SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Three weeks after the massive oil spill started in the Gulf, BP CEO Tony Hayward said the amount of oil and chemicals in the sea were tiny compared to the enormous ocean. But for many people, this disaster has highlighted how many different interconnected species are affected by the spill, and the limitations of finite ocean resources.
Of course, the world's oceans have faced growing demands even before this spill. In the Northwest, people use the ocean for fish, for access to energy sources, for scientific research and for recreation. How do these different interests compete? How do they collaborate?
The effort to set aside marine reserves off the Oregon coast has led to questions about how ocean resources should be used and protected. (In California, at least one dispute over who owns the ocean centered around an entrprenuer's dream of a floating airport.) A new ocean monitoring system is expected to provide unprecedented scientific information about the Pacific, and could affect marine life. Efforts to develop wave energy have also led to questions of rights in the ocean. Early attempts to capture wave energy off the Oregon coast were perhaps symbolized by the sinking of a wave energy buoy near Newport three years ago. Now, Ocean Power Technologies is preparing to deploy the first in an array of ten buoys. It would be the country's first commercial wave energy site.
But despite a host of new agreements, how energy, fishing, research and recreation will co-exist remains to be seen. Earlier this spring, the Newport News Times wrote
The uncertainties and unknowns have stirred questions and concerns from the outset, but the underlying concern is who "owns" — or should own — Oregon's territorial sea? And should private enterprises receive long-term "deeds"?...
Much depends on the costs incurred — financial, social, ecological — and benefits gleaned.
Legally, the state controls the ocean from the shoreline three miles out. Federal waters start there and go to 200 miles from the shore. Who does own the ocean? Who is responsible for what happens there?
What do you take from the ocean? Does the sea belong to you?
GUESTS:
- Terry Dillman: Assistant editor the Newport News Times
- Rick Goche: Commercial fisherman in Coos Bay, chairman of the Oregon Albacore Commission and member of the Southern Oregon Ocean Resource Coalition
- Susan Allen: Director of Our Ocean
- Paul Klarin: Marine program coordinator for the coastal division of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and co-chair of the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan Committee
Tagged as: fishing · marine reserve · noaa
Photo credit: silverxraven / Creative Commons
-
Marine reserves? Are you kidding? This is a joke to my mind. We'll set aside a tiny percentage of ocean to protect habitat. Pollution or abuse will stop at the boundaries of marine reserves! Right. Marine reserves are a stop-gap feel-good measure that are meaningless compared to the gravity of our plight.
Humans have already proven they can over-fish oceans. We've polluted the ocean with thousands of square miles of suspended plastic and fertilizer run off. Though oil comes from within the Earth, it probably hampers the ecosystem a bit when it spills directly into the ocean.
Humans do not own oceans or anything really. Humans are born and will die dependent on others and sun light. Ownership is a human mental construct. Humans are effectively equivalent to ants, shrimp, algae, silverfish and roaches: we're organisms exploiting planet Earth to exist. Humans have a lot more bad habits than other critters though.
For humans to transcend their abysmal way of being they must forgo negative habits like exceptionalism, ego, and arrogance in order to cultivate humility and deep understanding. Humans are interwoven into the whole. Excessive individualism is a human mental construct.
What do I take from the ocean? What it gives. Rain. Wind. Air to breathe (indirectly). Food. Solace. Enligtenment. Hurricanes. Tsunamis. Excitement when I get washed off the rocks by the occasional sneaker wave. Metaphorically, I become part of the food chain when a shark bites my metaphorical surf board. The ocean reminds me that I'm but a grain of sand on all the beaches of the Universe. My individuality only has meaning to me.
Do humans need to minimize their individuality so they can particpate in the Universe as it really is? Do humans need to be much better stewards of Earth? If we destroy Earth will we not destroy ourselves and many other beings?
Roaches will be here after the radioactive fallout settles. I can see them smearing 40 SPF sunblock on each other's carapaces as they murmur, "Damn, it's nice to be rid of those pesky humans. They were a royal PITA!"
-
"BP CEO Tony Hayward said the amount of oil and chemicals in the sea were tiny compared to the enormous ocean."
