Envirofacists take out the Channel Islands forever

[freeclimb9]

Fishing Permanently Banned Around the Channel Islands. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-reserve24oct24.story

 

I've watched this go down over the last year (I wasn't able to attend any of the DFG open meetings, as if it would have done any good. Sport fisherman were only allowed 20 minutes total speaking time whereas the pro-closure people got 6 times that). Psuedo science was used to ban the fishing despite evidence to the contrary (the world record Boccacio was caugt last year --not an indication of a fishery in trouble, IMO). Sportfishing is a multi-billion dollar industry in southern California. And I thought the Republicans were pro-business (that's certainly how out Natl. Parks and Forests are being run --as if they were businesses instead of public trusts). Makes me want to become a Libertarian.

[ScottP]

Yeah, the fuckers.

Hey, come to think of it, they should open up the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area to hunting of deer, goats, sqirrels, and marmots.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ScottP:

Hey, come to think of it, they should open up the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area to hunting of deer, goats, sqirrels, and marmots.

---

No sport in that. All you have to do is take a piss at the base of Snow Creek Wall, wait for the goat to start licking it off the rock and clock him over the head with your wall hammer!

[Off_White]

I'm not familiar with the issue, but its not usually sport fisherman that are the problem in fisheries, but rather the commercial industry. I know a lot of shit goes down in the oceans that is not much remarked on because its not visible, but I think that's mostly a result of bottom dragging nets and non-species-specific trawling, and the worst offenders are usually from other countries than the US (or Canada). This sounds like one of those issues that scientists not funded by one of the interest groups should have the largest input on the decision.

 

Anyways, have fun, good aruguments, and raise your virtual hackles at the opposite side (whatever side you're on). I'm off climbing on the east side of the Sierra's for a week, so you won't have me to kick around until next month.

 

Here's one to ya'll

[freeclimb9]

The California Fish and Game Commission voted 2 to 1 to create the fishing-forbidden zones that will exist FOREVER. Two from the five member commission were absent. That's the f'ed up part of Federal bureacracy: a few make rules that affect millions. Something like those that "manage" Mt Rainier National Park. What do our votes mean?

[wayne]

Carefull Greg, those goats could go straight to the source

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Do a lot of fishing in the Channel Islands from Logan, do you?

[bonehead]

Jeezo Freeclimb......Envirofacists??

 

Come on - you're telling me that we can't afford to place a fishing ban on a miniscule part of the world's oceans, just to let some wildlife recover??

 

Oceans are already being strip-mined, everyone knows it and not a thing's being done in most places. At most, about 1% of the world's oceans have fishing bans in place, and around .02% of California's coastline.

 

But you said it yourself, "Sportfishing is a multi-billion dollar industry in southern California" .... We know where your priorities lie....

 

Get real, and recognize that not many people on this board are gonna sympathize with your rapist mentality....

[freeclimb9]

bonehead,

I recognize that most people on this board don't even know what a boccacio is let alone sympathize with my "rapist mentality" of our ocean's resources. You've read the LA Times article, but understand the numbers: sportfisherman caught 150 tons of rockcod over three years compared to the 23 tons caught by commercial fisherman because they're caught by rod and reel, not by net, or trolling. (By way of comparison, a single light boat can haul 30 to 50 tons of squid per night during the summer season from these same waters. For 2001, the tonnage of anchovy commercially caught was 141 times as much as the 150 tons of rockcod caught over a three year period). BTW, the tens of tons of fish eaten by the exploding population of sea mammals weren't considered (the sea lion and elephant seal colonies on the Islands have reached such high levels that they're colonizing on the mainland. For example, near Moonstone beach, a colony that started with 19 elephant seals in 1991 was at over 6,000 last year)). The summer ban on rock codding was effective in increasing numbers of boccacio, but was not allowed to continue further. The recent world record boccacio is evidence of this. But with the closures, even fishing for pelagic species is prohibited. There are no resident populations of yellowtail and tuna on the Islands, but you can't fish for them within the forbidden zones.

Anyways, quoting percentages of ocean closures is misleading since the oceans aren't homogenous. The closures cover the most productive rock reefs on the Islands.

It tweaks me that the views of two people on the DFG commission will affect the lives of tens of thousands.

[cj001f]

Given the harassment the Giant Black Sea Bass are getting down there from moron spearo's (as a s a species recovering from the brink they're illegal to take - and are more likely to be mistaken for a boulder than fish) I can't with a straight face say people are particularly conservation minded in SoCal.

 

That said this is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. FOREVER?!

[Poseur]

quote:

---

The California Fish and Game Commission voted 2 to 1 to create the fishing-forbidden zones that will exist FOREVER. Two from the five member commission were absent. That's the f'ed up part of Federal bureacracy: a few make rules that affect millions. Something like those that "manage" Mt Rainier National Park. What do our votes mean?

---

Yo free, you know your fisheries, but this was not a federal decision, but a state one under the authority of that penultimate Democrat Governor Gray Davis - the man who never missed a chance to sell out the environment or the public for a few dollars into his campaign coffers. It would be interesting to know who he sold this one out to.

