By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
December 29, 2009
The secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency has turned down a request by a tri-county group for more time to draft a proposal for marine reserves along the North Coast.
Secretary Mike Chrisman said that he is denying the request, made by Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins on behalf of the North Coast Local Interest MPA Workgroup. He said that an extension is unnecessary for the group to submit a good-quality first-draft of a network of marine protected areas.
In a Dec. 24 letter, Chrisman said that the North Coast community has more scientific data available at this time than any of the other three regions had at this point in the process. He said that the previous six-week extension, which expires on Feb. 1, gave ample opportunity to draw up the proposal.
The Marine Life Protection Act Initiative aims to protect different habitats along the California coast using a set of marine reserves. The controversial process has drawn serious concern from the North Coast study area, in which essentially every elected body in Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino counties has cautioned against potential harm to the region's economy and way of life.
It is early in the process on the North Coast, and the tri-county group had asked for the extension because bottom topography data was not yet available and many commercial fishermen were at sea for the Dungeness crab season.
Higgins said that he isn't surprised that Chrisman denied the extension, and said that the group would have a “scientifically robust and economically sound” proposal ready by Feb. 1.
Higgins said that he hopes the science panel that will review the proposal will understand that the formation of marine reserves on the North Coast should be substantially different than in other parts of the state.
”I think we have made a case that has merit,” Higgins said.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Scientists, Anglers' Views Cloud The Route Towards a Marine Reserve
Laguna resident Bill Shedd with a 51-pound white seabass he caught about a quarter mile off of Woods Cove in May.By Ted Reckas, Laguna Beach Independent
December 25, 2009
Bill Shedd paddled his kayak along the reefs just off of Woods Cove, where he lives and fishes 30 days per year. Nearby in a small boat a father was fishing with his three-year-old daughter and eightyear old son.
“They were giggling and laughing and catching mackerel,” said Shedd, “I told them they are going to close fishing in Laguna and the man said, ‘What? Why would they want to do that? I had no idea that was happening.’”
The process by which new marine protection laws are written is in the late stages, and though there are five proposals under consideration by the state Department of Fish and Game, the one favored by a review panel that seems most likely to become law would close most of Laguna Beach’s coastline to fishing.
Efforts to increase marine protections are driven largely by researchers, whose findings demonstrate many species in the world’s oceans are being over fished. Unchecked fishing can devastate populations, as in the case of abalone, where the black, white and pink species have collapsed, and significant restrictions remain on the red abalone, the only species still fished.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch, which assigns sustainability ratings to commercially fished species, says on its homepage, “Despite our best efforts, the global catch of wild fish leveled off over 20 years ago and 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are being harvested at capacity or are in decline.”
The National Marine Fisheries Service, in its 2008 annual report to Congress, says at least 46 species are overfished, while 280 stocks have undefined overfishing thresholds, which means there is no way to know how many of those are overfished.
Landings of popular fish – a main indicator of population levels – such as white seabass and halibut in Southern California peaked decades ago and have never reached the same levels, according to DFG reports. The annual catch of white seabass peaked at 3.5 million pounds in 1959, and checked in at only a quarter of that, or 900,000 pounds, in 2000. Halibut, perhaps a more sought after fish, peaked at 4.7 million pounds in 1919 and fell off a cliff, spiking up over 2 million only once in the late 1940s, then hovering between a quarter and 1.5 million pounds ever since.
When the Laguna Beach City Council asked the state for a citywide fishing ban, then council member Elizabeth Pearson, crystallized the sentiments of some who are too frustrated to look at the science, saying, “I don’t know that we’re over fished. I don’t know that we need replenishment. There’s no science in front of me to tell me that. But I do know I have seen some disgusting things happening at Shaw’s Cove over the last 20 years. I’ve seen people coming with spears and taking little starfish. And that is the reason I’m coming at it from the angle of preventing abuse. I think that’s where a lot are coming from. There’s been abuse after abuse after abuse. We keep educating and giving people tickets and putting people on staff and empowering the lifeguards and we can’t seem to stop it.”
Therein lies the rub. Scientific arguments aside, recreational fishermen have been labeled as one of the main culprits in the degradation of marine ecosystems, something that frustrates fishermen like Shedd and Bryan Menne, a Laguna Beach resident who has been spear fishing here for over 30 years and sees himself as a steward of the ocean. Menne primarily hunts for halibut and only shoots fish 26 inches or larger, even though the legal requirement is only 22 inches, saying he wants to give them a chance to mature. He takes about one or two per month during halibut season. His biggest ever was a 42-inch, 31-pound fish he caught in 1992. He caught four halibut this year; the largest was 9.5 pounds.
While reserve proponents claim the local waters are overfished, Menne says, "what ocean are you swimming in? I can go and see all the reef fish I want any time,” adding, “Halibut takes more time because you have to hunt for them. That’s the beauty of it. Hunt for it and only take what you eat.”
The halibut fishery illustrates the complexity at work in marine ecosystems; it’s actually several fisheries, with sub-species and various methods of fishing. The Environmental Defense Fund, which publishes sustainability and health information on fisheries, gives Atlantic halibut an “eco-worst” rating, saying, “Atlantic halibut are so depleted from overfishing, the species is off-limits to commercial fishing in U.S. waters.”
At the same time Pacific halibut, a different species caught off Alaska and Canada, gets an “eco-best” rating because it comes from a well-managed fishery that uses the hook and line method, which has relatively little environmental impact. California halibut, a third species, gets a moderate sustainability rating from Seafood Watch when caught with hook and line or bottom trawl, and the worst rating when caught with a set gill net.
Hook and line has low rates of bycatch, referring to catch besides the target fish. For every 1,000 pounds of California halibut caught by bottom trawl, 700 pounds of other fish are caught unintentionally, most of which are thrown back often injured or dead, according to Seafood Watch. The 70 percent bycatch is considered moderate, and only gets a critical rating if it is over 100 percent and regularly includes “species of special concern” like dolphins, seals, other marine mammals or sea birds, according to Seafood Watch criteria. This is the case with set gillnets, which gives that fishery the critical rating.
By comparison, recreational spear fishing done responsibly has a vastly lower impact: there is no exhaust or oil leaks from an engine, there is no habitat damage from dragging a trawl across the sea floor, and there is little or no bycatch, as the speafisherman swims through the water and literally hand picks the animal he wants to consume.
Shedd, president of Irvine-based fishing gear maker AFTCO and chairman of the Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute, says that sport fishermen are not at fault for the decline in white seabass landings, insisting that landings are lower because there are more regulations now than in the past.
White seabass researcher Larry Allen, of Cal State Northridge, and a member of the Science Advisory Team guiding the Department of Fish and Game’s Marine Life Protection Act proposals, said sea bass catch hit a peak in 1959 when there were fewer restrictions and fishermen were having a free for all, gill netting in the spawning grounds.
While commercial gill netters harvested at will, recreational catch of white seabass flat lined to around 1,000 pounds per year for 30 years, until the nets were outlawed in California by Proposition 132 in 1994. Subsequently, recreational landings jumped to well over 10,000 fish per year in the late 1990’s, according to one DFG database, based on catch logs from commercial passenger fishing vessels.
