Dreaded Reserves for Oregon?

[Captain Amana]

I was just checking the news and ran across a couple of articles that the Oregonian Anglers should be interested in.

It seems that there is a group that's doing a study of the oceans and their eco systems. After their years of study they have issued their report. Although they are reporting nothing we anglers don't already know, they are proposing RESERVES starting in Oregon.

Here in So. California we've been saddled with RESERVES. While I will agree that the intent is good the method is weak. Closing the inshore recreational fisheries to recreational angling is costing millions of dollars in lost revenue for the entire industry. That's not even mentioning taking away the most productive fishing areas from the recreational anglers. The recreational anglers who don't add up to a gnats wings in the overall scheme of things.

My warning here is that the anglers need to have a voice. California Anglers waited too long. I hope you've already got a handle on this.

Here a couple of links .

Link 1

Link 2

[ 06-04-2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: corrirod ]

[corrirod]

Thanks for the links and the heads-up.

[OceanBlue]

I've got a message in to the head of the marine resources program at ODFW. I hope to hear back from her soon.

We heard the term "marine reserves" a couple of times during groundfish discussions at various ODFW commission meetings last year. One or two of the commissioners kept saying "maybe we should create marine reserves."

While I applaud the fact that they were saying this out of concern to protect our resources, I don't think these particular individuals understood what the economic impact of creating such reserves would be. Tourists don't come to Oregon to dive or look at coral reefs from glass-bottom boats. They come here to catch fish.

[Mark Mc]

The Ocean Policy Advisory Council delivered this report on marine reserves to the governor:

OPAC Report on Marine Reserves

Go to page 13 for the recommendations.

Here is Kitzhaber's response:

response

All this is on the OPAC website:

OPAC

p.s. Amana, I can appreciate how central & southern CA fishermen & women appear to be getting screwed on reserves, with your channel islands & such being at stake. However, I think it is premature to call the idea "dreaded" in Oregon. The process for creating them is being developed, and there is a huge desire by all parties for it to be very participative.

[ 06-04-2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Mark Mc ]

[skein]

Remember, this is an arm of the PEW Charitable Trusts, and they are into "set asides," big time, on land and sea. They focus largely on "incidents" and you hear very little from them about successes that do not follow their selective focus.

It echoes the "I'm here now - it's time to close the gates" mentality.

I'll bet they live in subdivisions, though, with paved streets and fertilized lawns.

Do I sound cynical?

Skein

[Mark Mc]

Hi Skein, yes the PEW folks may have been involved in the California reserves, but not in Oregon (yea I can hear you saying "not YET"). It's Oregon people doing the planning right now; two groups: one is the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association, the other is the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council. The OPAC has a sub-group called the "Marine Protected Areas Working Group". Members of this group are from different sectors, but none of them are from the PEW or any "radical environmental group" or whatever you want to call them.

Read up on it via the OPAC website and then tell us where you think we stand.

[skein]

Mark,

Just going by that second link. Here's the by-line (only down at the bottom).

Jane Lubchenco, distinguished professor of zoology at Oregon State University, is a member of the Pew Oceans Commission.

If that's not PEW and if that's not Oregon, then help me understand....

Skein

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

The idea of Marine Reserves and Sanctuaries has been around for a while and is growing. It WILL happen so what we must do is insure that our feelings are heard and the process must include the imput of all Oregonians. Marine Reserves can be very helpful in bringing about recovery of our fisheries and not impose on the recreational fisherman if some simple concepts are followed.

1. A reserve should not be all encompassing of a habitat area to the extent of excluding recreational fisheries. That is to say that if you want to make the Heceta Banks a reserve, just make part of it.

2. A reserve should be open to fishing but in a more restrictive way. Close it during times that fishing would be more of an impact.

3. A reserve should always be closed to any "commercial" explotation. That is the taking of fish should be in a way that benefits more than just a few.

I oppose the way the Marine Reserves were implimented in California and we need to be very dilligent to prevent the same happening in Oregon. But I've seen Marine Reserves established in the Gulf of Mexico that in no way inhibit recreational fishing. We can do the same in Oregon.

I'm for Marine Sanctuaries if they are beneficial to our fisheries and are not areas set aside like a wilderness area. Places only a few can take advantage of. I don't want to see reserves that are established so some diver can have a good dive but benefits no one else.

[Mark Mc]

Skein, she is not part of either of the two groups (listed in my post) who are working on the Oregon plan.

Yes, she is part of the PEW. And yes, she supports marine reserves and wants to see the process move forward. But the process is being managed by the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association and the Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council. SHE IS NOT A WORKING MEMBER OF EITHER.

Now, can she speak up as a member of the public, and provide her opinion to the working groups? Of course she can, and so can we. She obviously will speak up, and folks will listen to her because of her credentials. So we will just have to make sure that we are out in force speaking our opinions too. That's how the democratic process will (hopefully) work in this case. Although I will be cautious & on guard, I'm not going to behave as though I think there is a "PEW ocean advocate" hiding under the tables at every working group meeting, or that the reputable team members are being bribed by the PEW to abdicate their responsibility to represent their constituents.

I'm not trying to sound like a smart-alec, so my apologies if it seems that way. I just have a sense that someone is looking for a "PEW conspiracy" here in Oregon, and I don't see any evidence of it. If there is, I'd like to see it. I would guess that her access to the Oregonion has to do with her reputation & longtime visibility in Oregon, not because the PEW somehow paved the way for her to get a story published.

All that being said, I appreciate your healthy skepticism, so you have unwittingly driven me to do some detective work. Time to call one of my moles. If I get axed by the PEW, you can have all my fishing gear (except the pink Barbie rod I made for my daughter).

