The California Marine Life Protection Act
Siting Comments

• Each Paragraph is a comment by a separate person.
• These comments do not necessarily reflect the position of Cen Cal but are posted so that our members can see the varied views of recreational divers.
• Some of the comments have been submitted directly to Cen Cal and some have been gleaned from various e-mail groups and lists composed of recreational divers.
• Names of individuals and diving clubs have been removed. Other minor editing and re-formatting has also been performed.

I currently feel the best way that MPA's will work is to have them as State Marine Parks which allow recreational use but no commercial take.

That's quite a large chunk of coastline to impact, bolstering the populations of critters that way can't be natural and/or possible, or is it?

I just get nervous about designating anything with the word park. The reality is the "use" is the current designation that can be changed by the well intentioned but misinformed "masses." Seen it happen before and don't want to see it again, especially that stretch of water (Ano Nuevo to Point Arena).

I don't like the State of California designating the waters off our coast to be anything but free to the citizens of this state to dive and fish, while not having to compete with commercial harvesters. Unfortunately the "State Marine Park" is the only designation in the MLPA listed that allows for recreational take and no commercial. What do we do?

We need to inform "The Planning Team" that we are sick and tired of the commercial harvesters catching and selling every last urchin, rockfish, salmon, halibut, white sea bass, and the last frigging fish in the frigging ocean.

As a freediver and northern Californian, I am in favor of reserves, at least to the extent that is being recommended (10-15%). They should not be used as a primary management tool, ie, they should not be relied upon to accomplish overall biomass or sustainability goals. They should be seen as areas that will allow some insurance against resource collapse, and as a tool for biologists in estimating unfished biomass.
They should not be located anywhere that nearshore users access the resource, especially those users who are limited to nearshore use such as divers, shore fishers, and small skiff users. On the other hand, I would not be opposed to some of the area being located where the predominate use is by non-consumptive scuba divers, allowing them access to somewhat pristine environments.

This is scarey stuff people! They're talking about closing shore diving down in a very large percentage of the accessable beach/coves from the GGB to Point Arena.
DAMN!!! shut down the poor rec's beach area and let the commercial boats have a free run, that's protecting the resource!!!

I'm a little frustrated with some of the location decisions. They basically are suggesting the closure of the Fort Ross Cove from just south of the Reef campground to just north of the cove point. This proposal is for a State Marine Reserve which equates to a no take for everyone. There are a couple of others that I don't agree with but I am most concerned about the Salt Point State Marine Park area. This is large and doesn't allow any commercial activity but leaves it wide open to restrictions to recreational take by the designated entity or the managing agency. That leaves things way to wide open.

My critique of the reserve siting are as follows:
1. Most of the reserves are too far apart, so they won't be mutually supporting. In the scientific papers on reserves I have read, this was one aspect of successful reserves. Isolated reserves can fail for numerous reasons due to the unpredictability of nature and our own ignorance. There are many sites with poor or no shore access that could serve as smaller, but closer reserves.
2. Very little of the area is designated as a Marine Park allowing recreational take only. The proposed reserves are all or nothing. If we have to give up prime shore diving spots, shouldn't those accessible areas remaining receive an increased level of protection?
3. Reserve system area less than 10%. Most scientific literature I've seen cite 10% as the minimum % for successful reserve systems - so what science is the DFG basing this on?
4. Reserves focus mostly on subtidal (correct term?) habitat, deep water habitats are mostly unprotected.
My recommendations to the DFG will be to:
1. Make the Ft Ross reserve a Marine Park which allows recreational finfishing, but establish a reserve just to the south about 1 nm long and out to the 3 mile limit.
2. Extend the Salt Point reserve out to the 3 mile limit.
3. Extend the Pt Arena reserve to the 3 mile limit.
4. Add 1-2 more no-take reserves between Salt Point and Pt Arena of about 1 mile along the coast and out to the three mile limit (preferably in areas where diving sucks anyway).
5. Designate the entire coastline between Pt Arena and Salt Point as a Marine Park allowing revreational take only out to at least 1.5 miles.
I am only considering the area that I commonly dive in, which Ft Ross and northwards, and certainly biased to the activities that I engage in, namely diving.
While increasing the size of the reserves involves some pain, I think a reserve system that doesn't work at all will be even more painful.

As far as Pt Arena to Ano Nuevo it appears to me that anything with any designation is effectively a no-take. What happened to the rec-only areas? Second, the locations seem to coincide suspiciously with places marine scientists and Park Rangers hang out, third the chosen areas will have a huge impact on the small sport skiffs due to their nearly complete blanketing of reef areas adjacent to ports (Bodega, Half Moon Bay, Lawsons Landing). Check out the Farallons. These locations look so bad to me as to be nearly indefensible. Should be fun listening to DFG's rationale. I notice that at the public meetings we are suppose to write down our questions rather than ask them directly. Hmmmm, wonder why?

I had a feeling Bird Rock was on the no take list. And Duxbury? It's BS from DFG when it comes to the "State Conservation Area". Only allows for fishing salmon? DOUBLE BS. What about making bait? What's wrong with bagging anchovies or taking stripers? Just don't allow bottom fishing, which would by necessity mean no halibut either. I say put the lion's share of no take on the Islands (yes, the Channel Islands too). And I want to see what they do with Monterey. Everything north of San Carlos beach should allow fishing. All of San Carlos and Cannery row should be no take as far out as the kelp goes. And La Jolla, keep Scripps Pier open to kayak fishing.

I wish we could come up with a common sense yardstick like "don't fish in spawning beds" that makes sense to everyone and can be applied in a straightforward way, like we do with salmon. But the species are different, so maybe it's not that simple. Or like, don't put fish traps in kelp beds.

How can the reserves be comprehensive when the state waters only go so deep, up here, out to about 350 feet, while many species live much deeper than that. The State only has authority out to 3 miles.

I'd prefer a two coves fishable, next cove not fishable approach, or something that would intersperse the areas that would be no-take, while leaving some access open at each port. I hate to see Pt. Arena off-limits.

One of the things worrying me besides the loss of fishing/spearing opportunity that these reserves would bring about, is the pressure the remaining areas would face. Look at the Salt Point or the Ft. Ross reserve proposals. Where do you think all the folks that traditionally use those spots would end up? Yup, on either side. Those of you that made it to the Ft. Ross ab opener this year, remember the weather? If Ft. Ross was closed, where would we have ended up? How safe might have that spot been compared to the Ft. Ross cove? Move over Fisk Mill Cove (I think it's outside the proposed reserve), cause here we come!
Do you think we will be able to retain the existing bag limits and seasons with all this displaced effort being moved to the remaining areas? One of many questions that need answers.

Why Salt Point SP? Just up the road is the private ranch between Salt Point and Sea Ranch that has very limited access now. Why not that stretch of coast?

I think the Salt Point and Fort Ross are just to spite us shore entry people any how.

They are seriously screwing us, with the placement of these reserves, and the fact that they don't include sport-only rockfish zones for both anglers and divers (these should probably be different zones for each user group I think).

It's the typical, anti rec bullshit from the DFG.

We don't know enough about the various habitats, and probably won't for awhile, if ever. Kelp beds aren't the only important habitats. I don't think these reserves are the optimal solution (which would be everyone voluntarily fishing at a sustainable level), but if they are going to happen, I want them to work.

Maybe later the reserves can be extended into federal waters. Lingcod, in particular, seem to receive little protection since they move in and out of the deep.

I think just protecting the coves leaves out a lot of habitat.

Personally, I think one of these (Salt Point or Fort Ross) parks should be set aside, but not both. I think an accessible marine reserve will highlight how damaging commercial fishing has been to the coast. I would consider Salt Point the better choice for this. Ft Ross should be a Marine Park with recreational fishing allowed.

Why bother with reserves. If you close commercial fishing the remote areas will hardly ever get fished by recs and will become de facto reserves.

What I really hate to see is the closing of the Point Arena area. Besides taking away Arena Rock, they're shutting down the whole area to and past the light house then north, and a lot of the southern coast from arena cove (again, just looking at their map, not working the coordinates on a chart yet).
Why are they closing the few areas we have for access? Why not the area from Salt Point to Stewarts Point? or past. There is practically no access there unless you have a motored boat. How about closing from Russian Gulch (south) to the Russian River? or the other way from Russian Gulch to the Reef? These are poor access areas that border the coves and beaches shore fishers/divers can access, would be larger and could run out to the 3 mile limit without effecting recreational fishing much.
I'd like to see them shut down or at least restrict Sea Ranch too!!! Ha, then we'd see some legal action I bet!!!
With this plan DF&G is protecting little pieces from recreationals and letting the commercials still run free!!

Considering how many access spots there are for beach entry divers, dive boards, beach launched craft, and facility launched craft, take these away and the percentage of access points is reduced quite a bit. We're talking more than just beach diver access here. Another thing is taking away the protected coves.
Access to the recreational public is a major point. This won't limit commercial boat operations at all.
If you ask me DF&G is using this to start closing the door on recreational fishing.
If you ask me, they have forgotten the real issue here. They keep restricting the recreationals, what about the commercials? What do they lose?