Well, he's right about that but he and BP are killing the tiny part that is the birthing grounds of much of the Caribbean Oceans' wildlife, the estuaries where so many species are born. Kill the nursery and you kill the future.
Most of that Oil will get dispersed into the larger oceans but the damages that some of that oil does will be counted in small businesses like fishing and tourist boats, the death for years of fishing grounds, shrimping grounds, on and on.
The public, "The People", will be made poor by the amount of damages and the management and stockholders of BP will still get rich by passing along their "costs of business" at the pump. It is corporate socialism for the rich and the downside of risk capitalism for the public.
Conservatism! Don't you just love it? De-Regulate and Drill, Baby, Spill! Kill, Baby, Kill, small businesses, jobs, and our environment! -
We ALL own the ocean--that's what makes it so extraordinary. And here in Oregon, we're lucky enough to have unrestricted access as well, thanks to the Beach Bill. But with that right comes responsibility: we have to work together to manage it wisely. And, although some folks use the ocean for surfing, some for fishing, and some just like to walk along the shore and watch the birds or other critters, everyone deserves the same respect, and everyone should have a say in new laws.
That's the main thing I've taken away from what I've read about Oregon's ocean planning discussions: they're very open, and people from all over the state are welcome (encouraged, even) to weigh in and say what areas they think should be set aside for which activities. There are obviously some places offshore that are unique enough to warrant full protection--just like we have park on the land. But we still have to accomodate shipping, wave energy, fishing, etc. The main thing is to find the right balance, so we have some safe havens where the fish and shellfish can grow and multiply, while leaving plenty of space for all the different human uses as well.
-
I'm willing to give up some space for protection of bio-diversity. What are you willing to give up? We all need to do more, so lets get to it.
-
I have read a bit about using tidal energy in the future. While very supportive of researching renewable energy, I'm concerned about the possible side effects of this technique. Could any of the guests comment on what research is being done to prevent complications caused by tidal energy? How will this effect marine life and possibly even ocean currents? (While I have supported wind energy, we are now finding out about how it is effecting wildlife and the ecosystem.)
Thank you.
-
Excellent discussion, indeed. Thanks OPB for keeping this timely topic in the light. As executive director of the Oregon Wave Energy Trust, I'd like to respond to Kim Young regarding research on ocean energy. Oregon doesn't have much tidal energy available, so we're focusing on wave energy sources. And, in short, there's a lot of research going on, at OWET and at institutions around the country. Be sure to check out our website at www.oregonwave.org. We post all of our studies, and there are links to other organizations that are doing this work.
For me, the ironic thing is that renewable energy development, of whatever type, receives the highest level of regulatory scrutiny, even though its purpose is to provide low-impact, clean, CO2 free, reliable energy for the future. Meanwhile, existing energy developments (like off-shore drilling) operate in a cozy relationship with regulators that allows them to create tremendous damage to the environment and the economy. Why the double standard? The simple answer is that they already have their permits to operate, and those permits had lower barriers to entry. New permits have higher standards to reflect our increased understanding of the effects of our actions on our planet. That's just the way it is.
And remember, when wave energy devices fail (which they will), they sink. When a fossil fuel or nuclear device fails (which they will), they destroy ecosystems and economies.
The future is uncertain; but that means we have a choice.
-
With respect to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster I hope Washington, Oregon and California ban drilling for anything off the Pacific coast forever. The cost of man-made mistakes is too high and not worth the risk.
Flippantly, it seems that corporations and governments own the oceans. They harvest fish and resources from ocean with preference over individuals. The government does not do what individuals want them to do regarding sustaining oceans, so the "everybody owns the oceans" argument is effectively fallacious.
-
When Paul Klarin joins your show he will likely define for the audience that technically, the Oregon territorial sea is "owned" and managed by the State Land Board (the Governor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer of Oregon), as a public trust for the citizens of Oregon.
-
OSU is doing a lot of interesting work in this area and for Kim Young, she may be interested in the *wave* energy research that is going on. I don't think *tidal* energy is a great possibility for the Oregon coast but garnering energy from individual waves has great potential (see the work of Annette von Jouanne, who I believe was Think Out Loud a while back, and Ted Brekken, http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/wesrf/ ).
-
Thanks for the resource!