The average weight of white seabass caught is up as well, from 8.4 pounds in 1990 to 18.5 pounds in 1999, according to the most recent Seafood Watch report.
While Seafood Watch gives white seabass a “best choice” sustainability rating, the report also admits no recent formal assessment of the population exists.
Shedd conceded that lack of data means he can no more claim a healthy white seabass fishery exists than an environmentalist can claim an unhealthy one.
Allen who recently read the yet unpublished, newest version Seafood Watch’s report as a member of their external peer review process, adds, “Probably between 80- 90 percent of the fishery stock of white seabass occurs in Mexico. Since Mexico stopped American vessel landings in 1982 we don’t have any idea what’s going on down there.”
Anecdotally, local fishermen point to the resurgence of the white seabass as a testament to the resilience of marine ecosystems.
If only it were that simple.
Managing fisheries around a single species overlooks its potential impact on the larger ecosystem, said Steve Murray, dean of Cal State Fullerton’s natural sciences and mathematics department and a member of the MLPA science advisory team. “What are fishery managers trying to achieve? How much can we take out of the system and hold the biomass at a somewhat constant sustainable level? If that amount you are taking out is 60-70 percent of the biomass that was there if it wasn’t fished, what does that mean to the rest of the ecosystem?”
Prominent Biologist Challenges MLPA Science Panel Assumptions and Data
By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
December 23, 2009
Patrick Higgins, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner and a well respected fishery biologist, is questioning the assumptions and poor data that the "science" behind Governor Arnold Schwarzengger's fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process is based on.
In a December 20 letter to a biologist on the MLPA Science Advisory Team, Higgins challenged the spacing guidelines and fundamental assumptions regarding the larval drift model, a model in which ocean groundfish populations are supposedly replenished by the larval fish that drift outside of marine reserves by means of ocean currents.
"The lengthy theoretical discussion of larval drift at your Eureka December 17 SAT meeting had absolutely no foundation," said Higgins. "As pointed out by one of the SAT members, the currents of the North Coast are strong and unique and the linear distance model has no basis here."
He also says that Marine Protected Area (MPA) size guidelines used previously in the MLPA process are "not appropriate" for the North Coast.
"We in the North Coast region prefer fewer large MPAs and believe they are more likely to achieve the conservation objectives of the MLPA," said Higgins. "Small preserves would not succeed in protecting fish populations because of migration of adults out of the MPA and fishing edge effects."
Higgins also points out the failure of the MLPA process to "consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery management" and the failure "to integrate existing fishery regulations and restrictions into its MPA size and spacing guidelines and analysis of MPA proposals," as noted by Dr. Ray Hilborn. This failure to consider de-facto MPAs such as the Rockfish Conservation Area, a massive zone closed to groundfish fishing that extends the entire length of California's Continental Shelf, has plagued the MLPA Initiative since Governor Schwarzenegger fast-tracked and privatized the process with funding from the Resource Legacy Foundation beginning in 2004.
"North Coast MPAs need to be considered in conjunction with the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA)," said Higgins. "That is, if large preserves run out to the 3 mile limit of State waters, conservation benefits of closure to rockfish take from the 120 foot contour depth line to the 200 mile limit of the U.S. waters protect needs to be considered. Therefore, all conservation needs for water depths greater than 120 feet are already covered by the existing RCA and there is no other activity that jeopardizes the natural balance in waters of those depths."
Higgins added, "We hope the North Coast SAT will be open to this argument because the RCA closure is based on species that have rebuilding programs that span several decades into the future. Future adaptive management studies could help decide whether more protection is needed after RCAs are discontinued."
Higgins warned the scientific advisory team that "In the event that we feel there are fatal scientific flaws in the adopted North Coast SAT guidelines, and their imposition may create unknown biological consequences and potentially substantial economic harm, you can expect the North Coast region to challenge the outcome by every means possible."
Higgins' letter was sent as North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters are criticizing the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, questionable "science," mission creep and corruption of the democratic process.
In a previous letter Higgins sent on December 18, he asked Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman to extend the deadline for the submittal of North Coast external array proposals for MPAs to March 15. "We need the additional time because the bottom topography data used to conduct a scientifically valid MPA array won't be available until January 15 at the earliest," said Higgins.
Higgins sent his letter on behalf of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, as well as governments, harbor districts and tribes of the North Coast region.
Chrisman hasn't responded to the letter yet. However, MLPA Initiative Director Ken Wiseman said he will recommend that Chrisman not grant the extension, according to an article by John Driscoll in the Eureka Times Standard on December 22.
"Ken Wiseman said that the North Coast region already has more information available than other regions did at this point in the process. The initiative has time and budget constraints, Wiseman said, and the legislation is clear that the program use the best available science," the Times Standard stated.
Wiseman's statement to the newspaper appears to be at odds with his 9/28/09 editorial in Times Standard.
"Over the next year, the north coast community is invited to participate in redesigning California's marine protected areas," said Wiseman. "Therefore, at the foundation of the planning process is community involvement, where all members of the public are encouraged to participate and each has the opportunity to influence the outcome."
If Wiseman is so concerned about encouraging "all members of the public to participate" and providing them with the opportunity to "influence the outcome," why is he recommending to Chrisman that Higgins' request for an extension of time be rejected? And why are Wiseman, Chrisman and Schwarzenegger so adamant about ram rodding the MLPA process over North Coast fishermen, tribes and communities even though the science behind the process is highly questionable, as Higgins so eloquently points out?
Below is Higgins' letter:
Patrick Higgins
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner
4649 Aster Avenue
McKinleyville, CA 95519
December 20, 2009
Jason Vasques, Associate Marine Biologist
MLPA Science Advisory Team Staff Support
350 Harbor Blvd.
Belmont, CA 94002
Re: North Coast Science Advisory Team Deliberations on Size and Spacing of Marine Protected Areas and Habitat Replication Requirements
Dear Mr. Vasques,
I am writing to you as an individual for expediency, but I assure you that the questions I am posing are on behalf of the governments and concerned community members of the North Coast. I request that this letter be circulated to all individuals on Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) appointed North Coast Science Advisory Team (SAT) and that issues herein be specifically discussed at their next public meeting. The concerns I will address below are regarding larval drift theories and spacing requirements, size of MPAs and the need for following replication guidelines similar to those previously adopted in other regions.
Spacing Guidelines and Larval Drift
The lengthy theoretical discussion of larval drift at your Eureka December 17 SAT meeting had absolutely no foundation. As pointed out by one of the SAT members, the currents of the North Coast are strong and unique and the linear distance model has no basis here. Figure 1 is CenCOOS oceanographic data from between Shelter Cove and Point Arena showing a large circular current or gyre. Gyres are fairly stable features that oscillate and can shift somewhat seasonally. Longshore currents along much of the length of the North Coast reverse from southerly to northerly with seasons. Ekman spirals also develop seasonally that can cause larvae to be moved perpendicular to the coast (Hilborn et al. 2006).
