[twofinbluna]

Article from Curry Pilot

"Port Commissioner Roy Davis asked everyone in the room who support marine reserves to raise their hands. Three hands were raised. 'Out of 170 in this group, three support marine reserves,' Davis said."

This post edited by twofinbluna 10:49 PM 03/03/2008

 

[MakoMike]

Interesting, seems like even some of the people on the left coast are waking up to this threat.

 

[sealaw]

Never a truer word spoken!

The article wrote:
One sports fisherman said "We don't need marine reserves. This is all political. Who's behind this? It's those rich environmental groups that are against fishing period."

And if you don't believe that...follow the money!

 

[twofinbluna]

MakoMike wrote:
Interesting, seems like even some of the people on the left coast are waking up to this threat.


It seems they dont have a choice, with this MPA thing being shoved so far down their throats! Hopefully other parts of the country are more proactive and dont wait until things get so far out of hand before acting against these things.

 

[JC30967]

Mike-

Do you think that the "right to fish" clause in RI's state constitution that you talked about in a recent topic would protect against things like MPAs?

 

[MakoMike]

JC30967 wrote:
Mike-

Do you think that the "right to fish" clause in RI's state constitution that you talked about in a recent topic would protect against things like MPAs?

I think it would protect against MPAs in state waters but it wouldn't have any effect of MPAs in federal waters.

 

[JC30967]

MakoMike wrote:
JC30967 wrote:
Mike-

Do you think that the "right to fish" clause in RI's state constitution that you talked about in a recent topic would protect against things like MPAs?

I think it would protect against MPAs in state waters but it wouldn't have any effect of MPAs in federal waters.

True. We would need a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for that

.(not sure if I have the # of amendments right).

 

[HungryJack]

Threat ?

FYI- New Zealand, which probably has one of the better fisheries management programs and success in the world,
and equally outrageous fishing to match.

Credits part of their success to MARINE PARKS, aka MPA's

Does this fact matter at all ?

 

[twofinbluna]

HungryJack wrote:

FYI- New Zealand, which probably has one of the better fisheries management programs and success in the world,
and equally outrageous fishing to match.

Credits part of their success to MARINE PARKS, aka MPA's

Does this fact matter at all ?


Some of the 'parks' actually ban commercial fishing only, while allowing rec fishing. I will be opposed to that idea until the cows come home, just on principle. And some allow all fishing. But then they also have some 'no take' zones, stopping everything.

I dont agree with the idea that we should be shutting off areas where people fish, whether they are rec or commercial. I am against 'no take zones'in any form. Dont think its a good idea for fish or fishermen. We can find ways to manage the fisheries better without having to stop people from fishing where the fish are!

Some plans would like to close the whole Gulf of Maine to fishing. They used records that showed where fish had been caught over the years, then put boxes around the areas where the most fish were caught and say we should have no fishing in those areas. GIVE ME A BREAK! Thats called stopping fishing, not finding a better way to manage!

And while the champions of MPAs often quote what happened in NZ, there is very little agreement on the impact of the parks and reserves there. I would bet the fishermen who were booted from those areas are not too pleased with the way things turned out! (And the commercial fishermen who were booted from areas that recs still could fish in were probably even more upset.)

What MPAs will mean here is a fight by all fishermen to keep access to the areas they fish. It will be a political tool that has a lot of potential to screw the fisheries here. If the process gets a head of steam, it will then be out of our control.

So, again, to answer your question- NO, what happened in NZ does not mean anything to me.

(Keep in mind too that New Zealand drove the majority of the independent fishermen out of business years ago with their whole IFQ/ITQ, 'rationalization'-type plan. Most of the fishermen sold out their quota to a handful of big companies. So theres not many people left to complain about bad rules.)

This post edited by twofinbluna 04:29 AM 03/05/2008

 

[MakoMike]

HungryJack wrote:

FYI- New Zealand, which probably has one of the better fisheries management programs and success in the world,
and equally outrageous fishing to match.

Credits part of their success to MARINE PARKS, aka MPA's

Does this fact matter at all ?


Are their "Marine Parks" total no take MPAs or do they allow some fishing activity? We already have MPAs if you consider an MPA to be an area where some activity is restricted, like the closed areas in the guld of Maine and on George's. What we are really talking about in these threads is "no take" MPAs where all fishing sctivity is prohibited.

 

[HungryJack]

twofinbluna wrote:
I will be opposed to that idea until the cows come home, just on principle.

So, again, to answer your question-
NO, what happened in NZ does not mean anything to me.
I understand,
you prefer the position of your head in the sand,
understandable,
the real world can be so very scary for you,
especially when it so often contradicts your version of reality

 

[HungryJack]

MakoMike wrote:
Are their "Marine Parks" total no take MPAs or do they allow some fishing activity?
NO TAKE

NZ has 97 species of fish under their quota/management system.
85% of them are at or above target level.