[freeclimb9]

I was wrong, and you're right about the State level, Poseur. And it was two Davis appointees that made the pro vote. The California election sure is depressing, too. I've read it described as "the evil of two lessers": Davis and Simons.

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by freeclimb9:

The California election sure is depressing, too. I've read it described as "the evil of two lessers": Davis and Simons.

---

It's worse than the lesser of two evils - and there's not even a quasi-reasonable third party canidate available.

[bonehead]

Freeclimb,

 

You make some good points, and I agree that the oceans aren't homogenous, so using a percentage figure doesn't necessarily convey a clear view.

 

But it makes sense to preserve the waters around what is now a National Park. My point still holds true - there are very few places in our oceans protected from fishing. If we can't afford it now, when will we ever?

 

Ever snorkeled or dove around Catalina or other islands offshore of So Cal? I have.. It's a desert, and it doesn't matter who/what you want to blame, sportsmen, commercials, or environmental degradation... Continued pressure on the Channels will eventually result in the same. Banning all fishing short-circuits the fingerpointing and starts the healing.

 

Besides, there's plenty of other places to fish. But good luck, cause they've already been strip-mined by the same folks who want to do it to the Channel Islands....

[freeclimb9]

bonehead,

sorry to hear you dove in a desert. That hasn't been my experience. I went to camp as a kid at Emerald bay, have fished around Anacapa and Santa Cruz, and spent four years at school in Santa Barbara (about 14 miles from the islands). I always plenty of fish. The last season was great in the SB channel for Calico bass, halibut, salmon, and some tuna. Not much rock cod was caught since there was a ban. Once over this last summer, a commercial seiner wrapped what they estimated to be 100 tons+ of yellowtail outside of San Nicholas before opening the net to let them go (seining yellowtail is illegal. It was such a large school, the spotter plane thought it was tuna). The white seabass population has made a huge rebound in the last years after minimum size and number regulations were imposed by the DFG and obeyed by the fleet and private sportfisherman.

I support conservation as most sport fisherman do. I don't support bad-science used to justify permanent closures to historic fishing grounds.

[Poseur]

Whenever I dove off the islands the sealife was incredible. Since I'm a rookie diver I stuck mostly to weedbeds where the most prevalent fish were those sheephead. The sealife was so abundant the shark danger was real and you couldn't go out for a day without a nearby boat reporting a siting (dive boat captains kept a pretty good network going on this). Typically, you don't get significant numbers of top of the food chain predators roaming around unless there is something there for them to eat!

 

I wasn't much into fishing at the time, but sailing out of Santa Barbara regularly and generally hanging out around the lower State St bars you get plenty of fish reports (and fresh fish dinners ) that indicate to me the fishery is quite healthy.

 

I think the real answer to this issue can be found in a couple months when Gray Davis has to file his campaign contribution reports. Since environmental organizations are mere Democratic Party lapdogs, I suspect a large contribution from a large polluter in the area will appear and we can probably chock this whole fiasco up to a political strategy to eliminate those pesky fisherman's desire to keep industrial pollution out of the bay and nearby islands - the people who really have in interest in a healthy environment in the islands.

[bonehead]

Freeclimb,

 

Bad science to justify a permanent closure,,,

 

Yea maybe or maybe not - people will argue that till the cows come home, with no consensus...

 

But we're still looking at closure of a miniscule area... This hardly portends a lockup of the entire California coast....

 

And Emerald Bay does have some neat fish, but no where near the amounts and diversity that were there as late as the 50's , early 60's. I don't know how old you are, but if you weren't out there back then you don't know what you're missing in the reefs. The old-timers can fill you in...

[freeclimb9]

rumor has it that Davis may veto the closure.

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by freeclimb9:

rumor has it that Davis may veto the closure.

---

Where'd you pick up that tidbit?

[freeclimb9]

Rumor central is sport-fish-info.com I'm skeptical of Davis bringing a veto despite the political liability of his DFG appointee, Hattoy. More realistic is to contest the closure based on the California state constitution which guarantees access to fishing except for hatcheries. BTW, commissioner Bob Hattoy brought the closure to vote. He was appointed to the Commission on August 27, 2002, to complete the term of the positition vacated by former Commissioner Frank Boren. He's a former Clinton campaign advisor, is HIV positive, and screwed the public within two months.

[Poseur]

Now that would be something! Just to belabor another trivial technical point - this was an act of his administration through his appointees, not a piece of legislation. But, he sure could reverse the decision of his appointees by replacing them, insisting the matter be brought up again and that they change their vote, or get the two no shows there. Could also explain why there was two no shows on the vote. That would be something! Except I'd have to eat my words about the payoff scenario...oh well...

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poseur:

But, he sure could reverse the decision of his appointees by replacing them, insisting the matter be brought up again and that they change their vote, or get the two no shows there.

---

It doesn't need to even be that complicated, as:

"The ban could take effect as early as Jan. 1, after a standard review by the state Office of Administrative Law to make sure it adheres to state regulations."

 

Now the OAL is supposed to be independant, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could find the regulation faulty with a little pointing to the right regulation.

[Poseur]

Good point!