Oceana Proposed MR Sites

[KeyWest]

Oceana presented the following 9 sites for closure today (note, the document says 31 - but read it is from point to point). You should review and see if they affect you and your fishing opportunities. If they do, I would suggest you get in touch with ODFW to give your input. Here are the 9 proposed sites:

http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/ocea..._brochure_.pdf

If you have input, you should get in touch with:

Bowles, Ed
Fish Division Administrator
Ed.Bowles@state.or.us
503-947-6206

For those that are out of the CR (my area), notice the area from Tillamook Rock to Cape Falcon would be closed.
I will post the total percent of the coastal area being proposed for closure (but not tonite).

[Salty Walty]

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthrea...ighlight=meyer

Looks like they and their coalition partners have been busy spending that $700K from Meyer Memorial Trust.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Letter sent to Mr. Bowles and CC to you Dean.

[Phil Layer]

Good idea shutting down Seal Rocks. There won't be an economic impact to that decision as nobody ever fishes there.

[tippet]

[quote=KeyWest;2137354]Oceana presented the following 9 sites for closure today (note, the document says 31 - but read it is from point to point). You should review and see if they affect you and your fishing opportunities. If they do, I would suggest you get in touch with ODFW to give your input. Here are the 9 proposed sites:


Is there a source of information with details on the exact boundaries of closed areas? (i.e. how BIG an area around Seal Rocks would be closed, etc). Or have they gotten that far...... inquiring minds want to know!

[Pilar]

Not very detailed is it? Much like the rest of the stuff they distribute .. long on emotional appeal and short on facts and details.

[Gundog]

I only know the area from Brookings to Gold Beach but that removes every good place to fish my favorite place on earth is number 28. This really sucks. What can I do to help try and stop this?
Mike

[Pilar]

Another interesting thing is the packaging of the 'hit list' of the 31 locations that were always on the list to nine areas as ordered by governor legacy.

Seal and bird spots are already protected by seasonal nesting closures.

[freespool]

I have some questions about the 31 proposed MR.
How big are they? What percentage of the approximately 1086 square miles of Oregon waters does this represent?

[HiTekRdNek]

By the criteria that was to be meet before any consideration was given to any proposal this whole dog and pony show from Oceana has none of them taken included. Not sure what the ploy is here?
This whole process is beginning to stink more and more.

[Pilar]

Sizing and spacing criteria? 20 km at not to exceed a 50 km interval. Just about what you see on the map. From the northern most of each group to the southern most.

20 /1.6 = 12.5 miles

50/1.6 = 31.25 miles

Approx 300 miles of coast and 9 * 12.5 miles closed. So I would say 35% to 40% of it closed to the 3 miles line. I would not worry about lineal coastline .. think about distance from shore. If you stack an MPA out to the 200 mile line on each of the 9 areas and place them in just the right places you get the unstated goal of PEW.

Stop Fishing.

This is not about anything but the stopping of fishing.

[Bill Monroe]

OK, I don't understand...

There is nothing on that list that proposes a closure. All nine zones would far surpass the governor's sideboards (or ODFW's) for "small."

The list, to me anyway, simply says these are 31 ecologically important zones.

The rest of this thread seems as frought with paranoia and suggestive misinformation as both sides accuse each other of fostering the past several months.

What am I missing? Cut to the chase and set aside the bias (anti-MR, anti-Kulongoski, anti-enviro, etc.) and tell me what is wrong with pointing these areas out?

Are we fearing fear itself?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Sizing and spacing criteria? 20 km at not to exceed a 50 km interval. Just about what you see on the map. From the northern most of each group to the southern most.

20 /1.6 = 12.5 miles

50/1.6 = 31.25 miles

Approx 300 miles of coast and 9 * 12.5 miles closed. So I would say 35% to 40% of it closed to the 3 miles line. I would not worry about lineal coastline .. think about distance from shore. If you stack an MPA out to the 200 mile line on each of the 9 areas and place them in just the right places you get the unstated goal of PEW.

Stop Fishing.

This is not about anything but the stopping of fishing.

I don't think that all these proposed sites extend out three miles, in fact do any of them?
Does a area map of these sites exist? 35-40% of the inshore coast seems excessive.

