Posted by MikeR on June 23, 2002 at 10:20:16:
In Reply to: Where would you put Marine Protected Areas? posted by John H. Moore on June 22, 2002 at 10:24:35:
I'm all for using the less accessible areas to avoid closing off access to the shore divers, but we don't want to focus the commercial fishermen in the remaining areas with a large quantity of Lobster traps, etc... As much as I disliked the first plan and its implied threat to spearfishing and lobster diving in Palos Verdes, I have to say that the answer is not in the territory but in the restrictions place upon it. We need some completely closed areas. Go for smaller areas that checkerboard the coast in between the most popular sights to give the fish a chance to recover and naturally move into the reserve areas. For the balance of the popular dive sites, stick to reserves that allow the sport take of any species not threatened. Close off the commercial fishermen from on-shore areas since they are sensitive to the pressure of overfishing. Take lobster in PV for instance. Just a few comm boats work the areas, fight with each other for territory, blanket the areas with traps, and take as much as they can. The sport lobster takers come out in droves on opening night and take what the few comm. guys do in a day. Bottom line is legislate for the majority and limit the comm. guys with reserves and the lobster population in PV will be endless. Outlaw any kind of fishtrap due to its indiscriminate take of fish.
I might suggest Pt. fermin North for a mile or two as a complete no take zone or the Portugues Bend area since those areas serve very few people. Work to establish additional reef areas also, to improve the health of the area. Get volunteers involved so the majority see the benefits of this work and not just the restrictions. Speaking as a diver, we don't put any sort of crippling pressure on a species that can't be easily regulated by limits in advance. Don't punish us for the mistakes of others. Task F&G with ongoing management using limits. Are they trying to tell us that we have to go from a sport lobster take of 7 down to zero to save the species? There's no logic in this. Stop the people who count their catch by the dozens... The commercial guys who work on shore. Publicize the benefits to the sport fishermen majority with a logical plan that shows management not denial. I'm still sick from the way that Abalone was managed with the sport limits always behind the availability of the resource and we watched ourselves take them to near extinction. Hindsight tells me that a fair limit of two would have fed the family and eliminated the overflow into the freezer when limits were 7 then 5 and they were in the process of disappearing. The PV moritorium closed the door on an empty closet for the most part also. We pay taxes to fund game management but we willingly accept an agency that appears to be more interested in catching us with a fish or lobster that is 1/8 inch short than in a proactive management plan. The only good aspect about the MLPA situation is that at least we are doing something in advance. Lets make sure it addresses the real cause of the problems and doesn't cause the large population of sport fishermen unnecessary hardship (When the elimination of commercial fishing in some areas might achieve our objectives). Does the MLPA committee realize that the original plan virtually eliminated the sport of spearfishing in some areas and with its other proposed restrictions, turned most of its original supporters into its enemies? I'm on of those people...
Thanks John, for asking for comment!