2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Just to clarify a couple of points, in response to Ron Mason's comment: The Governor didn't propose that the entire Oregon Territorial Sea be a marine reserve. He proposed that the entire continental shelf off Oregon be a federal Marine Sanctuary. This is an entirely different process, and wouldn't have involved no-take restrictions on fishing. A lot of people who support marine reserves would agree that, while his heart may have been in the right place, the Governor jumped ahead too quickly on this, and didn't have a well-thought-out plan. But it is neither here nor there with regard to the marine reserves process. "Legacy" and "research" are just descriptive words--they don't indicate anything different in terms of the formal process of creating marine reserves. So, while I would tend to agree that the Marine Sanctuary proposal was a bit of a detour, other than that the Governor has been quite consistent in pushing for creation of the limited network of reserves that is already a state policy goal.

Right off the top of my head, I don't know where to go to dig up the policy on marine reserves originally adopted by OPAC and accepted by Gov. John Kitzhaber. I'm sure it is buried in my files somewhere, but don't have time to look. If you really want to see this, I would suggest contacting Greg McMurray, the lead staffer to OPAC, gregory.mcmurray@state.or.us. I'm sure he can dig it up.

I've had my say on all this. Just wanted to respond on those details.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

To: Mark and other proponents: Since I don't know you individually, I don't know whether you are being disingenuous or whether you really don't understand how we got to this point. The idea that marine reserves are suddenly being rushed through is utter nonsense. The state's policy since 2001 has been to establish "a limited system of marine reserves" (not "one or two"). That is exactly what we are finally talking about--fewer than ten modest-sized and carefully located reserves. This should have happened seven years ago. However, development of marine reserves was blocked by opponents who succeeded in having the legislature gut OPAC and then, after a gap of several years, reconstitute it with a membership designed to cause gridlock (and leaving out the agency representatives who should be central participants). The Governor at long last exerted the leadership to say that this delaying tactic would no longer prevail and that we would finally follow through on what is already state policy. What has been set up is a perfectly legitimate process, with LOTS of "stakeholder" input--heavily skewed toward those with commercial interests in the ocean thus far--and, eventually, strong scientific input, although we haven't heard enough from the scientists as yet.

Don't you get it? We are all equal stakeholders in our common ocean, those of us who advocate ecosystem-based management every bit as much as those interested in harvesting particular species. This is about nudibranchs and sea stars and algae and seabirds every bit as much as rockfish. This process did begin with "local stakeholders" (who dominate OPAC, among other things). Oh, brother, have we ever heard from the local stakeholders. The Governor's office has leaned far over backwards to give coastal residents a forum. It is time we started hearing more from the equal stakeholders who live elsewhere in the state, and from the scientific community.

Your notion that we should just establish one or two, and be ready to constantly change them and "proceed carefully," demonstrates that you don't grasp the concept. We need enough reserves, and large enough reserves, to encompass representative samples of the key ecosystems and habitats in Oregon's territorial waters, and we then need to observe them over long periods of time. What you are proposing is a placebo.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Three Arch Rocks is closed to research vessels, too. I couldn't tell you what research may be planned for Stonewall. MPAs are not marine reserves. The kind of research we're talking about would be long-running--areas closed for a while to protect particular species, not committed to protecting entire ecosystems, aren't going to induce scientists to launch such long-term projects, nor foundations to fund them. Marine scientists strongly support the concept, and believe that they will be able to gain support to study them. We'll have to ask some of them to weigh in on the details of prospective research funding. I was addressing the underlying logic of the situation--there have to be habitat areas and ecosystems reliably protected for long periods in order to make the needed research possible in the first place. We aren't talking about stock assessments here--we are talking about ecosystem-based management.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Those who oppose marine reserves have been posing a Catch-22. I'm not sure whether it is a clever rhetorical maneuver or whether they really don't see it. They say, "You have to show us the scientific proof that these are needed," or, "We need to do the science that will show that marine reserves will work here," or words to that effect, before reserves are established. But the point is precisely that we must have reserves in order to do comparative studies. Until we can compare exploited areas with untouched habitat, we won't have a scientific means of measuring the impacts we are having on the ocean. We need to establish marine reserves, and allow enough time for them to restore themselves to something approaching an untouched state, in order to do the science. Marine reserves are based on science, which is why the scientific community overwhelmingly supports them, but they aren't an end-product of science, they are an absolutely critical research tool. Without the ability to study intact ecosystems, we really don't know what impact we're having. Instead, we get empty, totally anecdotal assurances that in recent years fishermen "have never seen Oregon's ocean so healthy." As compared to what? We really don't know what a healthy, fully productive ocean would look like--no one did studies 150 years ago. We have to set aside key habitat areas, allow them time to heal from human impacts, and then do comparative studies, to give ourselves even an inkling. With any luck at all, we'll find that if we protect the core spawning and rearing habitat, fish populations will increase to the point that a sustainable fishery is actually greater than we can currently achieve while we are groping in the dark. But setting up marine reserves is a precondition to finding out.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context