Captain’s Log: New Marine Protected Areas Take Effect Jan. 1

Unnecessary for fisheries management, MPAs are all about creating permanent money-makers for grant seekers

By Capt. David Bacon, Noozhawk Columnist | Published on 12.30.2011

You will love this story if you enjoy complex and deceptive business battles that devastate industries for the benefit of those who funded the fight. New Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) along the coast, created during the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, go into effect Jan. 1. The story isn’t pretty, and neither are the impacts of the new MPAs.

Much of what the public was told via the media was carefully crafted by one side (the very well-funded side) of the battle to make it look like MPAs are necessary for fisheries management. MPAs here are not really about fisheries management. They are business battles to privatize the ocean for the purpose of garnering grant money.

We do not need MPAs here for fisheries management. We know how to bring back populations of fish from natural problems and from the early days of overfishing. Using tried and true fisheries management practices including seasons, reduced bag limits, size limits, depth restrictions and improved technologies for stock assessments we brought back white seabass, halibut, barracuda, bonito, lingcod, anchovies and sardines. We are in long rebuilding programs for black seabass and cow cod. Professional fisheries managers at the Pacific Fishery Management Council know what they are doing.

Listen, there is no plan to accomplish any stated goals and then give those MPAs back to the public. Nope, they are intended to be permanent private money-makers for grant seekers who know that when MPAs exist, grant money flows. Ultimately, we citizens provide the money, one way or another. For that privilege, we lose our rights to those areas. This is privatization of our ocean.

MPAs typically come with requirements for five-year monitoring and assessment plans. That was the case with the Channel Islands MPAs. Indeed, there was a five-year symposium that I had difficulty sitting through without losing my lunch. It was nothing but a “Rah! Rah!” circus show. For example, I was involved in a bona fide research project, teaming the research community with the charter industry and the recreational angler representation community. It was a project to tag calicos inside MPAs to see how MPAs benefited anglers in terms of outflow of fish valuable to our communities and industries. The project showed that there was no measurable benefit — none.

Naturally, I wanted this sanctioned research project included in the five-year Channel Islands MPA symposium. No way! The organizers wanted nothing to do with the project because it didn’t paint a rosy “Rah! Rah!” picture of their MPAs. Every project included in that farcical symposium praised the glory of MPAs. It was so self-serving, from a business perspective, that it became disgusting.

Those folks live off of grant money, and grant money flows if MPAs are made to look good. During a comment period, I stood and gave a brief factual report on the project with which I had been involved. I got blank stares, angry glares and mumbled dismissals. After all, my comments wouldn’t help them garner funding for their projects.

Fast forward to Jan. 1, 2012, when the newest MPAs go into effect. Why do I have this sinking feeling in my gut yet again? It is because I pretty much know what is coming — devastation of industries will be ignored or understated because those facts will not show a benefit to MPAs. Effective socioeconomic monitoring and analysis to determine and hopefully mitigate the awful true costs to businesses and economies resulting from MPAs will not be funded and performed.

Why? It’s simple. Because that information doesn’t paint a rosy picture of MPAs. Monitoring planning efforts have one guiding rule — make MPAs look good so that grant money flows. It is a business battle. Get it?

I want two things (not counting dropping the new MPAs):

1. Thorough and adequately funded socioeconomic monitoring, beginning three years before MPA implementation, to measure the damage to our fishing industries caused by a public perception shift attributable to media wars funded by those who seek the grant money that flows when MPAs are implemented and by those who are influenced by the money seekers.

2. A requirement that researchers collaborate with the fishing industries by chartering our boats and hiring fishing industry professionals (like skippers and crew), rather than researchers using the money to buy themselves boats and other resources and use only staff that will “go along to get along” with them.

OK, I’ll offer an easier way out. MPA implantation and monitoring problems can be fixed to the benefit of all. Socioeconomic justice can be achieved by adopting a policy I call “A reef for a reef,” whereby a new structure is created, in an area we can fish, and of equal or greater fishing value than a proposed MPA. The key is the new structure should be created before a new MPA is implemented. This policy allows preservationists to close some areas and yet maintains fishing opportunities. Even the fish and other critters win big with this policy because there are more homes and productive forage areas available to them.

I ask and challenge the California Fish & Game Commission to study and adopt this “reef for a reef” policy. Call it part of the price of designing and implementing MPAs. The program will help mitigate damage done to fishing industries and economies and the public will learn that creating more new homes for fish will increase their population and make for better fishing. Heck, the new reefs may even generate some grant money.