[Etonfish]

Originally Posted by KeyWest

For those that are out of the CR (my area), notice the area from Tillamook Rock to Cape Falcon would be closed.

That would be the final nail in the coffin of the Cannon Beach dory fleet. The charters, and lately a few sport boats from Garibaldi use this area heavily for bottom fish. It would be a complete disaster.

[Mypursuit]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

OK, I don't understand...

There is nothing on that list that proposes a closure. All nine zones would far surpass the governor's sideboards (or ODFW's) for "small."

The list, to me anyway, simply says these are 31 ecologically important zones.

The rest of this thread seems as frought with paranoia and suggestive misinformation as both sides accuse each other of fostering the past several months.

What am I missing? Cut to the chase and set aside the bias (anti-MR, anti-Kulongoski, anti-enviro, etc.) and tell me what is wrong with pointing these areas out?

Are we fearing fear itself?

PM sent

[Mypursuit]

Originally Posted by freespool

I don't think that all these proposed sites extend out three miles, in fact do any of them?
Does a area map of these sites exist? 35-40% of the inshore coast seems excessive.

Actually, the Cape Meares to Cape Lookout sight may not extend a full 3 miles but it does extend across some of the only rocky reefs that are within reach of nearshore fisherman out of Garibaldi.

Currently that area is now limited to within the 124 line as the fishing is limited to within 20 fathoms. So this area, as they describe it shuts an incredibly safe and productive area for rockfish.

I might add that as these are more shallow reefs, the bycatch of Canary and Yellow-eye is very limited. So where's the science to support the closure??

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Mypursuit

Actually, the Cape Meares to Cape Lookout sight may not extend a full 3 miles but it does extend across some of the only rocky reefs that are within reach of nearshore fisherman out of Garibaldi.

Currently that area is now limited to within the 124 line as the fishing is limited to within 20 fathoms. So this area, as they describe it shuts an incredibly safe and productive area for rockfish.

I might add that as these are more shallow reefs, the bycatch of Canary and Yellow-eye is very limited. So where's the science to support the closure??

The reason I wanted to see a map of these areas is that if you read the description, many don't even mention fish as a reason for the protection.
There seems to be a lot of speculation on these MR, when I hear the words 'Lock Up The Coast" I also smell the faint oder of BS in the air.

[Deeman]

Bill, I dont see where there is a formal nomination in the brochure either. However I do see 9 Zones encompassing the 31 areas. I have in learned in this process that coincidences are usually not. So it may well be that at least a little paranoia is justified especially with the process and goals changing yet again.

[Deeman]

Freespool, First off the Marine reserves as proposed will extend out to the three mile line by definition. All they are asking for in the nomination process are North South boundries.
Second, as to total areas. How about if we close the Willamette below Oregon City to Sturgeon fishing but leave the rest of the system open. We have closed a very small fraction of the river but virtually all of the sturgeon fishing whether measured by catch or effort. Put another way that you might understand, the actual dams on the Columbia comprise less then 1% of the total area of the system. How can something that small, when taken in total context of the river length cause any real problems. The Salmon problems (by your definition as applied to Marine Reserves) must be caused by something else. Further, if 30% of the total Territorial Sea and Coastline hold structure and Rockfish and they close only 20% of the total Territorial Sea, but take that 20% from the 30% that holds fish they have effectively closed 2/3rds of the fishing. While at the same time squeezing 100% of the effort into 1/3 of the space. Explain how that is good for fish or species, please.
Third as to "Lock Up The Coast" What part on NO DISTURBANCE dont you understand.
Finally, anyone who uses the total area of Marine Reserves verses the Total area of the Territorial Sea as a rationalization of why MRs are a good idea is at best astoundingly ignorant of the issue. At worst they are using misinformation and deceit to sway opinion to what must be an otherwise indefensible position. During a what I thought was an undeserved tongue lashing I once told an old coach of mine that I smelled Horse S___. He quickly replied that I could solve the problem "by taking my head out of the HORSES A__" I did and it has smelled better every since.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Deeman

