PDA

View Full Version : Science Behind the MLPA!



jerryG
11-26-2009, 11:24 PM
This article has been out for a while (July 30th, 2009) and it was the only study performed for the MLPA and according the results if the closures were truely based on science there would be no closures. Please see article below for details.



California has the lowest exploitation rate of fished stocks in the world

By Dan Bacher

A new groundbreaking study published in the July 31 issue of Science magazine reveals that the California Current ecosystem has the lowest fishery exploitation rate of any place in the world examined by co-authors Ray Hilborn and Boris Worm and 19 other scientists.

“The drastic reductions in harvest in California have been designed to rebuild the overexploited rockfish stocks,” said Hilborn. “At present the community of groundfish is now at about 60% of its unfished biomass, far above the 30-40% level target for maximum sustained yield.”

Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington, and the other authors of "Rebuilding Global Fisheries" say that efforts made to reduce overfishing are succeeding in five of ten large marine ecosystems studied, including those in California, New Zealand and Iceland. Their study puts into perspective recent reports predicting a “total collapse” of global fisheries within 40 years.

The conclusions by the 21 international scientists with widely divergent views effectively counter the spurious arguments by Governor Arnold Schwarzengger and his staff for the urgent “need” to fast-track the controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process because of the “dire condition” that rockfish, lingcod and other groundfish stocks are supposedly in along the California coast.

“Much of the motivation for the MLPA was concern about the state of the groundfish stocks - there is clear evidence that these can be rebuilt without MPAs resulting from the MLPA that have only recently begun to be implemented,” Hilborn said. “The benefits of the MPAs established under the MLPA will be primarily to have some areas of high abundance of species with limited mobility.”

This is not the first time that Dr. Hilborn has criticized the MLPA process. In 2006, Hilborn and others reviewed the MLPA model for size and spacing of MPAs and found: “It appears to us that those prescriptions were pulled out of the air, based on intuitive reasoning.”

Jim Martin, West Coast Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the new study confirmed what North Coast environmentalists, anglers and seaweed harvesters have known all along – that efforts to restore groundfish populations through the highly restrictive Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) process are working.

“The conclusion that California has the lowest rate of groundfish exploitation of any place examined in the study demonstrates that the idea that we must rush into the MLPA process or there won’t be any fish left in the ocean is completely false,” said Martin.

MPLA Process: A Resource Grab, Not Marine Protection

A broad coalition of grass roots environmentalists, seaweed harvesters, Native American activists, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, and elected officials on California’s North and North Central Coast is opposing the fast-track process for being an egregious case of corporate greenwashing rife with conflicts of interests, mission creep and the corruption of the democratic process. Many believe that Schwarzenegger and his allies are trying to kick sustainable fishermen and seaweed harvesters off the water to clear a path for corporations to install offshore oil rigs, wave energy projects and aquaculture facilities off the northern California coast.

As Judith Vidaver, chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition (OPC), said so eloquently in June at a groundbreaking meeting held by environmentalists, fishermen and seaweed harvesters in Point Arena to oppose the corrupt MLPA process, “What I see here is a resource grab. The first thing that the corporations want to do before grabbing public trust resources is to get rid of the people who live or subsist on the land and ocean.”

Likewise, Ann Maurice, Sonoma County Native American activist, put Schwarzenegger’s fast-track MLPA process in the larger context of cultural genocide by the state and federal governments against American Indian nations in California since the Gold Rush.

"Native Americans have been systematically deprived of the right to sustainably fish and harvest intertidal food," said Maurice, who has worked for years to stop MLPA closures from taking away traditional ocean harvesting areas vital to the survival of Kashaya and other tribal cultures. "Now the same thing is being done to you.”

There is nothing "green" about Schwarzenegger's fast track MLPA fiasco except for the Packard Foundation money that is funding a supposedly "public" process. At the same time that Schwarzenegger and his collaborators are ramrodding the MLPA process through the California Fish and Game Commission at the expense of coastal communities, he is pushing for a peripheral canal and more dams that will result in pushing collapsing Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon, Delta smelt and the southern resident population of killer whales over the edge of extinction.

