Obomba Says No More Fishing by Dec.9

[speelyei]

I was sending you a pm. Trlsmn

I'd take you up on the face-to-face discussion.

 

[Trlsmn]

I was sending you a pm. Trlsmn

I'd take you up on the face-to-face discussion.

Can we invite Jamie6.5?

 

[speelyei]

of course, then he can take a swing at me in person. I'll be the guy in Brikenstocks and wire rimmed glasses, driving the Volvo... with PETA stickers, of course

 

[Trlsmn]

of course, then he can take a swing at me in person. I'll be the guy in Brikenstocks and wire rimmed glasses, driving the Volvo... with PETA stickers, of course

Jamie6.5 will find this very amusing!

 

[Jamie6.5]

I don't care what you drive or wear,... And I seriously doubt I would "take a swing at you."
I just want you to tell me why, as in "what species will they protect", do we need Marine reserves? What species need protection from a current over fished status?
FYI,
The ODFW and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council says there are no overfished species in Oregon's nearshore waters. Any that were, like the black rockfish, are on the rebound due to sound management practices by the ODFW. Do you know something these folks don't? Does Pew? Does Our Ocean?

Kulongosky's Marine reserves are a solution looking for a problem.
And the sportsman gets screwed again.

When I attended an "Our Oceans" meeting in PDX, (at the Lucky Lab I think it was) everyone liked me just fine. Right up until I asked what species needed protection in the nearshore habitat. What species were endangered that these reserves will protect.

They got pissed and asked me to leave.
Are you going to do the same? Are you going to continue to call me a liar because I am not willing to play your picture game?
I don't post pictures of my guns either.
I don't post lists of what I reload.

Can you give me FACTS from your side like I gave you facts from mine?? Mine are verifiable. Do you have any Oregon nearshore specific problems to share?
Search engines work both ways. You should be able to find TONS of data to support the need for marine reserves in Oregon,...
If they're really needed that is,...
We're all waiting Speelyie

 

[Jamie6.5]

of course, I'll be the guy in Brikenstocks and wire rimmed glasses, driving the Volvo... with PETA stickers, of course

And I'll be the one with the 18" ponytail and the wire rimmed glasses,... My car is a Toyota, but without the PETA or HSUS stickers. Birks hurt my feet.
Oh, and I lived in Eugene for 5 years in the late '90s, through early 2002.
SO?

 

[speelyei]

My initial sentence, "I support Marine Reserves" has blossomed into a one sided rant of alternating accusations and demands from you.
You've raised a lot of good points with yourself, and answered them, and you've asked a lot of questions of me. I can assure you, none of my answers is going to please you. You may as well stop reading now.

I am interested in the dialogue of, and supportive of the idea of, marine reserves. This is based on my own interest in fishing, sailing, scuba diving and living in the Pacific Northwest.
I enjoy wild spaces, and I have particularly enjoyed my time in Wilderness areas on land. The idea that there could be designated areas of non-disturbance in the ocean appeals to me, too.
I started attending meetings because I felt the idea had merit on a variety of levels, for research, as a refuge, as a nursery, maybe as a recreation opportunity... but basically a serious bystander. I have no degree in environmental sciences, I am not a lobbyist. Nor am I a commercial fisherman, or a stakeholder in a boat. I am just a person who lives on the beach, and saw an opportunity to listen to something that was gaining a lot of momentum.

Deer and elk are not on the endangered species list, and I still like having designated wilderness areas. Black bears don't need to be on the verge of extinction for me to vote for additional wilderness designations. There doesn't need to be a single species on the endangered list for me to think a couple reserves is an interesting prospect.

I can't shoot anything in Yellowstone National Park, and I am still glad it's there.

The idea of reserves appeals to me, and I have yet to hear any convincing reasons why there shouldn't be one, or two, or ten. Never once have I heard anything that would convince me that this is an attack on the publics access to beaches, or that it would effect my access to beaches, or surf breaks, positively or negatively.

My mind is far from made up. When I go to a hearing or meeting, I am listening. Just as I have been listening to you, for about 20 paragraphs now.

 

[BillCh]

Commercial fishermen rule!

Catch'em all I say.

 

[Jamie6.5]

My mind is far from made up. When I go to a hearing or meeting, I am listening. Just as I have been listening to you, for about 20 paragraphs now.