I question other more fundamental assumptions regarding the larval drift model: 1) that larvae must land in an MPA to recruit or 2) that there must be an MPA for larvae to be generated; both assumptions are unmet. For the sake of discussion, let us consider a larvae drifting north linearly from an MPA sited south of the Mattole River. If it were to settle near Cape Mendocino and successfully recruit to the juvenile fish stage, under current fishing pressure it would not likely be harvested until after it spawned, possibly several times. Also, millions of larvae are currently generated along our wild coast without benefit of MPAs, which undermines the corollary assumption. We believe that the statement of Hilborn et al. (2006) that “there is now no evidence that current fishing practices upset the ‘natural’ biological diversity of the marine ecosystem” applies to the North Coast region.
MPA Size Guidelines Used Previously Not Appropriate for North Coast
I strongly favor the arguments of Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and Hilborn et al. (2006) provide the following insight regarding the size and spacing of MPAs under the California MLPAI:
“The MLPA statute provided no explicit guidance to address the ‘SLOSS’ (single large or several small) MPA debate, but suggested that decisions on size and placement be made by a master plan team and regulatory agencies, with the involvement of stakeholders. The science guidance provided by the MLPA Initiative Science Advisory
Team (SAT) clearly favored the SS (several small) approach in its interpretation of the law. The SAT advice produced a very extensive network of MPAs in each of the MPA network proposals, with a heavy emphasis on nearshore rocky habitat protected in marine reserves.”
We in the North Coast region prefer fewer large MPAs and believe they are more likely to achieve the conservation objectives of the MLPA. Small preserves would not succeed in protecting fish populations because of migration of adults out of the MPA and fishing edge effects. Effort shift further complicates impact analysis and needs consideration. There may be a few North Coast areas of special biological significance that should be protected at a smaller scale, but a few well placed large preserves away from ports along remote sections of our coast will serve all aspects of the MLPA mission better than numerous small preserves; and it protects our economy and way of life.
Hilborn et al. (2006) noted that previous SATs had “failed to consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery management and failed to integrate existing fishery regulations and restrictions into its MPA size and spacing guidelines and analysis of MPA proposals.” North Coast MPAs need to be considered in conjunction with the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). That is, if large preserves run out to the 3 mile limit of State waters, conservation benefits of closure to rockfish take from the 120 foot contour depth line to the 200 mile limit of the U.S. waters protect needs to be considered. Therefore, all conservation needs for water depths greater than 120 feet are already covered by the existing RCA and there is no other activity that jeopardizes the natural balance in waters of those depths. We hope the North Coast SAT will be open to this argument because the RCA closure is based on species that have rebuilding programs that span several decades into the future. Future adaptive management studies could help decide whether more protection is needed after RCAs are discontinued.
Replication of Habitat Requirements
If North Coast residents come up with a workable strategy for fewer large conservation areas, then the area of habitat types protected should be the criteria for judgment of sufficiency, not that habitats have to be in numerous small preserves. The SAT seemed perplexed on December 17 about the possibility of allowing most significant protection to occur in fewer, larger MPAs. I do not think that the theoretical basis of the need for replication can be validated and hope the SAT will also reconsider this convention and its requirement for application on the North Coast.
The SAT process as manifest in your recent Eureka meeting gave me concern because of the pressure to adopt previously formulated guidelines rapidly, but I was relieved that size and spacing decision were delayed. The MLPA has been a major source of controversy and angst in our community, but it has caused us to focus on nearshore ocean conservation needs. We think we will meet these needs through the reserve design we will offer as an External MPA Array proposal. We will provide a scientific framework and a workable plan founded on local knowledge and data and hope the SAT will not constrain itself arbitrarily in judging it.
In the event that we feel there are fatal scientific flaws in the adopted North Coast SAT guidelines, and their imposition may create unknown biological consequences and potentially substantial economic harm, you can expect the North Coast region to challenge the outcome by every means possible.
Sincerely,
Patrick Higgins
December 23, 2009
Patrick Higgins, Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner and a well respected fishery biologist, is questioning the assumptions and poor data that the "science" behind Governor Arnold Schwarzengger's fast-track Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process is based on.
In a December 20 letter to a biologist on the MLPA Science Advisory Team, Higgins challenged the spacing guidelines and fundamental assumptions regarding the larval drift model, a model in which ocean groundfish populations are supposedly replenished by the larval fish that drift outside of marine reserves by means of ocean currents.
"The lengthy theoretical discussion of larval drift at your Eureka December 17 SAT meeting had absolutely no foundation," said Higgins. "As pointed out by one of the SAT members, the currents of the North Coast are strong and unique and the linear distance model has no basis here."
He also says that Marine Protected Area (MPA) size guidelines used previously in the MLPA process are "not appropriate" for the North Coast.
"We in the North Coast region prefer fewer large MPAs and believe they are more likely to achieve the conservation objectives of the MLPA," said Higgins. "Small preserves would not succeed in protecting fish populations because of migration of adults out of the MPA and fishing edge effects."
Higgins also points out the failure of the MLPA process to "consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery management" and the failure "to integrate existing fishery regulations and restrictions into its MPA size and spacing guidelines and analysis of MPA proposals," as noted by Dr. Ray Hilborn. This failure to consider de-facto MPAs such as the Rockfish Conservation Area, a massive zone closed to groundfish fishing that extends the entire length of California's Continental Shelf, has plagued the MLPA Initiative since Governor Schwarzenegger fast-tracked and privatized the process with funding from the Resource Legacy Foundation beginning in 2004.
"North Coast MPAs need to be considered in conjunction with the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA)," said Higgins. "That is, if large preserves run out to the 3 mile limit of State waters, conservation benefits of closure to rockfish take from the 120 foot contour depth line to the 200 mile limit of the U.S. waters protect needs to be considered. Therefore, all conservation needs for water depths greater than 120 feet are already covered by the existing RCA and there is no other activity that jeopardizes the natural balance in waters of those depths."
Higgins added, "We hope the North Coast SAT will be open to this argument because the RCA closure is based on species that have rebuilding programs that span several decades into the future. Future adaptive management studies could help decide whether more protection is needed after RCAs are discontinued."
Higgins warned the scientific advisory team that "In the event that we feel there are fatal scientific flaws in the adopted North Coast SAT guidelines, and their imposition may create unknown biological consequences and potentially substantial economic harm, you can expect the North Coast region to challenge the outcome by every means possible."
Higgins' letter was sent as North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Indian Tribes and seaweed harvesters are criticizing the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, questionable "science," mission creep and corruption of the democratic process.
In a previous letter Higgins sent on December 18, he asked Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman to extend the deadline for the submittal of North Coast external array proposals for MPAs to March 15. "We need the additional time because the bottom topography data used to conduct a scientifically valid MPA array won't be available until January 15 at the earliest," said Higgins.
Higgins sent his letter on behalf of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, as well as governments, harbor districts and tribes of the North Coast region.
Chrisman hasn't responded to the letter yet. However, MLPA Initiative Director Ken Wiseman said he will recommend that Chrisman not grant the extension, according to an article by John Driscoll in the Eureka Times Standard on December 22.
