SCAN's stand on the 2014 abalone regulations

From Jim Martin VP of SCAN



After discussing the issue with local wardens, SCAN supports a set start time, but is requesting that they consider two options: an 8am start time, and a 7am start time.

SCAN supports an annual bag limit of 24, only (6 or 9) of which may be taken in Sonoma County-south.

SCAN supports the closure of the Fort Ross index site year-round, with the understanding that the long-term management plan will revise the target of 6,600 per hectare to a more reasonable level (say, 4500).

SCAN supports extending the Stewarts Point State Marine Conservation Area (aka "the ribbon" allowing nearshore diving and fishing) all the way through the reserve. This would re-open Fisk Mill Cove and Horseshoe Cove to abalone diving, and provide an escape valve for the expected effort shift due to the Fort Ross closure.

We still need to understand more about the details of these options, and we've been talking to some of the local wardens about the overall enforceability. We want to make sure the range of options is complete so we don't get locked into bad decisions down the road.

SCAN supports extending the Stewarts Point State Marine Conservation Area (aka "the ribbon" allowing nearshore diving and fishing) all the way through the reserve. This would re-open Fisk Mill Cove and Horseshoe Cove to abalone diving, and provide an escape valve for the expected effort shift due to the Fort Ross closure.

Wow.  Here's one I'd like to see more details on.

-Allen

Well I for one do not smoke kelp. As for others, perhaps so.

Well I for one do not smoke kelp. As for others, perhaps so.

What does that mean?

-Allen

Snowball's chance of amending an mpa?

Snowball's chance of amending an mpa?

Really, because the "ribbon" was an amendment to an MPA.

Anyways, I get that this particular proposal has a slim chance of going through, but I'd still like to understand the details about why SCAN believes it is worth proposing and I'd like to understand the details of why DFG rejects it.

-Allen

Snowball's chance of amending an mpa?

Precisely!!! And if one thinks so, within the scoping of this regulation change for abalone then one just may be smoking kelp. All that is required is a 25% reduction. Rewriting the ARMP, reopening/adjusting MPA's boundary's is not going to happen at this point in time, IMO, can the commission do changes as suggested, why sure they can, but given today's climate............keep on smoking kelp.   

Question here, I thought by amending the ARMP trigger numbers,thus addressing the 25% reduction That would now mean that fort Ross would no longer be hitting those trigger marks and no need for a closure.  As we all Know the ARMP trigger numbers are way off base and total BS numbers pulled out of thin air thus why this whole ARMP amend it came up. I am just saying for food for thought and I really do not want to see anymore of our fishery closed when I personally think there are plenty of abalone out there at all sites, this whole Idea and these are DFW words not mine that they want to manage the fishery not to a natural status but a Cadillac fishery. I understand at times concession need to be made but it sure seams like we our giving way more than we are getting and at this pace we will coincide our self's out of a sport.   

Watermens Alliance, in cooperation with SCAN is supporting the set start time and reduced take in Sonoma County. This will meet the requirements of the ARMP and retain our 3 per day/24 per year bag limits.

Watermens Alliance, in cooperation with SCAN is supporting the set start time and reduced take in Sonoma County. This will meet the requirements of the ARMP and retain our 3 per day/24 per year bag limits.

What WA's position on the other 2 points in Jim's message?

From Jim Martin VP of SCAN
SCAN supports the closure of the Fort Ross index site year-round, with the understanding that the long-term management plan will revise the target of 6,600 per hectare to a more reasonable level (say, 4500).

SCAN supports extending the Stewarts Point State Marine Conservation Area (aka "the ribbon" allowing nearshore diving and fishing) all the way through the reserve. This would re-open Fisk Mill Cove and Horseshoe Cove to abalone diving, and provide an escape valve for the expected effort shift due to the Fort Ross closure.

-Allen

Watermens Alliance, in cooperation with SCAN is supporting the set start time and reduced take in Sonoma County. This will meet the requirements of the ARMP and retain our 3 per day/24 per year bag limits.

What WA's position on the other 2 points in Jim's message?

From Jim Martin VP of SCAN
SCAN supports the closure of the Fort Ross index site year-round, with the understanding that the long-term management plan will revise the target of 6,600 per hectare to a more reasonable level (say, 4500).

SCAN supports extending the Stewarts Point State Marine Conservation Area (aka "the ribbon" allowing nearshore diving and fishing) all the way through the reserve. This would re-open Fisk Mill Cove and Horseshoe Cove to abalone diving, and provide an escape valve for the expected effort shift due to the Fort Ross closure.

-Allen

We are working closely with SCAN to make these proposals together.   Opening an MPA is a much larger issue than is represented in this discussion, but we will difinately be asking for it.

That would be a huge shot in the dark. I dove there for over 30 years. I can hope. I remember when you could put a buck in the coffee cans Arch Richardson had nailed to the fence posts to help with insurance. An emergency re-opening is what I'd call it.

Opening an MPA is a much larger issue than is represented in this discussion, but we will difinately be asking for it.

So can you say more then?

-Allen

Opening an MPA is a much larger issue than is represented in this discussion, but we will difinately be asking for it.

So can you say more then?

-Allen

I'm not sure what you're asking Allen. Opening the Stewart Point MPA is not likely to happen easily if that's what you mean. For one thing, its not a conservation area which could allow for take of certain species it's a reserve, which means no take of anything. We would have to get them to either change the area from reserve to conservation area or get them to change the boundaries of the SMR.

Do I think it will happen- possibly
Do I think it will happen soon- probably not
Do I think it's worth asking for- every time the subject comes up because it would be the right thing to do.

Opening an MPA is a much larger issue than is represented in this discussion, but we will difinately be asking for it.

So can you say more then?

-Allen

I'm not sure what you're asking Allen. Opening the Stewart Point MPA is not likely to happen easily if that's what you mean. For one thing, its not a conservation area which could allow for take of certain species it's a reserve, which means no take of anything. We would have to get them to either change the area from reserve to conservation area or get them to change the boundaries of the SMR.

Do I think it will happen- possibly
Do I think it will happen soon- probably not
Do I think it's worth asking for- every time the subject comes up because it would be the right thing to do.

Well, you said it is a much larger issue than is represented in this discussion, do I basically said, sure, let's discuss the larger issue.   

Anyways, I get that this particular proposal has a slim chance of going through, but I'd still like to understand the details about why SCAN believes it is worth proposing and I'd like to understand the details of why DFG rejects it.

And BTW, I agree with your "Do I think" answers.

I think we need to to keep pushing to make MPA's adaptive and not closed all of eternity.  Although I'm certain that pushing this because of a local calamity won't go through.  That's precisely one of the reasons for having MPA's.

Now let's say lingcod populations are out of whack with rockfish populations, then by all means open up some of the MPA's for selective take, otherwise we have an artificial situation.

From Beaudrea and Essington, Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences.

Based on these models, rockfish consumption by lingcod may have been 5–10 times greater in marine reserves than in nonreserves during fall and summer, 2005–2007.

Really?  Are Marine Reserves just Lingcod food factories?

-Allen