Freespool, First off the Marine reserves as proposed will extend out to the three mile line by definition. All they are asking for in the nomination process are North South boundries.
Second, as to total areas. How about if we close the Willamette below Oregon City to Sturgeon fishing but leave the rest of the system open. We have closed a very small fraction of the river but virtually all of the sturgeon fishing whether measured by catch or effort. Put another way that you might understand, the actual dams on the Columbia comprise less then 1% of the total area of the system. How can something that small, when taken in total context of the river length cause any real problems. The Salmon problems (by your definition as applied to Marine Reserves) must be caused by something else. Further, if 30% of the total Territorial Sea and Coastline hold structure and Rockfish and they close only 20% of the total Territorial Sea, but take that 20% from the 30% that holds fish they have effectively closed 2/3rds of the fishing. While at the same time squeezing 100% of the effort into 1/3 of the space. Explain how that is good for fish or species, please.
Third as to "Lock Up The Coast" What part on NO DISTURBANCE dont you understand.
Finally, anyone who uses the total area of Marine Reserves verses the Total area of the Territorial Sea as a rationalization of why MRs are a good idea is at best astoundingly ignorant of the issue. At worst they are using misinformation and deceit to sway opinion to what must be an otherwise indefensible position. During a what I thought was an undeserved tongue lashing I once told an old coach of mine that I smelled Horse S. He quickly replied that I could solve the problem "by taking my head out of the HORSES A__" I did and it has smelled better every scince.

Until I see a map of these proposed areas, how can you say they all extend out 3 miles? Many of the areas don't mention fish as a species of protection.
And as for closing down the entire coast, that's like saying we don't need Crater Lake Park, because if we designate it as a park, soon all public land will be a park.

[Bill Monroe]

Originally Posted by Deeman

Bill, I dont see where there is a formal nomination in the brochure either. However I do see 9 Zones encompassing the 31 areas. I have in learned in this process that coincidences are usually not. So it may well be that at least a little paranoia is justified especially with the process and goals changing yet again.

I think it's completely justified...a little paranoia though goes a long way. Skepticism is a lot healthier. A lot of otherwise useful energy is wasted in paranoia.

[Pilar]

Until I see a map of these proposed areas, how can you say they all extend out 3 miles? Many of the areas don't mention fish as a species of protection.
And as for closing down the entire coast, that's like saying we don't need Crater Lake Park, because of we designate it as a park, soon all public land will be a park.

Actually it's not like that at all. I can go and visit Crater lake anytime it is physically possible with few restrictions not already mandated by common sense. National parks to preserve unique places makes sense to me. Closing the nearshore to access by one user group, fishers, while allowing others to access it does not. Closing the nearshore because you *believe* it will help the area is lunacy. And stating your beliefs in these things while telling lies to the public at large and making it out that you are doing this because you believe in it without mentioning your lobbyist paid position to push this agenda is dishonest at best and borderline criminal at worst.

When you look at a chart of the nearshore and note the locations of rocky areas vs. the proposed closures is it an amazing coincidence that almost all the major nearshore structure is designated for closure?

I humbly suggest that you attend a few meetings. You will hear things and see things that are not on the regularly scheduled menu nor are they printed or otherwise broadcast. You have to be there and see it to believe it. I won't bore you with examples except for one.

Having a major player in Audobon put his arm around your shoulders after he figures out you are a fisher and tell you "don't worry we'll still get to fish" is priceless. This after he was overheard making other diametrically opposed statements to a major player in the surfer contingent.

Call me paranoid if you want to. Believe me we will discuss this again and I won't be polite when we recall how it used to be before they closed much of the accessible waters on our coast to fishermen.

We've seen this movie. Look to California for the previews. Same players, same money behind it, same agenda.

We have protected areas and they are never mentioned in the hype of the MR supporters. Nor is any credit given to regulations which are working to prevent overharvest of fish. Since 2000 many of the things which crushed rockfish populations have been corrected.

MR's are going to fix everything that is wrong with *our ocean*. Outrageous statement? Go to a meeting and hear it for yourself right from the horses @$$.

[northriver1]

Originally Posted by freespool

Until I see a map of these proposed areas, how can you say they all extend out 3 miles? Many of the areas don't mention fish as a species of protection.
And as for closing down the entire coast, that's like saying we don't need Crater Lake Park, because if we designate it as a park, soon all public land will be a park.