"Ken Wiseman said that the North Coast region already has more information available than other regions did at this point in the process. The initiative has time and budget constraints, Wiseman said, and the legislation is clear that the program use the best available science," the Times Standard stated.
Wiseman's statement to the newspaper appears to be at odds with his 9/28/09 editorial in Times Standard.
"Over the next year, the north coast community is invited to participate in redesigning California's marine protected areas," said Wiseman. "Therefore, at the foundation of the planning process is community involvement, where all members of the public are encouraged to participate and each has the opportunity to influence the outcome."
If Wiseman is so concerned about encouraging "all members of the public to participate" and providing them with the opportunity to "influence the outcome," why is he recommending to Chrisman that Higgins' request for an extension of time be rejected? And why are Wiseman, Chrisman and Schwarzenegger so adamant about ram rodding the MLPA process over North Coast fishermen, tribes and communities even though the science behind the process is highly questionable, as Higgins so eloquently points out?
Below is Higgins' letter:
Patrick Higgins
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner
4649 Aster Avenue
McKinleyville, CA 95519
December 20, 2009
Jason Vasques, Associate Marine Biologist
MLPA Science Advisory Team Staff Support
350 Harbor Blvd.
Belmont, CA 94002
Re: North Coast Science Advisory Team Deliberations on Size and Spacing of Marine Protected Areas and Habitat Replication Requirements
Dear Mr. Vasques,
I am writing to you as an individual for expediency, but I assure you that the questions I am posing are on behalf of the governments and concerned community members of the North Coast. I request that this letter be circulated to all individuals on Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) appointed North Coast Science Advisory Team (SAT) and that issues herein be specifically discussed at their next public meeting. The concerns I will address below are regarding larval drift theories and spacing requirements, size of MPAs and the need for following replication guidelines similar to those previously adopted in other regions.
Spacing Guidelines and Larval Drift
The lengthy theoretical discussion of larval drift at your Eureka December 17 SAT meeting had absolutely no foundation. As pointed out by one of the SAT members, the currents of the North Coast are strong and unique and the linear distance model has no basis here. Figure 1 is CenCOOS oceanographic data from between Shelter Cove and Point Arena showing a large circular current or gyre. Gyres are fairly stable features that oscillate and can shift somewhat seasonally. Longshore currents along much of the length of the North Coast reverse from southerly to northerly with seasons. Ekman spirals also develop seasonally that can cause larvae to be moved perpendicular to the coast (Hilborn et al. 2006).
I question other more fundamental assumptions regarding the larval drift model: 1) that larvae must land in an MPA to recruit or 2) that there must be an MPA for larvae to be generated; both assumptions are unmet. For the sake of discussion, let us consider a larvae drifting north linearly from an MPA sited south of the Mattole River. If it were to settle near Cape Mendocino and successfully recruit to the juvenile fish stage, under current fishing pressure it would not likely be harvested until after it spawned, possibly several times. Also, millions of larvae are currently generated along our wild coast without benefit of MPAs, which undermines the corollary assumption. We believe that the statement of Hilborn et al. (2006) that “there is now no evidence that current fishing practices upset the ‘natural’ biological diversity of the marine ecosystem” applies to the North Coast region.
MPA Size Guidelines Used Previously Not Appropriate for North Coast
I strongly favor the arguments of Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor of Fisheries at the University of Washington, and Hilborn et al. (2006) provide the following insight regarding the size and spacing of MPAs under the California MLPAI:
“The MLPA statute provided no explicit guidance to address the ‘SLOSS’ (single large or several small) MPA debate, but suggested that decisions on size and placement be made by a master plan team and regulatory agencies, with the involvement of stakeholders. The science guidance provided by the MLPA Initiative Science Advisory
Team (SAT) clearly favored the SS (several small) approach in its interpretation of the law. The SAT advice produced a very extensive network of MPAs in each of the MPA network proposals, with a heavy emphasis on nearshore rocky habitat protected in marine reserves.”
We in the North Coast region prefer fewer large MPAs and believe they are more likely to achieve the conservation objectives of the MLPA. Small preserves would not succeed in protecting fish populations because of migration of adults out of the MPA and fishing edge effects. Effort shift further complicates impact analysis and needs consideration. There may be a few North Coast areas of special biological significance that should be protected at a smaller scale, but a few well placed large preserves away from ports along remote sections of our coast will serve all aspects of the MLPA mission better than numerous small preserves; and it protects our economy and way of life.
Hilborn et al. (2006) noted that previous SATs had “failed to consider the ecosystem benefits of existing fishery management and failed to integrate existing fishery regulations and restrictions into its MPA size and spacing guidelines and analysis of MPA proposals.” North Coast MPAs need to be considered in conjunction with the Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). That is, if large preserves run out to the 3 mile limit of State waters, conservation benefits of closure to rockfish take from the 120 foot contour depth line to the 200 mile limit of the U.S. waters protect needs to be considered. Therefore, all conservation needs for water depths greater than 120 feet are already covered by the existing RCA and there is no other activity that jeopardizes the natural balance in waters of those depths. We hope the North Coast SAT will be open to this argument because the RCA closure is based on species that have rebuilding programs that span several decades into the future. Future adaptive management studies could help decide whether more protection is needed after RCAs are discontinued.
Replication of Habitat Requirements
If North Coast residents come up with a workable strategy for fewer large conservation areas, then the area of habitat types protected should be the criteria for judgment of sufficiency, not that habitats have to be in numerous small preserves. The SAT seemed perplexed on December 17 about the possibility of allowing most significant protection to occur in fewer, larger MPAs. I do not think that the theoretical basis of the need for replication can be validated and hope the SAT will also reconsider this convention and its requirement for application on the North Coast.
The SAT process as manifest in your recent Eureka meeting gave me concern because of the pressure to adopt previously formulated guidelines rapidly, but I was relieved that size and spacing decision were delayed. The MLPA has been a major source of controversy and angst in our community, but it has caused us to focus on nearshore ocean conservation needs. We think we will meet these needs through the reserve design we will offer as an External MPA Array proposal. We will provide a scientific framework and a workable plan founded on local knowledge and data and hope the SAT will not constrain itself arbitrarily in judging it.
In the event that we feel there are fatal scientific flaws in the adopted North Coast SAT guidelines, and their imposition may create unknown biological consequences and potentially substantial economic harm, you can expect the North Coast region to challenge the outcome by every means possible.
Sincerely,
Patrick Higgins
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Fish and Game Commission Supports ‘Blue Ribbon Task Force’ Closure Plan
By Ambrosia Sarabia, The Log
December 22, 2009
Many sport anglers who had encouraged members of the California Fish and Game Commission to select the best of four alternative maps for Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) sanctuary areas left the meeting unsatisfied when the commission selected an alternative that closed prime fishing waters off Laguna Beach and Point Dume.
Closures to Come— Marina Life Protection Act (MLPA) closures will have a major impact on anglers who currently fish off Laguna Beach, if the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s proposed no-take zones map is approved in 2010.
The widely criticized closures are the ones recommended by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force last month. The plan, cobbled together from both environmentalist and fishing stakeholder group recommendations, would close nearly 400 square miles of ocean off the Southern California coastline to fishing.
