DFW releases results of comments received via the Abalone FMP Workshops.

So by disagreeing one means a abalone report card landing site should be closed if over fished ? And if so closed upon being over fished, at what level would this be ?

I'm wrestling with this one.  In the last year or so when local closures were discussed I came down on the side of agreeing with them.  Now on further thought I'm on the fence.

Here's my thinking

Disclaimer, this year is the first year since 1985 that I didn't ab dive, lots of obligations and situations just got in the way, next year back to it.

IMO the red abalone population,  as a whole, north of SF, at least at this point doesn't need further protection.  My basis for that is taking what I've seen from scarcity to abundance in various areas mentally multiplied by areas and depths that I nor most other divers never venture into leaves me with the gut feeling that the overall ab population is doing well.  This thought process doesn't seem to be captured by the crappy index site method of population analysis.  Scarcity= spending an hour at ground zero of the red tide without seeing a live ab, to abundance = Van Damme where a limit can still be had in 10 min at 10 ft. (VD almost defies belief at this point)

My thoughts last year were that even tho the overall population is just fine, "ya can't just let certain areas get picked clean". So I was in favor of local closures.

I seem to be changing my mind a bit (I for one am never sure what I think, I think allot and often change my mind in the process)

Here's my thinking on it now: 

First, the overall population is safe, (today)

Second, take in an underpopulated area would become self limiting and divers would just stop going there on their own (to some extent) more on this, IMO most over fished areas are frequented by divers/pickers with a lower ability than the "better" diver (of which I am not one), so as pops decline they would be protected somewhat by their scarcity/depth etc.
 
Third, embryonic abs are carried by currents for awhile before dropping the the bottom. So population support or even growth wouldn't stop even with a lower than desired ab density in the area.

Fourth, local closures just move pressure to other areas that may then become candidates for closure.

So with all that mush floating around in my head I'm not sure what I think, need more thought and info.

Also with all that regurgitated, I think the wide area (sonoma coast) limit is definitely a good idea, mostly to keep it a viable area so that mediocre divers like me can get a few abs when we want at the same time giving the area somewhat of a chance to recover from the red tide and other pressures.  ( Even in this area outside of the range of the average diver I believe the ab pop is mostly just fine).

remember this is all just MPO.

So by disagreeing one means a abalone report card landing site should be closed if over fished ? And if so closed upon being over fished, at what level would this be ?

I'm wrestling with this one.  In the last year or so when local closures were discussed I came down on the side of agreeing with them.  Now on further thought I'm on the fence.

Here's my thinking

Disclaimer, this year is the first year since 1985 that I didn't ab dive, lots of obligations and situations just got in the way, next year back to it.

IMO the red abalone population,  as a whole, north of SF, at least at this point doesn't need further protection.  My basis for that is taking what I've seen from scarcity to abundance in various areas mentally multiplied by areas and depths that I nor most other divers never venture into leaves me with the gut feeling that the overall ab population is doing well.  This thought process doesn't seem to be captured by the crappy index site method of population analysis.  Scarcity= spending an hour at ground zero of the red tide without seeing a live ab, to abundance = Van Damme where a limit can still be had in 10 min at 10 ft. (VD almost defies belief at this point)

My thoughts last year were that even tho the overall population is just fine, "ya can't just let certain areas get picked clean". So I was in favor of local closures.

I seem to be changing my mind a bit (I for one am never sure what I think, I think allot and often change my mind in the process)

Here's my thinking on it now: 

First, the overall population is safe, (today)

Second, take in an underpopulated area would become self limiting and divers would just stop going there on their own (to some extent) more on this, IMO most over fished areas are frequented by divers/pickers with a lower ability than the "better" diver (of which I am not one), so as pops decline they would be protected somewhat by their scarcity/depth etc.
 
Third, embryonic abs are carried by currents for awhile before dropping the the bottom. So population support or even growth wouldn't stop even with a lower than desired ab density in the area.

Fourth, local closures just move pressure to other areas that may then become candidates for closure.

So with all that mush floating around in my head I'm not sure what I think, need more thought and info.

Also with all that regurgitated, I think the wide area (sonoma coast) limit is definitely a good idea, mostly to keep it a viable area so that mediocre divers like me can get a few abs when we want at the same time giving the area somewhat of a chance to recover from the red tide and other pressures.  ( Even in this area outside of the range of the average diver I believe the ab pop is mostly just fine).

remember this is all just MPO.

Brother you are not kidding! Lots of us are rethinking indeed, and two, good thinking there Dale on all of what you said. I will share, and Dale you do know I do hold back a lot at times but for now this diminishing marginal returns concept (MLS limit protection) is gaining understanding by some at the commission level based upon a conservation I had with a person from commission staff a few days ago. This is not to say or imply MLS protection will become a gateway, but the arguments for doing so verses closing a landing site or not is highly on the minds of the powers at be indeed.

All that has been said so far and the reason why "red abalone" at this time is being removed out from under the auspice of ARMP policy is because it is recognized the ARMP interim management is too super precautionary compounding. The DFW and the commission have always know this, thus the reason for the long term plan. Just what shall this long term management encompass: that is the question, but an FMP under the auspices of the MLMA has requirements and constraints too as I believe you know as well. Thanks for the help Dale