Three miles from the beach is not the yard stick to measure the State of Oregon"s jusisdiction. As explained to me by Patty Burked the three miles begins at the farthest point west of exposed rocks which are not covered by water at high tide. If one cares to look the Port Orford Reef is beyound three miles from the beach and is included in Oceana land grab.

[corrirod]

Personally I don't need to do anything but look into the recent past of California's NO-FISHING zones, oh I mean "Marine Reserves", to know what is about to happen to our State waters.

Same players, same game, but hopefully with a different outcome.

Has anyone from ODFW acknowledged that these "Important Evironmental Areas" are in fact in dire straits, so much so that they need to be completely quaranteened from any human interaction? What scientific reason do we have to spend 10's of millions of dollars per year to section off our ocean? They can't even prove that 1 MR will work, why do they need 9?

When you have a new business start-up, do you start with 9 stores or do you open 1 and see how it goes then open the rest? Of course I guess if you were getting FREE money (like with the MR's) to open all 9 stores you probably wouldn't care would you?

Paranoia?? As I recall there were quite a few people in New Orleans who told their exiting neighbors they were being paranoid about Katrina.

The only way to stop this is to stop the funding. We must tell our representatives NOT to fund this debacle.

I'm not for killing our coastal resources but I want to see factual data that not only shows there is a problem, but that we also have a well defined plan. And once you have a plan I want to see a small "test" zone, not huge chunks of ocean, to prove the plan will work. Is that too much to ask for?

[Bill Monroe]

OK, out of curiosity then...

If reserves in California hadn't been railroaded and sport anglers had been part of the process all along...and, in fact, had prevailed and the California system were a lot smaller and more intensely studied, what would the reaction here have been?

I recall reporting on 2,4,5-T in the Coast Range in the 70s. Loggers and even foresters and others' main argument was "we'll keep using it until someone can prove it's a problem."

I sense some of the same tones here.

Sadly, for the sake of skeptics and paranoics (huh?), forest management led away from all woody brush and 2,4,5-T replacements resulted in vast swaths of clearcuts that are now bathed in Canadian thistle without any regenerative undergrowth so fir can be released again for the near-term profit. Deer and elk suffered.

[Bucolic buffalo]

At first blush it doesn't sound like much of an effect with the Siltcoos to Tenmile creek area but it covers an area very important to Winchester Bay. There is no bottom fishing within the 40 fathom line there but there is an important coho, chinook and crabbing zone both north and south of the Umpqua. Commercial crabbing and coho and chinook for the fishing fleets. There are no options at this port for fishing. To take this away will absolutely destroy this port. Their agenda is not just protection but to eliminate fishing under the guise of conservation. To say it is only 9 locations is a falsehood when it is really 31 areas and should be viewed as it is, a blatant attempt to close the ocean to fishing by limiting easy access to all fishermen.

[Deeman]

Bill, although its hypothetical ( since the fishermen WERE railroaded, were NOT a meaningful part of the process, the areas ARE large [and growing], and NOT studied intensely) my guess is that the reaction would have been significantly different. Few fishermen really pitch a fit when limits are lowered or seasons shortened even if it happens mid-season. Even with the total closure of the Ocean commercial Salmon season most only complained about what it meant to their jobs and income, not about the justification for the closure. I know very few fishermen, sport or otherwise, who want to see the Ocean *****. But that is most definitively not what the MR proposal about. It is about stopping fishing, extraction and ocean recreation that does not fit within a narrow agenda driven by well organized and monied idealogues. The conservation, scientific study, and fear mongoring about the state of our Ocean habitat and diversity is simply cover. If those reasons have any meaningful impact it is only to the extent that it "fits" with the overall goal of "NO DISTURBANCE" , unless of course that disturbance is caused by a group that supports the greater cause. (See Surfrider). As to the 2,4,5,T question, I have very little first hand knoweledge, (my main goal at that time was finding someone 21 to buy me a sixpack) but it seems that the simple answer was to scientifically show that it caused problems. With that information use could have and should have been ended. Dont forget that the same type agenda driven brains who led away from woody brush and to the Canadian thistle are the same types who would lead us away from wise current management practices in the Ocean to unproven hypothesis driven management theory with the added bonus of severely curtailing fishing for sportsmen and professionals alike.

