I've just been following Supercub's thread which wandered into the conversation of marine reserves, figured this subject deserves it's own thread.
There are good examples of marine reserves, and the theory of them is sound. However, it does seem like they invariably wind up being the lid to Pandora's box. More often than not they wind up being used to stop an industry of some kind, rather than help a certain species as intended. And, ultimately, in a lot of cases creating habit where more creatures can be created doesn't do anything about what caused them to be threatened in the first place.
It pains me to see the suffering of the westcoast fishermen, commercial and sport, who are being crucified for the sins of the hydro electric firms, big agriculture, and prior piss poor logging management practices. This, is an example of why I feel marine reserves will never work.
A classic example of this is the Western Hawaiian islands reserve. Started out to insure habitat for endangered sea turtles and monk seals. Largely uninhabited, there was little complaint at first. Then it morphs into needing accompanying offshore waters to provide more habitat. The area that this reserve now encompasses is so vast it has had a crippling effect on the Hawaiian longline fishery. The simple fact is though, killing all the longliners won't save the sea turtles, and it won't save the monk seals either. These are killed by the simple fact that all the beaches they need to haul out on are covered with fat tourists, and most of them wind up choking to death on garbage that has been carelessly discarded, two things that the longliners never had anything to do with.
So, despising drag fishing the way I do, a marine reseve sounds good on the face, but history and environmentalists always seem to lump all commercial fisherman together sooner or later, and the next thing you know, the only guys allowed in are park rangers on kayaks.
Alaska already has enough parks and reserves, above and below the water, in my humble opinion.
Marine reserves
Re: Marine reserves
Until the folks on the left recognize that the majority of us who are in the middle will always lean towards the right on any well intentioned project if the high minded ideals can't be checked at the door, nothing meaningful will ever get accomplished.
Consider if you will, the National Park Service. Teddy Roosevelt came up with it, great idea, I applaud him for his intentions, to bad it doesn't work like it should. It was supposed to be a means of setting aside wild lands and national monuments so that future generations could enjoy them. Unfortunately, the Park Service quickly became overrun with guys in Birkenstock flip-flops who look down on anyone not interested in subsisting on seeds. The parks were supposed to be for ALL Americans to use, and not just the recreations that fit some people's views of what you should be doing outdoors. Exibit A; Glacier Bay National Park. The Park service kicks out the Dungeness crab fleet, even though there was documented historical use before it became a park, because the buoys were deemed unsightly by kayakers in the area. It was felt that it took away from the scenic back drop. There was no biological reason. Exibit B; the Park Service becomes embroiled in a lawsuit for siding with cross country skiers who didn't like snowmachiners because they were to noisy, and attempted to kick the latter out of Denali National Park. Never mind the fact that neither actually touched the park, as both were suspended on snow, or the fact that each user group should have an equal right to recreate, they chose to stay true to their form, and side with the non-consumptive. Exibit C; It took an act of congress to finally force the Park Service to allow firearms into wild remote parks. It didn't matter to them that people's lives were being risked by not allowing them to carry guns in bear country, it just didn't fit their preconceived ideal image of what a park user should be, so they fought it, all the way to the bitter end. It's always that way with them. Kayakers-good, crabbers-bad. Skiers-good, snowmachiners-bad. Hikers-good, hunters-bad.
Then there's ANWR. Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, which also happens to sit on top of enough oil to produce a million barrels a day, and 150 billion cubic feet of gas per year. The debate has raged for years about whether or not we should tap it, and what it all comes down to in my mind is, it's a wildlife refuge, are the animals going to be adversely affected? Personally, I don't think so, not if it were managed properly. I've been up there and seen it. Saw the Caribou who's "ancient migration routes will be irreversibly affected by a pipeline", standing underneath the current pipeline to get out of the rain. but it seems that the majority of Americans though, who have been shamefully mislead into thinking that millions of animals will die on the spot if this done, would rather suffer through an oil-based economic melt down, and remain dependant on the current addiction to oil imported from countries who's political climates are scetchy to put it mildly. I mean, should we be getting off of oil? definitely, but were not there yet, and were not going to be for sometime, sorry but that's the real world we live in. So what happens if our current suppliers decide to cut us off? What have we got, about a month's worth of reserves? Does it make sense to deny ourselves access to our own resources based on the need to satisfy some of our ideals? Not to me it doesn't. Were up there now, right next door to it, pumping away, and were not running out of Caribou so far. It always seems to be less about what's biological reality, and more about what some feel a reserve should resemble.
So when you consider all of this, it should be evident why a guy like me would currently be opposed to any new marine reserves, in Alaska, or elsewhere, based on the well founded assumption that it will wind up being a well intentioned endeavor based on the ideas of some, that will wind up serving the ideals of others.