Kim
-
We are at a time when taking care of our Ocean is serious business for everyone on this planet. Yes, we think of ourselves here in Oregon as different, but we, too, need to buckle down, focus and plan for the future of our ocean.
It's a time when fishermen, elected officials, resource managers and conservationists clearly have a common interest - the Gulf disaster brings this point home. We all depend on the ocean's bounty. We have been in a period of thinking of the ocean as a vast wilderness with unlimited abundance, but pressures are increasing, and conditions are changing to something not seen before - ocean acidification, increased frequency and strength of storm event, southern species moving further north, new ocean-based power generating technologies that are being introduced around the world to get us off carbon-based fuels. It truly is a new ocean world.
Oregonians need to invest in the research and planning that is required to protect our marine resources for our lifetime and for future generations. This must involve identifying important ecological areas and protecting those in a scientifically-based system of marine protected areas and marine reserves along our coast. Further, this must involve identifying where our important crabbing and fishing are located so our independent-minded, proud coastal fishermen can continue their awesome work of feeding the world. And, we need to decide where do we want to experiment with ocean-based test projects for producing power.
We have found the political leadership at this time that is taking us in that direction with passage of HB 3013 which established the community-based marine reserve teams that are actively working to evaluate sites and with the drafting and approval of a brand new Wave Energy Chapter of the Territorial Sea Plan to provide clear direction and requirements for new ocean development projects. So, let's continue to "play well with others" rather than "run with scissors." We're all in this together, and decisions we make today will impact Oregon for generations to come.
-
Legally, the state controls the ocean from the shoreline three miles out. Federal waters start there and go to 200 miles from the shore.
Okay, we heard Terry Dillman tell us that the distances for these are measured in Nautical Miles (nm), rather than statute miles, but I happen to be curious which shoreline? The high-tide shoreline, the low-tide shoreline or the mid-tide shoreline? While the difference seems trivial, it could matter, since (from Oregon's perspective) the low-tide shoreline is further west, in turn pushing the territorial lines out.
Mainly, I'm just curious....
-
Great question for Oregon I believe it is the Mean High Water line. For info on the various tidal datums (high-tide, low-tide shorelines, etc.) see http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/datum_options.html and also http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/state_tidal.jpg
-
Continuing the thread that of interesting research the OSU is doing, OSU is currently funded by the Minerals Management Service to identify and map out as many aspects of *potential* conflicts of ocean use space as possible on the outer continental shelf of Oregon, Washington, and California. This is actually beyond the 3 miles out to the Exclusive Economic Zone, and includes many items under current discussion with your guests including: marine reserves, shipping lanes, military training and uses, shipwrecks and other obstructions, recreational boating and sailing, recreational fishing, commercial fishing (we are working in close cooperation with NMFS, ODFW, and PSFMC on this sensitive category), scientific cables, commercial cables, LNG sites and more.
Ours maps will hopefully help MMS to see the where the best places are leasing a block of space for renewable energy sites, so as not to cause conflict. A tall order! At any rate, our study is ongoing until near the end of this year and the lead is Flaxen Conway of OSU and Oregon Sea Grant.
-
It seems to me that putting wave energy in a marine reserve would be an ideal combination, because the supporting and restraining cables would prevent fishing by trawls and bottom draggers, thus helping to enforce the reserve idea.
In fact maybe the reserves ought to be surrounded by wave energy bouys as a sort of fencing in the reserve from commercial fishing boats.
There's is probably something wrong about this idea but I don't see it right now.
-
As we talk about how we use the oceans and the differences between uses, we should also think about why the oceans are so important to us. Why do we value them? What is it about them that so intrigues us. Or maybe you already know!
If you want a way to celebrate the oceans and to learn how you can be part of the solution to ocean issues then come out on:
World Oceans Day -- next Tuesday, June 8!!
Come out to enjoy a FREE community event at the Ecotrust Building (721 NW 9th Ave.) from 6-8pm to sample sustainable sushi from Bamboo Sushi, hear an ocean solutions panel, eat ocean-themed Voodoo doughnuts, see blue artists, participate in an ocean-themed raffle, and watch an ocean movie!!
See the forthcoming Willamette Week bulletin board for more or email Paula@c-pod.org.
-
Cool! Thanks!