While coastal groundfish populations are rapidly rebuilding under the current fishery management process, Schwarzenegger is trying to impose more unneeded closures on the most heavily regulated coastal fishery in the world. Meanwhile, rather than supporting efforts by fishermen, Indian Tribes and environmentalists to restore anadromous species including salmon, steelhead and sturgeon, he has done everything he can to make these fish populations extinct by fighting a court-ordered plan to restore the fish and relentlessly supporting efforts by corporate agribusiness to increase water exports from the California Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas.

In a stunning case of reverse logic, Schwarzenegger and his staff are ruthlessly opposing fish restoration measures for anadromous species that are on the verge of extinction while imposing redundant area closures on groundfish stocks that are the least exploited of any fishery in the world examined in the landmark study published in Science!

The California Fish and Game Commission will make its decision on which marine protected area alternative to implement for the North Central Coast at its meeting at the Yolo Fliers Club Ballroom, 17980 County Road 94B, in Woodland, California on August 5 at 10 a.m. Fishing groups are supporting 2XA - the alternative that achieves fishery conservation objectives with the least economic impact. At the same time, the California Game Wardens Association, fishing groups and grassroots environmental groups are pushing for a suspension in the MLPA process, in light of the state's unprecedented economic crisis, numerous conflicts of interests by MLPA decision makers and the questionable "science" behind the process.

The data about California fisheries disclosed in the Science magazine article makes it even more clear that the Marine Life Protection Act process must be suspended, since the "science" behind the process needs to be completely re-examined.

The Global Perspective: Fish Stocks Need Rebuilding

While California and other regions have seen the rebuilding of groundfish stocks through the implementation of strict regulations, that is not the case everywhere examined in the study.

"In 5 of 10 well-studied ecosystems, the average exploitation rate has recently declined and is now at or below the rate predicted to achieve maximum sustainable yield for seven systems," according to the study. "Yet 63% of assessed fish stocks worldwide still require rebuilding, and even lower exploitation rates are needed to reverse the collapse of vulnerable species. Combined fisheries and conservation objectives can be achieved by merging diverse management actions, including catch restrictions, gear modification, and closed areas, depending on local context. Impacts of international fleets and the lack of alternatives to fishing complicate prospects for rebuilding fisheries in many poorer regions, highlighting the need for a global perspective on rebuilding marine resources."

The abstract for Rebuilding Global Fisheries is available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5940/578. A subscription is required to read the full article on-line." Or


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/01/18613625.php


JerryG

GeordyBass
11-27-2009, 10:46 AM
I've read it before and thanks for posting it up! This is the reason why I hate the MLPA and their people as well. Conservationalism in a low exploitation fishery? BRTF's are Idiots.....lol.....

DarkShadow
11-27-2009, 11:22 AM
Now, I've seen the "BS" studies that the backers of the MLPA have put out, but interestingly enough, I've yet to see any studies that the people against the MLPA have used to bolster their argument.

I'd love to see the studies the anti-MLPAers used to fight the good fight, unless of course, the their angle was to call all the data and science behind the MLPA 'false.'

I've posted this several times and the only thing I get is generic links to websites that do not contain any studies or data on the subject at hand, and just contains a bunch of hearsay or psuedo-scientific studies done by entities that aren't very data driven. The most I've seen is data on ONE subspecies of fish, such as this "rock fish" study.

jerryG
11-28-2009, 12:26 AM
Now, I've seen the "BS" studies that the backers of the MLPA have put out, but interestingly enough, I've yet to see any studies that the people against the MLPA have used to bolster their argument.

I'd love to see the studies the anti-MLPAers used to fight the good fight, unless of course, the their angle was to call all the data and science behind the MLPA 'false.'

I've posted this several times and the only thing I get is generic links to websites that do not contain any studies or data on the subject at hand, and just contains a bunch of hearsay or psuedo-scientific studies done by entities that aren't very data driven. The most I've seen is data on ONE subspecies of fish, such as this "rock fish" study.


The study above was the only study conducted for the MLPA. Supporters of the MLPA don't have any research to support their cause other than the propaganda which they created in an effort to brain wash people into believing their lies.