[Critr Gitr]

Why 31 areas with 9 groupings ? Coincidence that Gov K is looking at 9 MRs ... Hmmm ?

OK so I took the approximate locations of the 9 grouping as Key West pointed out .. and came up with some interesting numbers.

Assuming worse case point to point distances specified by oceana within these 9 areas pt A to pt B etc ..the following is a breakdown of their 157.23 mile proposal. Add to that a potential 3 mile sea limit and we are talking some major real (water)estate.... 43% ?

Tillamook Head to Cape Falcon 13.1 miles

Cape Meares to Cape Kiwanda 16.4 miles
Cascade Head to Seal Rock 40.3 miles
Cape Perpetua to Heceta Head 10.4 miles

Siltcoos to Tenmile Creek 21.8 miles
Cape Arago to Coquille Reef 16 miles
Cape Blanco and the Orford Reef Complex 16.8 miles
Rogue Reef to Cape Sebastian 8.73 miles
Crook Point to Harris Beach 13.7 miles



OUCH !!

[corrirod]

Perhaps we should flip the paranoia coin over for a minute and ask why the urgent need to all of a sudden grab miles and miles of ocean that is currently being managed already? Or why are they so paranoid to get all these other spots rather than use the existing MPA's to do their study?

Since we're on the timber subject, I fortunately moved to Oregon after you all thankfully saved the spotted owl. Now which of the groups involved with that endeavor would be considered paranoid? Loggers or Enviro-mentals? I'd call it a knee-jerk reaction to accomplish something based on pure emotion and no science. And this Marine Reserve idea seems to have a similar smell to it..............

I'm not sure why everyone (that is everyone who is Pro-MR) is O.K. with the fact the Governor completely ignored the OPAC decision. When I need to dig a hole in my backyard and I have the "experts" at the Gas company come out to make sure I don't hit a gas line, I don't decide later that I know better and then go ahead and dig anyway.

Doesn't the fact that he ignored the "experts" tell you there is something fishy going on here? Doesn't it tell you that he is more driven by emotion, rather than science?

I don't know about you but I don't hop on a bus without knowing where it's going first.

[freespool]

Has anyone read the pretection focus of all 31 of these proposed MR sites?
19 of the 31 don't mention the word fish. Why is that?
Could it be the number one threat to our coast line is urban development?
I still would like to see just how many square miles of open water this plan entails.

[JimM]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

OK, I don't understand...

There is nothing on that list that proposes a closure. All nine zones would far surpass the governor's sideboards (or ODFW's) for "small."

The list, to me anyway, simply says these are 31 ecologically important zones.

The rest of this thread seems as frought with paranoia and suggestive misinformation as both sides accuse each other of fostering the past several months.

What am I missing? Cut to the chase and set aside the bias (anti-MR, anti-Kulongoski, anti-enviro, etc.) and tell me what is wrong with pointing these areas out?

Are we fearing fear itself?

Bill, remember in those old gangster movies where the mafioso mentions casually, with a big friendly smile on his face, that he knows where the "mark" lives, and inquires about the health of the mark's family?

The dialogue goes like this: "Bill, how is your lovely family? And your bootiful home? That's great, I'm glad to hear that. That's a helluva boat you have there, by the way. What do we really got - without our health... without our families? Whatta we got left, God forbid, we lose them?"

Oceana is like that. Very friendly. Unlike, say, the folks from the NRDC who give you no doubts about where they are coming from. By way of contrast, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) kicks in your door in with a bicycle chain, a blow torch, and a lawyer.

Oceana is just telling you, in a very friendly way, "I know where you fish." They are offering you protection.

Together these gangs (Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the rest) comprise the Ocean Protection Racket.

If you're a real comedian, or truly naive, you ask them: "Protect me from what?"

Based on my experience at the PFMC, and in California's MLPA process: Oceana never proposes specific MPAs. They come in with a big shopping list, like this list of "ecologically important areas."

Why are these areas any more special than others? Golly, it's rocky habitat, mostly; it's where the fish are.

Of course they would be out of their minds to expect ten mile square reserves at each of those locations. But aren't they wonderful when they "compromise" and take about half of that. You think, whatta nice bunch of guys.