Closing down commercial fishing would be more effective than the course the DFG is on. However, given the wording of the MLMA and the general attitude of the DFG, closing down commercials is not going to happen through that process. For that we will need a ballot initiative.
As far as the efficacy of no-take zones goes -- with commercial fishing in place, let's look at two scenarios:
1. There are no real reserves as today.
2. There are 10% reserves.
In scenario 1, fishing pressure is fairly constant and uniform. Most fish are caught at about the age they mature and maybe get to breed 1 or 2 seasons on average. (This assumes that fishing is carried out at a sustainable level -- which it isn't.)
In scenario 2, the reserves attract the larger, smarter fish. And fish populations build up in the reserves. Some of this will be due to fish born in the reserves, but let's say for the sake of argument that 10% of the fish in the surrounding area also move into the reserve from the outside area. That means the reserves effectively protect 20% of the fish population allowing them to survive to old age.
Now since a larger fish can produce about 200 times more offspring than a fish that is barely mature, giving up that 20% of fish to a reserve will produce about 50 times more offspring across the entire area than the scenario in which there are no reserves.
It's not that important that the fish were originally born in the reserve or whether they were attracted by the special features of the reef, what is important is that they survive to become highly prolific breeders.

This post is a response to the post above.
In a vacuum, yes.
Point Lobos is a good example of your point. It probably works there because they have so many people watching the water every day that a commercial fisherman would never even think of venturing in there to take fish. I seriously doubt that the other reserves will have that much policing going on. They will most likely have no enforcement at all. They may show up after a few people have called cal tip.
If the commercial live fishery exists, the inshore fish will continue to be depleted.

This post is also a response to the post two above.
The picture you paint about the values of no-take zones is hypothetical. One of the reasons so much emphasis is being placed on research centered on the reserves is to determine if they will actually work. While there are some glowing success stories, others have shown little if any value beyond the reserve boundary.

Effective enforcement is a necessary component of an effective reserve system. In fact, no regulations of any kind work without enforcement, even bans on commercial fishing.
This is one reason I am advocating that the reserves extend all the way to the 3-mile limit along lines due west. Anyone with a compass and binoculars could tell if a boat was poaching. There should be coastal markers so that fishermen can stay out of the area and so observers from shore can detect infractions.
Set gear which has to stay in the water for a period of time, would also be easy to detect. A random patrol that hit every reserve a couple of times a week shouldn't be too expensive.
Maybe we should get the boys scouts involved. They could earn an Environmental Protection badge. Enforcement is one reason local support is often cited as a requirement for successful reserves. The people who live along the coast are the most likely to be in a position to call Caltip.
Also, the presence of rangers was one of the justification for choosing Ft Ross and Salt Point as reserve sites -- enforcement would be easier. And we're complaining about that too.

The site selection seems to reflect those who had the best access to the process. In Sonoma/Marin Co. the selected sites seem to reflect a wish list for park personnel, the Bodega Marine lab folks and the Nat'l Park service (government folks). The placement of the reserves disproportionally affects access points for individual fishers and divers. Assuming the criteria driving the selection was biologic, then it seems unlikely that that criteria would have coincided so nicely with parks and marine labs. Assuming the overriding concern was for enforcement, well, then perhaps the sites make more sense. Most troubling to me is the emerging anti-fishing attitude by some of the public servants. If people are engaging in a legal activity (spear fishing, fishing) what authority does State Parks have to tell a group of divers or fishermen they can't use the park. They may have that authority but I'd like to know if they do. A few years ago two commercial skiffs operated out of Ft. Ross Cove and the rangers were beside themselves. One ranger said these live fishers had caught "hundreds and hundreds" of cabezon out of Ft. Ross Cove. He also mentioned that State Parks could do nothing about it. Well, can't stop them so perhaps they're working on a group they think they can.

I strongly disagree with the no take in the cannery row area. The area the call "Rickets". I only take halibut from the area. A no take would eliminate something a lot of us have done there for years. I know many divers who don't take any fish in that area but halibut. Halibut are migratory and are targeted in that area.

This post is a response to the post above.
I was hoping the area north of Ricketts afforded enough halibut areas, like off of Del Monte and the sandy areas north of there. It just seems that the Ricketts area would be great as a sightseeing dive park. I think a major expansion of the Hopkins reserve will come up on the next proposal.

This post is a response to the post above.
There are areas north in the Del Monte beach area that provide fishing/diving for halibut but those areas are undivable 50% of the time due to poor visibility The rickets area usually provides a back up if people first go to Del Monte since the visibility is usually much better.

I, for one, would love it if the scientists, game wardens and fishery managers were ALLOWED to do their jobs by a political bureaucracy (apparently) beholden to special interests. Now if I'm wrong about how politics within the department operate, then the DFG still has a lot to do to rebuild trust with the recreational fishing sector which currently feels ignored and penalized by DFG policies out of proportion to our impact on the resource.

The California DFG is plotting out a series of no-take reserves along our coast right now. If you want a say in where these reserves are placed, the time to speak up is now. For information on what is planned, go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/concepts.html.
For the schedule of public meetings go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/schedule.html/
The first two are July 9th in Sebastopol and July 10th in Half Moon Bay.
In my opinion, the proposed marine reserves manage to ban spearfishing in several of the most popular and accessible locations between San Francisco and Pt Arena, but are too small to have much beneficial affect on fish stocks in general. (note: reserves are coming in other areas too, but I've only seen the map for the North/Central area).
The DFG also has an e-mail group for public comment and discussion around these issues. Currently hardly anyone is using it, which sends a striking message of apathy to the DFG. Right now it is unmoderated and the discussion is supposed to be about the MPAs. This forum is a conduit to get your opinion heard by the DFG and the F&G commission.
Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAnearshore and make yourselves heard. Many voices are louder than a few.

Having seen the draft of the proposed Marine Protected Area Sites, I only see one Marine Park at Salt Point. This park doesn't even extend the full three miles from shore.
The proposed MPAs don't appear to be located in areas which will do much to discourage the serial depletion of the resource by the commercial live fish industry.
I think the experience of Washington State needs to be looked more closely and that the Proposed Marine Park areas need to be greatly expanded.
Two excellent candidates would be the entire coastline from Pillar Point South to the proposed Ano Nuevo SMCA, and the area between Point Arena south to the proposed Sonoma Coast Beach SMCA.
Both of these areas provide easy access to the fisheries via Hwy 1. Making some of the commercial boats such as kyaks and skiffs have to travel a litle further would certainly help reduce pressure on the fishery and aid the migration of fish out of the SMRs and SMCAs.

I hate to see CPFV's disappear from the recreational horizon as it is a primary introduction and access for a lot of anglers to salt water fishing. I believe, however that the operation and licensing need to be reviewed in light of declining fish stocks. CPFV's should not be catching small fish, targeting nursery areas, filling out limits for the entire boat.
I think that CPFV's should employ an observer/monitor/education program to prohibit and also inform the fishing public and the program needs to be supported from the users of the fishing boats.

I agree with the idea that reserves should be located in such a way as to protect access for divers and local craft fishermen. There are so few accessible areas on the north coast that NONE of them should be targeted as reserves.
As far as two rangers who have dived for twenty years... Are rangers the newly appointed Assessors Of The Resource? Are we to believe they are unbiased? From the last few posts regarding spearfishing meets I would say not. Why is their "data" even included in the report? Have they been diving the areas OUTSIDE their "own" hallowed coves where fish other than their "pets" live?
People, we need to stand up for FAIR and EQUITABLE sitings of MPAs. To take away so much of what is depended on by so many is NOT FAIR.

Well let's start with Point Arena. I have only dove the cove there. It is a good access and has some fat abs but let's hear from some locals some areas we would be willing to give up in the adjacent area. I have heard about the diving at Arena Rock but how many days a year is it divable and would we be willing to give up another area that is divable more often?

I think I can live with the Point Arena MPA. Salt Point, Fort Ross and Bird Rock is another story. I am for no new Marine Reserves at any of these accessable locations. All Marine Park, recreationals only, no commercials. As a former staff member of the Sonoma County Divers Rescue Workshop, I know more divers and shore fishermen will die if these areas are closed to fishing, both rod and reel, and diving. The divers will climb over the cliffs, into the ocean and be smash against the rocks. The shore fishermen will be taken from the rocks, and washed into the ocean. The rocks are rather neutral in the equation. it's the ocean that kills.