Consider if you will, the National Park Service. Teddy Roosevelt came up with it, great idea, I applaud him for his intentions, to bad it doesn't work like it should. It was supposed to be a means of setting aside wild lands and national monuments so that future generations could enjoy them. Unfortunately, the Park Service quickly became overrun with guys in Birkenstock flip-flops who look down on anyone not interested in subsisting on seeds. The parks were supposed to be for ALL Americans to use, and not just the recreations that fit some people's views of what you should be doing outdoors. Exibit A; Glacier Bay National Park. The Park service kicks out the Dungeness crab fleet, even though there was documented historical use before it became a park, because the buoys were deemed unsightly by kayakers in the area. It was felt that it took away from the scenic back drop. There was no biological reason. Exibit B; the Park Service becomes embroiled in a lawsuit for siding with cross country skiers who didn't like snowmachiners because they were to noisy, and attempted to kick the latter out of Denali National Park. Never mind the fact that neither actually touched the park, as both were suspended on snow, or the fact that each user group should have an equal right to recreate, they chose to stay true to their form, and side with the non-consumptive. Exibit C; It took an act of congress to finally force the Park Service to allow firearms into wild remote parks. It didn't matter to them that people's lives were being risked by not allowing them to carry guns in bear country, it just didn't fit their preconceived ideal image of what a park user should be, so they fought it, all the way to the bitter end. It's always that way with them. Kayakers-good, crabbers-bad. Skiers-good, snowmachiners-bad. Hikers-good, hunters-bad.
Then there's ANWR. Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, which also happens to sit on top of enough oil to produce a million barrels a day, and 150 billion cubic feet of gas per year. The debate has raged for years about whether or not we should tap it, and what it all comes down to in my mind is, it's a wildlife refuge, are the animals going to be adversely affected? Personally, I don't think so, not if it were managed properly. I've been up there and seen it. Saw the Caribou who's "ancient migration routes will be irreversibly affected by a pipeline", standing underneath the current pipeline to get out of the rain. but it seems that the majority of Americans though, who have been shamefully mislead into thinking that millions of animals will die on the spot if this done, would rather suffer through an oil-based economic melt down, and remain dependant on the current addiction to oil imported from countries who's political climates are scetchy to put it mildly. I mean, should we be getting off of oil? definitely, but were not there yet, and were not going to be for sometime, sorry but that's the real world we live in. So what happens if our current suppliers decide to cut us off? What have we got, about a month's worth of reserves? Does it make sense to deny ourselves access to our own resources based on the need to satisfy some of our ideals? Not to me it doesn't. Were up there now, right next door to it, pumping away, and were not running out of Caribou so far. It always seems to be less about what's biological reality, and more about what some feel a reserve should resemble.
So when you consider all of this, it should be evident why a guy like me would currently be opposed to any new marine reserves, in Alaska, or elsewhere, based on the well founded assumption that it will wind up being a well intentioned endeavor based on the ideas of some, that will wind up serving the ideals of others.
Re: Marine reserves
Were you involved a few years ago when I came to Yakutat and helped organize community meetings to deal with the proposed NMFS/NPFMC "coral" marine protected areas off of Yakutat? I thought that was a good example of how a little community organization and information can go a long way toward dealing with an ill informed government proposal. Also why it was a good idea to have a fisherman organized marine conservation group to interface with the scientists and environmentalists.
Re: Marine reserves
I wasn't involved, and don't remember much of it. I recall the communities pointing out how various aspects of the proposed reserve would adversly affect the various industries. Like I said, there are a few good examples of how marine sanctuaries have worked like their supposed to, and lots and lots of good intentions but that doesn't mean the whole process can be declared a success. Most of these reserves have been a ways offshore where only a handful of draggers were affected. Reserves in near shore, or inter-tidal zones are a whole separate issue.
What usually happens is the moderates help frame it, get the working stiffs to sign off on it, and then the radicals move in, take over control, and throw everybody out.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, thats exactly the way the D-2 lands bill went. Lots of promises and good intentions, all of which have been reneged on, and now what have you got? Fishermen being "phased out "of Glacier Bay.
There's been talk of setting up a bird sanctuary/view area up here on one of our most productive estuaries. Myself and most of the rest of the fishermen oppose that too for all the same reasons. There are a handful of marine conservationist/fishermen who busily try to talk the community into it though. Talk about the money that will come in driving the birders around, etc. etc. You see, I don't want to talk about how the bird sanctuary could be set up so it doesn't adversly affect me, I don't want it here, at all! I can almost see the steps in my head. first to go will be ATV beach access, then it will be outboards and gillnets, and then last to go will be dogs and guns.
It happens this way time and again, in every aspect, marine reserves would be, and for some now are, just another version of it.
