This week's issue of our local paper had this commentary.
It's a good example of a well-reasoned argument. Sticking with the facts rather than emotionalism and fear.
I underlined the eighth paragraph as it offers a solution. Something very much needed!
I don't know the Buells, but I appreciate their effort in writing this:
*******************************************
Public stands to lose with 'no take' marine reserves
By Mick and Linda Buell
We appreciated the great articles on fishing, wave energy and the latest Oregon Policy Advisory Council meetings held last week in Tillamook. It has been a long time since the Headlight-Herald has paid so much attention to one of its most popular industries. There is a gold rush for our ocean resources right now, and it is important to learn as much about these issues as we can or every Oregonian stands to lose something very precious - our right to use the ocean for fishing, touring, kayaking, surfing - perhaps even walking on the beach below the high tide line or jumping waves - if you are in a marine Rreserve area.
Wave energy and marine reserves would take away large areas of the ocean and beaches to which Oregonians have always had free access. The governor's staff stated that he wants to "create" his legacy with marine reserves. Oregon's Ocean Advisory Committee, comprised of fishermen, scientists, environmentalists, county commissioners and others have been looking at marine reserves for some time, but could not come up with a good scientific reason for creating them. While some marine protected areas work well, protecting coral reefs in tropical areas, they would have little effect in Oregon's ocean.
Oregon's current management of ocean fisheries by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been very conservative, and we are the envy of most coastal states and many countries world wide because of the biodiversity and large numbers of fish, sea birds and wildlife. Last week, OPAC, with help from the governor's staff, came up with a goal to justify marine reserves. In other words, there is no problem that needs to be addressed, but we will be asked to give up more of our rights anyway.
Because no problem with fisheries could be found, the governor then decided to create "heritage" marine reserves until it was pointed out that fishing and free access to the ocean was an Oregonian's heritage too - right back through the days of the Indians and beyond. Now they are being called "cultural" reserves, providing for future generations - even though they cannot be used by us or our "future generations" for any human activity. At first, even scientists were to be barred from them. "No take," remember? If they are permanent, I guess it doesn't matter if scientists can do research, the status of a no-take marine reserve could never change even if they were not productive or showed a decline in productivity or biodiversity. They are permanent, forever.
Several points made in the Headlight-Herald article referred to reserves being a future tourist destination, but how can that be, given their definition of no disturbance? Another said they would protect biodiversity and spawning grounds, but because of the nature of fish (big ones eat little ones, and the aggressive ling cod eats everything), you may end up with a "ling cod" reserve and not much else. A ling cod is to rock fish what a seal is to salmon. You cannot take one of nature's own natural controls - humans - out of the ecosystem without doing damage, either.
Spawning grounds? Does any one know where these even exist? No. Yet, another person talks about a "spillover" effect, but there has never been an increase in quota created by any marine reserves to date. Indeed, we stand more of a chance of the government deciding to "expand" the marine reserves to protect something else in the water column as has been done in the Channel Islands and in Hawaii.
Fran Recht compared marine reserves to the Beach Bill but, remember, the Beach Bill gave the right of access to all Oregon beaches to the public - it did not take away our right to beach or ocean access! Make no mistake, a marine reserve is a no-take, no-access area.
There is a compromise, however, and if the governor wants his "legacy" to be a good one, he should opt for marine protected areas. These areas could allow limited take, scientific research, and probably fishing gear that does not affect the ocean bottom. It would not be off limits to recreational uses such as kayaking, boating, surfing, eco tours, swimming or wading in the ocean, etc. They would be managed and controlled by the one government entity that actually knows something about Oregon's ocean, the ODFW.
Finally, I don't know if I agree with the governor's idea of letting everyone in Oregon nominate areas for either marine reserves or marine protected areas. Surely, the whole coastline would eventually be nominated - which is what the governor wanted in the first place, remember? Certainly, the fisherman should be consulted first as to where reserves should be located, as they know more about the ocean than anyone else.
No one has done any studies on which areas would even qualify for marine reserves, much less on what the socio-economic impacts would be to coastal communities or their fishermen.
Of course, there is no funding available to do this or set up any marine protected areas or reserves, much less enforcement funding. No funding even for the ODFW to continue doing the marine research that is currently being conducted.
It's another unfunded mandate, and make no mistake, marine reserves are a mandate from the governor to his Ocean Advisory Council, or he will simply find a way around them. I do not think that power to take something so precious to all Oregonians should rest in the hands of one person, do you?
Mick and Linda Buell operate Garibaldi Charters in Garibaldi.