I remember when a San Francisco Bay Area fishing club had high hopes for Oceana, because of Oceana's attack on the trawl industry during the Pacific Fishery Management Council's adoption of federal Essential Fish Habitat, "E.F.H.", regulations.

Oceana's Jim Ayres went around the Council advisory panels, telling the sportfishermen and commercial hook and line guys that "this is just about trawling; these regulations ONLY affect trawlers." He did not have a specific set of proposed regulations, merely a shopping list of "ecological gem" type areas. However, his lawyer, a stunningly beautiful woman with a hard face, testified: "This is not the time for BABY steps... The judge has ruled...."

Only: the regulations didn't just affect trawlers; in some cases the proposed EFH regulations banned, permanently, "bottom-contact" gear including crab pots, even recreational fishing gear in some cases. Sure, the losses to the recreational sector was minimal, mainly because the Recreational Fishing Alliance members at the Council were watching them like hawks. Spearfishing was almost banned in many of these MPAs without anyone noticing because it wasn't listed on the "approved gear types" like hook and line.

RFA Oregon's John Holloway and I learned then and there how Oceana operates. We noted that they obtained - illegally, some claimed - confidential log book data which they used to great effect.

Without doubt: trawling needs to be limited to sandy or muddy bottom where it does not destroy rocky bottom. It's the structure that provides "essential fish habitat" for rockfish. The RFA did raise some questions about the data Oceana was using to determine the areas proposed for closure, because there wasn't any. I thought there ought to be some scientific basis to show the areas they were closing were truly rocky. Not because I like trawling, but because I know that once a precedent is set, in a federal rule, that precedent applies to the recreational sector as well.

Getting back to the fishing club's high hopes for Oceana: they asked them to come to the PFMC and testify in favor of having a salmon season in California in 2006. They came, they testified, but I never heard Oceana actually endorse the options we were asking for. Instead, the kids from Oceana talked about how sea lions need salmon for "forage." An audible groan went out in the audience of fishermen. Later, after the vote, a letter appeared from Oceana endorsing the final vote.

No matter: let's fast forward to California's MLPA process, when there was talk about Oceana helping the sportfishermen v. the commercials when it came to proposing MPAs in California. That help never materialized, unless we missed it. The sportfishermen ended up working with the commercial fishermen to put forward an alternative that balanced the needs of all marine resource harvesters. We have yet to find out which MLPA alternative the California Fish & Game Commission will adopt.

Oregonians would be wise to avoid the smiley faces of the Ocean Protection Racket like the plague. Ask the real political decision-makers: why are water quality issues not being addressed by the Marine Protection Racket? (Here's a hint: their main funder, the Pew Charitable Trust, was built upon the proceeds of the Sun Oil Company fortune. Another main funder, Hewlett-Packard, turned the South San Francisco Bay into a toxic sewer and then shifted their manufacturing operations overseas.)

Paranoid? You be the judge. Naive? Never. Anti-enviro? Nope.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance in California has worked hard to build bridges with local watershed groups who are innocent enough to think that "marine protected areas" mean more than a set of anti-fishing regulations. They believe that the bays and estuaries and our coastline, the nurseries for our fisheries, ought to be protected from gross polluters, illegal water diversions, and pesticides. They seek alliances with sport and commercial fishermen because they see us as the economic basis for their arguments. Clean water + healthy fisheries = jobs. It's simple math that even I can understand.

[Pilar]

You know where it is going Rod. Incremental steps to closing off fishing areas. This is the pattern in the Florida Keys and now lately in California. The recent statements about MPA's in conjunction with MRs is also easily predictable. In California several areas have been greatly expanded by the use of MPAs to extend the closure beyond the state 3 mile limit.

We have MPAs and closed areas now. Specifically 14 areas closed for bird nesting sites and the whale cove closure for 15 total. Add the stonewall bank yellow eye conservation area (several square miles), the Rockfish conservation area (hundreds of square miles), the seasonal 40 (no wait now 20) fathom bottomfish closure and the myriad regulations and we have closures for specific purposes. None of these areas are studied. None of these closures are even mentioned in the push for more closures. Do these closures have any effect? Maybe the question is do these existing closures put any money or reason to exist in the pockets of the MR proponents?

