Download Sacramento Bee - Ocean Conservancy

Editorials and OP-EDs
Editorials
 Sacramento Bee – Aug. 6, 2006
 Los Angeles Times – Aug 5, 2006
 San Francisco Chronicle – Aug 11, 2006
Op-Eds
 Mercury News – Aug 10, 20006
Sacramento Bee
August 6, 2006
Editorial: A true 'protected area'
Fish and Game Commission should adopt science advisers'
marine protection plan
California's near-shore ocean species are in severe peril. The rockfish that once grew large
and plentiful are almost gone. Sea otters and many shore birds face an uncertain future.
On Aug. 15, the Fish and Game Commission will make key decisions to save these marine
species and possibly make California a world leader in protecting its coastal waters -- areas
within three miles of the shore. At that meeting, the commission will make decisions on Marine
Protected Areas for the central coast, a long-delayed action the Legislature mandated under
the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act.
Marine Protected Areas consist of reserves, where all marine life is protected and no fishing is
allowed; marine parks, where just recreational fishing is allowed; and marine conservation
areas, where certain communities of fish are protected.
Two decades of research has shown that such marine refuges -- particularly the no-fishing
zones -- benefit both marine species and people who fish the sea. Studies in Florida, Belize,
Australia and other countries indicate that fish grow larger and produce more offspring in
zones where no, or little, take of fish is allowed. That, in turn, increases the number of large
creatures that venture beyond the reserves, improving fishing for both recreational anglers and
commercial fishing fleets.
Sadly, the state Fish and Game Department, which advises the commission, seems more
interested in appeasing various opponents of marine reserves than in giving this concept a
chance to prove itself. Scientists generally agree that, for marine reserves to produce results,
they should be about 18 to 36 square miles and cover about one fifth of an area's coastal
waters. Yet the department has endorsed reserves on just 8 percent of the central coast.
A better option is a proposal called Package 2R, endorsed by the commission's science
advisory team. Package 2R would expand and strengthen the reserve at Año Nuevo to 19
square miles; the department has recommended only an 8-square-mile reserve for this
biologically rich area. Package 2R would protect 13 percent of the central coast in reserves
and 6.5 percent in parks and conservation areas, leaving the rest open to fishing.
The decision will come down to the five-member Fish and Game Commission, appointed by
the governor and his predecessor, Gray Davis. This commission needs to remember its
obligation not just to commercial fishers and anglers but to millions of Californians who want
their coasts preserved. Marine reserves are a demonstrated success story, but if the
commission rubber-stamps the department's plan, it could be a set-up for failure.
For more information, go to www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/centralcoast.html
Los Angeles Times
Aug. 5, 2006
No-Human Zones for the Ocean
California's new fishing and preservation rules should set aside
at least 10% of coastal waters for human-free marine rehab.
THANKS TO GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, California is on the verge of adopting its first
plan to manage coastal waters to restore the ocean's health and bring back depleted fish populations.
Before Schwarzenegger took office, efforts to pull together a proposal, as mandated by a marine
preservation law passed in 1999, had stumbled for six years while the state drafted maps without
consulting fishermen, environmentalists or outside scientists. But the new governor made the project a
priority, set up a more inclusive process and got it done.
The state will start by designating a series of marine preserves along a 220-mile stretch of the Central
Coast. Future proposals will address the rest of the coastline.
This is a relatively new way of protecting coastal waters, and one better supported by science. Instead of
limiting the catch of one discrete fish population or another, it calls for setting aside certain entire areas
for complete preservation, no fishing allowed. That way, nature can restore over time the balance of
marine predator and prey, and the state's diminishing kelp beds will no longer be pulled up by
fishermen's nets. In some other protected areas, only bottom-fishing would be prohibited.
It's especially important for rockfish — bottom dwellers encompassing about 90 species of fish — to
have total long-term protection in some areas. Many of these have life spans similar to humans and
produce far greater numbers of young in their 40s. Allowing fish to reach these ages holds promise for
restoring fisheries to their historic levels.
But short-term, there would have to be some sacrifice, and this is where the disagreements come in.
Fishermen, both commercial and sport, want fewer sanctuaries and lower levels of protection.
Environmentalists want more. When the state Fish and Game Commission meets Aug. 15, it will have
several competing plans before it.
Among the proposals, two appear to do the best job of balancing the survival of commercial fishermen
with the desires of conservationists and the science presented by marine biologists. One, put together by
representatives of all three groups, calls for 13% of the Central Coast to be placed in marine reserves
where all fishing is banned. The other, by a blue ribbon task force that weighed all the
recommendations, is a slight — excuse us — watering down of that proposal, putting 10% into reserves.
But the state Department of Fish and Game recently pushed for weaker protections, including opening a
section of an important kelp forest off Point Sur to fishing. This won't do. Four years ago, overfishing so
depleted rockfish populations that the federal government slapped an emergency ban on taking the fish
across 8,500 square miles of federal waters off California. By preserving important state waters now,
California stands its best chance of avoiding such draconian steps later.