Good for you.
Now I have heard the wilderness area analogy before and while that sounds good, It isn't a parallel.
You can hunt, fish, and gather berries, mushrooms etc. in a wilderness. Not so in a marine reserve or MPA. (Marine Protected Area, BTW we have LOTS of those already) They are "no take" zones. No seashells, crab, fish, rocks, driftwood, glass floats etc. can be taken out. From the median tide line to 3 miles out. Exceptions would be "organized litter patrols."
I have heard the National Park analogy too. It's still not an analogy I like, but at least you can fish in Nat'l Parks, and travel through them, especially those with disabilities can do so, in cars. MRs and MPAs mean no boat traffic. They even deny access when your boat is damaged, low on fuel etc. and going around would jeopardize people on board. There are times when you car has a problem that you can get out and walk etc. In a boat, on a deteriorating ocean (waves went from 4'@12 seconds to 8'@ 9seconds) you need to get off the water, or before the tide starts changing. And that swell meets an ebbing tide in the river-port. (think Newport or the Columbia) The condition I described causes the waves to stack up and get really hazardous. The bar inevitably gets closed. Now you're stuck. Too bad, go around the MR or get fined heavily for saving those on board.
No, it's nothing like a car.

Now if Oregon had the coastal population densities of Florida or SoCal or the gulf coast they might start to make sense. That many people/fishers can wreak havoc with fish pops and the environment. (think Houston)
But Oregon is no where near that pop level and can't be. The coastal terrain and public land policies won't allow it. Furthermore, Oregon's coastal weather patterns are nothing like SoCal's or Florida's or the gulf coast's. As you no doubt know Speelyei. There is NO WAY fishers here can apply as much pressure on fish populations. The weather here won't allow it. There are waaayy too many days when ocean conditions won't allow safe operation of any boat shy of a 36' Coast Guard motor lifeboat.

Why do you think the CG send recruits up here to train?? Because they know there is no where else in the US they can get foul weather/bad seas training regularly, like they can here. The Columbia River Bar is widely known as the worst place in the world for hazardous ocean conditions.
There is a reason for that!!

Furthermore if MRs and MPAs are about fish recovery, then okay, show me the endangered ones, that current management practices can't fix, and I'll consider it, with a caveat,...
PUT A SUNSET CLAUSE on them. Current proposals are for PERMANENT areas. TeddyKs legacy. They will be there forever whether the fish recover or not. Not to mention the places they want protected are all places that are close to ports and that offer bottom structure that is fish friendly. Most people think offshore fishing is the same everywhere. Not so, bottom structure determines fish populations. No structure, very few fish.
Make them smaller! Current proposals are for north-south boundaries delineated, all the way out to 3 miles. (Oregon territorial waters)
When the bar gets closed at Newport, the Coast Guard sends boaters to Depoe Bay for instance. (no ebb in Depoe) The proposal for the MR from Beverly Beach to the south end of Depoe bay would require boaters to travel an additional 6 miles in deteriorating or already bad ocean conditions (read: HAZARDOUS) to get off the water. (The original proposal was for the entire coast from Depoe to Newport!!) Now 6 miles doesn't sound like much, until you have to do it at 8 knots (9 mph) due to 10-12 foot waves. Try spending an additional 45 minutes traveling in those conditions because TeddyK said so, and see how you feel about his legacy then!! The Coast Guard doesn't want MRs (for this reason) but is not allowed to take an official position.

Sorry this is getting so long, but,...
And finally, if one reads ALL the information about the successes and failures of marine reserves to accomplish fish/aquatic life recovery and sustainability, one finds a mixed bag. Another reason for a sunset clause. If they aren't working, why have them??
Proponents will only tell you one side, THEIRS. Kalifornia has gone through he77 in the last decade or so dealing with the same people we are now. The ask for an inch and take miles. The proof that these are needed is being proven wrong, since further study has been done, but Pew and Our Oceans keep pushing.
Why? I believe it's because there is big Kalifornia $$$ on the Oregon coast now, and they're retired. They want no industry or fishing, just art galleries, golf courses, and wineries.
Unfortunately they have the financial resources to buy the politicians that will push their agenda.
Lincoln City's Mayor is a good example of one of these.
You see the people "in the know" like ODFWs biologist, OPAC (Ocean Policy Advisory Council) the CG and many independent peer reviewed scientific work have spoken, but Pew, Our Ocean and TeddyK have refused to listen.
This is political for politic's sake, pure and simple.