— Capt. David Bacon operates WaveWalker Charters and is president of SOFTIN Inc., a nonprofit organization providing seafaring opportunities for those in need. Visit softininc.blogspot.com to learn more about the organization and how you can help.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» tlachiquero on 12.30.11 @ 02:13 PM

I am generally sympathetic to the writer’s arguments but who exactly is making the big bucks off the grants associated with the MPAs? Who is funding those grants?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GMoney on 01.04.12 @ 11:11 AM

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion; however, there are some facts to be aware of. These seem to be missing from this article—a sudden unwelcome departure from Capt Bacon’s usual enjoyable nature writing:

- In CA and many states, marine wildlife are a publicly held asset—we own them together. Sounds like the Captain isn’t into sharing. Understandable in a way since up till now, fish were managed by dividing them up between recreational and commercial harvest, none for their intrinsic value and non-lethal appreciation. MPAs afford ocean users like divers, kayakers, etc the opportunity to experience their natural heritage in a state it was meant to be in. We now have just 10% of state waters in this state where fish are dramatically larger, more numerous and more diverse.

- Speaking of fishery management, yes, MPAs are not fishery management. Fishery management is setting how many fish that can be caught to keep the harvest process going year after year. MPAs do something different—create safe zones for enjoyment of natural ecosystems (biodiversity, etc) and to generate more fish production everywhere. Saying MPAs aren’t fishery management isn’t a criticism of MPAs unless you don’t realize what MPAs are. Or you see the ocean very selfishly.

- Scientific research has always been driven by public and foundation grants and peer review. That’s what keeps it straight-up. To suggest this is corrupt is really misunderstanding the process, and frankly a huge reach towards conspiracy. I would think Newshawk editors would really think about these accusations, look at the SB Independent article to see who and what this accusation is aimed at. Everyone supports research to find out if and how these MPAs affect the ocean. Except one guy?

- Artificial reefs—Much of the research finds artificial reefs concentrate marine life rather than producing more of it. We should be careful to ensure we’re making more fish rather than simply allowing us to catch more fish easier. More fish is the point right? Right…? In any case, putting a artificial reef next to an MPA is going to defeat the MPAs purpose by attracting the increased fish produced by MPAs to a place where they are removed from the ocean before they can replenish the system as a whole. So IF you support better fishing, you wouldn’t want to create a reef that steals from the value of MPAs to fisheries.

There’s hard feelings about how MPAs have reduced some of the fishing in places where fishers were used to going, no doubt. What’s important though is that we stick to the facts, join together to maximize the opportunity for us all to benefit, and to find how and whether MPAs work the way they were intended. There’s plenty of good columns to write about *that*

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» SBlokal on 01.06.12 @ 10:39 AM

Wow. I’ve never read such slander and self-righteous misinformation. Let me guess, Mr. Bacon is yet another person who makes money off harvesting a public natural resource and has been able to do so for a long time without the general public having a say about those resources. And this “reef to reef” idea - what?!? Not only is it ecologically backwards (the reefs are being protected to bring back that very same marine life he extracts), but it is a demand that the rest of us are some how responsible for his profitability. Does taking of natural resources somehow mean the state owes some kind of job security to him?!? I’ve been professionally diving for more than twenty years. I guarantee I’ve seen more underwater and what state our oceans are in than Mr. Bacon. It’s high time we start managing our oceans for more than just optimizing extraction.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» LaughinChance on 01.07.12 @ 04:28 PM

Some comments doubt the efficacy of ARTIFICIAL REEFS…

The following info is submitted because the Auburn professor began his research 20 years ago as a SKEPTIC re artificial reefs production quotient & has become a COMPLETE supporter of the role they play where flat, sand/mud bottoms predominate & habitat for marine organisms is limited.

That eco-greenie’s fail to acknowledge the truth of the situation & support fishermen is probably the most telling aspect that backs up Capt. David Bacon’s allegations!!!

The attraction vs production question re artificial reefs is settled science; now we need to find the best designs as in San Clemente where it was discovered that reefs with low profiles support kelp growth best (any eco-greenies out there need that link too?).

BTW, I invite anyone seeking a GREAT vacation to snorkel the old concrete pier in Lahiana on Maui that Hurricane Iniki collapsed in the early 1990’s: watch the coral populate the pier, watch the Turtles emerge from the holes, watch the marine plants grow on the pier surface & watch the herbivore fish eat ‘em!