What was intended as landmark protection for California's coast is in danger of being diluted to the point
where its worth would be questionable. The commission should not dip below the 10% preservation
line. Future generations of Californians — including its sports fishermen and the fishing industry — will
be better off for the protection.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-coast5aug05,0,2378850.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
San Francisco Chronicle
Aug. 11, 2006
It Takes an Ecosystem
ALL TOO OFTEN, fisheries management in this country amounts to crisis intervention - a
species declines to the point of extinction and draconian measures are taken to revive it.
Just Thursday, the U.S. Department of Commerce declared a "commercial fishing failure"
as a result of the decimated Chinook salmon numbers that caused a curtailment of the
season along the California and Oregon coasts.
In that particular case, the main stresses on the salmon came from drought and the water
problems in the Klamath River Basin. But the health of the ocean and pressure from
commercial-fishing interests are often huge factors in the state of a species. The severely
depleted rockfish population in California is a prime example.
In 1999, California created the Marine Life Protection Act, which was designed to
establish a series of strategically located no-fishing reserves along the coast where fish
could prosper and reproduce. Various scientific studies have suggested that the benefits of
such protected zones -- where the taking of fish, invertebrates, plants and other life forms
would be banned -- would extend for many miles along the coast.
But the science has also been clear that the size, location and spacing of those marine
reserves are critical to their potential success. Scientists have generally recommended
putting at least 20 percent of coastal waters in such reserves.
The California Fish and Game Commission is expected next week to consider the first
network of marine reserves under the 1999 act -- covering 220 miles from Half Moon Bay
to Santa Barbara.
The question is whether the commission will produce a marine reserve for a press release
or for a healthy ocean. The Department of Fish and Game appears to have proposed the
press-release option -- setting aside a skimpy 8 percent of the coastal waters as marine
reserves.
A more meaningful proposal was made by a coalition of conservationists, whose plan
would not only cover a larger area of ocean -- about 13 percent -- it would provide more
extensive protection for biological "hot spots." Examples include waters off the Año
Nuevo State Park in San Mateo County, where sea birds, elephant seals and other marine
mammals forage for food.
Fish and Game commissioners should seize this opportunity to fulfill the noble vision of a
1999 law to create an effective network of marine reserves.
San Jose Mercury News
Guest Editorial
Aug. 10, 2006
Saving California’s Ocean
Frank Boren
Back in the late ‘70s, the Nature Conservancy was given the chance of a lifetime: an offer
to buy California’s largest island. At the time, the selling price of $2.5 million seemed out
of reach. My fellow board members and I could easily have given into the temptation to
walk away in the name of prudence and fiscal responsibility. But we seized the day and
Californians are now richer for it, with Santa Cruz Island’s diverse web of life serving as a
natural jewel on our spectacular coast. That intimidating price turned out to be a wise
investment.
The California Fish and Game Commission is now being given an even greater gift, the
chance to create a network of underwater ocean parks that will revive fish populations and
productive habitats along the central coast. On August 15th in Monterey, the Commission is
expected to adopt a preferred network of marine protected areas, laying the groundwork for
final action next February.
As a former commissioner myself, I’m a bit envious. It’s as if the commission is being
given the opportunity to preserve a whole network of islands. Even more impressive, the
commissioners have the rare chance to create a legacy for California and the nation, a
legacy akin to the creation of our national parks.
I only hope the Commission will be bold enough to recommend Package 2R or 3R, the
plans that received the highest marks from the state’s science advisory team. These
packages strike the right balance, protecting about a fifth of state waters, while leaving
most of the coast open to commercial and recreational fishing.
The California coast is a prime candidate for the marine protected areas two exhaustive
studies recommend for reversing the fortunes of damaged and depleted ocean ecosystems.
The state’s fishing fleet is half the size it was 25 years ago. You’d now be lucky to find
one big rockfish where there used to be 10. Studies show protected ocean areas harbor
older and bigger fish that can produce up to 200 times as many as young fish. Many of the
larvae, and some of the big fish too, migrate out to places where they can be harvested.
Protecting the places fish need to feed and breed is like creating an endowment. We can
live off the interest quite happily, but if we dip into the capital, as we have done time and
again, we have to replenish it. Marine protected areas will rebuild the capital needed to
sustain current and future generations of fishermen and break the cycle of boom and bust
fisheries.
In the late ‘90s, the state Assembly passed the Marine Life Protection Act, which requires
the state to set aside special places for protection. The act also brought scientists and
stakeholders together to craft the size and location of those areas.
I’ve been a corporate lawyer, served on the board of one of the world’s largest oil
companies, served on the commission, and helped create a non-profit to help businesses
and private landowners solve conservation problems. My life in the business world has
taught me that compromises are necessary.
The Fish and Game Commission has a tough job: it must sort out fact from fear, and find
the best solutions for all Californians. It must balance differing needs, but above all it must
choose a package that does the job. Package 2R and 3R meet that test, while balancing the
needs of fishermen, divers, educators, businesses and the broader public.
The commission now needs to recognize the magnitude of this opportunity, the chance to
create the largest and most significant body of protected ocean along the continental U.S.
coast. At a time like this, you just can’t be too bold.
Frank Boren served on the California Fish and Game Commission as an appointee of
Governor Pete Wilson.