Speakers both for and against selected closures outlined in four plans -- three proposals recommended by stakeholders after months of discussion and one designed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force -- packed the conference room and addressed the commission, one by one. Many displayed their chosen map, holding bright-colored signs.
“This is a professional event, and I ask that those attempting to get on camera such as at a sports event refrain from doing so,” Fish and Game Commission chairman Richard Rogers said at one point during the meeting.
In a 3-1 vote, the commission moved to send the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s selected map through the environmental impact review process. The other three plans will serve as alternatives.
“It was no surprise, actually,” said Paul Romanowski, a recreational fisherman and a member of the California Fisheries Coalition. “It is definitely a mix of all three proposals -- and there are some things on it that we don’t like, but some are things that we developed during the first round a year ago.”
Last month, the Blue Ribbon Task Force reviewed three alternatives, which were proposed by environmentalists, anglers and other stakeholders. The task force decided to develop its own Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) plan and recommended it to the commission.
The action upset many anglers and boaters.
For the past several months, rallies have been held throughout Southern California where those in favor of retaining open-take areas joined to show their support for Proposal 2, which had the fewest closures when compared to Proposals 1 and 3.
Three groups were created to oversee specific elements of the Marine Life Protection Act: the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, the Science Advisory Team and the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.
For many anglers, such as Romanowski, the shape of the Laguna no-take zone has been the most unsettling piece of the current plan. Under the current outline, a ban will be placed on fishing along 6 miles of the Laguna Beach coastline.
The decision also places restrictions on the Bolsa Chica area.
“It is unfeasible and unreasonable, and it would be a devastating blow to all coastal users in Laguna, if it were to go through as it is drawn,” Romanowski said. “It shuts off 30-35 public access points in Laguna, and there would be no handicap access for fishing.”
Other changes that Romanowski would like see addressed include safety, feasibility and legal issues concerning Point Dume and Scripps Pier.
The San Diego region will not have a protected area off Del Mar, but a protected zone off south La Jolla will be created.
In Los Angeles County, areas off the back side of Catalina Island would remain open to sportfishing for yellowtail and swordfish, but other species such as sea urchin and sea cucumber will not be allowed to be removed from the area. The kelp forest and rocky reef habitats off Palos Verdes Peninsula would also remain open to anglers.
Leslie Page, of Redondo Beach Marina, asked commissioners to help her select which employees to terminate if Proposal 2 is not selected.
“It breaks my heart,” Page said. “My harbor and marina will not be able to support them.”
Once a review of the closure plan is, the commission will vote to establish the new fishing regulations. The report is not expected to be completed until late 2010.
December 22, 2009
Many sport anglers who had encouraged members of the California Fish and Game Commission to select the best of four alternative maps for Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) sanctuary areas left the meeting unsatisfied when the commission selected an alternative that closed prime fishing waters off Laguna Beach and Point Dume.
Closures to Come— Marina Life Protection Act (MLPA) closures will have a major impact on anglers who currently fish off Laguna Beach, if the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s proposed no-take zones map is approved in 2010.
The widely criticized closures are the ones recommended by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force last month. The plan, cobbled together from both environmentalist and fishing stakeholder group recommendations, would close nearly 400 square miles of ocean off the Southern California coastline to fishing.
Speakers both for and against selected closures outlined in four plans -- three proposals recommended by stakeholders after months of discussion and one designed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force -- packed the conference room and addressed the commission, one by one. Many displayed their chosen map, holding bright-colored signs.
“This is a professional event, and I ask that those attempting to get on camera such as at a sports event refrain from doing so,” Fish and Game Commission chairman Richard Rogers said at one point during the meeting.
In a 3-1 vote, the commission moved to send the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s selected map through the environmental impact review process. The other three plans will serve as alternatives.
“It was no surprise, actually,” said Paul Romanowski, a recreational fisherman and a member of the California Fisheries Coalition. “It is definitely a mix of all three proposals -- and there are some things on it that we don’t like, but some are things that we developed during the first round a year ago.”
Last month, the Blue Ribbon Task Force reviewed three alternatives, which were proposed by environmentalists, anglers and other stakeholders. The task force decided to develop its own Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) plan and recommended it to the commission.
The action upset many anglers and boaters.
For the past several months, rallies have been held throughout Southern California where those in favor of retaining open-take areas joined to show their support for Proposal 2, which had the fewest closures when compared to Proposals 1 and 3.
Three groups were created to oversee specific elements of the Marine Life Protection Act: the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, the Science Advisory Team and the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group.
For many anglers, such as Romanowski, the shape of the Laguna no-take zone has been the most unsettling piece of the current plan. Under the current outline, a ban will be placed on fishing along 6 miles of the Laguna Beach coastline.
The decision also places restrictions on the Bolsa Chica area.
“It is unfeasible and unreasonable, and it would be a devastating blow to all coastal users in Laguna, if it were to go through as it is drawn,” Romanowski said. “It shuts off 30-35 public access points in Laguna, and there would be no handicap access for fishing.”
Other changes that Romanowski would like see addressed include safety, feasibility and legal issues concerning Point Dume and Scripps Pier.
The San Diego region will not have a protected area off Del Mar, but a protected zone off south La Jolla will be created.
In Los Angeles County, areas off the back side of Catalina Island would remain open to sportfishing for yellowtail and swordfish, but other species such as sea urchin and sea cucumber will not be allowed to be removed from the area. The kelp forest and rocky reef habitats off Palos Verdes Peninsula would also remain open to anglers.
Leslie Page, of Redondo Beach Marina, asked commissioners to help her select which employees to terminate if Proposal 2 is not selected.
“It breaks my heart,” Page said. “My harbor and marina will not be able to support them.”
Once a review of the closure plan is, the commission will vote to establish the new fishing regulations. The report is not expected to be completed until late 2010.
Local group asks for more time on MPAs
By John Driscoll, Eureka Times-Standard
December 22, 2009
The group of governments, harbor districts, tribes and fishermen working to develop a set of proposed marine reserves on the North Coast is again asking the state for more time because it doesn't have enough information to do the job.
In a letter to California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman last week, the North Coast Local Interest MPA Work Group asked that the deadline to produce the proposal be extended to March 15, six weeks after the deadline that was recently extended to Feb. 1.
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins wrote that bottom topography data needed for mapping in the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative is not likely to be available until after Jan. 15. Many commercial fishermen are also in the height of Dungeness crab season, Higgins wrote, and an extension would allow them to be better able to participate.
Chrisman agreed to extend the deadline from Dec. 15 to Feb. 1 back in October after Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, and Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, appealed to him.
The MLPA aims to set up a network of marine reserves meant to protect different habitats along the California coast, such as rocky areas and kelp forests, and the species that live in them. The process has been controversial in other areas of the state, and in the North Coast study area essentially every elected body has expressed concerns about the potential for the process to harm the region's economy and way of life.
MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman said that the North Coast region already has more information available than other regions did at this point in the process. The initiative has time and budget constraints, Wiseman said, and the legislation is clear that the program use the best available science.
He also said that there are several more stages of the process that will allow additional information to be added and considered. Wiseman said he'll recommend Chrisman not grant the extension.