It appears our main concern is really access. How do divers get to, into and over the water? I hear all the time how it is only a small % being closed, but if that 10% is our 50%, it is far more.
Also the proposed areas seem to be those most easily enforced - where most access and diving is now - i.e. Pt. Arena and Salt Pt. - divers dive from paddleboard mainly not motorized vessels. The Act speaks continually of fair and equal regs to commercial and recreational, but commerical have boats and can easily get places we cannot. And how we do get to the water? jumping off a cliff is not good for equipment. Again commerical are more flexible.
Taking so little will not be big issue, so we need to focus on other issues and access is biggee. Will we be able to cross these MPAs? to fish outside? come back thru with fish? How does the individual diver get there and back? Ease of enforcement is NOT mentioned in materials. Close all of Salt Pt., now what do we do? Lots of public access on north/central coast surrounded by private property and/or cliffs.
Would it be a better idea to place MPAs where damage not already done or in progress? areas not accessible to public? Where less interferance to begin with?
We can't dive on outside of islands - we are in the water not on it safe and warm in a boat.
Fitzgerald only safe diving in the area.
Remember, this is going to happen, so we have to see it thru and be part of process. Also remember the people who will make the decisions may not be divers, may not have ever dove, may not have even been to the locations and seen the big picture. Don't assume that which is why clarity and specifics needed. The more the better.

I have fished several times at Point Arena. For those unfamiliar with the area, skiffs too large to launch through the surf are hoisted into the water off the pier. The area on the map looks like the prime rockfish angling spots, as the whole area to the north up to the lighthouse is rocky reefs. Great fishing in the mid-nineties. This is the southern limit of the KMZ, or Klamath Management Zone for salmon. This means that the salmon are managed differently in the KMZ to save half the salmon for the tribes along the Klamath. Thus when salmon fishing was closed in July (the best fishing month) in Ft. Bragg and Shelter Cove, it was open in Pt. Arena and that's where we went for salmon in July.
The area does not get much fishing pressure from skiff anglers, unless you are a local and have your boat set up to be hoisted. I nearly had a heart attack when I saw them lift my boat 50 feet above the water.
I believe the natural difficulties in accessing Pt. Arena make it a prime area for sport-only, as it would have nearly the same effect as closing it to all fishing.
There is a small commercial fishery at Pt. Arena, mostly urchin, and probably a few live fishers. The Pier itself is subsidized by the City of Pt. Arena, and each year there is discussion of whether to close operations. If that should happen, it would be awfully difficult to access the reefs to the north in Kayaks and body boards.

There is plenty of unaccessible and/or remote coastline to locate these reserves. In my opinion they should not be anywhere near any of our access points or favored areas (with the exception that non-extractive users need reserves in some locales) due to the fact that these areas are already so rare for us. As you said, 15% can mean 50% (or even more) for us.
I think we need to stand together on this principle.
And isn't it amazing that Gerstle cove still produces some nice fish even though it is so heavily used by us?

I would admit that it would be better to place the reserves where they would be hard to get to but there remains the dictate of the MLPA that there should be set aside areas sufficient to ensure sustainability. Sometimes that will clash with access when the question of enforceability raises its head. This is the most probable reason that there is a bias towards places where rangers and wardens can watch.

I think we need to express these no take areas in there true names to bring every thing into perspective. They are closing the only State owned coastal access that is safe to enter the ocean on a moderately rough day. How many people have dove in Gerstle Cove, what did you think? Looked like a desert with some big abs to me you think letting 5000 new scuba divers through a reserve is conducive to improving our fisheries? I don't know what the ocean looked like 20 years ago but I do know that once that I took that tank off my back and started diving in area that I could never reach with that limitation I started seeing a lot more sea life. I was in a school of 30 black rockfish this week in 35 feet of water and not a one was under 5lbs, I know because I took 2 of them, one was #8 and the other was over #6 and those were the average fish in the school. That area is not slated to be a reserve, lousy entrance and long paddle. The largest concentration of fish I see are usually where there is a lot of water movement and generally a current not in coves. There are a few spots like this in sites that are picking but it seems most of the spots are just to please a few state employees. I mean look at Ano Nuevo think the fish stocks are going to rebound quickly in the largest elephant seal haul out on our coast. How much you think one of those badboys eats a day. This isn't about seals this is about fish. I feel that if your going to have a place to restock our coast it should be a place with no access, nobody disturbs the fish, no eco- tourist, no fishermen, no dive class, no buddy and the best places to do that are not at our parks, where we have reasonably safe enter , but in places that are desolate with hard or dangerous access. I don't mind giving up North and South Gerstil cove to a looksee reserve but I do mind giving up the access and I do mind giving up North of Salt Point IF they can still take ab why can't we still take fish. the bottom is still being disturbed. The northern park area also covers Stump Beach and Half of Fisk Mill. Did any one ask them how many Cabs they killed doing there research? Try asking them how many they killed at bird rock then compare it with the amount that you took last year. I know it will more than I take in my life time. I'm just ranting now because all this talk of Rickets park doesn't mean squat to me. I pay taxes to keep The State Parks open and if they close Salt Point there will be one point of entrance between Ocean Cove and Gualala that you can take a Kayak.

Nearshore advocates. The format for tomorrow's meeting will not include any time to speak (at a podium) but will allow written questions. Below are a few, off the top of my head, that may help (please excuse my sarcastic tone that always seems to surface when dealing with the DFG, IRS, DMV, and other favorite organizations.)
Below is an excerpt from the design rationale for the Salt Point Reserve and Park (expanding the Gerstle cove reserve to encompass both north and south Gerstle. Also turning the area from beyond Stump beach to a point halfway between Ocean Cove and Gerstle Cove into abalone only):
"Criteria and rationale for recommendation: Background information available from numerous dives by State Park System Dive Team and California Underwater Parks and Preserves Advisory Board since late 1960s. 1979 report by Seltenrich and DeMartini on management of Mendocino Headlands and Salt Point State Underwater Parks is a qualitative baseline. Diving rangers report drastic decline of rockfish over last 20 years..."
Questions:
1. What qualifications does the State Parks system dive team have to assess the resource to a level that their data is used in these decisions?
2. Why are State Parks divers or "diving Rangers" anecdotal testimonies considered credible? Training, experience?
3. Would you consider the testimony from veteran spearfishers or other divers as equally credible? Why or why not?
4. In light of statements from diving Park Rangers that were obviously biased and lacking evidence (two instances this year where they said they were not going to allow spearfishing groups access because "they take too many fish"), how can their testimony be considered credible?
5. What were the average reported sizes and quantities of fish "then", and "now" according to their data?
6. What changes in fishing experience have been seen by visitors to the park over the years, ie, what do people say who fish there regarding the level of satisfaction they receive?
7. If testimonies indicate a change in the fishery, is there a specific period of time where that change seems to have occurred, according to those who testified? If so, when?
8. What is the drastic decline over the last 20 years, noted by "diving rangers", attributed to?
9. When did the practice of nearshore commercial longlining for rockfish, eventually replaced by stick and/or trap gear by the commercial industry begin?
10. Could a correlation be made between the noted "drastic decline" and the advent of the nearshore commercial fishery?
11. What do private citizens say? Do they testify to a correlation?
12. If the answer to 10 above is "yes", is it logical to ruin the access of thousands of recreational fishers and divers without first curtailing commercial fishing in the area to see if that restores populations?
13. How many popular and/or practical access points are there that will accomodate divers, small skiff, and kayak fishermen in Sonoma County?
(Answer: 5- Bodega Bay (Doran park), Fort Ross State Park, Timber cove (private), Ocean Cove (private), and Salt Point State Park. I don't include Stillwater (County) because it is not accessible to small skiffs, and kayaks are a pain to carry in since it's gated at Hiway 1.)
14. How many of those five will have access to the resource reduced to the fishermen and divers who depend on them?
(Answer: 3 and a half. Salt Point will become no take for finfish and that area extends into the Ocean cove territory (that's the half), Bodega head and Ft. Ross become a reserves.)
15. Does it seem fair and equitable to you, the fishery manager, in implementing reserves that may eventually encompass 10-15% of the coast, to thereby cut access to the recreational fishers mentioned above by approximately 70%?

This post is a response to the post above.
These are all great points but be careful. We all know the real/main reason for the decline in the nearshore fish population as of recent. Your points 9 -12 are real and can make the first points seem unclear. It is true from what the old timers are saying that the fish populations have been slowly declining over time. If fish and lame would have been on top of this, that could have been corrected with simple bag limits and size management. It's the past 8 years that is of most concern. The inshore commercial fishery has picked up their effort by efficiency and market demand. I know we have to deal with the MLPA's now but don't forget that the nearshore commercials are ruining everything even as we write this. The entire coast should be a State Marine Park with recreational only and some remote areas should be made as State Marine Reserves. In addition, I believe our bag and possession limits should be reduced 50% for all nearshore fish excluding Halibut and White Sea Bass which seem to be stable.

We Support: Large, ecologically effective no-take Marine Reserves and even larger Marine Parks. Because shore access is rare and valuable to a broad spectrum of recreational interests, there should be both Park and Reserve areas within swimming distance of all recreational access points."
We can apply this principle at Pt. Area, Van Damme, Fort Ross, Salt Point and so forth down the coast. The Edward F. Ricketts Marine Reserve is in keeping with this as there is shore access to a proposed Park immediately east (Del Monte Beach) and west (Otter Cove, point, and Coral street).

