due respect, the battle you are fighting will be against the laws of the state of Oregon that say that public resources belong to all. The right to access and extract fish from the resource that is the Oregon Territorial Waters is guaranteed by law for both recreational and commercial application. As such, it is also guaranteed that non-extractive users have a say about what is done with their "portion" of the natural resource.

I appreciate your stance, I simply disagree with it. Unless I am mistaken, your stance translated on land would be that you feel harvest of timber as well as hunting should be allowed on all public lands. It would in essence also eliminate State and Federal Parks as well as all Wildlife Refuges.

Myself, I enjoy occasionally hiking and camping in natural areas that have been left to develop as they would without human intervention such as logging and hunting. I also have enjoyed diving in these same sort of environments as I have noted. There is no doubt that areas with and without human interaction are different. There is a value in that for me, and obviously for others there is not.

Again, just to be as clear as possible, if you do not see the value in having places set aside as natural areas, I respect your right to feel that way.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

My apoligies let me clarify

The enviro's that I am talking about is the people from PEW, Oceana, Surfrider etc. No one one this site that I am aware of is pushing for any MR's accept those who are being paid.

Freespool I am an environmenatalist I fight against extremists that want to take away my right to fish present allowable areas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

No apology necessary, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[black magic]

I think what Nalu is advocating is that, to straight out oppose any effort to curtail exactive activity is not in our collective best interest.

Why not? Tell me what the trade offs are for any position, opposition or submission. I use the word submission instead of compromise as in when a mugger holds a gun to your head and wants your wallet, giving him half of your money is not a compromise. Do you have a predictive model or history elsewhere that tells me whether or not the outcome will be better for my interests if I support one position over the other? You're gambling both ways. I think the odds favor opposition in Oregon.

MR proponents will continue to leverage our collective un-willingness to compromise with the non-stake hold voting public and we will left out the cold if no other reason then because we come off as selfish resourse horders. Always a favorable light in which to be painted in this State.

The voting public may never weigh in on this issue. All of the MPA's and reserves in California were created by the state legislature and state and federal rulemaking by agencies. Not one citizen vote was involved. Two polls have been taken in California which show that the majority of those polled don't support the extent of closures there. Citizens may not be so gullible and willing to throw us under the bus as you may believe. We do have capability to tell our side of the story. That capability is being expanded as time goes by.

John Q public does in fact own the resource, not just sport and commercial fishing interests. To appear not in favor of some additional set-aside would be foolish and ultimately play in to MR supports political manuvering and lobby efforts. Set asides are good thing....try fishing the edge of set asides sometime.

We are working right now to give greater weight to the input of those who would be directly affected negatively by marine reserves. Just as the coastal users who own the state highways don't have the last say on where those roads should be placed in Multnomah County. How is not being in favor of additional set asides foolish? Many state fisheries may not be able to financially survive any more closures. There are likely more coming in the near future from normal fishery management precautionary constraints.

The question is: how are we going to best negotiate a win-win so as to curry favor with the one entity without whom we will not succeed - Oregon voters.

There is a win-win that has been proposed for many years to enviro groups. It says in exchange for support of set asides we would like you to invest some of your vast financial resources in fishery independant surveys on constraining rockfish in state and federal waters. This would narrow the uncertainty and potentially show greater abundance of these species. This would have the potential of expanding our fisheries to an extent well beyond any lost to closures. Barotrauma research is another. They are to date not interested. Remember Oregon voters place a high value on locally caught seafood available in their favorite market or restaurant.

Bring compromise solutions to the table, you gain support of the general public. Dig in and fight - you risk losing it all. Bring compromise along with a public campaign showing the money behind MR proponents and you increase you odds of win-win.

1 square mile of Depoe protection in a damn sight better that losing all near shore.

Again I don't see evidence that says not offering up sacrificial sites will result in massive closures. Do you believe that if sites are offered those will be all that is closed?

Bring compromise solutions to the table because to date - the dig in and fight has had zero success.

And zero failure. Reserves have not yet been implemented here.

Remember every Oregonian owns the resourse....let's not anger those who vote based on how they feel vs. the facts. Fact's are easily diluted and the other team has a lot more money to continue the dilusion lobby. We need to appear in favor of protection and simply the oppose the no-compromise position of our opponents.

Mayor Tom Potter of Portland had very little money compared to his opponent. He won the election. How did that happen? We need to inform others how we are long term good stewards of the resource. We are practicing sustainable fishing. In fact we have one of the best sustainable fisheries in the world. Habitat protection and ecosystem based management is already part of the suite of management tools being used in Oregon.

[Metal Manipulator]

John thanks for saying what I was not able to put into words so elequintly.

[Deeman]

Nalu, with respect, a couple of points I think should be contended. First off with regards to learning from the California experience while we may not want to ask a recent divorcee about the blessings of marriage it would seem smart to me for someone to talk to the abused ex-spouse before they marry the abuser. With respect to the MR process and potential outcomes, seeing that the groups pushing this in Oregon are the same as the groups that pushed them in California it is reasonable to expect the same behaviour from them. That is get some or even one in, then expand them and keep expanding until you cover the whole coast. As we recently saw the plan is to have the whole Cali coast covered by 2011.

