Slow leak: Bear, the more I thought about it the more amused I became at your statement that I was almost militant in presenting marine reserves. I agree I am a pain in the butt activist, and I work hard to fully develop the whole concept of marine reserves. I suppose that could be construed to be militant.
I remember in the PSRAG there was a time when you pursued a particular point with the WDFW representatives. The answers you got were politically correct. Again, you pushed the point (and frankly I don’t remember what the point was) and again, you got the politically correct answer. Again you pushed the point in different words. Again you got a politically correct answer. You weren’t giving an inch and neither was WDFW. You summarize the quick discussion with “I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that point”. Now that was militant! Frankly, I loved it. I also love working with people who know what they’re talking about and are proactive about the issues. Proactivists get into the issue, get it on, get it over with, and get on with it. Frankly that is the best way to make some progress.
Larry B: I did question your expectations that the offshore closure and 120 foot rule had not produced improvements in rockfish restoration because of their long lifecycle and slow reproductive ability. You are correct, that there is no data for that area to show benefits. I do not support the proposed closures in marine area 4B. I am supporting the status quo. I also support stopping all commercial long lining and 4B. However, if there were marine reserves proposed by a fisheries scientific advisory panel in 4B, I would support the recommendations. Still, there is no data in 4B to show a marine reserve necessary. This is the point in the discussion where you have to rely on the experience and professional judgment derived from a lifetime of being involved in the science of marine reserves. We would be relying on the fisheries scientific advisory panel. I do not have scientific expertise of sufficient depth in that area. However, there is an enormous body of scientific publications that all say marine reserves, properly designed, protect and restore fisheries. Where there have been marine reserve failures it is due to a lack of enforcement, and what scientists call” irreducible scientific uncertainty in trying to manage marine ecosystems”. Simply put, we need strong enforcement in all marine reserves because they are mother nature’s fish hatcheries, and the size and complexity of marine ecosystems are simply beyond fisheries managers understanding, much less control, at this point.
Anecdotal evidence is just that – anecdotal, from a few too many observations with no scientific comparisons for control. Most of the time anecdotal evidence is gathered when somebody becomes aware of an issue and starts looking for any evidence and compares it to their past experience which is usually minimal. This may or may not be a valid comparison, or even a valid observation, because it does not identify trends going up or down. Some rock fish populations are improving and some are getting worse. Unfortunately the only source of real scientific data comes from WDFW and we have no choice but to accept or deny and contest that data.
It is not possible to avoid mixing habitat/protection issues with fishing related closures, and then do a correlation between recreational fishing and habitat degradation. Nothing in a fully functioning ecosystem is that simple with a one on one relationship. In fact, the total opposite of that thinking is the basis for the ecosystem-based management that WDFW is currently undertaking. Every living thing is connected in one way or another to every other living thing and to the activities of mankind.
Your historical assessment of WDFW is absolutely right on target. The current WDFW has inherited a really nasty situation trying to restore protect and manage our fisheries especially when every game fish species (except halibut) is also listed as an endangered species and we have the most depressed fisheries in North America.
Recreational fishermen will not be arbitrarily excluded from a marine reserve. All fishermen, commercial and tribal, will be excluded. Hopefully the tribes will observe that exclusion.
“The blanket access closure in the area surrounding Cape Canaveral was implemented for NASA security. There is some thought that the exceptional recreational fishing in adjacent areas to the closure is directly attributable to this no-fishing zone.” Every fisheries scientist who has looked at this example has agreed that the exceptional fishing is due to the no fishing zone and the spillover of trophy of adults and enormous numbers of larvae and juveniles. “But with a state gill net ban and increased state regulatory measures to conserve coastal resources (which were both spearheaded by the interests and efforts of recreational fishermen), it is impossible to link the security closure to improved fishing.” CCA deserves credit for the gill net ban and increased state regulatory measures. However, there is no reputable fisheries scientist alive that will agree with “it is impossible to link the security closure to improved fishing.” That is a profound overstatement not supported by any scientific facts.
You are absolutely correct about the historical effects of overfishing and over exploitation of our fishery stocks. Commercial fisherman, especially corporate industrial fishermen have succeeded in nearly wiping out so many fishery stocks, it is pathetic. However, we have a fisheries situation to deal with here and now. And we must use the best available science. When the abuses occurred, most of the time, fisheries managers did not know any better. The current crop of fisheries managers have inherited a nasty and complicated situation.
There is an ever repeating story always associated with the demise of commercial fisheries. As the commercial industry wipes out fish stocks, the recreationals see the demise and try to start restoration efforts through state fish and game departments. This is the same situation we see in Washington today. MPA proponents do not try to punish the recreational fishermen. MPA proponents want to restrict all fishing so that fish stocks can be restored – for all fishermen.
I do not think CCA’s reasoning is in error. They are often absolutely correct. When they sponsor a lawsuit, often as part of a coalition with other sports fishing organizations and environmental organizations, all of the science is reviewed in a court and usually a far better fisheries management is the result.
Here is the data to support marine reserves;
1. Sobel, Jack and Craig Dahlgren. 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design, and Use. Island Press, Washington. 383pp
2. Norse, Elliot and Larry B. Crowder. 2005. Marine Conservation Biology. The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity. Marine Conservation Biology Institute. Island Press, Washington. 470pp.
3. Lubchenco, J. et al 2007. The Science of Marine Reserves. Partnership for the Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. PISCO. 22pp. http://www.piscoweb.org/files/images/pdf/SMR_US_HighRes.pdf or http://www.piscoweb.org/files/images/pdf/SMR_US_LowRes.pdf
4. Grafton, R., et al. 2009. Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management. Oxford University Press. USA. 784pp.

None of this data says CCA is wrong. All of it says Marine reserves protect habitat and restore depressed fisheries. All of it is based on the science of many thousands of fisheries biologists and researchers. All of it is a reaction by current fisheries managers because of a lack of prior action regarding management and habitat abuses.

Dogfish: Baloney! If I had had something to say, I would’ve said it. You are right, I have outed myself. I want to restore our fish stocks, reduce the list of endangered species, and gives the state of Florida the distinction of being the most depressed fisheries in North America. You and I are actually on the same page about fisheries restoration. But after closing 15 to 20% for marine reserves, 80 to 85% of Puget Sound is more than enough water for you and me to fish. Especially after fish stocks increase 300 to 500% after the recovery period. We simply must put restoration and conservation of our fish stocks as our primary goal before we start insisting on abolute recreational access to all marine water. To do otherwise is not mark of a conservationist.

Fishinnut: You are absolutely right that area is healthy. Unfortunately only some of the rock fish stocks there are healthy. If the fishery biologists did not believe the “C” closure was necessary to preserve a healthy stock it would not have been created.

Norm