Points we all agreed upon.
1- Support for no-take Marine Reserves in general.
2- Support for Marine Parks accessible to recreational fishers.
3- Exclusion of commercial vessels carrying any fishers from Marine Parks (this means "party boats," and would include dive boats carrying game hunters. NOTE: This may not work in the Channel Is, where a lot of the boat-dive business is game taking.)
4- Marine management that creates sustainable fisheries (as demonstrated by healthy fish populations which are stable)
5- Unified advocacy for the interests of divers.
6- Continued Ocean Access with no new restrictions (including things like access quotas, fees, state licensing, permitting or certification of recreational users, etc.)
7- Tight controls on ANY extraction in "no-take" Reserves: "Scientific" and "Educational" takers are sometimes corporate fishers and collectors. There should be public disclosure and oversight of their activities.
8- Support for the establishment of The Edward F. Ricketts Marine Reserve.
9- Support for its naming in honor of Ed Ricketts, in respect of the grassroots public movement (including divers) that has been working for eight years for its establishment.
... while I'm at it, let me poll everyone on adding another item to the list. We didn't have time to work our way down the coast to south of SF, but Carmel Bay is an area we in The Friends of the Edward F. Ricketts Marine Reserve have discussed a lot. We can talk later about whether expansion of the no-take aspect of the Pt. Lobos real estate is agreeable to all. But we had expected the Carmel Bay MPA--designated to be a Park-- to include the area West of Pescadero Point to Cypress Point, and out to and including the Inner and Outer Pinnacles. In the current version of the map it does not. Can we add to the above list:
10- Expansion of the proposed "Carmel Bay State Marine Park" to a Western boundary marked by Cypress Point, and out to a depth of 30 fathoms (180 feet).

This area would make the Ft. Ross cove, and down the coast past the reef a reserve and effectively shut us down in that area. If they close fish at Salt Point, and make a reserve of the area proposed they will really shut us down. This is crazy, we need to let them know we are not happy with these two proposals.

Well it looks like the Ranger at Ft Ross wants us closed down. He wants his private reserve. So now Ft Ross and south get closed. Next year Pt. Arena to Ft. Ross will get closed and then probably the following year Ft Bragg to Pt. Arena. D&FG might just as well close the whole coast down now. They will push us into a small area and then eventually declare the smaller area as being over fished and close that down.
It seems an easy solution to close areas, but not to manage. DF&G are suppose to manage and part of that should be closure of commercial near shore and more management of commercial activities. Otherwise DF&G are not managing, just reacting to whoever gets their ear.
We should propose a boycott of all fishing licenses in 2002. Without that money there won't be rangers to enact private reserves for themselves, and the D&FG won't have to worry about over fishing from the recreationals. The only ones who will suffer economically are the coastal businesses. Do you think the Governor and the reps from the coastal areas will like this idea?

It appears our main concern is really access. How do divers get to, into and over the water? I hear all the time how it is only a small % being closed, but if that 10% is our 50%, it is far more.
Also the proposed areas seem to be those most easily enforced - where most access and diving is now - ie Pt Arena and Salt Pt - divers dive from paddleboard mainly not motorized vessels. The Act speaks continually of fair and equal regs to commercial and recreational, but commerical have boats and can easily get places we cannot. And how we do get to the water? Jumping off a cliff is not good for equipment. Again commerical are more flexible.
Taking so little will not be big issue, so we need to focus on other issues and access is biggee. Will we be able to cross these MPAs? to fish outside? come back thru with fish? How does the individual diver get there and back? Ease of enforcement is NOT mentioned in materials. Close all of Salt Pt, now what do we do? Lots of public access on north/central coast surrounded by private property and/or cliffs.
Would it be a better idea to place MPAs where damage not already done or in progress? areas not accessible to public? Where less interferance to begin with?
We can't dive on outside of islands - we are in the water not on it safe and warm in a boat. At the Siting Meetings it will be best to divy up issue: be clear, be concise, be calm, be polite, rational and reasonable but be there to stand up for divers. Come armed with specifics - what is exactly wrong with sites we don't want - don't be general - ie ..."we will have to go 10 miles north to dive if Pt Arena closed" or whatever... Hit safety issue. "...Fitzgerald only safe diving in area...
Remember, this is going to happen, so we have to see it thru and be part of process. Also remember the people who will make the decisions may not be divers, may not have ever dove, may not have even been to the locations and seen the big picture. Don't assume that which is why clarity and specifics needed. The more the better....

This post is a response to the post above.
Those who fail to learn from history .... sigh.
The issue raised above was the major diving-community problem with the majority of the proposals for sites in northern California for 4 reserves to be created after-the-fact as required by the early-1990s Proposition 132 "Marine Life Protection Initiative" a.k.a. (anti)gill-net initiative:
Although the initiative allowed sites to be anywhere in the state, and the initiative provided almost all of its legal benefit to southern California (gill-net closures were already in effect in central & northern California), the majority of the early candidates proposed by CDFG's Refuge Committee through 1991 were in central & northern California, notably Arena Rock, Cabrillo Pt. (through Caspar), and Cape Vizcaino (all Mendocino Co.), which had easy diver access relative to other sites that seemed plausible to divers.
At one point in late 1992, the selection process adopted by CDFG (after public hearings and meetings of the CDFG Director's Marine Resources Advisory Committee) was left with 5 of 6 candidates in diver-access-poor central & northern California, and only 1 in southern California.
The perspective of the State was that the sites that facilitated recreational-diver access also facilitated law enforcement and scientific research. Even then, they didn't have the audacity to nominate Salt Point or Arena Point & Cove.
Let's not forget the requirements of public access in the California Coastal Act, a.k.a. Proposition 70. As I recall, that's how diver access was secured to Fort Ross and Sea Ranch (both Sonoma Co.). The requirement that the public have access to California coastal waters shouldn't be able to be completely thrown out in favor of the MLPA. But I speak as an idealist who is not an attorney.
"Would it be a better idea to place MPAs where damage not already done or in progress? areas not accessible to public? Where less interferance to begin with?
Of course. This is what the recreational-diving community assumed would be done for siting the Prop. 132 reserves in the early 1990s, because this seemed so logical. Logical choices: What a concept! Thus little attention seemed to be paid by divers to the notion of an initiative requiring selection of no-fishing no-diving sites only after voting it into law. Pretty damn hazardous from the perspective of defending diver access & fishing, but that concern was a deciding factor about Prop. 132 for a tiny minority among divers. Maybe only one.

I live in Stinson Beach and am concerned about the D.F.G. proposed Duxbury Reef Reserve.
First; if this goes thru it will kill off our local cottage industry commercial fishermen; whom already fish smart--rods/lines/hooks.
Second; if D.F.G. really wants a 'reserve' in this area why not have one in the Pt. Bonito to Gull Rock area? This area was once (many years ago) prime rockfishing. There are still rockfish there, but in greatly diminished numbers from previous times. It is a collection of rocky protected bays ideal for repropagation as an M.P.A. No one seriously fishes for rockfish here anymore so it's cunsumptive impact would be minimal.
The only fishermen who frequent this area are sport anglers from shore. If it was to become an M.P.A. perhaps shore fishing might be allowed.

Just returned from the first workshop on the new Marine Protected Areas in Sebastopol. They are having work shops all up and down the state for the next 3 weeks and if you don't want to find your favorite spot closed to fishing you might want to show up.
They had the only 2 state owned safe entry points on the Sonoma coast slated for closure to the take of all fin fish.

Pt. Arena
I say NO. The proposed area includes Sea Lion Rocks and the CG Station north of Pt. Arena. I have paddled my kayak to these more than once and taken abs and fish.
This SMR would be acceptable to me if the southern boundary were moved to the Pt. Arena lighthouse.

Bird Rock
I say NO. If you are going for abalone from Tomales Bay, you will most likely get them in the area that this proposal includes. And when seas break across the bar, making a venture out too hazardous, you can motor across the Bay and hike up and down Tomales Point (an aerobic workout) and get your abs behind bird rock. I've gotten abs there every year for the last 5 years or so.

Pt. Reyes Headlands
This proposal is OK with me, but others have dove Chimney Rock for abs.

I asked that the Salt Point SMP be moved up into the inaccessible property north of Horse Shoe Cove which is out of the state park area, then move another area south of Fort Ross below the reef but I think that one could be moved down even a little farther say half way between the buoy to the buoy. There are still people that are nonconsumptive users that would like area adjacent to the access areas and I think we need to give them some area.

Does anyone know how the DFG plans on managing the State Marine Reserves? Will it be by restricted access (a la Point Lobos?) where there will be limits on numbers of divers per day, entry only at designated sites, advanced reservation required, etc.? How about at State Marine Parks?
And how will DFG pay for all the new management necessitated by the new reserves? Will commercials be held accountable for their fair share of the expense of managing the reserves? And how?

I agree with you that nonconsumptive users would like areas adjacent to the access areas and I think we need to give them some. While I totally disagree with large reserves or no finfish take parks in the vicinity of these access points, I DO believe the non-consumptive community should be accomodated. That would mean some reserve area in the vicinity of the access points, but not the whole dang place. I agree with you that the larger reserves or parks (if they are going to restrict finfish take) should be remote.
This all sounds reasonable to me. Please look beyond your own concerns for access. The main focus has GOT to be to greatly curtail, and hopefully end, the nearshore commercial fishery. A few reserves aren't going to kill us but the continuance of this fishery will.
Oh, one more thing, it was suggested by someone that since a Marine Park would allow no commercial take, this should include take by party boats since they are commercial operations.