These existing closures are there for specific reasons and this way of doing things is called adaptive management and I totally support it. What we are fighting against is called 'faith based management'. I will fight that until it is banished.

Please check out Dr. Ray Hilborn and what he has to say about this. Dr. Hilborn is a fisheries biologist, professor and lecturer and he is telling it like it is.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pfrp/lar...006(faith).pdf

His lecture on this topic is also available on a streaming link. Much of the touted 'science' has issues with peer review and even outright fraud. The paper by Boris Worm predicting the end of world fish populations by 2048 is a prime example. Published without a peer review in prestigious journals, widely (still) quoted by the eco - crazies and later discredited. Yes this lecture is an hour long but I think the return on investment is considerably higher than an hour of reality TV. Your mileage may vary. The guy is an entertaining lecturer. And you might learn something.

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

[tippet]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

OK, I don't understand...

There is nothing on that list that proposes a closure. All nine zones would far surpass the governor's sideboards (or ODFW's) for "small."

The list, to me anyway, simply says these are 31 ecologically important zones.

The rest of this thread seems as frought with paranoia and suggestive misinformation as both sides accuse each other of fostering the past several months.

What am I missing? Cut to the chase and set aside the bias (anti-MR, anti-Kulongoski, anti-enviro, etc.) and tell me what is wrong with pointing these areas out?

Are we fearing fear itself?

Bill - You are right. Nowhere on the brochure are marine reserves or closures mentioned. It seems highly likely though that this is a step in the process of providing documentation and doing outreach so that when sites are nominated there is some weight behind those nominations. At first glance, the 31 sites they highlight do represent ecologically important sites for our coastline. The real issue is how to manage those sites to preserve their integrity going into the future.

I have some experience with the process of setting priorities for research based on information gaps, then applying for money to conduct research to fill those information gaps. Its a bit different from what appears to be going on here, but not terribly so.

Yesterday I emailed Oceana's Portland office staff asking for more details on data sources and ideally a copy of the criteria/filters used to distinguish these 31 areas from others on the coastline. I will share that with this group if and when I get a response.


-Tippet

[KeyWest]

Originally Posted by freespool

I don't think that all these proposed sites extend out three miles, in fact do any of them?
Does a area map of these sites exist? 35-40% of the inshore coast seems excessive.

At the OPAC meeting is was stated many times that in order to enforce the MR's, the lines would be straight lines East / West drawn from the beach outward. One of the reason the MPA word was mentioned is that the rocky structures of interest exist in many places well within the 3 mile boundry and that so there is no reason to close out to 3 miles. Enforcement issues would make it impractical to not close out to the 3 mile line.

These aren't my opinions, these are my notes from the OPAC meeting.

[KeyWest]

My quick calculations (numbers rounded to nearest minute):

Cali/Oregon boarder - 42-00
Tip of South Jetty - 46-14
Distance: 4 Degrees, 14 minutes = 4*60 + 14 = 254 minutes = 254 miles.

Area 1: Tillamook Head to Cape Falcon
Tillamook Head: 45-57
Cape Falcon: 45-46
Distance: 11 minutes = 11 miles

Area 2: Cape Meares to Cape Kiwanda
Cape Meares: 45-30
Cape Kiwanda: 45-12
Distance: 18 minutes = 18 miles

Area 3: Cascade Head to Seal Rock
Cascade Head: 45-04
Seal Rock: 44-30
Distance: 34 minutes = 34 miles
Note: This entire stretch of coast will not be part of a single MR due to the port of Newport being within the area.

Area 4: Cape Perpetua to Heceta Head
Cape Perpetua: 44-17
Heceta Head: 44-08
Distance: 9 minutes = 9 miles

Area 5: Siltcoos to Tenmile Creek
Siltcoos River: 43-52
Tenmile Creek: 43-45
Distance: 7 minutes = 7 miles

Area 6: Cape Arago to Coquille Reef
Cape Arago: 43-20
Coquille Reef: 43-04
Distance: 16 minutes = 16 miles
Note: This entire stretch of coast will not be part of a single MR due to the port of Coos Bay being within the area.

