MR's - Back up the bus a moment....

[Nalu]

In all the fervor that is anti marine reserve implementation, I think it is important that not everyone gets carried away with such ANTI Marine Reserve sentiment that some of the realistic positives of no-take zones are lost.

My fear is that everyone gets so worked up about the process and about the fear of "see what happened in California" that many conservation minded folks feel their only option is to side against any form of Marine Reserve, Marine Protected Area, or possibly formation of no-take zones.

I have stated in the past, and will do so again, that I am in favor of setting areas aside as no-take zones. I feel that areas set aside as natural "untouched" areas that prohibit extractive activities are a good thing and something that should be considered as essential off of our coast. I have dove and photographed these areas in a number of parts of the world including California, Canada, Washington, Hawaii, Baja, and Cozumel. For anyone that has dove in protected areas and non-protected areas in the same vicinity, it is instantly obvious the difference.

Now I understand that some people will feel that any sort of additional restriction on any fishing area is a bad thing and should be fought. That is certainly your right and your prerogative.

My suggestion is that you thoughtfully consider if a Territorial Sea "Park" would be a bad thing in an area someplace around where you fish or recreate. So far there has been a lot of bad information presented by Pro-MR people trying to justify the need for MR's. That information has been misleading for WHY MR's are needed. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of information that is presented about what happens in no-take zones is absolutely accurate. Overall, they do help provide healthy environments for species in those areas. They do provide spillover, and they do provide a "safe" zone for stocks that use those habitats.

Arguing against improper implementation is not the same as arguing against areas that might be set aside as no-take zones.

[Chromaflage]

Mike, you're point is well taken, but also plays into Gov. K's hand. When and if the time comes when the DATA indicates a NEED for MRs, MPAs, etc., then let's talk. The strong anti-MR sentiment is a product of Gov. K's attempt to ramrod and backdoor the MR process. What you might be unintentionally suggesting is a "compromise" at this point, which would be, IMHO, an incremental concession to the ultimate goal of making the entire Oregon Coast an MR.

[Puffin]

Well stated Nalu. I too have had the opportunity to dive and see the effects of proper and improper treatment of the ocean. nothing wrong with no take zones. Actually does lead to healthier stocks and habitats that can be managed as nurseries and such. Balance is the key. Set enough habitat aside in the right location and for the proper reasons, monitored by unbiased people (biologists with no other motive than healthy balance of wildlife and the study thereof) No agenda other than a healthy manageable resource. Much like a gun in the right hands a wonderfull tool. In the wrong hands a terrible weapon. Common sense so forgotten in our society is the key.

[Nalu]

Kerry- I understand your point, and I do know where you are coming from.

I would suggest though that everyone make sure that they attend one or more of the meetings that have been put on and will continue in the future. These meeting provide ample information for anyone that wants to take on different avenues of the fight against improper implementation of marine reserves. I feel that Seagrant did an excellent job of pointing out what needed to take place in order for Marine Reserves to be implemented.

To your point though Kerry, fearing that we will "play into the Gov's hands" would suggest that there is no control over the process. I feel that there is, and that to control the process means to take control away from the special interest groups and to lead down the path that you desire. Only saying "no" will work for awhile, but not providing alternatives will mean that you in the end won't have a say in what takes place.

Do you think the idea of areas set aside as no-take zones off the Oregon Coast is going to go away? No, it's not, especially when there is actually support for the concept by people that live and work on the coast.

But does that mean Marine Reserves? A network of them? No, it doesn't have to.

[tippet]

Mike - well said indeed! As an ecologist with training in conservation biology I feel strongly that setting areas aside from extractive uses (both in terrestrial and marine systems) is a good idea as a way to preserve the building blocks (species and their interactions) that make up the ecosystems that provide us sustenance - both physically and spiritually.

And as a scientist, I am a big fan of data. I also have witnessed first hand, however, the phenomenon of "paralysis by analysis" where the statement "more data is needed" is invoked over and over as ecological integrity declines. I am not saying that our Oregon fisheries are in trouble or declining, but that there are effects to the system and other non-harvested species that are perhaps of equal or greater concern.

Mikes statement that the when diving in protected areas the difference is immediately apparent is a form of data, albeit not quantitative.

And I couldnt agree more with the statement about getting engaged and staying involved to try to insert some reason and exert influence rather than simply opposing these efforts.


-Tippet

[Moldy45]

I have said in another post that I was against MR and I still am.
I Don't trust that they would not expand those area's in the future so we have no were to recreate.
I have been to the Florence and Reedsport OPAC meeting and mostly the meeting was the same in both places but some info was left out at the meeting in Reedsport that was a room full of fishermen.

just one tidbit that was left out at Reedsport that was talked about in Florence

#1 The port Orford fleet was working on Mr area's for the last 7 years to find a suitable location

#2 The depoe bay charters were working on locations for MR for the last year and decided they could give up the area south of the hole towards Newport in exchange that they be used as platforms for taking the researchers out to research

[Grady252]

Originally Posted by Chromaflage

Mike, you're point is well taken, but also plays into Gov. K's hand. When and if the time comes when the DATA indicates a NEED for MRs, MPAs, etc., then let's talk. The strong anti-MR sentiment is a product of Gov. K's attempt to ramrod and backdoor the MR process. What you might be unintentionally suggesting is a "compromise" at this point, which would be, IMHO, an incremental concession to the ultimate goal of making the entire Oregon Coast an MR.

As I said in another post I am not really in favor of MR's, but I do like the idea of no-take zones......

That being said.... I keep hearing people cry about the lack of data...... I don't really need data to know that there are way less bottom dwellers than there used to be..... Any fisherman who has spent any time out here knows things are changing..... the sport fleet has grown huge leaps and bounds.

I have seen the difference in the last 10 years that I have been fishing out of Depoe.... I remember when the limit was 25 plus 2 lings..... and I would take my buddies and in a few short hours we would have our limit including our lings...... now it is very different, it takes longer, they are smaller, etc.... that is data.... and any honest fisherman has this data already. I don't think it is bad, but it has definitely changed.

Look at the halibut fishing... it has changed significantly as well.