”There will be lots of time over the year to refine it,” Wiseman said.
December 22, 2009
The group of governments, harbor districts, tribes and fishermen working to develop a set of proposed marine reserves on the North Coast is again asking the state for more time because it doesn't have enough information to do the job.
In a letter to California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman last week, the North Coast Local Interest MPA Work Group asked that the deadline to produce the proposal be extended to March 15, six weeks after the deadline that was recently extended to Feb. 1.
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District Commissioner Pat Higgins wrote that bottom topography data needed for mapping in the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative is not likely to be available until after Jan. 15. Many commercial fishermen are also in the height of Dungeness crab season, Higgins wrote, and an extension would allow them to be better able to participate.
Chrisman agreed to extend the deadline from Dec. 15 to Feb. 1 back in October after Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, and Sen. Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, appealed to him.
The MLPA aims to set up a network of marine reserves meant to protect different habitats along the California coast, such as rocky areas and kelp forests, and the species that live in them. The process has been controversial in other areas of the state, and in the North Coast study area essentially every elected body has expressed concerns about the potential for the process to harm the region's economy and way of life.
MLPA Initiative Executive Director Ken Wiseman said that the North Coast region already has more information available than other regions did at this point in the process. The initiative has time and budget constraints, Wiseman said, and the legislation is clear that the program use the best available science.
He also said that there are several more stages of the process that will allow additional information to be added and considered. Wiseman said he'll recommend Chrisman not grant the extension.
”There will be lots of time over the year to refine it,” Wiseman said.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Whalegate Scandal: State Lands Commission Finds MLPA Habitat Data Acquired Illegally
Local fishermen and environmentalists are wondering: if Fugro Pelagos was cutting corners by illegally failing to pay for marine wildlife observers, what other corners did they cut in obtaining the habitat data?
By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
December 21, 2009
In the latest episode in the long, sordid saga of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's widely-contested Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, the California State Lands Commission (SLC) at its meeting in San Diego on December 17 voted not to revoke the permit for Fugro Pelagos research vessel activity on the condition that the company abide by the terms of the permit in the future. Commission staff found that Fugro Pelagos violated the terms of its permit when it struck and killed a blue whale in October, 2009 off Fort Bragg when its contract vessel was mapping the sea floor for the MLPA Initiative.
The finding that the MLPA habitat data was acquired illegally comes at a time when a broad coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Native Americans and seaweed harvesters is criticizing the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, mission creep, environmental injustice and corruption of the democratic process.
Staff found that the company:
-Did not notify the State Lands Commission prior to its survey activity
-Did not have marine wildlife observers on board.
Commission staff cited California Coastal Conservancy Executive Director Sam Schuchat's belief that the killing of the whale was "an accident and even if the observers were on board, the whale would have been killed." No supporting evidence was provided, according to Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
Staff recommended that the permit be revoked until Jan. 17, 2010 and then returned - if the company pays for SLC costs of investigating the incident and preparing the report. The cost is 70 staff hours amounting to $13,000.
David Millar, President of Fugro Pelagos, testified. He told the Commission that the company did not violate its permit. He stated the company felt "bad about the large mammal being killed."
Millar said his company did not ignore the conditions of its permit - they argued they do not believe their operations were subject to the permit.
The Commission offered a deal to the company that it could keep its permit if it followed the staff's recommendations - payment of costs to the SLC to investigate the incident, and to have observers on board when operating and to notify SLC before conducting operations, according to Martin.
Mr. Millar objected to the conditions only applying to his company, putting him in a competitive disadvantage. He asked that other companies (8 approximately) be required to follow the same terms. The Commissioners said they would look into that issue, but meanwhile, did Miller agree to the terms or did he want his permit revoked? Miller agreed to the terms.
Steve Sullivan, owner of a company that does similar work on hydrographic surveys, called on Fugro Pelagos to reimburse the state for $16 million in public funding for the joint NOAA/California Coastal Conservancy project to map northern California's sea floor in state waters. Sullivan stated that the habitat data collected for the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative was obtained illegally, according to the findings of the State Lands Commission. Sullivan called into question the data being used in the MLPA process.
Today Sullivan praised the State Lands Commission decision about Fugro's illegal surveys conducted for MLPA designation.
"I am very pleased that the State Lands Commission has finally required the multi-billion dollar international firm, Fugro, to abide by the same regulations to protect marine mammals that us small California survey companies have complied with for years," said Sullivan. "At their meeting on 17 December, the State Lands Commission disclosed that Fugro and a new permit applicant, the California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB), have for years been conducting marine surveys illegally, without compliance with regulations to protect marine mammals.
"The illegal surveys conducted for Marine Life Protected Area (MLPA) designation by Fugro and CSUMB, which ultimately resulted in the death of a blue whale, has severely tarnished the image of the Ocean Protection Council (OPC)," Sullivan emphasized. "The State cannot be allowed to use illegally-obtained survey data to designate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that restrict the rights of fishermen and Native Americans. Imposing severe restrictions on the use of our State’s marine resources requires the full faith and confidence of the public; unfortunately the actions of the OPC and its survey contractors have shaken that trust."
Sullivan said the illegal surveys conducted for the OPC by Professor Rikk Kvitek of the CSUMB casts a pall over the legitimacy of the MLPA-designations, similar to the concerns about the legitimacy of diesel emission regulations after the California Air Resources Board ignored warnings that their statistician, Hien Tran, had mis-represented his credentials
"The OPC ignored warnings issued years ago that Rikk Kvitek, the primary scientist associated with designating MLPAs, was conducting illegal surveys without the required State-permit," stated Sullivan. "The OPC was publicly warned only 32 days before the blue whale was killed that their survey contractor, Fugro, was not in compliance with State regulations that protect marine mammals. The OPC has failed its charter to protect California’s marine resources."
He urged the OPC to delay designation of the Marine Protected Areas until the doubts associated with the legitimacy of the survey data are resolved, and said the State "should demand to be reimbursed by Fugro and the CSUMB for the $16 million of funding they received for conducting the illegal surveys."
On October 18, 2009, a vessel under contract for mapping sea floor habitat data for the MLPA process in California struck and killed a rare female blue whale off the coast south of Fort Bragg, in Mendocino County. The vessel, "Pacific Star," ceased operations after the whale strike. The killing of the whale outraged local environmentalists and fishermen now fighting the privately-funded MLPA process.
"Local fishermen are already pointing out data gaps in the MLPA science process as they struggle to meet a February 1, 2010 deadline for initial proposals for marine protected areas on the north coast," said Jim Martin. "Fishermen are wondering: if Fugro Pelagos was cutting corners by illegally failing to pay for marine wildlife observers, what other corners did they cut in obtaining the habitat data? The viability of sustainable fisheries on the north coast depend on the accuracy and integrity of this data."
Increasing numbers of individuals and organizations from a variety of political perspectives have criticized the MLPA initiative for being an unjust process, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests, that has no respect for the rights of sustainable fishermen, seaweed harvesters and Indian Tribal members. The National Congress of American Indians, at their annual session from October 11-16 in Palm Springs, passed a strongly worded resolution blasting Schwarzenegger's MLPA process for failing to recognize the subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights of California Indian Tribes.