While I can't speak for all of my diving club, I believe we are generally together on opposing ANY closures. One closure or additional restrictions will set a prescedent inevitably allowing for more and more.
As for Tomales, three of us dove there a few weeks ago at and around Bird Rock. It was my first time there. Abs in the sheltered region behind the rock were sparse and small. About a quarter that I came across were under 7" which says to me that there IS recruitment.
In the area just south of Bird Rock yielded many abs. They lined cracks all in row that made easy pickings. Another diver and I pulled abs in the high 8's to 9". He also spooked a couple nice sized sea trout, cabs and lings. I conclude that this area is healthy in part perhaps due to the remote location and sightings of GWS.

How do they reconcile the MPAs with:
California Constitution
Article 1 Declaration of Rights
"Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken."

Another thing that I called to D F&G's attention last night regarding the proposed Salt Point Abalone Only Park area... They have marked off this nice large area, just for ab divers, but about 75% of it is deeper than 50 feet and only a VERY SMALL portion if it is realistic for the majority of the ab diving public at 20-30 feet. I told them I consider this a smoke screen. They want to point to a large "ab only" park "for us" and we can't use it.

Regarding Point Arena
I made a proposal to move the southern boundary north to the northern tip of Sea Lion Rocks. After talking in a group with the Pt. Arena Harbor Master we also made a recommendation to make the Arena Rock SMR a 1/2 or a 1 mile circle, much like the Farrallons proposal.

Regarding Bird Rock
In the group I was in that area was addressed by both rec fishers and divers the people thought that if they needed to have a reserve there that it should be moved farther south toward Elephant Rock. The thought was that being so close to Tamales bay it would be a safety concern and there is the same type of structure farther south. One thing I did learn last night was that this is not about fish they are making a lot of these MPAs for birds and mammals also.

I can live with Ricketts being a no-take zone, although I would much prefer that halibut take be allowed there. But I and the people I dive with have stayed completely out of it since it was declared.

We must stand together against the commercial over-exploitation of the nearshore. That 74 square miles of kelp is way too small an area to expect it to sustain so many. It must be prioritized to the non-commercial public.

The party boats have not contributed one iota to our cause, to the contrary some of them come out totally against us. I myself, and those who attended the meeting in Monterey, feel that the party boats, in the MLPA process, should be treated as DF&G commercially licensed vessels, which they are. Part of the rational of closing Fort Ross to recreational fishing is the party boats which come in there. A friend suggested we make it a Marine Protected Area, with no commercial or party boats allowed, recreational only, with a small Marine Reserve. We need to protect the rights of the shorefishermen who can't afford the $80 to go on a partyboat, and the rockpickers who I know have been going to the Reef Campground for over 40 years.

The Sebastapol meeting had a good recreational turnout. The sentiment of most seems to be, yes, we accept reserves, but not in the few access area we have. There are plenty of sites remote from our favorite access points that are available. We depend very much on the nearshore resource for saltwater recreational and consumptive opportunities. Reserves should not infringe on that access. Their main purposes, as scientific research sites and hedges against the possibility of overharvest, does not require they be placed where the DFG proposes. They have used "diving ranger's" testimony as part of the rationale for their placement. These are the same diving rangers who told us they weren't going to allow any more freedive spearfishing group activity in "their" parks because "we take too many fish". Hardly the unbiased sources of data we would expect the rationale to be based on. There is one compromise, I for one, am willing to agree to. That would be accomodating the non-extractive dive community by allowing SOME no take reserve area in the vicinity of the access points. These would be for the purpose of allowing them access but would not fulfill the purposes of the larger reserves that should be located remotely.

Not trying to be a horse's ass here, just wondering where this is all leading to. Our club uses boats to access most diving areas so we travel to areas that are not under pressure, and don't revisit often within the same season if at all. You're proposing areas remain open that are easily accessible and close those that are not. Let's find a balance. There are some pristine areas not frequented by other than commercial guys that should remain open. We're more in favor of rotating the Marine Reserves or opening them up every few years. This I believe is more in tune with natural cycles anyway.
Also, how about the novel idea of not allowing fishing/hunting during spawning season. This would certainly help the fish populations.

I think one of the most dangerous things about reserves and restrictions (and everyone knows this) is once they take it away they never, but never give it back! no matter what the research turns out.
Something to seriously consider.

One major point I hammered at was that the closed zones should not be at the harbor mouths, where lots of small boaters get most of their access. Montara, for a mile out (lack of recruitment by the local red abs was the rationale)? Crazy. It was as if they thought that small boaters fishing rockfish jigs had an effect on abalone spawning? Tomales Point surrounding Bird Rock? That is the first and most famous area to go to out of Dillon.

One of the most insidious lines I saw written in their packet is the one about how park personnel will be allowed to use discretion in managing "their" marine parks. Talking about a walking lawsuit magnet. And a new hassle for the law abiding consumptive public. Look for this problem to escalate.

As I gaze into my crystal ball on the MPA issue, I think that we will see relatively little area set aside a pure reserves. There are just too many groups that are pushing for a little exeption here and a little exemption there. Many of these exemptions or exceptions are reasonable, such as allowing for the collection of drift algae that wash up on a beach, or dropping anchor in the protected lee of the Farallon Islands, or moving the reserve area to a spot that keeps open the already limited access for fishermen or divers.

Below are a diver's personal preferences for the Proposed Marine Protected Areas - North Central Region
1. Point Arena SMR---> NO! This includes some well-used fishing and abalone area all along the coast from Pt. Arena through the Sea Lion Rocks. This is within kayak paddling distance of Arena Cove. A counterproposal to move the S border to N. tip Sea Lion Rocks is more in tune with past area usage.
2. Del Mar Point SMR
3. Salt Point SMR
4. Sale Point SMP---> NO!!! This area currently allows sport fish and abalone take, and many divers pass through the Gerstle Cove SMR to do their sport here. This Park has great access and facilities (even a fish cleaning station), and banning sport take would force sportspeople to go to other remote, more dangerous areas. The solution is to continue to allow sport take.
5. Fort Ross SMR---> NO!!! This is Sonoma Countyıs primary safe all-weather access point! You can fish or abalone here when you canıt anywhere else along the coast. The solution is to allow sport take of fish and abalone in this area.
6. Sonoma Coast Beach SMCA
7. Bodega SMR
8. Estero Americano SMR
9. Estero de San Antonio SMR
10. Bird Rock SMR---> NO! This is the primary area for abalone gatherers out of Tomales Bay. Even when the mouth of the Bay is closed by breakers across the bar, you can boat across Tomales Bay, then climb up and down Tomales Point (an aerobic workout in itself!) and walk into the lee of Bird Rock to get abalone. One solution is to allow abalone gathering in this area; another is to move the area south.
11. Point Reyes Headlands SMR
12. Duxbury Reef SMCA
13. Farallon Islands SMR
14. Farallon Islands SMCA
15. James V. Fitzgerald SMR
16. Ano Nuevo SMR
17. Ano Nuevo SMCA

One diver's preferences follow for Proposed Marine Protected Areas South Central Region
1. Ano Nuevo SMR
2. Ano Nuevo SMCA
3. Natural Bridges SMR---NO!!! This area has prime access & great assorted fishing! The solution is to move this area more north to a spot that doesnıt have the access; the whole coast up to Half Moon Bay has provided great fishing, so selecting a spot without access will disapppoint the fewest citizens.
4. Natural Bridges SMCA
5. Soquel Canyon SMCA
6. Portuguese Ledge SMCA
7. Hopkins Marine SMR
8. Pacific Grove SMCA
9. Carmel Bay SMP
10. Point Lobos SMR
11. Point Lobos SMCA--->NO! The area as proposes it huge--going all the way to Malpaso Creek! Most of it is inaccessible, but includes a harbor south of Yankee Point and access from Malpaso Creek. One solution is to move the S boundary north to the Yankee Point area; another is to allow sport take of finfish in the area.
12. Point Sur SMCA--->NO! This area protrudes south so that it includes Andres Molera. Solutions are to either move S border to north False Sur or to allow sport take of finfish.
13. Julia Pfeiffer Burns SMR
14. Big Creek SMR
15. Big Creek SMCA
16. Salmon Creek SMR
17. Piedras Blancas SMCA--->NO!!! This is a very popular diving area, and annual Pacific Coast Championship meets, as well as other fishing events, are held in this area. The solution is to allow the take of finfish for sport in this area.