I am not saying we need MR's, I also have fears that this is the first step towards incremental closure. I don't necessarily trust special interest groups and the government to "do what's right", but I do want a bountiful ocean for future generations.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Moldy45

#2 The depoe bay charters were working on locations for MR for the last year and decided they could give up the area south of the hole towards Newport in exchange that they be used as platforms for taking the researchers out to research

Moldy- I would like to respectfully point out that your statement is a little bit inaccurate.

Depoe Bay created a group called NSAT (Nearshore Action Team) back in 2005 to address marine reserves. This group is comprised of charters, but also of other members of the community. NSAT discussed and has proposed an area that is roughly 731 acres in size located from the North end of Gull Rock (The big rock about off of Cape Foulweather) extending south to Whale Back Rock (The last exposed rock off of Beverly Beach)

This area is rarely fished by private recreational anglers or by charter boats. There is some limited crabbing that takes place commercially, but overall it is minimal. NSAT identified this area as being a diverse habitat containing sand and rocky bottom, kelp forests, and bird sanctuaries.

NSAT has seen the need to be preemptive with regard to what should take place surrounding the Depoe Bay area. Traditional fishing areas both to the South and to the North of the hole would not be affected, and by proposing an area that currently has little use there is an identified area on the table that could be for study and research to determine if other areas are even needed.

I think that is an important item. Depeo Bay is saying, "Here, use this area. "Fund it, research it, then determine if there is validity for other areas on our coast."

[Chromaflage]

I guess that's what I'm saying as well. But there is a difference between no-take or limited-take zones and MRs. At least as I understand the difference. Yes, my objection is more with the process. And no, at this point, I don't trust the government to "do what's right" either.

[Smoked Salmon]

I gotta agree with Chrom. I will push for conservation, but from what I hear, everything is managed conservatively. If OSU/ODFW can start some research on the suspect fisheries, and find problems, then we do need to fix them. Slot and temporal closures are good fixes. Spatial ones are good too, but then we are increasing cost of entry into the sport. No more quick trips outside the jetty to drop a line for a few hours on a flat day. We'll need GPS and MRZ maps. I know that this is something people should have for safety, but suddenly it will become mandatory.
I don't know the answer, or even half the questions. But it seems to me that MR is the most extreme measure that can be taken. Shouldn't we be cautious?

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

I gotta agree with Chrom. I will push for conservation, but from what I hear, everything is managed conservatively. If OSU/ODFW can start some research on the suspect fisheries, and find problems, then we do need to fix them. Slot and temporal closures are good fixes. Spatial ones are good too, but then we are increasing cost of entry into the sport. No more quick trips outside the jetty to drop a line for a few hours on a flat day. We'll need GPS and MRZ maps. I know that this is something people should have for safety, but suddenly it will become mandatory.
I don't know the answer, or even half the questions. But it seems to me that MR is the most extreme measure that can be taken. Shouldn't we be cautious?

Shouldn't we be cautious? YES! Absolutely!

The point that I am trying to make is that the heart of this issue is really NOT about fixing the ecosystem. It is NOT about trying to help suspect fisheries. These are things that have been pushed by people such as Mr. Rees, but are misleading and often inaccurate.

Taking Depoe Bay as a case in point is that fact that properly set up no-take zones do not have to impact traditional fisheries. The area from Gull Rock south of Depoe Bay all the way to the Yaquina Lighthouse is rarely fished in territorial waters. My house is directly in the middle of that area, and I can attest that I rarely see any vessel, private or commercial, fishing there. This area takes awhile to run to from Depoe Bay, and getting there crosses countless fishing spots for rockfish and lingcod. It is an even further run from Newport, and you have to go past reef after reef to the north of the tips until you even hit Yaquina Head.

Do no-take zones have to be in the form of Marine Reserves? NO. I asked this question at a Seagrant meeting. I find it important to note that they acknowledged that the same thing could be achieved by the state simply designating areas as no-take MPA.

Again, I say, step back and think if you would be opposed to an area that does not impact your fishing, or impact others, being set aside as an area that is non-extractive. Do you oppose land based wildlife refuges? If things could be limited and set up in the same manner, with limited or no impact to the users, what would be the problem then?

Outside influence, outside money, agenda driven rationale, and improper implementation is what is wrong as I see it.

[Slobes]

To the tune of Nalu's song, I have a study that was published in a scientific journal that shows evidence of increasingly successful fisheries in the regions surrounding MR's.

This study showed increased catches per unit effort, and also majorly increased rates of catching world record in the vicinity of an MR. I would love to share the article, just PM me so I can email it to you.

I also have access to many other studies, though I have yet to personally sift through them.

Personally, the jury is still out on whether or not these things are the right way to go, but the biggest thing is that we all look at whatever facts are available before we blatantly brand MR's as a tool of the devil.

[Nordic Sun]

Mike
I tend to be more of a Colin Powell type of warrior......Begin and fight the war with an over whelming force. After a complete victory see what concessions might be made from a position of power.

I am not a Donald Rumsfeld supporter, where you try and win the war with least amount of forces necessary, a budgeted war.

We are at war against a well funded, highly organized force. Take no prisoners............None.

Expose the lies, and tell the truth. And tell as many voters as possible, and as often as possible. Shout it from the rooftops, in the halls of the legislature, on discussion boards. Give no quarter. NONE!

Bob

[Smoked Salmon]

Well it sounds like we are on the same page, Mike. I like to see logical progression in ideas before selecting a solution. It sounds like you feel the same way.

Are you perhaps suggesting, that in order to remove the influence of outside money, that we as Salty Dogs propose a progressive plan to our coastal representatives which will outline what we, as users, want to see in the form of research, protection, and promotion of our nearshore ocean resource?

-Bill

[northriver1]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

Well it sounds like we are on the same page, Mike. I like to see logical progression in ideas before selecting a solution. It sounds like you feel the same way.

Are you perhaps suggesting, that in order to remove the influence of outside money, that we as Salty Dogs propose a progressive plan to our coastal representatives which will outline what we, as users, want to see in the form of research, protection, and promotion of our nearshore ocean resource?

