Science and the MPA's

[robmandel]

you might be surprised to hear this, but real science had nothing to do with the MPA designations. For instance, look at rocky point (palos verdes). it was the jewel of the enviros, but all that got closed was a small section away from RP, no canyon, etc., AND a superfund cleanup site, full of PVC's (or soemthing like that) as well as being subject to much (natural) erosion and runoff. the enviros were pissed about losing RP. however, that was done in exchange for closing malibu (and I'm sure other places as well). two BRTF members (schem and anderson) are business partners, have the lease on the MDR fuel dock, and would have been hit hard with the closures. the never disclosed this and then they lied about all this to the F&G commission. all the local city councils, and many other pols (including state rep ted lieu) all wrote to support keeping RP open. that's for starters.

follow the money: packard foundation, monterey bay aq., stanford U. see all the names linked together: mike sutton, meg caldwell, barton thompson, many others.

the SAT? several members received HUGE grants from packard, some are linked directly with MBA and stanford. for some, pretty much their whole funding comes from the PF. two of the guys got 15 million last several years. but I'm sure their scientific integrity wasn't compromised.

I know, it's hard to believe

there were lies upon lies presented as "fact": overfished stocks, declining popualtions, loss of habitat habitat, etc. in fact, many of the concerns, the laguna tuna platoon and their sand build up, has nothing to do with fishing. in fact, almost nothing they were concerned about is addressed with MPA's.

the process was as dirty as a thai whorehouse. and no paper bothered to even write a word. and we wonder why california is in such a shitty position.

[-scallywag-]

Rob,
I sure miss hearing you speak at the MLPA meetings....

[robmandel]

Originally Posted by -scallywag-

Rob,
I sure miss hearing you speak at the MLPA meetings....

thanks.

as for the science part, those that were there more on the inside machinations can certainly explain more. things like "persistent kelp" was created as a new condition. there was no mention of specific species. they overlooked or ignored data showing our fish stocks are healthy.

the final science report was supposed to be available for peer review, section 2858 of the bill. you're a scientist, peer review is the sine que non of scientific research. without any data, without peer review, I can only remain suspect.

there were supposed to be SAT members from Parks and Rec and from Sea Grant. None were present on the South Coast SAT. however, they WERE present on the Central Coast SAT. so they have no excuse possible for the exclusion.

there are other things. I hope that you can dig deeper into the "science" and learn something. our position all along was management. closures are unscientific and draconian totalitarian measures.

I hope you didn't take anything I said in a negative way towards you. I am so furious at this my blood is boiling right now as I write this. I can't even begin to describe the rage I feel.

[Aaron]

I just spent 20 minutes doing a write up and bumped the wrong button on my little netbook keyboard and watched it all go away. friggin bummer...I'll redo the write up but just know that the bulk of the scientists there were also fisherman, spearos, and divers and do not support just shutting down access. I'll give you a set of #'s that I think you'll like before I burn this netbook for having the refresh key in a stupid location...

There are 1.7 million saltwater anglers that go on about 5.8 million trips in a given year. There are about 380 charters operating in the state which are responsible for taking a significant portion of those anglers on those trips. Fishing brings $2.2 BILLION to the state economy, $160 million to state and local taxes, $20 million in the form of excise taxes on hard goods and provides jobs for more than 20,000 California residents. And this is not LA times data...That data comes from a little organization called NOAA. Fishing is vital to this state which was the point of the NOAA fisheries service talk. 'nuff said.

[PAL]

There are 1.7 million saltwater anglers that go on about 5.8 million trips in a given year. There are about 380 charters operating in the state which are responsible for taking a significant portion of those anglers on those trips. Fishing brings $2.2 BILLION to the state economy, $160 million to state and local taxes, $20 million in the form of excise taxes on hard goods and provides jobs for more than 20,000 California residents. And this is not LA times data...That data comes from a little organization called NOAA. Fishing is vital to this state which was the point of the NOAA fisheries service talk. 'nuff said.