The supporters of the MLPA knew that they wouldn't have to rely on science. not when they had already paid for the results. Who needs science when they have oil companies, rich beach front property owners, a rich enviromental extremist (Packard), Enron, and, the Currupt Governator all in their corner.

JerryG

smokehound
11-28-2009, 12:36 AM
Huh? Wha? There was science behind the creators of the MLPA?


I coulda sworn it was a bunch of lipid-deficient FREAKS that like having sex with endangered redwoods..

GeordyBass
11-28-2009, 01:05 AM
Huh? Wha? There was science behind the creators of the MLPA?


I coulda sworn it was a bunch of lipid-deficient FREAKS that like having sex with endangered redwoods..

Exactly? lol.... yeah they are piles.... What's funny but ticks me off at the same time is that those hippies made something legal illegal, and vice-versa.... Fishing Illegal, Pot legal? Is this America? I used to believe in being pro-democrat when I'm older.... but the more I understand our situation the more I realize how much they suck..... but then we have the Governator..... Contradiction after Contradiction..... a loop-hole of me getting more pissed..... Impeach him like Grey Davis(He started the MLPA program before impeachment btw)! We need a Governer not a Movie Star! lol....

Wingnut
11-28-2009, 10:52 PM
Huh? Wha? There was science behind the creators of the MLPA?


I coulda sworn it was a bunch of lipid-deficient FREAKS that like having sex with endangered redwoods..

:ROFL: :LOL: :Twisted:

Great post Jerry. :Cool:

klocked
11-28-2009, 11:22 PM
Huh? Wha? There was science behind the creators of the MLPA?


I coulda sworn it was a bunch of lipid-deficient FREAKS that like having sex with endangered redwoods..


Yep, the tree huggers seem to always be 1st in line with the trees but I know Big Foot has been hugging this one....... and more:LOL:

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i257/shooter65/tree.jpg

smokehound
11-29-2009, 02:53 AM
LMAO that tree has been around! Look how loose it is!!


:LOL:

DarkShadow
11-29-2009, 08:13 AM
The study above was the only study conducted for the MLPA. Supporters of the MLPA don't have any research to support their cause other than the propaganda which they created in an effort to brain wash people into believing their lies.

JerryG,

Propaganda or not, I was simply asking what 'propaganda' or scientific data sets the fisherman used in their efforts to counteract the effect of the 'BS' studies the MLPA supporters had.

Of course, if calling them 'hippies' and 'tree huggers' was all the science the anti-MLPAers had, then I can kinda see why this situation didn't bode to well for 'em.

jerryG
11-30-2009, 08:13 AM
JerryG,

Propaganda or not, I was simply asking what 'propaganda' or scientific data sets the fisherman used in their efforts to counteract the effect of the 'BS' studies the MLPA supporters had.

Of course, if calling them 'hippies' and 'tree huggers' was all the science the anti-MLPAers had, then I can kinda see why this situation didn't bode to well for 'em.


Not sure I fully understand your question Dark Shadow. There is no science which supports the need for MLPAs and that has been the Anglers argument all along.

MLPA Supporters claimed that our Fisheries would colapse if action was not taken immediately. However this perfect example of the propaganda being used by the MLPA Supporters. There is no evidence that support the argument that fisheries are verge of collapse. In fact studies have shown othewise.


Fisherman were amazed at the stuff that MLPAs were coming up with to support their arguments. It provedd they knew nothing about our marine fisheries. For example the people of Laguna Beach argued that they wanted to close down their beaches to protect sheaphead because sheaphead eat urchin and urchin eat the kelp. They argued that they need to get rid as many urchin as possible because it's critical to kelp restoration the in Laguna.

Anyone with a clue knows the only time a sheaphead can eat urchin is when a diver breaks it open. The only predator that urchin has is man and now since there will be no take of urchin or anything else in Laguna I'm sure their numbers of urchin will mulitiply.

The truth is that it nothing to do with marine protection. It was all about rich beach front property owners looking for ways to privitize their beach under the cover of environmental protection.

This is just the tip of the ice berg there is so much corruption involved through out this entire process I don't know how it can not be criminal. It's easy to get angry at the seal huggers because they have been the ones on the front lines fighting for this but they are not only ones involved. Oil companies, international business (aqua-culture), and Enron are all playing for a piece of the pie. Plus lets not forget the one who is making this all possilbe.. The Governator. The only thing green about him is all the money he is (will be) getting from special interest. The governator is a sell out. He sold out our land, water, freedom, and liberty to corporate greed and special interest.