-Bill

First would one not want to know if there is a need for reserves before you surrender. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand. It sounds to me as if the user groups in Depoe Bay took the easy way out. Find a piece of real estate now one uses than offer up the sacrifical lamb than send it up the flag pole along with the white flag. I for one believe the process should include the debate if MR are needed and what benefits do they provide verus what harm do they cause. As of today that debate did not take place.

[fishitis]

Nalu - thank you. Your statement couldn't represent my thoughts on the subject more clearly. This is the first time I felt I could respond on this topic. Although I agree that there are concerns about the political process going on, I am in favor of some form of reserve or no-take zones.

When I used to hike in the Olympica Peninsula, I was amazed at how obvious it was when you left the National Forest and entered the National Park. I could not imagine more beauty. I am so glad that people a long time ago established these areas before they were harvested. I expect society in the future will feel the same way about our actions today.

I hope people can work together and avoid a result that is either none or all.

[Metal Manipulator]

Nalu you are playing with an organization who knows what they are doing. Give them quarter and they will roll over you and they will not care what happens to you. We need to put a stop to outside interest having any influence on how we manage our state.

This post is following with eerie similarity what happened in California, now before you say that is California not here; remember that the same organization is pushing the same program here. If we let them get a start we will see the same actions that have taken place in Cali. happen here. We have been warned by those who have been through the southern MPA process.

The sport fishing associations even hired biologists to have a study done which showed that the reserves were not needed and the DFG managements are taking care of the resource. Sound familiar. Even with the evidence they still put the MPA"S MR"S etc. in place and just recently they were expanded.

I think I will do some research in California Reserves.

[Nalu]

northriver1- Is there a need for Marine Reserves? As I and many others see it, NO.

As far as Depoe Bay is concerned, I used to think the same way, but have come to feel different. There are a couple of reasons why....

Lincoln City to the North of Depoe Bay is so far the only Coastal City to publicly come out in favor of Marine Reserves. As much of the fishing grounds for bottomfish are located North of Depoe Bay from the Siletz Spit up past the Casino, there was a direct threat and already a proposal on the table for traditional fishing areas to be put forth as a marine reserve. In response to this Depoe Bay created NSAT and thought it would be best to address the impact areas and propose a logical suggestion that would have little if any impact to the user groups in the area- recreational and commercial fishing. (Both of which are done heavily North of Depoe Bay).

The next thing to consider is what those that live and use the ocean resource actually believe. Some may find it hard to understand, but a great many people that actually live and work in the area such as charters and commercial fisherman don't have a problem with areas set aside as no-take zones. As a group, commercial fisherman and charter boat operators are overall conservation minded and many share the belief that having areas set aside that are off limits is not a bad thing. So while MR's may not be needed, or provide any net benefit, there are still many people that are anglers that are ok with self-limiting extractive activities.

Lastly- Depoe Bay is know as the Whale Watching Capital of Oregon. Many people seem to think Marine Reserves will be "off limits" areas when in fact they are not necessarily such. (How could I have dove in numerous Marine Reserves if they are off limits to boats and divers). Whale watching and environmental tourism is a growing activity along the Oregon Coast. Having a no-take area on the Oregon Coast right next to one of the most productive areas to fish can easily be seen as a good economic move. Ocean bird watching, whale watching, and being able to view geographic structure from the ocean, and even dive in a completely natural area on the Oregon Coast certainly could set Depoe Bay as a well rounded tourism leader, while heading off outside influences nominating traditional fishing areas.

One of the things that I have gotten the feeling for is that things are NOT going to take place in Oregon like they did in California. Things started down that path but they seem to be changing. Communities and representatives of those communities on the coast are well aware what is at stake, and don't want it to happen. One of the things said over and over is that "no outside money" should be involved in MR's. This in itself will take away alot of the ability of outside influence.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

Nalu you are playing with an organization who knows what they are doing. Give them quarter and they will roll over you and they will not care what happens to you. We need to put a stop to outside interest having any influence on how we manage our state.

You were there in Newport Robin. First things first, as many have said, we need to make sure that there is no outside money having any influence over administration, implementation, or enforcement of marine reserves.

This post is following with eerie similarity what happened in

California, now before you say that is California not here; remember that the same organization is pushing the same program here. If we let them get a start we will see the same actions that have taken place in Cali. happen here. We have been warned by those who have been through the southern MPA process.

The sport fishing associations even hired biologists to have a study done which showed that the reserves were not needed and the DFG managements are taking care of the resource. Sound familiar. Even with the evidence they still put the MPA"S MR"S etc. in place and just recently they were expanded.

I think I will do some research in California Reserves.

You are absolutely right. Heed the warnings of those that have been through the process. At the same time, it is easy to get advice on not getting married from someone that has been through an ugly divorce. At some point you have to believe just a little bit that you can affect change and will have a say in the process.

No offense to Californians, but we're not them. We have different laws and different people that are stepping up in the process. Don't compare me to a californicator...

[Bluefinn]

The fact is There are a lot of California People here in Oregon..I want what is best for the future of the Oregon coast and the Oregon fishermen.

[Chetco]

Originally Posted by ODIN

Mike
I tend to be more of a Colin Powell type of warrior......Begin and fight the war with an over whelming force. After a complete victory see what concessions might be made from a position of power.

I am not a Donald Rumsfeld supporter, where you try and win the war with least amount of forces necessary, a budgeted war.

We are at war against a well funded, highly organized force. Take no prisoners............None.

Expose the lies, and tell the truth. And tell as many voters as possible, and as often as possible. Shout it from the rooftops, in the halls of the legislature, on discussion boards. Give no quarter. NONE!

Bob

[Smoked Salmon]

Originally Posted by northriver1

First would one not want to know if there is a need for reserves before you surrender. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand. It sounds to me as if the user groups in Depoe Bay took the easy way out. Find a piece of real estate now one uses than offer up the sacrifical lamb than send it up the flag pole along with the white flag. I for one believe the process should include the debate if MR are needed and what benefits do they provide verus what harm do they cause. As of today that debate did not take place.

Sounds like you feel the same as me. First step is to evaluate the resource, and then evaluate responses to resource deficiencies. If we eventually decide that setting aside areas as reserves is a smart course of action, then that is good.