It's a good example of a well-reasoned argument. Sticking with the facts rather than emotionalism and fear.
I underlined the eighth paragraph as it offers a solution. Something very much needed!
I don't know the Buells, but I appreciate their effort in writing this:
*******************************************
Public stands to lose with 'no take' marine reserves
By Mick and Linda Buell
We appreciated the great articles on fishing, wave energy and the latest Oregon Policy Advisory Council meetings held last week in Tillamook. It has been a long time since the Headlight-Herald has paid so much attention to one of its most popular industries. There is a gold rush for our ocean resources right now, and it is important to learn as much about these issues as we can or every Oregonian stands to lose something very precious - our right to use the ocean for fishing, touring, kayaking, surfing - perhaps even walking on the beach below the high tide line or jumping waves - if you are in a marine Rreserve area.
Wave energy and marine reserves would take away large areas of the ocean and beaches to which Oregonians have always had free access. The governor's staff stated that he wants to "create" his legacy with marine reserves. Oregon's Ocean Advisory Committee, comprised of fishermen, scientists, environmentalists, county commissioners and others have been looking at marine reserves for some time, but could not come up with a good scientific reason for creating them. While some marine protected areas work well, protecting coral reefs in tropical areas, they would have little effect in Oregon's ocean.
Oregon's current management of ocean fisheries by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been very conservative, and we are the envy of most coastal states and many countries world wide because of the biodiversity and large numbers of fish, sea birds and wildlife. Last week, OPAC, with help from the governor's staff, came up with a goal to justify marine reserves. In other words, there is no problem that needs to be addressed, but we will be asked to give up more of our rights anyway.
Because no problem with fisheries could be found, the governor then decided to create "heritage" marine reserves until it was pointed out that fishing and free access to the ocean was an Oregonian's heritage too - right back through the days of the Indians and beyond. Now they are being called "cultural" reserves, providing for future generations - even though they cannot be used by us or our "future generations" for any human activity. At first, even scientists were to be barred from them. "No take," remember? If they are permanent, I guess it doesn't matter if scientists can do research, the status of a no-take marine reserve could never change even if they were not productive or showed a decline in productivity or biodiversity. They are permanent, forever.
Several points made in the Headlight-Herald article referred to reserves being a future tourist destination, but how can that be, given their definition of no disturbance? Another said they would protect biodiversity and spawning grounds, but because of the nature of fish (big ones eat little ones, and the aggressive ling cod eats everything), you may end up with a "ling cod" reserve and not much else. A ling cod is to rock fish what a seal is to salmon. You cannot take one of nature's own natural controls - humans - out of the ecosystem without doing damage, either.
Spawning grounds? Does any one know where these even exist? No. Yet, another person talks about a "spillover" effect, but there has never been an increase in quota created by any marine reserves to date. Indeed, we stand more of a chance of the government deciding to "expand" the marine reserves to protect something else in the water column as has been done in the Channel Islands and in Hawaii.
Fran Recht compared marine reserves to the Beach Bill but, remember, the Beach Bill gave the right of access to all Oregon beaches to the public - it did not take away our right to beach or ocean access! Make no mistake, a marine reserve is a no-take, no-access area.
There is a compromise, however, and if the governor wants his "legacy" to be a good one, he should opt for marine protected areas. These areas could allow limited take, scientific research, and probably fishing gear that does not affect the ocean bottom. It would not be off limits to recreational uses such as kayaking, boating, surfing, eco tours, swimming or wading in the ocean, etc. They would be managed and controlled by the one government entity that actually knows something about Oregon's ocean, the ODFW.
Finally, I don't know if I agree with the governor's idea of letting everyone in Oregon nominate areas for either marine reserves or marine protected areas. Surely, the whole coastline would eventually be nominated - which is what the governor wanted in the first place, remember? Certainly, the fisherman should be consulted first as to where reserves should be located, as they know more about the ocean than anyone else.
No one has done any studies on which areas would even qualify for marine reserves, much less on what the socio-economic impacts would be to coastal communities or their fishermen.
Of course, there is no funding available to do this or set up any marine protected areas or reserves, much less enforcement funding. No funding even for the ODFW to continue doing the marine research that is currently being conducted.
It's another unfunded mandate, and make no mistake, marine reserves are a mandate from the governor to his Ocean Advisory Council, or he will simply find a way around them. I do not think that power to take something so precious to all Oregonians should rest in the hands of one person, do you?
Mick and Linda Buell operate Garibaldi Charters in Garibaldi.