 

[speelyei]

You make some really good points, and I can finally hear them because your tone isn't so caustic. Like it or not, you offend people you could effectively influence with that hard-azzed witch-hunt approach.

Out-of-area wealth and it's (often negative) influence is something I deal with daily, as a homeowner, as a contractor, as a local resident. We are definitely on the same page there.

Everybody has their agenda, and that's why the hearings are so interesting to me. As always, there are polarized factions... those who want to leave nothing but scraped earth, and those that view the world as some sort of static museum. Most people I've spoken to fall somewhere in the middle, and it's the moderates I hope will prevail.

So here's a couple questions for you:
Would you support reserves, with the caveat that they are a ten year study? Five year study?

What would be the minimum size reserve you think would be a viable study area?

How would you choose the location? Obviously, the same criteria that makes a good fishing area makes an ideal reserve.

Let's say the reserves passed today as written. There isn't any infrastructure to support enforcement, patrolling, etc. except the coast guard, who already has a full time job. What do you think the policing would look like? Who would do it?

Do you think there is still an opportunity to shape the legislation to account for some of the issues you described above?

I don't recall ever hearing or reading anything that said you couldn't pass over or through a reserve or protected area. I have only ever heard of extractive practices being banned in those areas. I need to read the proposals again, clearly... happen to have a link?

 

[Trlsmn]

I don't recall ever hearing or reading anything that said you couldn't pass over or through a reserve or protected area. I have only ever heard of extractive practices being banned in those areas. I need to read the proposals again, clearly... happen to have a link?

Oh the irony!

Am I going to post up supporting evidence to sway some anonymous internet hothead know-it-all? No, the very act would assume that a real dialogue was possible, which it is clearly not. The links and search engines are there for anyone who wants to do the research for themselves.

speelyei I really think you should reread the entire thread especially your own posts and then come back and rethink who is caustic and aggressive!

and I can finally hear them because your tone isn't so caustic. Like it or not, you offend people you could effectively influence with that hard-azzed witch-hunt approach.

 

[speelyei]

oh brother, I am done. Have a good life, fellas.

 

[Trlsmn]

oh brother, I am done. Have a good life, fellas.

Truth hurt? The concepts of "do unto others" "cast the first stone" seem to escape you.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I didn't start the sarcastic attacks against you personally. You seemed to think because I was attacking the process initially proposed by TeddyK and Pew, that I was attacking anyone that supported reserves. That's your issue not mine.
To wit:

Since you've got it all figured out, you should have come and lined everyone out.

But since you felt it was okay to attack me sarcastically, you'll get the same in return.

Now as for the "I support marine reserves here in Oregon."

I asked why? Why would you support them if you are not aware of any problem they will or won't solve?
That is why I referred to them as "feel good" legislation.
No benefits.
No improvement.
No protection for endangered species.

I and many other salt fishers see them as just a reason to lock sportsmen out of very productive areas of territorial sea.
And:
They are expensive to police as you noted.

They are also very expensive to implement when you consider;
Re-charting 360 miles of coastline.
Reprinting all the offshore fishing literature now in existence.
Marking them all with buoys etc.
Maintaining said markers and boundaries.

 

[Jamie6.5]

So here's a couple questions for you:
Would you support reserves, with the caveat that they are a ten year study? Five year study?

I have no problem with scientific study of unmolested areas, as long as it isn't set up in perpetuity, with little or no scientific study done. For each one I would require that a minimum of 100 hours of underwater study be conducted every 2(two) years. No study, no reserve. If they can't knock down 50 hours a year, they don't want or need it very bad. I still think a hard sunset clause needs to be in place, say every 7 years. The age most rockfish species (benthic or bottom dwellers, such as the blacks and blues) fish must reach for reproduction.
Oregon has MANY Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that already exist and have for years, that were set aside for study. But! If you talk to the people at the Hatfield/OSU Marine center you will find that VERY little study has been done in these areas, other than tidepool and shore studies.
Furthermore, there is really no reason to shut an area down to study aquatic flora, or structural qualities/differences. Sportfishing has no effect on these.
Remember also, that the more areas that are closed, the more fishing pressure the open areas receive. Now I know these areas are supposed to "spill over" excess fish to open areas, but they haven't even studied that yet. They have no proof that will even happen. They want us to approve their plan(s) based on hypothesis,... Sorry .
In addition, they claim that these areas will help ALL fish species. They have no clue whether they are going to help pelagics (impossible), Anadromous, (maybe) or benthic (probable).
Again, the proponents want to help something because it makes them feel good.