Another diver's preferences follow for Proposed Marine Protected Areas South Central Region
1. Ano Nuevo SMR
2. Ano Nuevo SMCA
3. Natural Bridges SMR---NO!!! This area has prime access & great assorted fishing! The solution is to move this area more north to a spot that doesnıt have the access; the whole coast up to Half Moon Bay has provided great fishing, so selecting a spot without access will disapppoint the fewest citizens. AGREE.
4. Natural Bridges SMCA
5. Soquel Canyon SMCA
6. Portuguese Ledge SMCA
7. Hopkins Marine SMR- Change name to Doc Ricketts Marine Reserve, no take of any kind, including aquarium collections.
8. Pacific Grove SMCA
9. Carmel Bay SMP - CHANGE north/western boundary to Cypress Point, and the southern boundary Pinnacle Point, to include the Pinnacles in the Park.
10. Point Lobos SMR
11. Point Lobos SMCA--->NO! The area as proposes it huge--going all the way to Malpaso Creek! Most of it is inaccessible, but includes a harbor south of Yankee Point and access from Malpaso Creek. One solution is to move the S boundary north to the Yankee Point area; another is to allow sport take of finfish in the area. AGREE.
12. Point Sur SMCA--->NO! This area protrudes south so that it includes Andres Molera. Solutions are to either move S border to north False Sur or to allow sport take of finfish. AGREE.
13. Julia Pfeiffer Burns SMR
14. Big Creek SMR
15. Big Creek SMCA
16. Salmon Creek SMR
17. Piedras Blancas SMCA--->NO!!! Southern boundary to connect with
18. Cambria State Marine Park. No Commercial fishing, Recreational Only.

DFG chose a lot of areas which are now getting heavy fishing pressure, and will get more in the future. But protecting accessible areas from heavy fishing pressure is not the purpose of MPAs. DFG likes it, because then they don't have to worry about recreationals depleting an area, (which IS what we will do given enough time and numbers of fishermen). "Just stop ALL recreational fishing, there you have a solution." I can hear the gears creaking now in their heads. What they need to do is have ways of assessing impact on specific heavily used areas and ways of closing them to species that are declining because of that take. But that would cost them a fortune in biologists and assessments. So they want MPAs to head that off.
However, that is not what the law was all about, in my opinion, and it should not be misused in this way by DFG. A little commitment to port samplers and using volunteers for dive counts SHOULD be in their heads. It isn't.

Principles
1. There is a spiritual connection we have to the sea and we must have areas where ALL life is protected, where we all have access.
2. In Reserves, access should be open without fees, to all non-consumptive users, divers, sailors, kayakers, boaters & touring vessels, excepting PWC (ski-doos, jet skis, etc.)
3. Where access is geographically limited and considered by the public as "convenient" (as most of the proposed reserves are), the access and designated areas for State Marine Parks should be either to to the North or South of Reserves so that access for recreational fishers & free divers can be utilized for the area they wish to visit. This gives fin swimming & small boats an equal opportunity to ocean access for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
4. Both Reserves and State Marine Parks should be much larger to protect whole ecosystems and to meet stated goals set out by the MLPA.
5. A larger network of Reserves and State Marine Parks should be closer together to obtain synergistic benefits by using de-facto, inaccessible areas as reserves. Example a ISP Alginates rep said he'd support the South Central Coast as no-take zone because it's impracticable for him to cut kelp there anyway. Other fishers have agreed as well.
6. Reserves should allow limited scientific collection that is necessary for the benefit of the Reserve. Non-extractive science and monitoring is a must, and should be encouraged. Other scientific collection should be for real science, not for corporate aquarium display or barter with other aquariums throughout the world. The Monterey Bay Aquarium, Stienhart, Marine World, Pier 39, and others are Commercial Collectors!
7. Party boats should be considered commercial fish-taking vessels in that they should not be allowed in State Marine Parks.
8. Bottom trawlers should be outlawed in State waters and rockfish traps should be outlawed in all nearshore waters.
9. The Ed Ricketts Marine Reserve to extend from the tip of the Breakwater out to 70 feet of sea water to Lover's Point.
10. The Ed Ricketts Reserve should keep it's own City-designated name. A grass-roots advocacy for this reserve status has gone on for 8 yrs under the name of Edward F. Ricketts. The Ricketts name is a seminal figure in the Marine biology... definitely more than the Hopkins name. Nor should the Ed Ricketts Marine Reserve be named after one of its chief opponents, Hopkins Marine Station, nor should it be allowed to be operated or influenced by the Hopkins regime, lest it become a sweetheart deal for the commercial aquarium collectors & institutional collectors. In addition, Hopkins has the ability to cut off access and has threatened so in the past. [If your familiar with Star Trek, renaming the Ricketts Park to Hopkins will be like being assimilated by the Borg.] The upside is that the Ed Ricketts Reserve becomes a buffer for the Hopkins Refuge.
11. Kelp cutting or other extractive activities does NOT belong in Reserves. Compromises such as these invite more demands and destroys the intent of reserves, however, as discussed with abalone growers, we support limited entry & reasonable controls for taking kelp from the West side of the Ed Ricketts Reserve to Asilomar for the local ab growers to maintain their businesses and spread limited impacts over a wider area. We also support kelp enhancement plans to establish kelp forests for harvesters.

In addition to rockfish traps being outlawed in all nearshore waters I would add "sticks" to banned gear. How about proposing this as well:
In light of the nearshore's limited habitat area, largely residential resources, and their importance to the non-commercial public, commercial fishing gear used shall be limited to rod and reel. This precludes the use of "sticks" and other set lines, traps, or nets of any kind.

Is everyone happy with the definitions of "reserve", "park" and "conservation area"? Seems to me we are all getting lost in the details of whether or not to agree with this jetty or that rock as an MPA (a likely strategy by the MLPA promoters). If the guiding definitions are vague and malleable then all this energy deciding what to do where is going to be undone in short order. Since these MLPA meetings are suppose to be about conceptual issues perhaps someone ought to question the fundamental area definitions or we will get screwed later.

This post is a response to the post above.
I agree. The way they are so loosely defining these areas, they can almost be indistinguishable. I am very worried the DFG will just willy nilly change a rec take park into a no take park or whatever they want to do. It is giving them way too much leeway, something they have yet to earn.
When these concepts were first introduced to us several months ago, a Marine Park was presented as an area where there would be recreational fishing but no commercial. Now it seems to be defined so loosely that, as in the case of the proposed Salt Point Marine Park, it can mean no finfish take. With that kind of latitude, I am not going to support any park anywhere near where we access the ocean. I want to see more concrete definitions to these and I suggest others advocate the same. The last organization I want to give a blank check to is the DFG.
Additionally, there seems to be a lot of squishiness about who will enforce these areas and who will be given the authority to change the rules for them. I SURE don't want Park Rangers, who have already voiced their opposition to us without any evidence for their objections, to be given any authority as to the configuration of the areas. That would be like giving a cop the power to judge. I would think that would be unconstitutional.
This is a very serious issue that should not be minimized.

MPAs should keep out ALL commercial/industrial ( I like that word for this) PERIOD. Hell we're having trouble making sure there is recreational access and use as it is!
I want a hard stand on "No Take" in all reserves.

There is no Economic goal to keep fishermen able to go out and get fish, there is for commercial boats, they are a "positive" force in California's economy, so the state is suppose to protect their interests.

I was under the impression that the amount of money a "recreational" caught fish generates to the overall economy is by far more than what a "commercial" caught fish generates. I'm not sure about freediving but I'm certain that recreational caught fish from a private boat contributes more to the economy in terms of dollars. Plus-It goes without saying that the recreationally caught fish is not as hard on the resource. I subscribe to a bunch of fishing rags and they all preach this mantra. It appears there is a common theme along all the United States coasts; The commercial guys deplete/destroy the resource and the recreational guys pay the price. And BTW, I'm not saying the rec guys don't deplete the resource. Just look at all the pictures of guys standing next to Marlin and Sharks hanging on the dock just for a Kodak moment. This has occured on both coasts. The good thing is todays average, recreational fishing person seems to have a higher respect and awarness for the resource/enviroment.

I really feel that the DF&G has listened to us at the Sebastopol and Half Moon Bay meetings. For the first time in history, they have banned party boats and commercial (except for rod and reel with rec. bag limits) from Russian Gulch, Mendocino Headlands, Van Damn and Elk. I see this as a major victory! Let's fight for this same idea south in the North-Central, South-Central and Southern Zones.

It appears that (as previously stated) the proposed "Hopkins State Marine Reserve" enlargement only goes to the base of the breakwater and then straight out (based on their published map). I can't tell from the text if that is the case. Can someone with a portable GPS unit walk to the end of the breakwater and see if it is included or not? I think that the proposed park should cover the entire western/NW side of the breakwater, and then straight out from the end of the breakwater.
Also, the proposed "Hopkins" enlargement only extends "out to a depth of 60 feet". Whereas the proposed "Pacific Grove State Marine Conservation Area" (next door to Hopkins) extends out 1 nautical mile from shore. It seems to me that "60 feet of depth" is going to be difficult for DFG to enforce. Why not just push it out to .5 (one half) nautical miles from shore? That would be a much clearer boundary, be much easier to enforce, and also make a larger area protected.
The proposed "Hopkins" says "No commercial or recreational fishing permitted." Based on the fact that kelp harvesting is specifically allowed in other areas that say "no commercial fishing EXCEPT ... kelp", does this mean kelp harvesting will be completely banned there?
Note that the proposed "Pacific Grove State Marine Conservation Area" next door, fairly well protected from the elements, allows recreational fishing (for finfish only) and prohibits most commercial fishing (except for salmon, sardines, mackerel, anchovy, squid, and herring, and kelp).