Area 7: Cape Blanco and the Orford Reef Complex
Cape Blanco: 42-50
Orford Reef Complex: 42-34
Distance: 16 minutes = 16 miles
Note: This entire stretch of coast will not be part of a single MR due to the port of Port Orford being within the area.

Area 8: Rogue Reef to Cape Sebastian
Rogue Reef: 42-30
Cape Sebastian:42-19
Distance: 11 minutes = 11 miles

Area 9: Crook Point to Harris Beach:
Crook Point: 42-16
Harris Beach: 42-03
Distance: 13 minutes = 13 miles

Totals:
Area 1: 11 Miles
Area 2: 18 Miles
Area 3: 34 Miles
Area 4: 9 Miles
Area 5: 7 Miles
Area 6: 16 Miles
Area 7: 16 Miles
Area 8: 11 Miles
Area 9: 13 Miles

Total Miles: 135 Miles
Total Coast: 254 Miles
Percentage: 53%

So, I agree - these are not the proposed closures. Closed areas may be bigger, and may be smaller. But anyone that says "hey - forget about it" gets what they deserve. Let's put this in context. What would your reaction be if your income were reduced by 53%, or your taxes increased by 53% because the government might need the money some day (the insurance argument)?

I know, folks that don't actually fish the ocean and don't live on the coast don't really give a rip, and might even benefit by these closures. After all - there may be more salmon make it to the rivers if they aren't caught in the ocean. But isn't this akin to saying we should increase taxes on people that live along the coast by 53% because we have a larger voting population in the valley. Taking that further, since there are more of us in the valley, we can actually vote to take all the income from the folks on the coast in order for us to cut taxes on those of us that live in the valley.

[tippet]

From the horses mouth in the interest of sharing information. This is the response I received from Oceana regarding my questions about the brochure:


"You are correct that the numbered dots refer to general locations, rather than the more complex ecological features underlying them. We have been gathering physical and biological spatial data and information on the habitats and marine life off Oregon for about three years now. This brochure is intended to be an educational piece that illustrates our analysis into a broad overview.

While we were in the middle of this analysis, I gave a presentation on our work at the Coastal Zone 2007 conference held in Portland Oregon - July 2007. Since then we made some important changes using new physical and biological data and a review process with scientists and a with a MARXAN analysis. Attached is a summary of the GIS data we used. A final manuscript of the full analysis is not currently available.

The State of Oregon is currently in the process of soliciting nominations for marine reserves and protected areas. We are working in that process right now with a diversity of groups and individuals. In October, all of the proposals will be posted on the Oregon marine reserve website. http://www.oregonmarinereserves.net/ . Check out this website after October 6 and you should be able to find all of the proposed reserve and protected areas that different organizations and groups submit."



And here is a list of the GIS datasets used in the selection process:

Oregon

Physical and Biological

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data sources

Eastern N. Pacific Gray Whale Observations, OBIS-SEAMAP, 1986-2004

Oregon Canopy Kelp, Coastwide Survey, ODFW, 1990

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat, USFWS, 1996

Western Snowy Plover Critical Habitat, USFWS, 2005

Oregon Seabird Colony Locations, USFWS, 2008

Pinnipeds (Seals and Sea Lion) Haulout and Steller Sea Lion Rookeries, ODFW, 2008

Seagrasses, Pacific Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Project. Consolidated GIS Data. Volume I: Physical and Biological Habitat. NOAA, 2005

Estuaries, Pacific Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Project. Consolidated GIS Data. Volume I: Physical and Biological Habitat. NOAA, 2005

Coral and sponge, NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center slope and shelf trawl surveys, 1977 to 2001, and Northwest Fisheries Science Center slope and shelf trawl surveys, 2001 to 2003

Rocky Intertidal, Shoreline Classified by Environmental Sensitivity to Spilled Oil (ESI),
NOAA, 1996

Rocky Reefs and Gravel Habitat, Version 2 IOOS, Surficial Geologic Habitat, Washington and Oregon continental margins, Active Tectonics and Seafloor Mapping Lab, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 2008

10 meter bathymetry, Pacific Coast Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat Project. Consolidated GIS Data. Volume I: Physical and Biological Habitat. NOAA, 2005