Thanks....Mark

p.s. / EDIT: Part of what's confusing here is that the PEW just released it's report on oceans today

web page

Among many things, they recommend overhauling the whole government process for managing oceans & fisheries, creating protected areas, etc.

Like I said, Oregon is already moving ahead on the protected areas. Anybody want to guess at whether the PEW's recommendations to overhaul government (i.e. scrap the PFMC, etc.) will come to fruition?

[ 06-04-2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Mark Mc ]

[Mark Mc]

Hi Mike, thanks for chiming in. And thank you for having the courage to be the first one in this thread to say "reserves (in general) are not necessarily a bad idea." I wanted to focus on the process. Like you say, it's already happening, so there will have to be compromises.

If one actually reads the first-pass recommendations report, you will see that it's not doom & gloom at all. Yes it is more doom & gloom in California, and that is what Amana is warning us about & wishing us luck on, is being involved in the process so there is not a repeat. The draft framework already looks like a vast improvement over what happened in California.

Setting aside small areas where rockfish can mature & release billions of eggs, which then drift & populate non-reserve areas, is one thing (which ain't a bad idea, is it?).

Closing off the whole Heceta Banks or Stonewall Banks (as Mike alluded to) is another thing.

g'night....

[Born to be Wild]

Albacore Tuna Captain

Great input Mike!

But I do have to question one thing:

3. A reserve should always be closed to any "commercial" explotation. That is the taking of fish should be in a way that benefits more than just a few.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Commercial exploitation. Does that not include charters? I realize charters are taking sport fishermen out fishing, but they are out there to "exploit" fish for a buck also. The reason I bring this up is the #1 sought after "bottom fish", the black rockfish. They seem to be holding their own, especially after the reduction in bag limits from 15 to 10. But they aren't the nuisance they used to be when they were considered a "trash fish".

I don't know how long you have fished in Oregon, but blacks used to be a nuisance. Today, they are the most sought after and caught rockfish on the coast and sometimes tough to get your limit of 10 vs. a trash can full not too many years ago.

As I said, blacks seem to be hanging in there, but I wouldn't be opposed in a reserve or two for them also to help guarantee an over fishery of them also.

Now days a 5 lb. black is a big one and 6-8 lb. blacks are pretty rare (30-40 years of age). The commercials can't really target or sell black rockfish. Draggers never really could due to their close proximity. Whether you want to agree with me or not, the charters are hindering their populations.

The good news is however is the wild coho are rebounding and that makes for a more liberal season on hatchery coho and that gives the rockfish a break.

Dan

[skein]

Mark,

No, I'm not into the "black helicopter / conspiracy" mindset, but I do look at who's paying the bills to see what kind of spin the author is likely to put on a story. In this case, PEW is paying the bills.

Another thing I look for is what is not said. As DepoeBayDan pointed out, nothing was mentioned about the resurgence of coho which will/should take a lot of the pressure off the bottom-fish stocks.

The links provided were pretty much doom and gloom, with the management strategy of choice being reserves. I can't buy that single-minded approach, especially since once an area is set aside as a reserve, we will play hell getting it changed. On the other hand, when a diferent management strategy is successful, as in the case of the coho, then seasons are extended and retention rates can be adjusted. I like that a lot better.

Now, having said all that, I will listen hard to what you have to say since you know much more about these things than I do, and I trust you. So keep talking and educate us (me). I'll listen.



Skein

[OceanBlue]

Answers to my questions to the Marine Resources Program. Posted with permission

It sparks more questions...

Hi Jennifer!
Thanks for the question. Yes, a lot has been discussed regarding marine reserves (and the IFISH line of discussion you sent is pretty reflective of the public debate on the issue). To start out with, OPAC is the Ocean Policy Advisory Council. It was originally created as an advisory committee to the Governor to address ocean policy issues. I am attaching more detailed information from the DLCD (Dept. of Land Conservation and Development, which staffs OPAC) below. The link is: http://www.lcd.state.or.us/coast/off...Elements-11481

There is a bill sponsored by Rep. Krieger moving through the legislature now (HB 3534) which will, if passed , may change the make up and authority of OPAC.

SO from the perspective of the state agencies, the forum for policy discussions related to Marine Reserves to date, has been OPAC. OPAC took a position last summer on Marine Reserves and recommended to the Governor that:
a) Oregon test and evaluate the effectiveness of marine reserves in meeting marine resource conservation objectives through a system of marine reserves; and
b) Before designating any specific marine reserves, Oregon acquire information and conduct additional study, analysis and deliberation through an open, public process with extensive stakeholder involvement.

This is where OPAC is now. I believe that until the legislative discussions related to HB 3534 are resolved, there will not be a lot of 'next steps' on this issue. The IFISH discussions that mention the need for public involvement are timely. We believe that how Oregon proceeds on the issue of marine reserves needs to be driven by public involvement and good inter-agency coordination. As you can see from the OPAC recommendations, there is a clear understanding that more information and strong public participation is essential.

Hope this helps.

Patty Burke, Manager
Marine Resources Program
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council [OPAC].
This Advisory Council was created to give coordinated policy advice to the Governor, state agencies, and others and to prepare a plan for Oregon's Territorial Sea. There are 23 members , chaired by the Governor's appointee, and includes the directors of seven state agencies and 16 other members, who are appointed by the Governor. The DLCD provides staff support to the OPAC, which meets quarterly.

The seven state agencies (pdf) represented on the Ocean Policy Advisory Council include almost all agencies with direct authority over management, policy, or programs that affect the marine environment. The State Marine Board, which regulates boating activities, is not represented on the OPAC.

The Ocean Policy Advisory Council has no authority to directly regulate ocean activities or manage resources or to enforce its plans or policies. However, once its plans and policies are approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission as a part of Oregon's Coastal Management Program, the various state agencies are required to carry them out or act consistently with them