As far as the legal rights of differing user groups go, as long as the populations are healthy extractive activity is not impairing someones ability to enjoy the species and habitat in a non-extractive way. Further they have the exact same rights as I do. They may extract or not extract as they see fit. Only when you remove the ability to take part in extraction are you limiting a specific user groups rights to use the resource. This pre-supposes that the fish stocks are healthy, and barring reasonable disent or scientfic fact healthy stocks are the position that our management agencies have taken. I have seen some of the California reserves and they look just like the Non-reserve parts of the oceans from the surface. I too, have dove in reserves, (Hood Canals Park and the Channel Islands) to compare the underwater ecosystem we must really look at apples to apples. It is reasonable to believe that the reserve habitat was chosen because it is the best habitat and as such it would stand to reason that it would look different than other less habitable spots. The whole diversity issue depends upon how diversity is defined. If you call bio-diversity simply an increase in numbers then it would certainly go up if you decrease or eliminate harvest. If it is truly an increase in the types of life or species present than we have to ask just how much damage does hook and line extraction cause to the underwater environment. I would submit that hook and line fisheries do not harm the total number of species available in a local environment, even though it may reduce individual members of those species. However if the species are still there in proper numbers than how much damage has been done, except in the theoretical realm.
As far as comparing Marine Reserves to Parks or Refuges we are again comparing apples to oranges. Parks and refuges have the ability to be utilized in a manner that allows for the non-extractive use of the habitat and animal life. In fact in many of them hunting and fishing are allowed activities. Marine Reserves by their definition and physical make-up do not allow for that type of use, with special dispensation for divers, but even then it is only a very small portion of the population that can use them. In fact a much smaller portion than the extractive fishermen population. As much as I believe we both enjoy hiking and camping in parks and wilderness areas that simply does not compare to taking a boat ride across an empty expanse of water (illegal) or looking across the opaque surface of the Ocean from a publicly funded view point. We both know that the reserves will do nothing more for the visible species of life that are already protected and no take.

Finally as to the No Surrender or Compromise position. If that position is so unfavorable in the eyes of the public why has it not been detrimental to the pro-reserve forces. I dont see any compromise coming from that camp. They are like the proverbial Camel with his nose under the tent flap. First its a nose and before you know it you are sleeping with a camel. What have the pro reserves done that would make any person believe that they will take a compromise and live by it. As examples, first Old growth timber was 200+ years old. Then it was 150. Then 100. Now they are calling the man-made Tillamook forest at 60 years Old Growth. First it was a few national parks and wilderness areas to preserve specific and precious natural phenomena. Now they are expanding them to every where they possibly can, all the while not having the budgets to keep up what they have. Spotted owl, then Snail Darter, then Red Tree Vole, then Marbeled Murrelet, then Snowy Plover and on it goes all locking up our public land in the pursuit of natural utopia. I guarentee you and anyone else who cares to listen that the list of reserves will not stop at ten. Once they have them on our coast they will play a continual game of conect the dots until there are no more dots just a single unbroken line of no-take reserves from Wasington to California. They will not negotiate in good faith nor will they live by their agreements. ANY compromise will be seen as weakness, and then they will start pushing for the next compromise. If you need any proof of this fact consider this: we already have 14 areas off the coast with levels of protection approaching the Reserves. Instead of using the stroke of a pen and converting these areas to reserves they are pushing for ten NEW ones. To start with. They could have their research areas with no fuss or furor but they choose to go this route. WHY? The answer is obvious if you take the time to look. In addition to those fourteen areas, we already have others that are defacto reserves by their location. How much should need to be set aside for non human interaction.
Until I see hard evidence that the groups pushing these things have the environments interests at their core and not as an excuse, I dont believe we can afford to give an inch.
Again I respect your opinion and most of the others on these threads. I believe that we must find a way to put our differences aside and use these types of threads to ultimately come together to fight this threat to our heritage. Nalu, you and some others have earned enough trust and respect to compromise with, and if not, to work with while agreeing to disagree. It is my belief and contention that the pro reserve forces have not.

[Nalu]

Deeman- I certainly appreciate your thoughts on this. I REALLY appreciate the time you take to lay out those thoughts. We may not wholly agree on some of the items, but discussion on both sides is a great thing.

One thing that I hope people might see is that if I, as a person who feels that Marine Reserves are not needed on the Oregon Coast can position himself and argue merits and points rationally about them, then best be prepared for those who want them to be equal or better than I.

[Moldy45]

My thoughts are it is like going to buy a new car!
you know what you are willing to pay and tell the salesman,he needs to check with his boss who works on you then has to check with the bigger boss,on and on till they wear you down. My thought is to stand pat and not let them wear us down

[KeyWest]

Deeman & Nalu,

Wow - you two certainly are gentlmen debators and much more civil than most of us on here. Certainly setting a high bar for the rest of us to live up to (no cynicism here).

[nestucca]

Blackmagic and Deeman, please hang in there. My heart and beliefs are in your words, but I do not have the talent (or maybe education?) to put it on paper. In my life BEFORE retirement I wore a Federal badge. I delt face to face with "debates?" Like, to save trees, you burn down a Ranger Station?! I delt with the handcuff stage, but I am depending on you boys for the "gentleman on paper debates". A big thank you!!

[Scaup]

Black Magic and Deeman,

Well spoken! I agree completely.

I wish I could express my thoughts so clearly, but I tend to be more like this...