JerryG

klocked
11-30-2009, 08:59 AM
Jerry, DS is asking where the science is that backs up the
fishermens claims that we don't need closures.

What Ray Hilborn, Boris Worm and the 19 other scientists
did was great but the study didn't mention anything spe-
cific about the Southern California inshore fisheries and
habitat, which is what this is about.

I did see a few slide show presentations at the meetings
from the spear guys showing what's in the water but in
the end it was ignored, probably because it wasn't "offi-
cial science" or it hurt the pro-closure sides case.

Doesn't really matter anyways when they have "Judge
and Jury" all bundled up in one cozy kelp bed. They'll do
what the want, which has been obvious from the start,
and they'll drink to it... right in front of you at the meet-
ing. Money with a side of wine! That's their M.O.

Klocked

hammerheads
11-30-2009, 02:00 PM
Gerry, and the rest of you,
Do not sell them long as a college degree, study, or any information without adequate support is only an appeal to authority- not an authority! By the same token, If one has enough time spent in a given field usually 6 years or more, the time spent makes them an authority by experience in that field. You, if you had more than 6 years in the ocean and were knowledgeable by association, would have a more credible degree of judgment than someone who was only trying to appeal their position based on their background in another field- let alone another area of geographies.

Joker

:Idea:

That Dang Guy
11-30-2009, 05:57 PM
I expected this post to be blank when i first opened it...

DarkShadow
11-30-2009, 06:56 PM
Jerry, DS is asking where the science is that backs up the fishermens claims that we don't need closures.


That's what I was asking.

You'd think the anti-MLPAers would've scoured the earth for data and scientific claims that show fish counts and habitat have not decreased in the areas they had planned to close, thus negating any type of data the MLPAers are using to back up their claims that closures were necessary.

I'm sure the Department of Fish and Game has hundreds of data sets that show specific species population breakdowns that could've been used to debunk the claims that fishing was negatively affecting these specific areas, OR, that recreational sport fishing was a extremely small factor in the supposed thinning out of populations.

Is it that hard to find these studies? You'd think they'd be all over the anti-MLPA websites.

jerryG
12-01-2009, 12:01 AM
There was no science presented for Southern California inshore areas. I feel the enviros supporting the MLPA wanted it this way. Keep in mind the state is broke so any research had to conducted by credible scientiest who volunteered their time and resources or been paid by the Enviros. Anglers were not willing to pay for research. The Enviros had already paid for the results so why would they want to invest in research that would counter their arguments. They knew they had already won the fight before it even began.

At one of the meetings there was a scientist who lives on the Channel Islands conducting research in the areas closed by the MLPA 7 years ago. When asked if he has witnessed a significant increase in the number of fish within the protected areas over the past 7 years? His response was "no". When asked if the size of the fish with in the protected areas were significantly larger than those outside the protected areas his response was "no". He did say that there larger numbers of spiny lobsters and on average bigger spiny lobsters with in the closed areas but there was no difference in the numbers or size of fin fish. He was supporter of the closures but at least he was honest with the results. So basically we could have achieved the same results by keeping the area open and restricted the take of lobster with in those areas.

I have spent much of my free time in life on the water over the past 30 years and the past decade has brought some of the most phenomal fishing I have ever witnessed. My interpretation of the health of our fisheries is based on my experiences. If a seal hugger claims our oceans are in crisis and near collapse I will be the first say that they do not know anything about the state of our fisheries. Anglers do not need a scientist to tell us the oceans are healthy we already know this and that is the stand point of most of the Anglers who have been fighting this fight.

The bottom line is that science weather it supported Anglers or suported the Seal Huggers it would not have made much of an impact on the outcome of this situation. The MLPA was privately funded by those who supported it and the it was quit obvious that the results were paid for by the opposition. Map 3 was illiminated by the stake holders following the guide lines set by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. The BRTF bent their own rules to bring the map back. You won't find any science behind the MLPA process but you won't have to look too hard to see that there is plenty of corruption. As mentioned regardless any information we could of presented to support our argument the decisions were already made.