What would be the minimum size reserve you think would be a viable study area?

One mile out from shore should do it. Two miles long should do it. And each one should be roughly 50/50 mix of beach and rocky shore and/or rocky bottom.
But that is not what these people want. They want primarily rocky areas or areas with rocky bottom structure. Funny, but that's where the fish are!
Secondly, there were areas proposed that were 20 miles long! One was specifically referred to as 20 miracle miles or some such assininity!(my new word ) It included much of the area between Newport and Lincoln City.
Thirdly, if the scientific community wants these, let them tell us where they will get the most bang for OUR buck. DO NOT allow just anyone that wants a nice view of the ocean nominate an area. But that is what TeddyK did with his nomination system.

How would you choose the location? Obviously, the same criteria that makes a good fishing area makes an ideal reserve.

Good question. That is why size is so important. Take the area between Newport and Depoe Bay for instance. A two mile stretch of beach/cliffs that extends out one mile should be fine. One has been chosen there, but I believe it extends out to the three mile line, like TeddyK wanted.
The larger it has to be, the further away from port(s) it needs to be. There are only 5 decent ports in Oregon (excluding the Columbia), There is no reason a decent sized MR can't be placed equidistant between Newport and the small port of Florence/Siuslaw. Or out in front of Lincoln city, extending 1 to 1-1/2 miles each direction.
But if you look at where they have been proposed in Oregon, like Kalifornia they are clustered around popular sportfishing ports. Like Newport/Depoe, Coos/Winchester Bay(s), Brookings and Tillamook.

Let's say the reserves passed today as written. There isn't any infrastructure to support enforcement, patrolling, etc. except the coast guard, who already has a full time job. What do you think the policing would look like? Who would do it?

Well I see you have realized the dilemma we have in our cash-strapped state economy. The proponents want extensive policing. That is one of the reasons there are "no-boat-over" provisions. Trying to police/check every boat that passes over them would be impossible. Especially if they are placed around ports.
The CG doesn't have time as you noted, so I guess we will spend more of our school and highway budgets on policing.
Or we can sit by and watch our fishing and hunting license fees skyrocket to pay for policing of AREAS WE CAN"T FISH!!

Not a good scenario is it?

Do you think there is still an opportunity to shape the legislation to account for some of the issues you described above?

The process is moving forward. Thankfully many salt fishers have gotten involved, and helped ensure there are people on the various boards and working groups that are looking out for our interests. Even if it's only been letter writing campaigns. My issues are shared by many of these people as they actually listen to us, the fishermen/women.
I know you scoffed at the idea of visiting Ifish for info, but it really is a good place to start. There are many fishers there that are proponents of maintaining the resource. A few even like the idea of limited reserves.

I don't recall ever hearing or reading anything that said you couldn't pass over or through a reserve or protected area. I have only ever heard of extractive practices being banned in those areas. I need to read the proposals again, clearly... happen to have a link?

That arises out of the policing issues I described above. If no boats are allowed in, they don't have to worry about whether they are fishing. It's easier to police if no boats are allowed.

 

[Jamie6.5]

One aside on the no-boat-over provision.
It is my understanding that a permitting system will be put in place that will allow diving, but again, no-take, except maybe pictures!
The idea being, if you are caught in a reserve, with fishing tackle and without diving gear, you will be ticketed, or at least required to leave.
Now maybe if you are in a boat that is up on a plane running 20 or more knots they will leave you alone. But I doubt it, as that might disturb the wildlife. Sorry but you can't disturb them, even with a boat.
If your main engine has quit though, and you are running on the kicker your butt is going to be in a sling!

 

[MilitaryMan84]

 

[elsullo]

Ahem, "A CAUGHT FISH CANNOT BREED." Thankyou.........................elsullo

 

[SquatchWorks]

Buck Ofama

 

[Trlsmn]

Ahem, "A CAUGHT FISH CANNOT BREED." Thankyou.........................elsullo

Oh brother!