"While the tribes support the State's goal of developing marine protection, they are concerned that the State's MLPA process does not address their sovereign standing or interests," according to the resolution. "To date there have been no government to government consultations by the State with any tribe in California in the MLPA implementation process, nor is there a mention of the sovereign status of the tribes in the MLPA Master Plan or legislation."
The killing of a rare blue whale by a boat, contracted by the Ocean Protection Council, to conduct what turned out to be an illegally conducted mapping survey of the seafloor for the MLPA process, an initiative supposedly designed to "protect" marine life, could only happen in Schwarzenegger's California. This bizarre incident is akin to the fire department burning the firehouse down!
By Dan Bacher, IndyBay
December 21, 2009
In the latest episode in the long, sordid saga of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's widely-contested Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, the California State Lands Commission (SLC) at its meeting in San Diego on December 17 voted not to revoke the permit for Fugro Pelagos research vessel activity on the condition that the company abide by the terms of the permit in the future. Commission staff found that Fugro Pelagos violated the terms of its permit when it struck and killed a blue whale in October, 2009 off Fort Bragg when its contract vessel was mapping the sea floor for the MLPA Initiative.
The finding that the MLPA habitat data was acquired illegally comes at a time when a broad coalition of North Coast environmentalists, fishermen, Native Americans and seaweed harvesters is criticizing the MLPA process for being rife with conflicts of interests, mission creep, environmental injustice and corruption of the democratic process.
Staff found that the company:
-Did not notify the State Lands Commission prior to its survey activity
-Did not have marine wildlife observers on board.
Commission staff cited California Coastal Conservancy Executive Director Sam Schuchat's belief that the killing of the whale was "an accident and even if the observers were on board, the whale would have been killed." No supporting evidence was provided, according to Jim Martin, West Coast Regional Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance.
Staff recommended that the permit be revoked until Jan. 17, 2010 and then returned - if the company pays for SLC costs of investigating the incident and preparing the report. The cost is 70 staff hours amounting to $13,000.
David Millar, President of Fugro Pelagos, testified. He told the Commission that the company did not violate its permit. He stated the company felt "bad about the large mammal being killed."
Millar said his company did not ignore the conditions of its permit - they argued they do not believe their operations were subject to the permit.
The Commission offered a deal to the company that it could keep its permit if it followed the staff's recommendations - payment of costs to the SLC to investigate the incident, and to have observers on board when operating and to notify SLC before conducting operations, according to Martin.
Mr. Millar objected to the conditions only applying to his company, putting him in a competitive disadvantage. He asked that other companies (8 approximately) be required to follow the same terms. The Commissioners said they would look into that issue, but meanwhile, did Miller agree to the terms or did he want his permit revoked? Miller agreed to the terms.
Steve Sullivan, owner of a company that does similar work on hydrographic surveys, called on Fugro Pelagos to reimburse the state for $16 million in public funding for the joint NOAA/California Coastal Conservancy project to map northern California's sea floor in state waters. Sullivan stated that the habitat data collected for the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative was obtained illegally, according to the findings of the State Lands Commission. Sullivan called into question the data being used in the MLPA process.
Today Sullivan praised the State Lands Commission decision about Fugro's illegal surveys conducted for MLPA designation.
"I am very pleased that the State Lands Commission has finally required the multi-billion dollar international firm, Fugro, to abide by the same regulations to protect marine mammals that us small California survey companies have complied with for years," said Sullivan. "At their meeting on 17 December, the State Lands Commission disclosed that Fugro and a new permit applicant, the California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB), have for years been conducting marine surveys illegally, without compliance with regulations to protect marine mammals.
"The illegal surveys conducted for Marine Life Protected Area (MLPA) designation by Fugro and CSUMB, which ultimately resulted in the death of a blue whale, has severely tarnished the image of the Ocean Protection Council (OPC)," Sullivan emphasized. "The State cannot be allowed to use illegally-obtained survey data to designate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that restrict the rights of fishermen and Native Americans. Imposing severe restrictions on the use of our State’s marine resources requires the full faith and confidence of the public; unfortunately the actions of the OPC and its survey contractors have shaken that trust."
Sullivan said the illegal surveys conducted for the OPC by Professor Rikk Kvitek of the CSUMB casts a pall over the legitimacy of the MLPA-designations, similar to the concerns about the legitimacy of diesel emission regulations after the California Air Resources Board ignored warnings that their statistician, Hien Tran, had mis-represented his credentials
"The OPC ignored warnings issued years ago that Rikk Kvitek, the primary scientist associated with designating MLPAs, was conducting illegal surveys without the required State-permit," stated Sullivan. "The OPC was publicly warned only 32 days before the blue whale was killed that their survey contractor, Fugro, was not in compliance with State regulations that protect marine mammals. The OPC has failed its charter to protect California’s marine resources."
He urged the OPC to delay designation of the Marine Protected Areas until the doubts associated with the legitimacy of the survey data are resolved, and said the State "should demand to be reimbursed by Fugro and the CSUMB for the $16 million of funding they received for conducting the illegal surveys."
On October 18, 2009, a vessel under contract for mapping sea floor habitat data for the MLPA process in California struck and killed a rare female blue whale off the coast south of Fort Bragg, in Mendocino County. The vessel, "Pacific Star," ceased operations after the whale strike. The killing of the whale outraged local environmentalists and fishermen now fighting the privately-funded MLPA process.
"Local fishermen are already pointing out data gaps in the MLPA science process as they struggle to meet a February 1, 2010 deadline for initial proposals for marine protected areas on the north coast," said Jim Martin. "Fishermen are wondering: if Fugro Pelagos was cutting corners by illegally failing to pay for marine wildlife observers, what other corners did they cut in obtaining the habitat data? The viability of sustainable fisheries on the north coast depend on the accuracy and integrity of this data."
Increasing numbers of individuals and organizations from a variety of political perspectives have criticized the MLPA initiative for being an unjust process, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests, that has no respect for the rights of sustainable fishermen, seaweed harvesters and Indian Tribal members. The National Congress of American Indians, at their annual session from October 11-16 in Palm Springs, passed a strongly worded resolution blasting Schwarzenegger's MLPA process for failing to recognize the subsistence, ceremonial and cultural rights of California Indian Tribes.
"While the tribes support the State's goal of developing marine protection, they are concerned that the State's MLPA process does not address their sovereign standing or interests," according to the resolution. "To date there have been no government to government consultations by the State with any tribe in California in the MLPA implementation process, nor is there a mention of the sovereign status of the tribes in the MLPA Master Plan or legislation."
The killing of a rare blue whale by a boat, contracted by the Ocean Protection Council, to conduct what turned out to be an illegally conducted mapping survey of the seafloor for the MLPA process, an initiative supposedly designed to "protect" marine life, could only happen in Schwarzenegger's California. This bizarre incident is akin to the fire department burning the firehouse down!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Fearing a take-away
1,000-plus pounds of seafood sold at anti-MLPA event
Cindy Hensel wears her sentiments on her T-shirt in the kitchen. (The Daily Triplicate/Bryant Anderson)
By Kurt Madar, The Daily Triplicate
December 15, 2009
The battle to prevent further fishing restrictions along the North Coast was feeding Crescent City well Sunday.