-
I recently heard that the United Nations is collecting data quantifying the economic value natural processes add to our economy.
For example, bees that pollinate plants add value to our economy. They play a role that keeps the whole food chain in tact. If our economic/environmental policies were to interrupt that process (habitat loss, pollution, etc...) then we would have lost on our investment.
In policy making are we considering the economic value of the natural processes of the ocean? And without understanding that process, how can we know that our policies aren’t doing much more harm than good?
-
Exploitation? Understanding? In one breath we seem to talk about humans as part of a natural system, as animals like the rest; and, then in another breath we decry the human as a leech, that is going above and beyond the leech-iness of the other 'animals.' We claim no one owns anything, no one has a right to any place, then, often the same people, encourage us to support the 'local' community. So much conflict, so many contradictions.
Water is a separator, it keeps much of the world at a distance. The oceans are the moats that protect our country castles. They can also divide our cities. In Portland, a river separates the east from the west, the bad rich people, from the good poor people...so they say. Vancouver, anyone? The glaciers are melting, the seas are rising---the oceans are getting bigger! The waters will reclaim lands, shores, islands. Then we will have even more water to dispute. Perhaps, this whole dogged place will flood and create one water nation for all. We can all putter around in boats, without a care in the wavy world.
-
I am listening and hearing the discussion centered around fishing and fish stocks. Oregon's marine ecosystems also support marine mammals and birds. According to the State of the Birds Report, at least 39% of the US birds restricted to Ocean Habitats are declining, facing threats from pollution, over-fishing, warming sea temperatures and decline of forage fish.
Oregon is not exempt from what is happening around the country and around the world. The Marine Reserves and ocean conservation process that Oregon is undertaking is critical. My hope and expectation is that the small handful of areas under consdieration for reserves is the start and not the end. Science shows us that a network of areas is required for ecological function, sustainability and resiliency. Oregon needs to committ to a network of sites.
-
God created the oceans along with everything else. There's a problem with determining who "owns" them. Aside from that, ownership comes with responsiblilty. All the oceans and everything else that the Creator made, are connected. Who owns what's IN the ocean, like "the garbage patch"? And who's responsibility is it to clean it up? We've created a monster, and no one wants to admit it.
-
I agree in the sense that this concept of "ownership" is very artificial. No one owns the oceans but we all have the responsibility to act as stewards of our oceans and recognize the importance of protecting, maintaining and restoring our oceans for future generations. I also agree that it means we have the responsibility to clean up the messes WE have made and to ensure we don't create future ones!!
-
I will admit it: 'god' created a monster, not 'we've?' He/she didn't plan ahead, didn't anticipate our capacities. Didn't anticipate our doubt? Didn't anticipate our boredom? Didn't anticipate our desires to amount to something, to ask for an explanation, to build cultures and structures to occupy and entertain us, during our boring, and pointless, stay on planet earth. Yep, definitely created a monster, and it's called 'me.'
-
I believe that the continued use of the term "owns" the ocean misdirects the discussion. "Ownership" changes the concept to one of dominion over the resources, rather than the duty to protect and restore. "Ownership" carries with it the idea that one has the right to exclude others and exploit as one sees fit. This is a common resource that must be protected and, to the degree it has been harmed, it should be restored.
Rather than ownership, the State and Federal government instead have a duty more like a trustee to protect and maintain the marine resources for the future. The beneficiary is the public. That means avoiding exploitation that diminishes the resource in a way that it is lost to future generations.
The frame of the discussion should be who has the duty to monitor, maintain, and improve the resources, and what is the nature and extent of the duty? Next is the question of the extent of the privilege allowed to those who exploit the resources. Whether for energy, fisheries, or recreation, the ability to use or consume marine resources must be exercised only to the degree that it does not diminish the resource for the future. It is the State and Federal Governments' duty to regulate in a manner that protects and restores the resources.
-
Well written. I wish I had put those words together.
One of the main problems is the opposing Conservative biblical religious instruction and idea to go out and "dominate the world". Nature doesn't take domination lightly or well, and "nature always bats last".
-
The frame of the discussion should be who has the duty to monitor, maintain, and improve the resources, and what is the nature and extent of the duty?