This post is a response to the post above.
Someone else mentioned that it might be better to use .5 nautical mile (or whatever) instead of a depth. I think the best boundary would be one that relies on two points. For example, 100 meters off the end of the breakwater could be one point. Having two points makes the boundary a straight line, and it's easy to determine if something is inside or outside the boundary. The boundary also doesn't change with tides.

I agree that the boundary should be a fixed point. It could then be marked by yellow buoys, just like the La Jolla ecological preserve. Everyone knows that the best boundaries are geological features what better one than the Breakwater.
We could also argue that if they left the little wedge between the boundary and the breakwater it would force all the fishermen right on top all the divers, a very hazardous situation.

The Hopkins State Marine Reserve proposal does not include the breakwater. We have to have our act together about WHY it should go to the end of the breakwater. Reasons:
- It's the obvious geographic boundary for the fish. East of the breakwater it's all sand. West of the breakwater it's rocky.
- It's the obvious visual boundary for people.
- It eliminates an entanglement hazard for the divers, many of whom are students, along the breakwater, the most popular beach dive in America.
They call it "Hopkins Marine Reserve", not "Ed Ricketts Park". It's the protection we want, and calling it Ed Ricketts Park rubs salt in the wounds with the DFG. Live with it.
Regarding including the barge in there with its abundant life...
That's going to require two changes: moving the east boundary to the end of the breakwater, and moving the offshore boundary out a bit. It's currently in 60 FSW, and the barge is in 63. We've got reasons above to move the east boundary. Reasons to move the offshore boundary: Protect Hopkin's Deep Reef. Protect the Barge. The 60' depth is probably an artifact of the Ed Ricketts Park: The City of Monterey doesn't have any authority beyond 60' DFG does.
How can we push for this? One way is for everyone who comes Monday to bring a 3x5 card that says: "Why doesn't the Hopkins Marine Reserve go to the end of the breakwater on the east and to 100 feet deep offshore?"

The definition of a Marine Park definitely needs to be tightened especially as rec fishing only areas. The way it stands now, it is hard to support large (50%) park definition if we are just going to whimsically not be allowed to fish those areas.

I talked to NMFS and they will be releasing a study on the economic impact of commercial fishing vs. sportfishing to the coastal communities on the Pacific in about 60 days. This means an issue DFG has been sweeping under the rug since February with a "lets not go there again", will have some credible data they should recognize. The issue should be put back on the table. Rumor has it that the sportfishing industry produces around 8 times the amount of dollars the commercials do.

The economic impact of rec fishing reaches well out from "coastal communities" whereas the commercial impact is concentrated there. Any fair comparison of economic impact should be to the state overall, not just coastal communities.

In addition to the Ricketts Park issues, those of you interested in a reserve in Carmel Bay have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that they are considering making the Gray Zone from Pt Lobos to Malpaso a no fishing zone. The bad news is that they are not considering MonoLobo as a no-take area, and they have not excluded kelp cutting from the new Carmel Bay Marine Park, which is Mono Lobo to Pescadero. They want to prohibit commercial fishing from that area, which is great for all divers, both hunters and no takers, and even better for the fish population. The problem I see is, its great for the dive boat business and divers with the resources to hire or buy a boat to have a bigger reserve to the south. But, what about shore divers and kayak divers? They have a right to an easily accessible no take zone as well, and you can't beat Mono Lobo for that. Shore fishermen are already prohibited from Mono Lobo due to its being attached to an already existing terrestrial reserve ( Pt Lobos). I suggest making South Monastery to Pt Lobos Park as a no-take as well. It has a good biological basis for that too, and would serve as a larger area from which the fish could "spill over" into the sport fishing areas of North Monastery, through all of Carmel Bay , and to Pacific Grove.
Another concern I have is, in the past, reserves (like Pt Lobos and Big Creek) have been declared off limits to everyone except scientists. As much as I love scientists, they do tend to think they have a right to an entire reserve whenever it is established. The DFG needs to understand that it is divers experiencing a unblemished sea that creates conservationists. They also need to get an idea of how many divers really want and support no-take reserves, how few there are for us, and how little access we have to them. The DFG folks are getting a lot of noise from fishermen, both recreational and commercial, and relative to all that, we non consumptive users are pretty quiet. If we want to be recognized, we have to make ourselves heard.
These guys at DFG are trying to do a good thing. They are being hammered by complaining fishermen, so a letter of support, thanks for their good works, and a few helpful suggestions would probably be better received than a diatribe. BTW, I doubt if they know what Mono Lobo means. Be specific as to its location (So. Monastery to Whaler's Cove) so they know what you are talking about.

I and several fishermen in this area are not happy with D.F.G.s vague and misleading MPA designations, especially as they are described on the D.F.G. website. My immediate concerns and questions are:
1. How long will an area remain under a designation?, until it shows signs of recovery--2 years, 5 years, forever?
2. What happened to the major, immediate threats to the nearshore?, livefishing, longlining , sticks and traps, and charterboat 'blanketing' over shallow reefs? By the way, all the partyboats here use live-bait now when they go for rockfish, stripers,halibut-- pretty much guarantees striper limits and near to full rockfish limits. These immediate threats to the nearshore have been acknowledged by D.F.G. with their own words and yet I have seen no actions to address these issues. Will livefishers still be fishing the borders of MPAs? Wouln't that be counterproductive, to say the least?
3. These MPAs are monumental changes. Has anyone ever seen D.F.G. move so fast? Could this be perhaps 'self serving' in their zeal to meet a federal mandate to have an FMP in place by 2002? If so, why did they wait so long to get started? I missed the Sebastopol meeting and get the feeling that ' if you're not at the station the train will pass you by'. Is this a fair and equitable representation of the public's concerns?
I and several fishermen from this area have our doubts and concerns regarding the proposed MPAs. There should be more public meetings, held in several close to coast communitys as these people will be impacted most.
The MPA process is moving too fast and is being rushed. To use an analogy; if Fish and Game was building a house it would be like building an addition on dryrot; not repairing previous problems before proceeding.
I am very disappointed with DFGs lack of caution and insincerety regarding MPAs. I think we're all getting taken for a ride, one we might regret.

Several comments from a freediver in Cayucos/Morro Bay:
I agree with the several concerns regarding the loosness of the area designations. The "parks" and "conservation areas" can too easily be turned into de-facto no-take "reserves" at some DFG officials' word. We have to press the issue and get more strict definitions. I for one am going to do just that at the upcoming MLPA meeting here in Morro Bay tomorrow night.
To clarify a previous post: bottom trawlers are already banned inside of the 3-mile limit. With regard to rockfish traps and stick gear, I couldn't agree with you more. They need to be severly limited, or banned altogether. As someone elso pointed out as far as gear goes, it is easier to list what type of gear is allowed than what isn't, because someone will come up with something new that is outside of the restrictions, and it won't be addressed until it is too late.
Regarding the comment to connect the Piedras Blancas SMCA to the Cambria SMCA and call them both a Park. Interesting idea. I have been fussing over the Piedras closure all week trying to come up with an alternative for DFG. It is one of our prime, multi-season areas, despite the elephant seals and white sharks. However, shutting this whole area down to the commercials will be problematic as they will scream bloody murder. This whole area is one of their prime grounds as well. I'd like some more input from you or anybody on this area as it is one of my main battles for Tuesday night. I think commercial access but with rod/reel only might be the only compromise winable.

A 1993 article published in Science by Don Ludwig et al. dismissed natural science as having any significant influence on renewable resource conservation. Instead, a series of political and economic imperatives drives the system in a downward spiral.

Every letter from every one of us should stress #1 that access be unfettered for all Reserves, Parks & Conservation areas. We got screwed with Big Creek. To sell it on becoming a reserve, we were promised access. Then it went away when the reserve was created. Same at Lobos. There was open access to sell the idea, then it was tightly controlled. Open, unlimited access should be IN WRITING from DF&G as a major principle of MPA's as it is in other countries like New Zealand.

Regarding the Seaside Siting Meeting:
Given the glacial pace of these bureaucratic processes, a tremendous amount was accomplished last night:
o Several DFG people said the name change from Hopkins Reserve to "Edward F. Ricketts Marine Reserve" would be done. One even apologized for the mistake!
o The message that the Breakwater (formerly OUTSIDE the reserve area) must be included was conveyed emphatically and received.
o Our concern that access to all Marine Parks and Reserves remain unrestricted was re-stated (we'd raised it last week in Half Moon Bay) and understood.
Along with the access issue, I'm still looking for a better response to the PG Tidepool Coalition's drive for protection along their shore, a bigger Carmel Bay Marine Park which will include the Inner and Outer Pinnacles, and full Reserve Status for Mono-Lobo.MPAs need easily recognizable boundaries. Lat/Long (usable by GPS) and/or visible markers (e.g., "beginning from that beach") are easier than "1 mile from shore"
Public access should be guaranteed in the text of the proposal. It should be the general rule with exceptions listed (and not the other way around).
What is the formalized process for reviewing the impact of these MPAs and for adding (or changing) them? Has money been budgeted to pay for monitoring?
Many things affect fish populations, not just fishing. Water temp & weather patterns, industrial & sewage & farming runoff. [The latter was implied to have a huge effect on fish populations]. Where are the studies on this? Why attack the poor fisherman?
What is MPLA (these MPA zones) doing to ensure/improve water quality in these areas?
(Some) MPAs are located in/close to many of "the best" fishing spots. So now "more" fishing is going to be done in a reduced (and less productive) area. Isn't this going to negatively affect fish populations.

