Dec 14 FGC Meeting - MPA Proposals

I ended up after the large group a speakers pushing for extending the size of the MPAs. After they finished speaking, and I finished the commissioners questioned them hard on their cherry picking the data, and stated it would be a very high bar to get over for the petition to pass. We need to mobilize on this one too.

Any more info on where these MPA speakers are coming from?  Which group(s)?

-Allen

Any more info on where these MPA speakers are coming from?  Which group(s)?

-Allen

You can view the Item 22 speakers here from 03:50 to 04:55.
https://cal-span.org/meeting/cfg_20231214/

You can see the MPA adpative management petitions received in this doc. There are some 20 of them, some nothing-burgers, some some alarming land grabs or no-take-conversions. The backing groups vary by region and petition. Some propose size-able expansions, some are small expansions because of enforcement difficulty/laziness.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=218156&inline

Notable restrictive norcal/cencal-relevant petition items:

• New SMR or SMCA along Pleasure Point (2023-33MPA)
• Extending Natural Bridges SMR three miles offshore (2023-33MPA)
• Convert Ed Ricketts to no-take SMR (2023-23MPA)
• Convert Pacific Grove Marine Gardens to no-take SMR (2023-23MPA)
• New Tankers Reef SMR (2023-23MPA)
• Convert Drakes Estero SMCA to no-take SMR (2023-31MPA)
• Expand Duxbury SMCA northwest and southeast and/or convert to no-take SMR (2023-32MPA)
• Limit hoop types, number of hoops, crab limits in Big River SMCA (2023-30MPA)

Notable restrictive socal petition items:

• Convert Anacapa SMCA to SMR (2023-27MPA)
• New SMR at Carpineria (2023-29MPA)
• Expand Pt Dume and Cabrillo SMRs (2023-33MPA)

Surely I missed some.

I'm confident many of them will be rightfully rejected. As Mark noted, VP Zavaleta remarked that she was skeptical of the pushes for large expansions and and no-take conversions. She went on to highlight that some of the petitions inaccurately summarized the studies cited in order to justify a non-consumptive narrative. She warned petitioners that she will be scrutinizing the petition and attached literature carefully. In general, IMO, the current commission is sympathetic to consumptive stakeholders and doesn't really put up with the "we the majority don't like that you the minority harvest fish/wildlife and think that nature should exist under a glass dome" perspective.

The Monterey-specific petition 2023-23MPA is driven by Keith Rootsaert with the Giant Kelp Restoration Project (https://g2kr.com/) on the very misguided belief that take of bottomfish interferes with kelp recovery (I'll concede that take of wolf eel and sheephead probably do). He tried to petition the commission to ban nearshore rockfishing in < 100fow earlier this year, and the department's recommended the commission reject the petition because it had no basis in scientific reality. I expect the same for 2023-23MPA.

Those MPA petitions will up for action at the February 2024 commission meeting in Sac. You can and should comment in person/virtually then, or a couple weeks beforehand with a letter. The commission will most likely refer them to the department for further vetting but it would be cool if they rejected some outright.

Thanks Rick, I’ll spend some time on this.  Keith R is a kook.  I’ll have to dig up some of my interactions with him.  It was clear that he has little idea about pretty much everything.

-Allen

Wow. I remember in 2009 when they created conservation areas that still allowed some take. I always had a suspicion that this was just their way of getting a foot in the door; get a marine reserve - or whatever term you prefer - on the map, and under "adaptive management" it could be converted to full no-take later on.

It strikes me as odd that none of the name brand NGO groups are involved.  Perhaps not odd, there is no money in these “small time” activities.  I’ve been hearing of financial struggles for some of them.

Note that there are proposals to lessen the restrictions in some MPAs too.

-Allen

Thanks for the update. I did notice some of the groups pushing for more MPAs and closing down certain areas for fishing.  Most noticeable is pleasure point. I’ll do some research on it and bring it up on my channel. I think these issues need to be brought up to light so people are aware of them and can speak up on them vs finding out about it last minute and getting all mad about it.

Thanks for bringing this up- TLA

It strikes me as odd that none of the name brand NGO groups are involved.  Perhaps not odd, there is no money in these “small time” activities.  I’ve been hearing of financial struggles for some of them.

I thought one guy was from NRDC.
I might still be a member. I get their newsletter.

-Allen

I thought one guy was from NRDC.
I might still be a member. I get their newsletter.

Perhaps I missed that one, would have to check.  The point is still the same, I don’t see a large presence from these sorts of groups.

-Allen

You can see the MPA adpative management petitions received in this doc. There are some 20 of them, some nothing-burgers, some some alarming land grabs or no-take-conversions. The backing groups vary by region and petition. Some propose size-able expansions, some are small expansions because of enforcement difficulty/laziness.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=218156&inline

That doc seems to be now restricted and requires a user/password.   

-Allen

That doc seems to be now restricted and requires a user/password.   

-Allen

The doc is back online now. I emailed them this morning and they told me they had initially missed redacting some PII.

They should use my company Box to detect and classify data, like PII, automatically  Shameless self plug to people that probably have no idea what that means.