Darrell Ticehurst/Fisheries Issues
.jpg)
MPA's – Benefits Are MIA
Aug. 6 2010, 9:03 AM
Aug. 6 2010, 9:03 AM
MPA's – Benefits Are MIA
We have read so much about MPA's, how they will fix all of the problems and ensure that the public has a better ocean. Oh, that that would be true! What a wonderful solution to our ocean's problems! But let's look at what is really happening now that they have been in place for, in the Central Coast area, a couple of years.
We have read so much about MPA's, how they will fix all of the problems and ensure that the public has a better ocean. Oh, that that would be true! What a wonderful solution to our ocean's problems! But let's look at what is really happening now that they have been in place for, in the Central Coast area, a couple of years.
You will see lists of benefits from the establishment of MPA’s. They reflect the half truths and downright lies and exaggerations that have gotten us to this point. Look at those lists very carefully and compare them with what we have today and you can detect the half truths, and the nonsense, in what they tout. “Provide for education”—as if there wasn’t plenty of area in which to learn and study before—nothing new whether you are in an MPA or any other location—oh, and those studies of the effectiveness of MPA’s? They are MIA as well. “Provide a buffer for mistakes in fishery management”—the PFMC, our ocean fishery manager, has a track record over the last 15 years that is very successful, and has understood how to put reserves and MPA’s in place when they are necessary. The Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA), established by the PFMC some years ago, is an MPA of 10,000 square miles! Why would we need artificial boundaries for reserves or MPA’s established by some enviro groups with an agenda, our fishery managers are already doing that, but only whenever there is an established scientific need, not just because some group thinks it might be nice to have one in that spot. “Protect sensitive areas from damage from anchors”—as if that was a big problem, something for which there is zero documentation for our area. Works well when you are talking about protecting shallow coral reefs, I guess, but try and find that around here. “Provide enhanced recreational opportunities such as diving, kayaking, bird watching, etc”—yet we can’t get within a quarter mile of the Farallon Island bird nesting area because we will “interact with the birds”. They define an interaction as, for example, a bird lifting its head as the sound of a boat reaches it. And I dunno’ why a kayak would think the water was better in an MPA either—certainly can’t see much, and in a reserve they can’t fish. “Provides and improves an area for feeding other wildlife (whales, birds, turtles, seals, etc.) without physical disturbance due to constant fishing boat traffic.” Yeah, good one, make sure that once an MPA is in place that no one can go near it in a boat. That’s sure a paradise for diving if you could only get there!
And then there is this canard: “Helps stabilize fish population fluctuations and ensures against population crashes in fished areas.” Hmm, the population fluctuations and crashes are presumably caused when the ocean conditions change—the ocean warms up or cools down or new currents push in, or…--well you get the picture: things change, even in the marine environment. Right now we are seeing major changes in the ocean off California with anchovy populations declining, sardines making a major comeback, Humboldt squid in huge numbers, wild fluctuations in krill biomass and a host of other changes. And those MPA’s we established? Well guess what? They are changing too! Imagine that, they change with all of the rest of the ocean. And are they protecting the fish populations? Well who knows? If an MPA happened to be in the exact spot for a specific species they wanted to protect then maybe it could do some good if the ocean didn’t change in the MPA, but what are the chances of that in a big ocean? The RCA established by the PFMC is an MPA targeted to offer exactly the targeted kind of protection we need. The difference is that once the need was seen, they established the reserve where it would do the most good. The existing MPA’s donn’t help solve that problem at all. Putting MPA’s in place without understanding fishery management is silly.
So we hear a lot about the benefits of MPA’s and reserves. The coast near Morro Bay was the first to get these MPA’s and how are they doing? Well, both party boat companies are bankrupt, no customers, and they cite the closing of 45% of the coast including the prime fishing areas as the sole reason. Morro Bay fishing tourism is beyond a depression. No recreational fishermen spending their nights, eating in their restaurants, or buying bait or launching boats. That is the result of taking a sledge hammer to drive a nail. The results were predictable, but the zealots were out to save the ocean, and to hell with the consequences. Sure wish they actually could have done some good, but unfortunately there is no evidence of that.
So the MPA movement continues. Lots of money behind it, lots of contributions to be gotten if they can convince someone of their value, lots of grants to be given to study their benefits, and the runaway enviros get to tell the public the environment is going to be saved. Well don’t you believe it. Nothing is being saved and the harm is real and long lasting. Sure there are problems with the marine environment. Bottom draggers have been destroying structure for 100 years. Gill nets, purse seiners and long lines have been taking too many fish for too long, and they have gotten too good at what they do, and the laws and fishery managers have been slow to catch up, but MPA’s are not an intelligent solution to these problems caused by commercial fishing, and they punish most the portion of the public that most enjoys and productively uses our waters—the recreational angler. MPA’s and reserves are too broad brushed, too unselective, and too economically and socially disruptive to be a practical solution. There are much more effective ways to solve these problems than to have us off the water using pseudo science and manufactured benefits.
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated by the administrators.All fields are required.
August 6, 2010, 7:02 pm
As usual, right on target Darrell. No science to support this bizarre attack on basic rights to fish with very good resource management. No NEED for MPAs.