All these hearings have been going on over the last 10 days or so. The only issue has been over designating areas as park, reserve, open... What about the issue of limiting access to the open areas, has this even come up in conversation in the work groups yet? We are at this point because of commercial overfishing. If licenses are not reduced, any area not protected is going to be wiped out in short order.

Comments from one nearshore diver follow.
1. A better candidate for a marine conservation area would be the Slide Ranch area just north of Muir Beach.-----> We can propose alternative areas to the State. Have a good argument for it; select landmarks for latitude; describe the western boundary; and define the area's legal users.
2. The Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game has repeatedly acknowledged, in written documents, the detrimental effect on the nearshore from the continuosly escalating live fish industry. Its methods and gear; longlining, sticks, traps, has been shown, many times, to be instrumental if not the leading degradation of the nearshore. Fueled by exorbitant per pound market prices, desireable small pre-reproductive fish and easy access, this industry continues to grow and suck the life out of our reefs and bays. The elimination of live fishing along our coast would immediately provide relief and benefit to the nearshore. And yet, I have seen no indication from D.F.G. in addressing this growing problem why?----->I believe the State has tried, unsuccessfully. When one type of take has been banned or restricted, another method is invented, and 10 years of this approach has led us to reef ruin. I think F&G is trying now with the new proposals, and we have the opportunity to help. Forget about trying to restrict the method of take--restrict commercial fishing operations in the nearshore! More nearshore Parks means less nearshore commercial exploitation. Let's see some Parks go in!
3. The M.P.A. process is moving along too fast at a rushed pace lacking caution.----->Get on the bandwagon! Do your homework now and let's propose now what we want. If the State has deadlines to meet, they'll try to meet them with or without our input. Let's turn this in to an opportunity! Every day/week/month we delay means that much more time until our reefs begin to recover. Think big, such as the entire Calif. coast being a Park (no commercial take at all in the nearshore), and back off from there.
4. If D.F.G. is sincere in attaining a successful Fishery Management Plan it will listen to the people who frequent coastal areas most:----->Yes!!! So give them your specific inputs.

One reservation I have about non-extractive dive parks is the practice of hand-feeding fish. If the fish are taught to be drawn to a diver, expecting a hand-out, and left the reserve, she's dead meat.
I absolutely support some areas reserved for look-see divers. My horse-sense tells me that it's also a good idea to leave some areas alone for large spawners, that this will be the quickest way to restock the devestated north coast. I'm conflicted, though, because I want them placed away from ports (The Kings Range SMR looks fine to me) but those remote reserves will do nothing to restock our fishing grounds. And admittedly, I've seen no reference to the scientific studies that supposedly show that reserves make the fishing better in no-reserve areas (they certainly won't if ringed by fishtraps).

The Mendocino SMCA ("Special Marine Conservation Area") needs to be as large as we can make it. I would like to see it encompass the whole state, obviously, but we'll start with Mendocino County. This should effectively end commercial livefishing in many areas of Mendocino County. At minimum, this concept needs to be extended from the proposed Greenwood SMP (south of Albion) to the proposed McKerricher SMP (north of Ft. Bragg). And more of the sport-only areas, and make them bigger (see Russian Gulch, Van Damme, and Greenwood SMP's).
MacKerricher SMR:
No SMR in that area. The beach is heavily used by smelt netters in the summer, the entire park is already set up for recreational use. Cleone Lake is the only body of water stocked with trout for kid's angling on the Coast of Mendocino. There is a commercial horseback riding concession on the beach - this is no wilderness area. This is simply no area for a no-take zone. The reef extends from the park out into 200 feet of water and is the main rockfishing area for skiffs. So while it is not big enough to affect these anglers, it would be hard to tell whether you were 1000 feet offshore or not. This area has been absolutely devastated by livefishing. It should become a sport-only park and it will rejuvenate.
Pt. Cabrillo SMR:
I am sooo angry about that "commercial reserve" deal. I could live with the SMR (no-take) designation in the small area that is now the reserve, since we aren't really giving anything up (it's been closed to us since 1979). But no expansion - this should be held as a bargaining chip too. I recommend extending the Mendo SMCA up through this area.
One more note: for the small skiff anglers, Pt. Cabrillo and McKerricher mark the limits of most people's safety range, unless it is unusually calm. There is very little angler pressure outside those limits, except for party boats. I expect these reserves to be fought tooth and nail by local anglers. It wouldn't leave us with much.
Mendocino SMCA:
I like this proposal with a couple of exceptions. One, how is it proposed to enforce the commercial bag limit? Can't a commercial fisherman simply claim the fish on board came from outside the SMCA? How many commercial fishermen will be interested in a recreational bag limit of rockfish? Either convert the area into a Park or allow commercial fishing for pelagics and other species besides nearshore species. I propose the recreational gear limitation for the commercial sector. Though this would be difficult to enforce while allowing traps in other areas. After my initial enthusiasm wore off, I felt like a dog that's been kicked too long, finally getting a bone. Yeah, they listened to us (finally) but this is too little, too late, and by the time August 2002 (2003?) rolls around, there will be no fish left if this is the only area under these rules.
Russian Gulch, Van Damme, and Greenwood SMPs:
Each one Excellent and well reasoned. I hope to see more rationale like this used for the rest of the coast! Make them bigger, as big as possible.
Pt. Arena SMR:
Please move the south boundary a little to the north as the seal rocks area is a frequent area of local use. Again, I would oppose this area as a no-take zone. Argue for the SMP concept instead.

As for the capacity/limited access issues I don't believe you can reduce the fishable area without reducing the fishing pressure. If rockfish are put on the shelf because of a 50% park area, are we going to have twice as many commercials in a area half the size?

One thing that was brought up at our Morro Bay meeting by a commerical was what, if any, improvement has been seen in the presently closed "reserve" areas. I don't recall the actual reserve name that was discussed, but the DFG scientist trying to respond did not have any proof, documented or otherwise. The spot that she was discussing had been closed since 1994. In addition, there are some other curent reserve areas (I can't recall their names either off the top) that have been in place since the mid-seventies. Has anyone brought these up with DFG and whether or not any improvement has been seen? Perhaps we should. Another de-fact reserve is down in Vandenberg Air Force Base, the missile launch place. "Danger zone 4" is perpetually closed to all boat traffic. It goes out 3 miles from Point Arguello to the Santa Inez rivermouth, about 7 miles of untouched coastline. It has been closed, as far as I know, since the base was established in the 50's or 60's. DFG should be pressed to look there and see if MPAs really do any good. It is a perfect candidate.

Regarding the refuge vs parks designation. As far as patrolling these areas, down this way inland patrol also does some shorline patrol. Just had an example of that Wednesday in Malibu Superior Court where a mother was cited by a land warden for not having a fishing license when she was caught with a starfish, an octopus and a hermit crab picked up from tide pools along the beach. Actually, the daughter had them in her possession, but the mother got the ticket. She could have beat it, but figured the cost of an attorney would be greater than the $675 fine. The judge reduced the fine in half after the defendant showed that she had purchased a fishing license. Shoreline residents along all the Malibu shoreline are actively involved in a sort of Neighborhood Watch for such violations, and the warden admitted that the DFG had received a telephone call about the woman and kid. About three years ago, Sen. Tom Hayden tried to get through a bill that would have declared all 26 miles of Malibu declared a no-fish, etc. refuge out to 3 miles. The department opposed it, as we did, and it failed in committee. However, Malibu residents, including Sara Wan, chairman of the Coastal Commission, and many of her movie resident friends like Barbara Striesand have continued pushing for such a closure. The Leo Carrillo Park closure called for in the MLPA plan is the result. It closes about six miles of shoreline out to 3 miles.

How's this for Pt. Arena?
The only part of this proposal that should be Reserve is a ½ mile square around Arena Rock. The rest of the area, and it should be expanded to include several miles north and south of Arena Cove, should be a SMCA. It should allow all recreational take and commercial take for all species except for nearshore finfish species. This will protect the area from commercial over-harvest of nearshore species and protect it as an isolated recreational access point (very few recreational access points for miles north and south). In addition, it will allow the continuation of the ongoing commercial urchin and crab fisheries that exist there.

MacKerricher should stay open to rec take. Caspar (Pt. Cabrillo) too. I don't know the area north of MacKerricher.

To have your comments considered, e-mail them to Steve Campi.