What we all seem to be opposed to is that Marine Reserves are being imposed on Oregon as a solution to some worldwide problem as seen by the Pew Charitable Trusts, and this problem doesn't actually exist here, but it is far easier for Pew to do its work stateside, rather than abroad.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by ODIN

Mike
I tend to be more of a Colin Powell type of warrior......Begin and fight the war with an over whelming force. After a complete victory see what concessions might be made from a position of power.

I am not a Donald Rumsfeld supporter, where you try and win the war with least amount of forces necessary, a budgeted war.

We are at war against a well funded, highly organized force. Take no prisoners............None.

Expose the lies, and tell the truth. And tell as many voters as possible, and as often as possible. Shout it from the rooftops, in the halls of the legislature, on discussion boards. Give no quarter. NONE!

Bob

OK Bob. So then, I ask you, what is your "complete victory"? Let's start by defining what that is, because a rallying cry to victory is great, but without a goal the battle will be lost.

Is no Marine Reserves the goal?

Is no "no-take" zones the goal?

Who specifically are you at war against? PEW? Oceana? Packard Foundation?

Do you believe that the non-fishing public has any say in the resource?

Do you know the laws of the State of Oregon and what they state as it pertains to our resources? Who they identify as having to consider as a user group?

Are you willing to step in and attend the meetings up and down the coast to demonstrate your "take no prisoners" position?

Is it only your way and no compromise?

Will you give up when you don't get your way?

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by Nalu

OK Bob. So then, I ask you, what is your "complete victory"? Let's start by defining what that is, because a rallying cry to victory is great, but without a goal the battle will be lost.

Is no Marine Reserves the goal?

Is no "no-take" zones the goal?

Who specifically are you at war against? PEW? Oceana? Packard Foundation?

Do you believe that the non-fishing public has any say in the resource?

Do you know the laws of the State of Oregon and what they state as it pertains to our resources? Who they identify as having to consider as a user group?

Are you willing to step in and attend the meetings up and down the coast to demonstrate your "take no prisoners" position?

Is it only your way and no compromise?

Will you give up when you don't get your way?

YES!

[Nalu]

With all due respect Bob I do not see anything about your response that adds something to the discussion. If you answer yes to all of the questions that I posed, then you appear to be contradicting yourself. With regard to the last two questions it would then appear that you only want things your way and if they aren't your way you'll quit.

Not sure I understand that approach.

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by Nalu

Not sure I understand that approach.

Well Mike, it's apparent there is a lot you don't understand.

Bob

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by ODIN

Well Mike, it's apparent there is a lot you don't understand.

Bob

Good one Bob. When you care to take the time to explain, I'm happy to listen and try to understand. As I am always looking to expand, learn, and possibly change my views, well thought out viewpoints that are different than mine are certainly appreciated. This thread would seem to be a good place to enunciate them.

[Moldy45]

Bob I stand by you!

Mike in regards to my inaccuracies,I beg to differ with what you thought I heard by the speakers In florence since you were not there.
There were however 3 other dogs there that heard the same thing as I did.
Depoe bay charters wanted to be hired to take researchers out in compensation or a trade off for giving up that area!
Now go call Patty Burke and the crew liar's

Bear in mind these or not facts I have researched on my own but what was passed on to me by the opac committee

[Nalu]

Here's a question that perhaps Salty Walty and Black Magic can answer or would be willing to weigh in on....

Until very recently (the last couple of years at best) I was very ill informed with regard to what was taking place here in Oregon with Marine Reserves.

Researching the history of Marine Reserves, and looking at documents that Salty Walty has referenced we see that OPAC determined that there was enough evidence for marine reserves to recommend establishing a limited system of them. (OPAC report August 16th, 2002)

As noted by Walter, OPAC was then disbanded due to conflict of interest.

So here's my question.... Outside of the Governor, has there been any other recommendations by OPAC or any other state agency that establishes credible reason for Marine Reserves?

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Moldy45

Bob I stand by you!

Mike in regards to my inaccuracies,I beg to differ with what you thought I heard by the speakers In florence since you were not there.
There were however 3 other dogs there that heard the same thing as I did.
Depoe bay charters wanted to be hired to take researchers out in compensation or a trade off for giving up that area!
Now go call Patty Burke and the crew liar's

Bear in mind these or not facts I have researched on my own but what was passed on to me by the opac committee

Bruce-

Here is a link to the Newport-Times article on regarding NSAT and Depoe Bay. http://www.newportnewstimes.com/arti...ews/news02.txt

I can't say what was said in Florence, or who spoke for whom, but the Depoe Bay NSAT was present in Newport and Loren Goddard did speak there. What I was referring to as inaccurate was "the area south of the hole". The area south of Flat Rock all the way to just before Gull Rock is several miles and very productive fishing grounds. Charters don't use it as much as private, but they do use it a fair amount. I have never heard of a tradeoff for researchers, only the information that is present here, as well as what I have been told with regard to the rationale.

[Nalu]

Posted: Jan 16, 2008 - 13:38:37 PST

Depoe Bay fishers tentatively back proposed local marine reserve site: Governor's office alters stance on number of reserves
By Terry Dillman of the News-Times
Depoe Bay's Near Shore Action Team recommends the outlined area, extending from the north end of Gull Rock to the south end of whale Back Rock, as a potential marine reserve. It contains diverse habitat and would have the least impact on fishermen in Newport and Depoe Bay. "Once they take something, they never give it back."

"We should preface everything with the statement that we're so well-regulated, we don't need them."

"Them" means marine reserves, a topic of considerable controversy along the Oregon coast since Gov. Ted Kulongoski revived the concept of establishing a network of "no take" marine reserves within the state's territorial sea, and set in motion a site nomination process open to anyone.

Despite those and other sobering comments and concerns, most of the 50 folks representing Depoe Bay's fishing community, who gathered at the city's community hall for a Jan. 10 public forum, indicated tentative support for a proposed marine protected area stretching from Beverly Beach to Gull Rock. The proposal by the members of Depoe Bay's Near Shore Action Team (NSAT) is a pre-emptive measure designed to mitigate as much as possible the potential loss of prime fishing grounds. With the public nomination process scheduled to begin in April, NSAT Chairman Loren Goddard said they wanted to stay ahead of the process with their recommendation.