But lets ignore all that,
MPA's don't work because twofin says so.

Better off leaving things status quo in the US,
we like it better that way.
Gives fishermen the opportunity to complain more
about how the government is screwing them

Sometimes a scapegoat is more important than a solution.

 

[MakoMike]

HungryJack wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
Are their "Marine Parks" total no take MPAs or do they allow some fishing activity?
NO TAKE

NZ has 97 species of fish under their quota/management system.
85% of them are at or above target level.

But lets ignore all that,


Interesting! The latest vaunted "science" say that no take MPAs won't have any effect on fish populations outside of the MPAs. I wonder if the NZ really had any impact on their fisheries management. I could see how it might be beneficial for small areas with reef fish, but I can't see how it could benefit populations over a wide area like GOM/SNE cod.

 

[HungryJack]

MakoMike wrote:
Interesting! The latest vaunted "science" say that no take MPAs won't have any effect on fish populations outside of the MPAs. I wonder if the NZ really had any impact on their fisheries management. I could see how it might be beneficial for small areas with reef fish, but I can't see how it could benefit populations over a wide area like GOM/SNE cod.
Spillover effect from the MPA benefits the surrounding areas.

The value of the commercial fishery in NZ has increased 41% in the past decade,
while in the US it has increased only 11% during the same time period.

Dozens of islands in the South Pacific have used MPA's
with great success to restore their inshore fisheries as well.

But MPA's won't work here of course

 

[twofinbluna]

MakoMike wrote:
What we are really talking about in these threads is "no take" MPAs where all fishing sctivity is prohibited.


Exactly, MM.

HJ- I agree we need to do much better managing the fisheries, I just am completely against the use of these no fishing zones. I think its a broad brush approach that will just devastate the fisheries. If they were to put in place a plan like the one CLF wants, we would be done fishing, as would most of the fishermen in the GOM.

This post edited by twofinbluna 10:44 PM 03/05/2008

 

[twofinbluna]

Reserve idea flopping with fishermen

Article from The Oregonian

'The push for reserves -- in effect, underwater state parks -- isn't coming from the ground up, recreational fisherman Rick Muir of Toledo insisted. Kulongoski "wants an environmental legacy," Muir said. "This is about his legacy."'

 

[HungryJack]

twofinbluna wrote:
I just am completely against the use of these no fishing zones.
I think its a broad brush approach that will just devastate the fisheries.
I can point out over a dozen locations in this world where MPA's
after given some time to work,
have HELPED commercial fishermen catch more fish.

Can you point out an established MPA that has "devastated the fisheries" ?

 

[loligo]

HungryJack wrote:
twofinbluna wrote:
I just am completely against the use of these no fishing zones.
I think its a broad brush approach that will just devastate the fisheries.
I can point out over a dozen locations in this world where MPA's
after given some time to work,
have HELPED commercial fishermen catch more fish.

Can you point out an established MPA that has "devastated the fisheries" ?

Massachusetts- the CCZ....devastated the inshore fishermen.

whats worse is - it was all a big lie to cover up the truth about groundfish landings....

Happy Jack?

 

[HungryJack]

loligo wrote:
Massachusetts- the CCZ....devastated the inshore fishermen.

If you reread my question again;
Can you point out an established MPA that has "devastated the fisheries" ?

Considering the CCZ has not been given the opportunity
to produce results,
how do you know it will not produce results for fishermen in the future ?
That is why I said ESTABLISHED.
Takes a few years to beat down a fishery,
thus it takes a few years to build it back up, if possible at all.
Expecting results immediately is foolish.

Does it immediately hurt some fishermen,
yes it does,
and so does any regulation that will reduce catch
or redirect it to another area.

But if you only think of today,
the tomorrow will not be so wonderful,
one of the reasons we're in this situation today.

So, can you find me an ESTABLISHED MPA or the like,
which has had a few years to do its thing,
and show me how it hasn't worked for the local fishermen ?

If you asked this question to fishermen in Florida,
they would tell you that MPA's do work when it comes to improving
the fishery,
despite the fact that most vehemently opposed them initially.

 

[loligo]

Herring.....

The entire New England area is an "MPA" for "river herring", 3 years now and the stocks couldn't be worse....

The ban was supposed to be lifted this year, but seeing as how we still have a decline in stocks, they are going to maintain the closure.

Not quite what you are saying, but enough parallels to compare.

As far as the CCZ- it will never do anything but deprive small boat fishermen an opportunity, just as it was intended, it has nothing to do with saving fish, it was all about saving face. The CCZ is a scam, it was our DMF's way of copping out on doing the right thing when it came to saying no to the industrial gears killing a $hitload of spawning fish and throwing them back dead.

Yes- some MPA's are doing what they were intended to, because they were actually set up by folks who knew what they were doing and done the right way-

This post edited by loligo 12:57 PM 03/06/2008