See: Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES, OAR 660-015-0010(4)
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal19.pdf
-
It sounds exactly like ownership. Even if it is ownership with a goal of preservation, it is still 'ownership.' These arguments are all complex and relative equations. We are a generation of people picking and choosing what should be saved and what shouldn't, deciding what is worthy and what isn't. I am not suggesting it is unnecessary, but we are protecting our interests as much as future generations, and we are also deciding for future generations what portion of the earth should be preserved as we see fit. We are also the same people deciding how many fish can be killed to meet our current needs, or how much destruction is an acceptable level. How clean our seas need to be, to support lifeforms that we intend to kill and eat. Sounds like a nasty cycle on all levels.
-
One historical use of the Pacific Ocean is as a dumping grounds. I have seen reports that people have been dumping plastics and other toxins for decades, which is causing problems for marine life. The size of the gyre is as big as Texas. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
Who is responsible for cleaning this up? Are there treaties to stop this practice?
Thanks.
-
The oceans are arguably our most precious natural resource. BP's disaster in the Gulf (referred to harmlessly as a "spill") will devastate ecosystems throughout the gulf and kill/reduce food resources for Americans, but also for many of the island nations in the Gulf and Mexico as well. By all rights, BP is responsible for a massive regional dieoff of food stocks for several countries, and for the large-scale killing of marine animals across the entire food chain. BPs liability, if paid in full, would bankrupt the company many times over. Who owns the ocean? We all own the ocean. This fact begs the need for full international treaties that protect the ocean, and for financial responsibility agreements that would allow meaningful efforts to allow restoration after such a large-scale disaster. And, deep water drilling must be halted, and not proceed until the industry has a failsafe method to keep such a disaster from ever re-occurring.
-
BPitt:"The frame of the discussion should be who has the duty to monitor, maintain, and improve the resources, and what is the nature and extent of the duty?"
See: Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES, OAR 660-015-0010(4)
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal19.pdf
-
I think we all own the ocean, and are responsible for doing our part to keep our environment as natural as possible. This is obviously NOT the case today... Everyone is upset with BP, and big oil for that matter. Media loves playing the blame game, but reality is WE ARE ALL TO BLAME! If we weren't buying it, big oil wouldn't be selling it. No matter how safe or unsafe drilling for oil may be, it still pollutes and kills wildlife - not to mention harms our health on a daily basis. Some people are more affected than others, but the bottom line is we ALL take part in this dangerous game we call "society". Until we all start using our purchasing power to encourage socially responsible companies, and change our daily actions to minimize harm to our environment, we are ALL TO BLAME for disasters which are caused by humans. I drive a car and have plastic products in my home, I personally take blame for our oil addiction - I have been feeding this fire too long and am taking small steps to lower my fossil fuel consumption... The only thing that really scares me is how fast people are to point a finger and curse (well deserved I might add) while neglecting to see the ROOT CAUSE of this problem. There is no high-tech solution for this disaster, in fact the solution that works the best is very basic. STOP DRIVING, start walking, biking, carpooling, using mass transit and consolidating your driving. How many BILLIONS of gallons of gas are burned up in engines each year with the exhaust spewing into the air?!? You can call me a tree hugger, but seriously, it's better to hug a tree than a tailpipe - I'm not going to get burned.....
-
Comments are now closed.
"Who owns the ocean? Who is responsible for how it is treated?"
We all are responsible for how the ocean is treated, for all of us own the ocean together, and none of us owns it individually. Those of us who are inland, however, have to look to those who live along the water to act on our behalf, and with our appreciation. We who live inland, however, are responsible for how we treat the rivers and streams that flow through our communities and how that impacts the oceans.
That said, I still think that we need to hold to account those who despoil our oceans, as has occurred with the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (and the eerily similar Ixtoc Disaster in 1979).
On her show last week (Wednesday, May 26, I think) MSNBC's Rachel Maddow outlined the timeline of the Ixtoc Disaster and how the Deepwater Horizon Disaster is parallelling that incident, attempt for attempt, failure for failure. (They tried the "junk shot" and failed; the "top hat" was called "Operation Sombrero" which failed; the top-kill, which failed...the only thing that DID work was when they finally completed relief wells 9 months later. And that well was in only 200 feet of water!)
Supplemental: Hurricane season begins today (June 1).