Created by Depoe Bay City Council in 2005, when Kulongoski resurrected the Oregon Ocean policy Advisory Council (OPAC) and the concept of a limited system of marine reserves initiated in 2002 by former governor John Kitzhaber.

"The most frightening aspect is that anyone or any organization can nominate a site," Goddard said at the forum - the first of three public sessions NSAT has scheduled this month. "One group wants to designate a site right off of Depoe Bay." Such a site could effectively keep small boat fishermen from operating out of "the world's smallest harbor" by forcing them to travel too far from homeport to fish, a daunting prospect, especially during winter.

The proposed site encompasses about 731 acres in landlubber terms, an area featuring a broad range of diverse habitats - among them, sandy bottom, rocky reef, kelp forest, and bird sanctuaries - and "is not heavily used for extractive purposes," although Goddard and others would lose some of their own prime fishing and crabbing spots. The site is also visually enforceable from shore. As for whether or not a reserve would shut down recreational uses, such as kayaking, surfing, and whale watching, Goddard said they "just don't know yet." The nomination could stipulate allowable uses, but the process offers no guarantees of acceptance.

"We can make any suggestions we like within reason," Goddard noted. "Whether it would be adopted, I couldn't say."

Such uncertainty underlies on-going concerns expressed by fishers and others who remain skeptical about the need for marine reserves. They doubt the existing science behind them, and have serious questions about funding, monitoring, enforcement, and the socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities. Some fishers say they could identify some locations for reserves that wouldn't have a major negative impact on fisheries; others refuse to support the process under any conditions.

Most share a strong opinion that to obtain the best possible outcome for their fishing businesses, their communities, and OPAC's goals for marine reserves, the process must refocus to the local level for both nominations and recommendations of sites.

All of these issues - all viewed as potential threats to the history, culture, and way of life on the Oregon coast - surfaced during the forum. They were also the driving force behind NSAT's effort to find a suitable local site for nomination before anyone else did.

"It's the best we could come up with considering the siting criteria, and the fact we could share the site between Newport and Depoe Bay without further impact to either community," Goddard stated, noting the team has no alternate site in mind.

The decision ultimately rests with Depoe Bay city leaders whether or not to submit the proposal to OPAC for consideration. OPAC will review the nominations and make recommendations to the governor.

"We tried to figure out where the best spot would be for one, a spot that would have the least impact on fishermen," Goddard said. "We want to get input from everyone, so we can say this is what we proposed and this is what we heard when we go to Newport."

NSAT will take its proposal to Newport's fishing community during a public forum set for 7 p.m. tonight at Englund Marine.

Lincoln County Commissioner, voting OPAC member, and long-time fisherman Terry Thompson said the Newport fleet hasn't really seen the location, and he didn't know what the reaction would be. As an advisory board, he said OPAC has yet to make a decision on marine reserves, and "none" remains an option, despite the governor's insistence on establishing them.

If they are to become a reality, those along the coast clearly want a say in the matter, especially where and when. In the end, they hope science and research will trump politics.

"This whole thing is a solution waiting for a problem," said NSAT member Mike Fitzpatrick. "We hope we can satisfy their urge to establish them."

Many folks would like the state to stop at two sites for now - the proposed NSAT location and another near Port Orford - and "take a good look," evaluating those sites for five years to determine their feasibility and practicality before establishing a coast-long network. Those hopes are based on the assumption that Gov. Kulongoski has set an overall limit of 10 or fewer sites.

New information indicates those might be false hopes.

In a written statement released Nov. 1, 2007, Kulongoski stated he would encourage OPAC to limit marine reserve recommendations to fewer than 10 sites.

However, a response to a hearing conducted Monday morning by the House Interim Committee on Emergency Preparedness and Ocean Policy indicates that outlook has changed.

The committee, which Rep. Jean Cowan, D-Newport, co-chairs, met to discuss Legislative Concept 89, which would - if eventually approved - require amendment of the Oregon Ocean Resources Management Plan before establishing marine reserves and marine protected areas, and would limit the total number of reserves to nine. By a 4-1 vote, the committee opted to redraft the concept and put it into a bill for legislative review ands discussion.

"The Governor's request for less than 10 reserves is focused on the limited system that he asked OPAC to recommend for testing reserves effectiveness," Mike Carrier, the governor's resource policy director, stated in an e-mail sent to Cowan and Committee Chair Rep. Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach. "It was not his intent to forever limit reserves to less than ten areas, which is what the bill would do. Thus, the limit of nine reserves is not something that he can support as a statutory limit."

Carrier went on to say the "very short time" available, achieving agreement on amendments after the pending special legislative session begins "would put the bill at risk."

Terry Dillman is a reporter for the News-Times. He can be reached at (541) 265-8571 ext. 225, or terrydillman@newportnewstimes.com.

[black magic]

No.
The key word being "credible"

[Moldy45]

Mike first off all the meeting would have been way to long if the speakers were to quote from every town chapter of this and that.
I would like to know why only Depoe bay charters were to gain financially from having the closure and that was not brought up In a room full of fishermen in Reedsport?

I wish I could talk to you and Patty Burke together to get to the real facts!

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Moldy45

Mike first off all the meeting would have been way to long if the speakers were to quote from every town chapter of this and that.
I would like to know why only Depoe bay charters were to gain financially from having the closure and that was not brought up In a room full of fishermen in Reedsport?

I wish I could talk to you and Patty Burke together to get to the real facts!

I don't know Bruce. I had never heard the financial aspect, but I can't say that it isn't true. Perhaps that is a smart move though. Close off our access and be prepared to compensate us by providing X amount of research dollars via boat charters to do research?

One of the stipulations of Marine Reserves is that there has to be no economic loss. Perhaps the Depoe NSAT is trying to put that out there up front?

I'll ask Loren about it as soon as I can.

[Salty Walty]

Great idea Mike. Back the bus up. I mean this sincerely.

Sorry, Tippet,
Statements like these are counterproductive and divisive;
"The train has left the station - either get on board or get off the tracks."
and do not belong in a 2 sided conversation. I have encountered this attitude too many times at the MR meetings.


In my opinion.

