[robmandel]

everything you need to know is that when sustos asked some questions based on science, and simply wanted more time to review the document, he was fired. we don't have any species in danger.

truth is the mpa's won't help fisheries at all. there is no science to back it up. the only evidence offered was mpa's in other countries which a) were never managed at all in the first place and b) suffered from the tragedy of the commons.

now, I teach economics in high school and college (well, did in college before the budget axe!!). any economist will tell you that when you make a resource off limits, you effectively make its value zero. in other words, it has no value, and is worthless. what this means is that there is no reason or incentive to protect or preserve or in any other way take care of the resource. so expect the polluting of those areas to increase. why? well, the water has no value, and polluting it cannot lessen the value in any way. period.

the other problem any economist will tell you is that in closing those areas, you create an economic drain. maintenance and protection require vast effort, and will always be a losing proposition. since you can't utilize the resource, it offers no benefit.

as for the mpa's working, well, they don't. there is no evidence of the "spillover effect". it won't benefit pelagics obviously as they migrate through. as for residents, like calico bass, there is something called carrying capacity. and when any area in particular reaches it, populations won't keep growing and expending. besides, what they closed off or wanted to close off) were particularly (well, except in PV) good habitat areas so there's simply not the habitat to support expansion on the periphery. and, do you think the sport boats won't have those gps coords plugged in? you think they're not going to sit on the edges and pick off any spillover bass? please. what fools those people are!!

see also the DFG artificial reef program.

the problems that the coast and the coastal fishery faces - over-development, runoff, pollution, erosion, et al. - are not and cannot be addressed by the mlpa. go ahead and read the bill. I did. there's nothing in there which addresses those problems as a whole, which (pollution for instance) will "spill over" from non-mpa's into mpa's. so the fundamental issue isn't addressed. but, there's a catch: the burden on the localities to maintain, and worse, the requirements:

"the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state."
also
"Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area are avoided."

which means that it's going to hit local areas very hard. that's a huge economic impact which was NEVER considered. which by the way, was addressed somewhat at the F&G meeting in march. the local city gov'ts are scared.

which is another problem in economics, the infrastructure problem. pols love building bridges - jobs, fancy signs, even get to name them in west virginia!! - but afterwards, the upkeep gets to be enormously expensive. and it'll be a drain on california's, and the local's, economies for a looooong time. and the unforeseen consequences, the loss of fishing, etc., and the impact on jobs, hell, all of south SaMo bay cities lobbied hard to keep rocky point open. yo uthink it was all abotu fishing? please.

and this:
To ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines.
none exist. DFG wardens already said they can't.

and this:
An identification of select species or groups of species likely to benefit from MPAs, and the extent of their marine habitat, with special attention to marine breeding and spawning grounds, and available information on oceanographic features, such as current patterns, upwelling zones, and other factors that significantly affect the distribution of those fish or shellfish and their larvae.

none of this was part of the process. it was about closures, but no mention of species was presented.


The department shall establish a process for external peer review of the scientific basis for the master plan prepared pursuant to Section 2855.
never happened.

the mlpa violated the law also as it the SAT didn't have the required members

(A)Staff from the department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board, to be designated by each of those departments.
(C) One member, appointed from a list prepared by Sea Grant marine advisers, who shall have direct expertise with ocean habitat and sea life in California marine waters.

A and C were not part of the South Coast but WERE part of the Central Coast. Their absence cannot be simply an oversight. It is a clear violation of the law. The entire outcome is therefore null and void. damn sure if it was reversed, the enviros would be screaming bloody f***ing hell on this one.

I've said enough. just please know this, when fishermen take the position that "it's not that bad", or "we need some closures", etc., a) there's alot of people here that gave everything they had and then some to keep it "not that bad" and b) you're aiding groups that want to shut fishing down completely. I know alot of the guys here, mostly from the meetings and what not, and you won't find a better group of people anywhere. to have happen to them what happened is a crime. period.

take it or leave it. I'll stake my camp with the guys I fought with.