Local fishermen hosted an all-you-can-eat crab feed at the Del Norte County Fairgrounds to raise money for fighting a statewide initiative that could close important areas for local fishing.
It was well attended.
Organizers said that after the three-hour affair was over they had sold nearly 1,000 pounds of crab donated from local boats.
“We had between 15 and 20 boats that donated crab for the feed,” said organizer Kenyon Hensel. “By the end we only had about 60 or 70 pounds left.”
The meal started at 3 p.m. Sunday, and for $10 people got plates heaped with crab, a cup of melted butter, a bowl of coleslaw, a roll and pink lemonade.
And they could go back for more as often as they wanted.
Not only were they selling crab dinners, organizers also offered whole live and cooked crabs for $6 apiece.
“It’s absolutely fantastic,” said Brookings resident Carolyn Gimby. “Not only is the food excellent and totally worth the trip, it’s for a good cause. Local fishermen support the community, so the community should support them back.”
Gimby clearly was not alone in enjoying the spread, because unlike most full dining rooms, the sound of conversation was drowned out by the sound of eating.
Cracking shells overwhelmed the quiet murmuring of voices, and many diners went back in line for seconds, all to the succulent sweet smell of cooking crab.
Gimby wasn’t the only lover of crab who felt the dinner was important for more than just filling up on fresh seafood.
“I grew up here,” said Gasquet resident Tom Stewart, who was with his wife buying two bags of whole cooked crab to take home. “We’ve got the most accessible port in Northern California and it needs our support. Things like this may be history if they take away fishing areas.”
The crab feed was the second fundraiser held at the fairgrounds to raise money to fight the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.
The MLPA is a state-driven initiative that designs marine protected areas along the California coast, and the North Coast is the fourth region in California to begin the process.
Three types of MPAs could be established here.
The three levels of protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).
“We used funds from the fish feed (the first fundraiser) to retain a lawyer to investigate whether it’s legal for private parties to be funding a state-driven initiative,” Hensel said. “The funds from the crab feed will go to sustain him for the next six months while we go through the process.”
“This really is a community-based effort, not only from the fishermen that donated the crab, but also from the community members that came out to buy and eat it,” Hensel said. “We didn’t expect it, but the individual crab sales were much higher than the dinners.”
The entire affair was not only supported by donated crab, but also run by volunteers from the fishing community.
Bruce Miller, a local fishermen since 1984, spent the afternoon standing tall over two boilers filled with crab, pickling seasoning and salt.
“I’ve been cooking crab for a long time,” Miller said as he noted the time a batch was put in the roiling water. “And they want to take this away,” he said, pointing to the heaps of Dungeness crab locked pincher to pincher.
Another volunteer and member of the local fishing community, Pat Wilson, put it more directly.
“We are having a great crab season,” Wilson said. “And considering that these things usually run in cycles, it would be a crime if we lost crucial fishing grounds right before things started getting better.”
Wilson is referring to the fact that recent crab seasons have been so abysmal that fishermen have been tightening their belts for years now.
He is worried that just as things start to get good again, just as local fishermen start making up for the bad years, it could all get taken away.
If the fight against the MLPA is unsuccessful, “this won’t be the first time the community has lost something important,” Miller said, referring to the logging industry. “And probably not the last.”
Cindy Hensel wears her sentiments on her T-shirt in the kitchen. (The Daily Triplicate/Bryant Anderson)By Kurt Madar, The Daily Triplicate
December 15, 2009
The battle to prevent further fishing restrictions along the North Coast was feeding Crescent City well Sunday.
Local fishermen hosted an all-you-can-eat crab feed at the Del Norte County Fairgrounds to raise money for fighting a statewide initiative that could close important areas for local fishing.
It was well attended.
Organizers said that after the three-hour affair was over they had sold nearly 1,000 pounds of crab donated from local boats.
“We had between 15 and 20 boats that donated crab for the feed,” said organizer Kenyon Hensel. “By the end we only had about 60 or 70 pounds left.”
The meal started at 3 p.m. Sunday, and for $10 people got plates heaped with crab, a cup of melted butter, a bowl of coleslaw, a roll and pink lemonade.
And they could go back for more as often as they wanted.
Not only were they selling crab dinners, organizers also offered whole live and cooked crabs for $6 apiece.
“It’s absolutely fantastic,” said Brookings resident Carolyn Gimby. “Not only is the food excellent and totally worth the trip, it’s for a good cause. Local fishermen support the community, so the community should support them back.”
Gimby clearly was not alone in enjoying the spread, because unlike most full dining rooms, the sound of conversation was drowned out by the sound of eating.
Cracking shells overwhelmed the quiet murmuring of voices, and many diners went back in line for seconds, all to the succulent sweet smell of cooking crab.
Gimby wasn’t the only lover of crab who felt the dinner was important for more than just filling up on fresh seafood.
“I grew up here,” said Gasquet resident Tom Stewart, who was with his wife buying two bags of whole cooked crab to take home. “We’ve got the most accessible port in Northern California and it needs our support. Things like this may be history if they take away fishing areas.”
The crab feed was the second fundraiser held at the fairgrounds to raise money to fight the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.
The MLPA is a state-driven initiative that designs marine protected areas along the California coast, and the North Coast is the fourth region in California to begin the process.
Three types of MPAs could be established here.
The three levels of protection are primarily based on the severity of the take limit. From least restrictive to most, they include marine conservation areas, marine parks, and marine reserves (which would be no-take areas).
“We used funds from the fish feed (the first fundraiser) to retain a lawyer to investigate whether it’s legal for private parties to be funding a state-driven initiative,” Hensel said. “The funds from the crab feed will go to sustain him for the next six months while we go through the process.”
“This really is a community-based effort, not only from the fishermen that donated the crab, but also from the community members that came out to buy and eat it,” Hensel said. “We didn’t expect it, but the individual crab sales were much higher than the dinners.”
The entire affair was not only supported by donated crab, but also run by volunteers from the fishing community.
Bruce Miller, a local fishermen since 1984, spent the afternoon standing tall over two boilers filled with crab, pickling seasoning and salt.
“I’ve been cooking crab for a long time,” Miller said as he noted the time a batch was put in the roiling water. “And they want to take this away,” he said, pointing to the heaps of Dungeness crab locked pincher to pincher.
Another volunteer and member of the local fishing community, Pat Wilson, put it more directly.
“We are having a great crab season,” Wilson said. “And considering that these things usually run in cycles, it would be a crime if we lost crucial fishing grounds right before things started getting better.”
Wilson is referring to the fact that recent crab seasons have been so abysmal that fishermen have been tightening their belts for years now.
He is worried that just as things start to get good again, just as local fishermen start making up for the bad years, it could all get taken away.
If the fight against the MLPA is unsuccessful, “this won’t be the first time the community has lost something important,” Miller said, referring to the logging industry. “And probably not the last.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)