The bus right now has left the station but unfortunately with no route, destination, very few dedicated riders and fares have not been collected or stated but a very short schedule to get to where it is supposed to go.

The best thing that could happen now is to start over with both sides of the argumnent being equally represented. This has been a one sided proposal from the start. OPAC was never allowed to look at whether MR were needed. (Sorry but status quo needs to be an option) These Proposals have all been ways to get them done, quickly and with very little objectivity or condsideration of, if they are needed. The way this has been done up to now is that pretty much the only information given to date has been in favor of Marine Reserves and the Agendas for OPAC have been dictated to by the Govs Office and the Meetings are run by his rep. There has been very little information actually presented to OPAC in support of current management or from ODFW. The best way to generate opposition is to tell persons, "We need them and we are going to have them", who are aware of the issues and current status of a resource. By continuing the one sided argument, ignoring common sense requests and objectivity it does not leave much wiggle room and causes even stronger resistance. I will say that at the Outreach Meetings this was the first time I have seen that much objective information on the subject at one time. All the facts were laid out for all to see and try and make an informed decision. I hope that this Outreach is not the beginning of the Public Nomination phase but a start of a Process that takes all aspects of this issue into consideration.

[Pilar]

It might be a good idea to look at some of the areas that are already de facto reserves. The area near and in Whale cove, the area of the bird nesting closure at Three Arch rocks, Stonewall YRCA and others. The times of the year when you can fish these areas are pretty tough.

Why is no one studying the areas already closed?

If we don't use the areas already closed for research then why do we need to close more areas for research? How do you explain that?

Nalu I agree with you that closing some areas would have benefits. I would even support that idea if it was closure of carefully selected habitat. Why not close areas where the limiting species live? Cross that with areas that do not get used very much by fishers?

But what I am thinking of is not the process we have now. Arbitrarily closing high use fishing areas is only going to enrage fishers. Allowing the public to nominate the spots makes it possible to close areas that may or not make sense to close if the stated objectives are for real.

I am thinking of a process where there is money to do surveys. And the process would include the best judgement in picking spots based on what is living there and how compromised that fish or area is. Why protect black rockfish near the beach when other fish are listed as overfished? And last I am thinking about MPAs not MRs. Use fishing regs to limit or outright close a few areas where Yellow Eye and Canary live. Not a permanent closure. Not a marine reserve with no sunset. Get busy studying the populations of these fish. Prove that this will work here. No one will argue with honest evaluation. Get busy studying the other species that are not yet assessed.

One more thing. You may have noticed the question about federal MPAs among the OPAC 5 questions. It is my opinion that you can look forward to the feds expanding the state established areas beyond the three mile limit. So location of the inshore areas may impact the areas further offshore. Where does that Depoe Bay spot project out to?

[Nalu]

Excellent Walter.

I don't agree that the "bus" has left the station just yet. With enough outcry and enough continued support there is still the chance to begin the process anew. That means deciding if Marine Reserves are needed.

It seems a foregone conclusion by many that they will come here. The only person who has voiced that is the Gov. and the Pro-MR people. If we work hard we just might be able to get the bus back in the station and make sure everyone has a seat before it leaves again.

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Why is no one studying the areas already closed?

If we don't use the areas already closed for research then why do we need to close more areas for research? How do you explain that?

John
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

When you start peeling back the layers of deception you begin to see that research is one of the spurious arguments used to further the real goal. NO FISHING!

You have seen the congressmen and senators who fought to stop the legislation to reform the prescription drug bill, end up as Highly paid consultants for those same drug companies. Quid Pro Quo. Well it will come as no surprise to me if our governor doesn't end up on the board of one of these foundations. Call me paranoid, or prophet, time will tell.

Bob

[Bill Monroe]

Well, kind of leaning toward "paranoid," Bob...

We have some of the most respected marine researchers in the world...including some on the ODFW staff. I'd be really careful about branding them as pawns of some greater sinister scheme.

And I don't recall anyone has proposed a popular fishing area for closure, have they? I probably missed something.

[Deeman]

The rockpile is closed already. I will grant the reasoning behind the closure and the fact that it needed to be done. In that case all you heard was some minor grumbling because the need for the closure was plain to see. As for the current plans I dont believe any area has been formally proposed, popular or other wise. Unless you count the spot south of Depoe and the Port Orford area that has been talked about. But with a nomination process open to anyone, no real qualification hurdles, and the goal of having them contiguous with current parks or already protected areas the proposals are not too hard to figure out.

[Metal Manipulator]

As was stated at an OPAC meeting in lincoln City 2 years ago by the Govenors leading lady, Jessica Hamilton "The Govenor does not want to know if it should be done but how it will be done".

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

Well, kind of leaning toward "paranoid," Bob...

We have some of the most respected marine researchers in the world...including some on the ODFW staff. I'd be really careful about branding them as pawns of some greater sinister scheme.

And I don't recall anyone has proposed a popular fishing area for closure, have they? I probably missed something.

Bill
Our researchers are not pawns, but using research as an argument for Marine reserves seems to be spurious .

Listening to Selena talk about the research being done, I got the impression very little was taking place in the protected areas , that OUR reasearch was being done in non protected areas and in labs and off shore studying by catch. She spent most of her time talking about what reasearch isn't being done. And most important she was not voicing support for marine reserves.

[Metal Manipulator]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

And I don't recall anyone has proposed a popular fishing area for closure, have they? I probably missed something.

Does some one still have a map of the proposed areas all nicely done in color to show Bill. Stonewall Banks, (much bigger) Hecceta Bank, and much more, Oh and don't forget his proposal for the entire coast from the mean high water mark to the contenental shelf.


Of course the MPA"s (closed areas) would be within the reserves. Can you say expansion at the stroke of the Reserv managers pen.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by ODIN

John
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

When you start peeling back the layers of deception you begin to see that research is one of the spurious arguments used to further the real goal. NO FISHING!

You have seen the congressmen and senators who fought to stop the legislation to reform the prescription drug bill, end up as Highly paid consultants for those same drug companies. Quid Pro Quo. Well it will come as no surprise to me if our governor doesn't end up on the board of one of these foundations. Call me paranoid, or prophet, time will tell.

