LJ today

[tylerdurden]

Dave Rudie is also an RSG member. He owns or works at Catalina Offshore Products. He represents commercial fisherman.

From: dave@catalinaop.com
Sent: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:24:30 -0700
To: steve@sgbcpa.com
Subject: Re: [OC Diving -News] BFTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force ) Guidance on MLPA issues


Steve,
In general I agree with your report.
However I have a little different view point. The Science Advisory Team (SAT) report to the Regional Steakholders (RSG) on the status of the compliance with the guidelines is not a simply a flunking score. The plans had many times more than required the habitat replication of the key habitats. The sizes were mostly in the minimum size with a few preferred size. Also the unique habitats were represented for all the well mapped habitats. All of the 13 habitats were represented in all the bioregions with the exception of a few rare deep habitats. The only failure was the spacing report and the SAT has now told us which of the spacing guidelines were are possible to meet. The spacing requirement is only for the mailland coast as they use the Bioeconomic model at the islands. The most difficult gap (over 62 miles) to fix will be for the Persistence kelp habitat. This is habitat represents a least 3 years of surface kelp in 1989, 1999, 2002-2006 on the day of the survey of that year. As you know this has been big subject of discussion.

We can and will make better maps that meet more of the SAT science advise in the next and final round 3. Like you said the difficult spots will be Orange County and Palos Verdes because of the sand, sewers, power plants, and harbors the fill the gaps between the rocky reefs of Orange county Palos Verdes, San Diego and Point Dume. San Diego is very close to meetings the guidelines. Only Opal got all 13 habitats in San Diego county. The others got 12 of the 13, but were missing the 100 meter rock, one of those rare habitats.

What is the tolerable financial sacrifice the sport and commercial fishermen and divers should have to absorb?
We have asked the BRTF this question, but we get no answer. Almost all fishermen are willing to accommodate the process, some are hopeful the MPAs will work, some are angry.

Fisheries management has been shown to to be more important than MPAs for the recovery of fish stocks. MPAs may be one tool for fishery management as we have seen in the rebuilding of the rock cod complex. We have been shown by the SAT especially by the UCSB models developed by Dr Costello the Fisheries management outside the reserves in the most import factor in the success of the fish stocks. MPAs show the most dramatic success where the fishery management is failed. California has good fishery management. The California Marine Life Management (MLMA) and Federal law make overfishing illegal

I was glad to see you brought your sausage maker to meeting. No one wants to see the BRTF make sausage. We have seen how the BRTF made sausage in The North Central MLPA process. The fight is still going on at the F&G Commission.

I'm optimistic in Plan 1(the old Topaz) we will continue to look for that sweet spot that meets all the possible science habitat spacing guidelines and minimize the economic loss for our local family fishermen. These are not corporate fishing company boats like we have seen in the "end of the line" movie. These are families in our community. In San Diego these are mostly day boat lobster trappers and sea urchin divers. We also have a few spot prawn trap fishermen and crab trappers. We do have our work set out for us, and the clock is ticking.

Dave Rudie
RSG member representing
sustainable California fisheries

From: steve@sgbcpa.com
Sent: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:18:21 -0700
To: dave@catalinaop.com
Subject: Re: [OC Diving -News] BFTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force ) Guidance on MLPA issues

I've always enjoyed our conversations Dave. And I agree that we will be able to reach a point where our maps will meet the SAT guidelines. The hardest question you asked is whether it was the tolerable financial sacrifice for sport and commercial fishermen. The answer to that is no one knows for sure but it will certainly be considerable. That answer is dictated by the spatial geography of rocky headlands surrounded by vast sand flats and the intense commercial use of every inch of our coastline. You will remember what happened six years ago when the Northern Channel Island closures went into effect. You and I know that loss will be considerable. It's not very comfortable to sit next to the chairman of the California urchin Association and put a red line on a map where his people fish. Nonetheless, we're going to have to get by this somehow and that is why you and I will probably never be able to come to an agreement we both like and that is why the BRTF stands ready to make that decision if we cannot. It is one of the unfortunate consequence of the failure of fisheries management.

You made a comment above this is California has good fishery management. I think this is far too broad and general statement. California's record for fishery management over the past 50 years has not been good in all cases. As you read this post to imagine a line running from the upper left-hand corner of your monitor down to about 1 inch from the bottom of the lower right hand of your screen. This downward sloping line is an almost precise representation of the decline of the total amount of biomass and species diversity in the oceans. That line almost exactly mimics the worldwide harvest of almost 90% of the top 10 predator species. No matter when you started diving, and I started scuba diving in 1967, 42 years ago, even if you started two years ago, the number and diversity of species in the ocean is less today than it was the day we all started diving.

If California had good fishery management and why are we involved in the ML PA initiative? If there is proof out there that we have managed all of our fisheries well, then why is the tension so great about the closure of a single square foot territory of Southern California? I think the answer is that there's not enough fish. There's not enough fish because we, in the government sense, let too many fish be harvested by too many people. I found it incredibly interesting that the modeling by the Department of Fish and game showed that if Fish and game did not do a good job and in fact continued a port management regime that the ML PA proposals with the highest levels of protection, those most hated by the fishermen, delivered the most positive economic results in a management poor environment. Think about that. If the ocean goes to hell in a handbasket, big MPAs will actually produce more economic benefit than a lack of MPAs. This tells me that if we are wrong, and if we make more mistakes about ocean management of our resources, that our best hope would be to have imposed a robust protective system of marine protected areas. I know this is counterintuitive, but I truly believe is closer to what we will see than what we would wish to see. Being a businessman, with a track record that mirrored California's successful management of his fishing stocks, I would buy a lot of insurance. That's why support MPAs. They are insurance against the failure of our own best intentioned efforts.

By the way, in evaluating what the success or failure of California's fishing management regime might be in the future, take a look at what is happening today. The state is broke. It has no money. They are laying off and furloughing DFG personnel. State Parks is getting hammered and neither of those departments has fared well in the budget cuts. Successful management requires information. Information derived from the ocean is extremely expensive. It is unreasonable to believe based with today's systemic deficits and the critical state of the California economy, that there will be a significant rebound or increase in the level of investigation as to the current state of California resources. In the past 10 years we have enjoyed a kind of artificial surplus as the state was awash in money while incomes were rising and businesses were thriving. The next 10 years doesn't look so rosy. Remember that after five years the success of the MPAs will be evaluated and the system has the built-in provisions for adaptive management.

I think it is also fair, as a person interested in conservation, to comment on the fact that the nonconsumptive users of a public trust resource have already had a significant decline in the huge impact on our enjoyment of the ocean resources. The people that walk the beach, swim in the waves, dive under the waves and take pictures, and ride them on boards back to the beach are just as entitled to a thriving and pristine ocean environment as those who would seek to harvest the portion for their own use or sale to others. No one has answered what the economic cost of drawing the ocean resources down to the levels they are today has been to the non-consuming public. These are not common property resources. These are public trust resources. If the resource managers had done their job we would not be having these difficult conversations Dave.

Steve Benavides

South Coast RSG Member