I hate what draggers do to the bottom of the ocean too, but I'd rather fight them on some other level than hand over the keys that lock us all out.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
What usually happens is the moderates help frame it, get the working stiffs to sign off on it, and then the radicals move in, take over control, and throw everybody out.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, thats exactly the way the D-2 lands bill went. Lots of promises and good intentions, all of which have been reneged on, and now what have you got? Fishermen being "phased out "of Glacier Bay.
There's been talk of setting up a bird sanctuary/view area up here on one of our most productive estuaries. Myself and most of the rest of the fishermen oppose that too for all the same reasons. There are a handful of marine conservationist/fishermen who busily try to talk the community into it though. Talk about the money that will come in driving the birders around, etc. etc. You see, I don't want to talk about how the bird sanctuary could be set up so it doesn't adversly affect me, I don't want it here, at all! I can almost see the steps in my head. first to go will be ATV beach access, then it will be outboards and gillnets, and then last to go will be dogs and guns.
It happens this way time and again, in every aspect, marine reserves would be, and for some now are, just another version of it.
I hate what draggers do to the bottom of the ocean too, but I'd rather fight them on some other level than hand over the keys that lock us all out.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re: Marine reserves
I wrote a reply last night when I found this thread, but it got lost in cyberspace when I hit "submit." Anyway, I probably vented enough in the other thread (nov-june handtroll thread in Getting Started), so I'll try to keep this short. I am a supporter of scientifically based conservation measures, but that isn't what we're seeing on the west coast right now. Granted, parts of California were definitely overfished, but they have gone overboard in closing the vast majority of nearshore reefs. This will likely end up costing many lives by sending small boat fishermen farther offshore to find fish. They are attempting to do the same to the Oregon coast even though none of our nearshore species are overfished.
Oregon has a series of MPA's in place (Marine Protected Areas) that are fishing closures in certain areas for specific scientific goals, including the enormous Stonewall Banks closure area to protect two threatened species of rockfish (not nearshore species in case anyone thought I contradicted my statement above). These MPA's make more sense than the MR's proposed now. The proposed MR's are permanent with no scientific goals or review to see if they were successful. I'd much rather see accurate before and after stock assessments so that we have an idea of their success before creating more no-fishing zones just because it makes the environmentalists feel like they are saving the planet.
So far, these MR's have been in state waters (within 3 miles of shoreline or islands controlled by the state). However, it appears that there is also a push to create federal MR's farther out. The problem is that it is easy to sell them in a sound-bite even if they aren't scientifically justified (once again, I think they are justified in some easily-accessible nearshore areas near large population centers, but the Oregon and Washington coasts do not fit this mold).
Oregon has a series of MPA's in place (Marine Protected Areas) that are fishing closures in certain areas for specific scientific goals, including the enormous Stonewall Banks closure area to protect two threatened species of rockfish (not nearshore species in case anyone thought I contradicted my statement above). These MPA's make more sense than the MR's proposed now. The proposed MR's are permanent with no scientific goals or review to see if they were successful. I'd much rather see accurate before and after stock assessments so that we have an idea of their success before creating more no-fishing zones just because it makes the environmentalists feel like they are saving the planet.
So far, these MR's have been in state waters (within 3 miles of shoreline or islands controlled by the state). However, it appears that there is also a push to create federal MR's farther out. The problem is that it is easy to sell them in a sound-bite even if they aren't scientifically justified (once again, I think they are justified in some easily-accessible nearshore areas near large population centers, but the Oregon and Washington coasts do not fit this mold).
Re: Marine reserves
Have any of you heard about the Baja to Bering Marine Protected areas initiative?
Re: Marine reserves
Well, from a quick google search, that appears to be a project to create MPA's to protect whales and sea birds. It appears to be a CEC project with input from Mexico, Canada, and the US. However, most of their data shows hook & line fishing as "low impact", so trolling would still be allowed in most areas (all extractive uses excluded in scientific research areas and "national park" reserves; otherwise, it's mainly targeted at drag / deep trawl fisheries). I don't know how much traction it has; most of the info I found was about 10 years old.Salty wrote:Have any of you heard about the Baja to Bering Marine Protected areas initiative?
As stated above, I could support MPA's that are scientifically based and that don't kill our coastal economies. My fear with the type of reserves that California has implemented and that Oregon is proposing is that they are "permanent" with no scientific goals. In other words, there is no legal means to reverse them in Oregon if they are later deemed a failure. For instance, our salmon and sturgeon fisheries are in jeapardy due to federally protected predators (caspian terns and crested cormorants eating salmonid smolts, and stellar sea lions killing endangered salmon and breeder sturgeon). When the Marine Mammal Protection Act went into effect, nobody predicted that sea lion populations would rebound to 3 times their historic abundance due to lack of predators, but now the sacred cow (sea lion) is putting other species in danger of extinction, and F&G can't do anything about it because the federal law is "permanent."