Bob

Bob- Some of us are doing the best we can to provide logical arguments and rationale thinking. You are making bold statements trying to get people fired up, but you have not referenced anything that can be substantiated. As Bill noted we have some very respected people that are right in the midst of the process and trying to provide fair and balanced scientific information.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, only that if you wish to provide conspiracy theories, at least do us a favor and connect some of the dots. Coming from a place where fact was king, when did theory and conjecture take over from fact and data?

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by Pilar

One more thing. You may have noticed the question about federal MPAs among the OPAC 5 questions. It is my opinion that you can look forward to the feds expanding the state established areas beyond the three mile limit. So location of the inshore areas may impact the areas further offshore. Where does that Depoe Bay spot project out to?

Do a seach of the PFMC web site. They have been considering MPA's for some time.

http://www.pcouncil.org/reserves/reservesback.html

Many of the closures we now see are a result of that thought process. Note that they have MPA's, not MPR's. I attribute this to the fact that they had goals of restoring fish stocks so an MPA makes sense. An MPR doesn't make much sense for that - as outlined by the Outreach speakers.

[black magic]

I'll put you in the prophet column, Bob

Even though you're cheating with your prophecy. You have California history to refer to.

Oceana has proposed that at least 30% of Oregon's territorial sea needs to be closed to fishing. They are rumored to be proposing many ares for closure in the nomination process. I have experience with this group for 5 years at the Federal Council. The rumors of their positions have nearly always resulted in an understatement of what they eventually put on the table. They will very likely be proposing areas where fishing effort is high.

Oregon's fishery scientists are not all on the same page. I know of no ODFW staff that openly support fishing closures for any reason other than for sustainability. OSU fishery scientists are a different story. There are two prominent well respected scientists there who openly support marine reserves and do not support current fishery management practices. These two regularly collaborate with reps from the foundations who are pushing for closures.

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by black magic

There are two prominent well respected scientists there who openly support marine reserves and do not support current fishery management practices. These two regularly collaborate with reps from the foundations who are pushing for closures.

Are they receiving funding for thier research from those foundations?

[Metal Manipulator]

I will say one thing this discussion is activating my brain and I am atarting to remember many things that were spoken the OPAC meei=ting which I have attended the last two years. This is working as good as brain teasers.

[black magic]

Originally Posted by KeyWest

Are they receiving funding for thier research from those foundations?

Dean,
I don't know. I haven't done the research. They do work from grant funding which comes from sources both public and private.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by black magic

I'll put you in the prophet column, Bob

Even though you're cheating with your prophecy. You have California history to refer to.

Oceana has proposed that at least 30% of Oregon's territorial sea needs to be closed to fishing. They are rumored to be proposing many ares for closure in the nomination process. I have experience with this group for 5 years at the Federal Council. The rumors of their positions have nearly always resulted in an understatement of what they eventually put on the table. They will very likely be proposing areas where fishing effort is high.

Oregon's fishery scientists are not all on the same page. I know of no ODFW staff that openly support fishing closures for any reason other than for sustainability. OSU fishery scientists are a different story. There are two prominent well respected scientists there who openly support marine reserves and do not support current fishery management practices. These two regularly collaborate with reps from the foundations who are pushing for closures.

Now that's just cheating John! And the fact of the matter is that California didn't have you and Walter and a lot of others. Sure they had good people, but they hadn't seen it take place before. We have.

John, I know you vehemently believe that Marine Reserves as currently proposed are a bad deal all around. As you know, I agree with that. With what is currently in front of us, I happen to agree that the best course of action is to stop the process in it's tracks.

Groups like Oceana and others definitely need to be kept out of the money loop and fought against every step of the way with regard to our state waters. There can be no doubt about that.

The only argument I would make is that categorically placing all people that believe there is justification for no-take zones in the same category is dangerous at best. Alienating individuals that may very well work with you and share 98% of common goals and beliefs isn't a good thing in the long run.

[Moldy45]

Originally Posted by Nalu

Bob- Some of us are doing the best we can to provide logical arguments and rationale thinking. You are making bold statements trying to get people fired up, but you have not referenced anything that can be substantiated. As Bill noted we have some very respected people that are right in the midst of the process and trying to provide fair and balanced scientific information.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, only that if you wish to provide conspiracy theories, at least do us a favor and connect some of the dots. Coming from a place where fact was king, when did theory and conjecture take over from fact and data?

I am lost here?
I attended 2 OPAC meetings and I think that the meetings were presented by some very highly educated folks unlike myself who just wonders around here from the neck down.
Both the meeting I was at I got the strong feeling that the panel did not think MR's were the ticket.
I think they said they were given a mandate from the gov to go and present the info they have to the coastal communities and get there feed back.
I think If I was the gov I would send the best I got.
do you think he sent lesser than that?
While at Reedsport one of the questions that I thought summed it up was when during there 5 questions all by the way all were being asked in a way as to the reserves are here what do you think would do this or that....
A guy raised hi hand to say "How can you ask that question when your list of unknowns is so long how can I answer it?"
The list of unknowns is way to long and to big to just even give a inch of our waters.
look south there is your example.
Bob I stand behind you!

So now the meetings are wrapped up! the OPAC group will sort the comment cards and emails so on and so forth. Then hand them to Ted who will in all likely hood say hum lets do it.
? where are the scientist working on this?
Please explain? what is the next step?

I am looking forward to looking at the bloody deck photo's in the future of stocked rainbow trout limits filling the fish boxes of some of the most comfy to large lake boats we have

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by Moldy45

I am looking forward to looking at the bloody deck photo's in the future of stocked rainbow trout limits filling the fish boxes of some of the most comfy to large lake boats we have

Now that there is funny - I don't care who you are

[Moldy45]

HEHE no kidding Dean. look what they done to me! I never get this winded over anything, usually just a tease or a poke but I find I am using spell checker way to much lately

[Metal Manipulator]

Now if we had leadership for the fishing communities we would all gather and decide where the line is to be drawn in the sand. Then in order to win no one would be allowd to cross that line and compromise the rest of the group. All together in one accord against those who wish to do us wrong.

