Posted by Ken Kurtis on December 11, 2001 at 01:10:28:
To say it was interesting would be an understatement. (And I'm probably going to be a bit biased, so just accept that going in.)
Last week, the Department of Fish & Game held their regular public meeting (every two months I think - the site rotates) at the UC Chancellor's Office, which is in Long Beach near the now-defunct Catalina Cruises building. Although the MLPA was NOT an agenda item, the commissioners had decided to accept some more public comment, primarily at the urging of the environmentalists. DF&G decided they'd allot 45 minutes to the pro-reserve side and 45 minutes to the (as they termed it) "other" viewpoint (which is much nicer than calling them the anti-reserve group).
If you're not familiar with the issue (and I don't claim to be an expert on this) basically the Legislature passed the Marine Protection Act, which decreed that the State establish Marine Life Protection Areas (hence, MLPA) throughout State-controlled waters. The MLPAs could take the form of Marine Parks, Marine Conservation Areas, or Marine Reserves, each with differing rules as to what you can and can't do within their boundaries.
DF&G has before it a couple of proposals, including one to just leave current regulations intact and do nothing, but others that range from setting aside 12% to 34% of (specifically) waters around the Channel Islands and the SoCal shoreline. (FYI, some studies from the enviros suggest that 30% is the minimum amount you need to set aside for reserves to be really effective, but they also realize that that may not be a politically achievable goal.)
Basically, since this is primarily focused on the resources of the ocean, the main issues deal with consumptive use of State-controlled waters, which basically means regulating the amount of fish taken out of the waters, and where they can be taken from, perhaps more restrictively than current regulations require. And although this will impact both commercial and recreational fishing (meant to include "fishing" while diving as well), it's the recreational people, both traditional fisherman and divers, who seem to be the most vocal.
Although I realize that this isn't a simple black-and-white issue (nothing ever really is), I think the general idea of setting aside reserves is something that merits action, because it seems to me that what we've been doing in the past, whether through "traditional" regulatory measures, &/or setting commercial and recreational catch limits that may actually be detrimental to species survival let alone sustainable, simply aren't working. I personally feel we're close to a crisis stage or even a point-of-no-return, and that if we don't do something NOW, it's gonna be too late.
I was invited to be one of the speakers on the pro-reserve side. They were being coordinated through a Santa Barbara group called Local Ocean Network - Channel Islands, but they're also working and coordinating with American Oceans Campaign, the Sierra Club, Baykeeper, Surfrider Foundation, and other enviro-friendly groups. (Or as one of my friends put it, " . . . sandal-wearing granola-crunchers.") One reason they said they wanted me to speak to the Commission was that I was the first businessperson they'd encountered with an ocean-related business who was willing to go on record as favoring reserves/parks/areas/etc. That in and of itself is pretty sad IMHO.
Day of the hearing, the room was packed. Easily 200-300 people on both sides of the fence. The fishing groups all showed up wearing red t-shirts and I'd say half the room was red-shirted.
The pro-reserve group went first and started off with a scientist who made the basic case for reserves. That was followed by a woman who works with children and she brought three of them to ask the DF&G to please save the fish so they'd be around when they grew up. (Clever little ploy I thought, and it played out well.)
I was the third speaker up, identified myself and said that in the 20 years I'd been diving the Channel Islands, I've certainly noticed a decline in the number of fish that we see. My estimate (NOT backed up by any science) is that the number of fish now is only 50-60% of what we had 20 years ago. And I said, "And for those of you who think that we have the ability to effectively manage these dwindling resources, I have one word . . . abalone." (That actually got a pretty good laugh from all over the room, including the Commissioners.)
I went on to point out that, withering foot disease notwithstanding, here was a species that was pretty easy to track (since they don't move much) with a fairly small number of people trying to get them (pretty much just divers and the commercial guys) yet we allowed the abalone population to get to a point that it wasn't stable enough to withstand the onslaught of withering foot.
However . . .
Not that they've been left alone for a few years, we're seeing a comeback. Same with Black Sea Bass. They were hunted/fished almost to the point of extinction but put under state protection in 1982. Now we're seeing them more and more in the wild. (I specifically mentioned Italian Gardens.) I said, "These two examples demonstrate that when we leave a species alone, their numbers rebound. The reserves will have the same effect."
I ended with acknowledging that not a lot of people in the room get to see the ocean from a diver's perspective. Fisherman know what they've taken out but we see what's available to be taken. We also see the innate beauty of the underwater world. I said, "Some of you may not have been diving but perhaps you've been to Yosemite and are aware of how special and beautiful that place is. Well, I'm here to tell you that the Channel Islands are the Yosemite of the sea. They need to be protected. And they need to be protected NOW."
Perhaps another ten speakers followed me, representing (I thought) a fairly good and interesting cross-section of those concerned about the health of the ocean.
Then it was time for the "other" view. They were mainly fisherman, represented by Bob Fletcher, who's the president of SAC, the Southern California Sportfishing Association, representing mainly commercial fishing boats that take out recreational fisherman (as opposed to trawlers and stuff like that), two guys from the United Anglers of California, and another guy from the national association of the United Anglers.
Their basic pitch was that traditional regulatory measures DO work and work well, and that the idea of creating reserves was too draconian a solution. They also pointed out that recreational fisherman in California represent 6% of the fin fish catch and they basically feel they're being unfairly singled out as the culprits. They complained (rightfully so I feel) that the DF&G doesn't do enough to control commercial fisheries and will just let the bigger commercial guys fish something into extinction without batting an eye.
They're also very concerned (again rightfully so I think) about the economic impact that this will have on their industry. In diving, we can accommodate people who don't hunt and, in fact, the reserves should make our waters even more attractive to those of us who like to photo or just play looky-loo. But to the boats who take out the fisherman each day, not being able to fish, or being restricted in the areas they can fish, poses some serious problems.
The United Angler guys pointed out how much revenue their members generate for DF&G with licenses and intimated that if the fishing areas are cut back, their guys wouldn't be so inclined to buy licenses and revenues would fall.
One of their speakers (they probably only had about six total for their 45 minutes) pointed out that we really are all after the same thing - more fish in the ocean. It's just that we've got different ways of going about it.
But what I really found interesting was one of their guys who was waxing poetic about the joy of fishing being and just being out on the water and casting the line. He said, "Some days, we don't even keep anything - we just throw it all back."
Which got me to thinking (and I've had a dialogue with one of the DF&G guys since the meeting) that if these guys truly feel that way about being out on the water, and if taking the fish home is not that big a deal (remember, we're dealing with consumptive issues here), if there can't be a compromise position found that might involve catch-and-release zones which would have a similar effect to no-take (although some of the released fish wouldn't survive) but would also still allow these guys to make a living and "fish" the reserve areas.
Other speakers basically just said they didn't like the idea of reserves and they felt DF&G was trampling on the "right" to fish (must be a different copy of the Constitution that I've read) and since they could fish in the streams of Yosemite they should also be able to fish in the ocean.
Bottom line is that everyone was generally polite and well-behaved but there are some deep divisions and here and no matter what the DF&G does, a bunch of people are not going to be happy. It's also really sad that the two "sides" aren't sitting down and working to cobble together some sort of a compromise that each can live with (but which will admittedly not be perfect) but one which will be better than dealing with a politically motivated solution, which is what the DF&G will produce (the Governor must sign off on all this) without some sort of consensus from the user groups.
Anyhow, the discussion continues and if you want to have some input, go to the DF&G website, read up on what's there, and make your voice heard.
Ken Kurtis
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, CA