That pier is right next to shore, wade in & become a booster for EXPANDING marine habitat!

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/01/spying_on_snapper.html
Auburn professor’s work includes high-tech spying on snapper in Gulf
Published: Sunday, January 16, 2011

Welcome to Steve Szedlmayer’s laboratory.
The professor, working out of Auburn University’s Department of Fisheries, has been studying red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico since 1990, a 20-year project that has required thousands of scuba dives and allowed Szedlmayer to keep tabs on some individual fish for years. It has also given him unique insight into the ecological impact of the hundreds of artificial reefs off Alabama.
“The basic message is that artificial reefs work. I never believed I’d be saying this 20 years ago. I thought it was a joke. We used to say, ‘Oh my, sinking another ship. Oh what a waste,” Szedlmayer said Thursday. “At this point, I’m convinced that they produce fish, rather than just attract fish.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» LaughinChance on 01.07.12 @ 04:34 PM

There are hard feeling in the fishing community from MLPA’s because the bureaucrats close the most productive reefs to fishing.

Near Monterey Bay they closed Ano Nuevo, the finest reef for fishing anywhere, bar none.

Why would anyone assume building artificial reefs to restore the loss the fishing community suffered would occur immediately next to the closed area?

It would be far better to locate any new artificial reefs near ports to lower energy requirements for fishing trips; isn’t this something the eco-greenies want?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» fihsinfool on 01.08.12 @ 02:17 PM

Hi all, Chris Goldblatt with the Fish Reef Project here (fishreef.org). I agree with Captain Bacon on all points. Yes the MPA’s drive huge grant money and create a perverse incentive to back up the MPA’s with junk science- in fact I have heard rumors of grad student actually being transferred back east if they dare include anything in their reports that are in any way negative to the MPAs-Our loss is clearly their gain, its that simple. MPA’s are not a management tool, they exists for three reasons
a) To create legacy to the rich despots like Julie Packard
b) Drive grant money to the non profits, NGOs such as Ocean Conservancy, Heal the Bay nature Conservancy, and Channel Keeper and quasi agencies like the Ocean protection council
c) Create purpose to those at the bottom end such as high school students, college students ladies of leisure and men who want their attention have been duped by the powerful and are true believers that they are actually doing something good.

I have never seen a single report showing the effects of compacting fishing effort in the new small areas. In fact the MPA’s may cause severe overfishing and increase chances of diver death from boat strike. The Monitoring folks simply never obtained historical base line data on the life in the closed areas prior to closure (nor did they want to)- so they have nothing to compare it against, hence junk science. We often hear the “MPA’s work” but nodboy ever botheres to define what “work” means- its just a bizz word at this point.

It is for these reasons that if founded the Fish Reef Project- our goal is to make a new five acres reef every year just outside the open areas up and down the coast. Habitat is the only real limiting factor in the creation of new marine life. The reefs will give us many new places to fish and study while unifying the fishing community to common cause. We will show the world that we are the true environmentalists, we care more about ocean health that grant hungry academics and NGOs because it feeds both our bellies and our souls. There are already many man made reefs around the world, we are just the last to the game. We have already seen huge support for the project. In an effort not not be corrupted like the folks in the big green NGO’s -I and the entire board of directors will accept no salary for our many of hours of work that it takes make this project a reality. We do need donations to get if off the ground, so anybody willing to step up please contact me: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» exfactor on 01.08.12 @ 04:13 PM

There has been one underlying facet of this that seems to have been totally overlooked in my opinion. I grew up in California, watching shows like American sportsman, where people like Ted Williams, Kurt Gowdy, even or president George Bush would spend time in our great outdoors persuing a passion that has encompassed my whole life. I have grown to appreciate all natures beauty, and bounty, and have spent many hours teaching others the meaning of a “sportsman”. i preach catch, and release, and garner great pleasure from spending my time participating in this pastine.
There are many others that are like me in this state, who choose to venture out, and explore new places, for no other reason then to have a chance of something pulling on the end of our rod’s. To totally eliminate our freedoms of going to a favorite beach, or reef, when all we wished to do was enjoy this pastine is wrong. I am deeply hurt that I have spent my whole life learning my craft, only to have “special interest” intervene, and remove me from my favorite places. And to allow certain people to still enjoy these places, like divers, is unfair, and prejudice. Mr Bacon’s comments were directed at the community, offering another perspective to the public. For others to condemm him for his opinions is bias, and unfair. I agree, that someone will profit from these closures, and it won’t be the general public.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.