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Moldy45

I am lost here?
I attended 2 OPAC meetings and I think that the meetings were presented by some very highly educated folks unlike myself who just wonders around here from the neck down.
Both the meeting I was at I got the strong feeling that the panel did not think MR's were the ticket.
I think they said they were given a mandate from the gov to go and present the info they have to the coastal communities and get there feed back.
I think If I was the gov I would send the best I got.
do you think he sent lesser than that?
While at Reedsport one of the questions that I thought summed it up was when during there 5 questions all by the way all were being asked in a way as to the reserves are here what do you think would do this or that....
A guy raised hi hand to say "How can you ask that question when your list of unknowns is so long how can I answer it?"
The list of unknowns is way to long and to big to just even give a inch of our waters.
look south there is your example.
Bob I stand behind you!

So now the meetings are wrapped up! the OPAC group will sort the comment cards and emails so on and so forth. Then hand them to Ted who will in all likely hood say hum lets do it.
? where are the scientist working on this?
Please explain? what is the next step?

I am looking forward to looking at the bloody deck photo's in the future of stocked rainbow trout limits filling the fish boxes of some of the most comfy to large lake boats we have

Bruce-

If you attended meetings over the last couple of weeks you did not attend OPAC meetings, you attended OSU Seagrant Outreach meetings. Seagrant will sort out the comment cards and written statements that we turned in and make recommendations. This is the stated goals of the Outreach process:

• Phase 1: Sea Grant will conduct listening and information-gathering activities in several coastal port communities, in formats designed to suit each community's needs and preferences - for instance, listening-based forums, discussion groups, etc. At the conclusion of Phase 1, in mid-March, Sea Grant will deliver an interim report to the Governor, OPAC, and state agencies involved in the marine reserves process. One desired outcome is the formation of local working groups to further study the issue and, if they choose, nominate areas in their regions as potential marine reserves.
• Phase 2: OPAC will use the interim report to help complete their marine reserve policy recommendations to the governor. During this phase, Oregon Sea Grant will support local working groups and assist OPAC and the state in communicating with the public about the marine reserve nomination process

The next step is probably better answered by John or Walter. Continued pressure on OPAC asking them to send a message to the governor that Marine Reserves are an unneeded, unwanted, and unwarranted waste of time and energy at this point would be my best suggestion.

I got much the same feeling as you did at the Newport meeting. Seems like the panel very much was doing the best they could to be unbiased and while answering the best they could. Since Patty Burke and Jeff Felder were a part of this, I'm pretty confident that the message of "no support" will be echoed loud and clear.

[Metal Manipulator]

Originally Posted by Moldy45

HEHE no kidding Dean. look what they done to me! I never get this winded over anything, usually just a tease or a poke but I find I am using spell checker way to much lately

Now that's funny!!!

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Wet Fly

Now if we had leadership for the fishing communities we would all gather and decide where the line is to be drawn in the sand. Then in order to win no one would be allowd to cross that line and compromise the rest of the group. All together in one accord against those who wish to do us wrong.

That's an interesting concept Robin. What I hear from more than a few here though is that the only line they are willing to stand behind is the one stating "no change". No reserves, no no-take areas, nothing that could change any possibility of reduced access in any form except regulations. Anything that might hint at being remotely similar to something the "enviros" want is immediately discounted as the path straight to elimination of all fishing.

Not sure where to go from there.....

[KeyWest]

Well, one suggestion from Patty was for the coastal communities to have a united voice - but when she mentioned that she was speaking direclty to the Warrenton group. I don't believe there is any north coast group like in the central and southern coasts.

Do you think there would be any chance of the coastal communities getting together with a single voice - realizing that not everyone will agree with the entire group - but that may be much more effective than everyone voicing thier own individual concerns.

You willing to lead? Would you be allowed to lead? Would instead one of the coastal elected officials care to lead - such as a group of the coastal community mayors? Just a thought.

[Moldy45]

Originally Posted by Nalu

Bruce-

If you attended meetings over the last couple of weeks you did not attend OPAC meetings, you attended OSU Seagrant Outreach meetings. Seagrant will sort out the comment cards and written statements that we turned in and make recommendations. This is the stated goals of the Outreach process:

• Phase 1: Sea Grant will conduct listening and information-gathering activities in several coastal port communities, in formats designed to suit each community's needs and preferences - for instance, listening-based forums, discussion groups, etc. At the conclusion of Phase 1, in mid-March, Sea Grant will deliver an interim report to the Governor, OPAC, and state agencies involved in the marine reserves process. One desired outcome is the formation of local working groups to further study the issue and, if they choose, nominate areas in their regions as potential marine reserves.
• Phase 2: OPAC will use the interim report to help complete their marine reserve policy recommendations to the governor. During this phase, Oregon Sea Grant will support local working groups and assist OPAC and the state in communicating with the public about the marine reserve nomination process

The next step is probably better answered by John or Walter. Continued pressure on OPAC asking them to send a message to the governor that Marine Reserves are an unneeded, unwanted, and unwarranted waste of time and energy at this point would be my best suggestion.

While you are a very eloquent talker and I give you all due respect Mike.
Your last 4 sentences are the best I have heard from you today.
I see I may have wore you down abit .
As from my first rebuttal I stand pat that we don't need reserves.

Yours truly Moldy Bruce Not Moldy Mike

[black magic]

Groups like Oceana and others definitely need to be kept out of the money loop and fought against every step of the way with regard to our state waters. There can be no doubt about that.

There is no law preventing them from funding the whole thing. When this happens it is called a public private partnership. We and others have made loud noises about this. So far we can only rely on the integrity of public officials who have told us they won't allow this to happen. It's a rather thin string of trust we are sitting on.

The only argument I would make is that categorically placing all people that believe there is justification for no-take zones in the same category is dangerous at best. Alienating individuals that may very well work with you and share 98% of common goals and beliefs isn't a good thing in the long run.

OK, Mike, you confused me on this one. Where have I catagorically placed no-take zoners in the same catagory? Where have I alienated anyone? Who is it that may work with me and share 98% of my goals? I'm actually not anti-reserve. I am pro sustainable fishing. Anyone can have as many reserves as they want as long as they cut an honest deal with fisheries. We want something in return for these proposals. It's called mitigation. Helping fisheries expand opportunities would be one good form of mitigation.