Not new info, although the reminder is always nice to see. Too bad most fisheries and marine ecology scientists who disagree with the scientific underpinnings and justification for the MLPA (like the members of your panel) lack the moral courage to take a stand against the corporate greenwashers.

The MLPA is an end run around NOAA and their management based scheme. And even NOAA is no safety net for recreational anglers these days, but remains a political battleground. In practice, all environmental policy is politically determined.

I don't suppose your laptop is an HP?

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by PAL

Not new info, although the reminder is always nice to see. Too bad most fisheries and marine ecology scientists who disagree with the scientific underpinnings and justification for the MLPA (like the members of your panel) lack the moral courage to take a stand against the corporate greenwashers.

The MLPA is an end run around NOAA and their management based scheme. And even NOAA is no safety net for recreational anglers these days, but remains a political battleground. In practice, all environmental policy is politically determined.

I don't suppose your laptop is an HP?

I know not new info, but yes, important to see and I thought nice to see a good consolidated reminder that was the opening slide in a talk given by the NOAA fisheries service.

The only thing that I think I disagree with you on is that you called it "...your panel". Oh please oh please don't lump me in with any MLPA panel!

We've actually met in the past somewhere, can't remember where, maybe a mothership (?) but I did want to say thanks for all of your efforts as well with the mlpa process. I won't list out some big long letter of gratitude here, but thanks. Its appreciated by the entire fishing community...past, present and future. Hope to see you out there again some time. I owe you a cold one.

Even worse than an HP...eMachines! I just couldn't help myself when I saw that it was $230 at best buy!!

[Billy V]

Thank You..

We all appreciate your involvement. Many of us have given countless hours and dollars toward the mlpa fight. Its refreshing to be able to gain access to accurate data.

I believe the best way to thwart off vast MLPA Closures is to rid this state of Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone like him.

-Its time to vote them out of here.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Billy V

Thank You..

We all appreciate your involvement. Many of us have given countless hours and dollars toward the mlpa fight. Its refreshing to be able to gain access to accurate data.

I believe the best way to thwart off vast MLPA Closures is to rid this state of Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone like him.

-Its time to vote them out of here.

My involvement pales in comparison to all of you guys!

[PAL]

^ Sorry, I meant the panel you viewed as a spectator, not to imply you are part of the process. Any insight you can provide is much appreciated. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and hope to fish with you again sometime soon.

[Aaron]

I'll see what I can get in terms of .pdf's. Usually you get a cd with abstracts for the talks when you show up. I won't post them directly here if I get them, but I sure can email them to you if you're interested.

Science had nothing to do with MPA's? No doubt politics play a huge/the main/the key role, but no doubt science is involved. In fact, we are relying upon science to stress our points as recreational fisherman. Not to mention the team of more than 20 research scientists in the SAT and what you have to understand is that data is data, the story and mistakes that are made in science lie in the interpretation of that data. I am 100% with you that politics and money heavily influenced and still influence the decisions being made and heavily influence the interpretation of collected data. But to say that science has nothing to do with it is saying that data is not being collected and that's simply not true. Data is being collected, its the interpretation that we are having a problem with and this is a great opportunity to look at the raw data without the political filter and interpretation that skew what we hear over and over again. I'm looking forward to it. Give me some numbers. The concrete, quantitative and qualitative facts of why places like LJ may be shut down. As soon as you hear "this data suggests..." then you can turn off. If the data is strong, you shouldn't have to tell us what it suggests. My guess is that like most cases of "pushing the interpretation envelope data" that the exact opposite points can be made using the same data set from those that are being utilized to push for the most strict closures. You're completely right about how skewed this stuff is. completely, and I want to say thanks for your efforts with the mlpa.

[MrPatrick]

I see your Smilodon and raise you a Short-Faced Bear.








Paleo humor