What the opposition has failed to realize is that for a fishery management plan to be successful it must first be accepted and supported by Anglers. To accomplish this there must be a fair amount of angler involvement in all aspects of planning and decision making. It would also benefit by having the support of the Department of Fish and Game Wardens Association. This plan has failed to gain the support of either group.

Jerryg

smokehound
12-01-2009, 02:55 AM
Conservation my ***.



This is a classic land-grab.

Its true though, they ARE just a bunch of idiots that know nothing!

Screw Heal the Bay! they had a part in this land-grab.



Bunch of idiots that do more harm than help.

"Hey lookit me, i picked up trash at that simple green get-together for half an hour! IM PROUD OF MYSELF DURRR ME MAKE DIFFERENZE"



This link gives you a clear example of why extremist enviromentalists should NOT be put in charge of ANYTHING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

jerryG
12-01-2009, 07:41 AM
Conservation my ***.



This is a classic land-grab.

Its true though, they ARE just a bunch of idiots that know nothing!

Screw Heal the Bay! they had a part in this land-grab.



Bunch of idiots that do more harm than help.

"Hey lookit me, i picked up trash at that simple green get-together for half an hour! IM PROUD OF MYSELF DURRR ME MAKE DIFFERENZE"



This link gives you a clear example of why extremist enviromentalists should NOT be put in charge of ANYTHING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

I agree that this is absolutely a land grab. The true environmentalists in this situation are the Anglers who have been fighting to protect our fisheries from commercial fishing and poachers for decades. Only to have large areas including some of our most prime fishing waters taken away from us by the Governator and his rich friends interested grabbing all they can for privitization, oil, power, and fish farms.

The Governator knows that freshwater is money and he has now set his sights on a plan to build a canal to take more water from the Sacramento river Delta so he can sell in to the Corpraculture farms in the Central Valley. Yeah he can't balance the budget but he wants the state to fund this project which by the way threatens to wipe out the endangered bay smelt and send Chinook salmon in the Sacramento river system in to extinction.


JerryG

smokehound
12-01-2009, 10:23 AM
I agree that this is absolutely a land grab. The true environmentalists in this situation are the Anglers who have been fighting to protect our fisheries from commercial fishing and poachers for decades. Only to have large areas including some of our most prime fishing waters taken away from us by the Governator and his rich friends interested grabbing all they can for privitization, oil, power, and fish farms.

The Governator knows that freshwater is money and he has now set his sights on a plan to build a canal to take more water from the Sacramento river Delta so he can sell in to the Corpraculture farms in the Central Valley. Yeah he can't balance the budget but he wants the state to fund this project which by the way threatens to wipe out the endangered bay smelt and send Chinook salmon in the Sacramento river system in to extinction.


JerryGAhnold can go terminate himself.. What a punk. And people still deny we are governed by Fascism.. of course, the corporate media will make this look like a "good thing".. damn parasites.

klocked
12-01-2009, 01:32 PM
If there was one person who could have helped the fishermans side it would of been Dr. Larry Allen of CSUN. He has studied our coastline in depth for a long time now. He was also a member of the Science Advisory Team(SAT). The one time I heard him speak at an MLPA meeting, he mentioned that he was an avid fisherman. He even wrote a book about SoCals marine environment to be used by graduate students at Universities. But then again, he was given a grant of $40,000, by the Packard Foundation, to be able to publish this book. So we know what side he went to. We also know who looked to him for the science.

Anyways.... this is just :Dead Horse:

klocked
12-01-2009, 01:46 PM
Conservation my ***.



This is a classic land-grab.

Its true though, they ARE just a bunch of idiots that know nothing!

Screw Heal the Bay! they had a part in this land-grab.



Bunch of idiots that do more harm than help.

"Hey lookit me, i picked up trash at that simple green get-together for half an hour! IM PROUD OF MYSELF DURRR ME MAKE DIFFERENZE"



This link gives you a clear example of why extremist enviromentalists should NOT be put in charge of ANYTHING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

Ahh.... but some trees can respond...........:LOL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIULIJxVr7A&feature=related