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 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

Phillip- Let me ask you a question..... There are currently 14 areas off the Oregon Coast that are designated MPA's - Marine Protected Areas. Places such as Three Arch Rock is closed to fishing within 500 feet due to nesting bird habitat. The Stonewall Bank High Relief area is closed to ALL fishing to protect Yellow Eye and Canary rockfish and their habitat. Three Arch has been closed for many years and Stonewall banks for the last 4 years.

Any guess how much research has been done in these closed areas? None. How many researched studies are currently being proposed for areas with de-facto no take zones in Oregon? None. How much money is being put forward to study the current no take zones, or new ones through Marine Reserves? None.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

No problem. The group you are referring to is the Coastal Conservation Alliance or CCA. Gary Loomis is a key person in the movement to grow the CCA in the Pacific Northwest, and at this time their key objective is the elimination of gill nets for salmon on the Columbia R. It is important to note that while Mr. Loomis is a focal point for the CCA, he is not their leader. He is in effect a recruiter and motivator to get people involved in the CCA. The CCA does have an agenda and others should review how they operate, what they want to accomplish, and how they interact with other groups. The CCA is new here and until they establish how they do things, there is little to specifically address.

Certainly the RFA operates in a much different manner, one that is not confrontational. The goal of the RFA is to find reasonable ground for all stakeholders on all fishing issues. As noted, members of the RFA are involved and established on many boards and committees that make recommendations for commercial and recreational angling levels. There is a great amount of give and take because the RFA recognizes that our resources do not belong to any one user group, and that fair access to these resources is the right of all. Compromise and rational decision making is key to helping all stakeholders.

Thanks for your reply. We definitely agree that more things can get accomplished if all interests band together to solve problems.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I am very confused about your statement regarding the RFA. Here in Oregon, the RFA is not in the least trying to pit commercial fisherman against recreational fisherman, actually quite to the contrary. In Oregon you will find that members of RFA and Oregon Anglers sit on many boards side by side with commercial fishing interests. What the RFA may or may not do in other areas should not be brought into the conversation here where specific RFA representatives are highly respected from commercial and recreational sectors as well as the managing sectors such as the PFMC, ODF&W, and the IPHC. In fact, anyone that attended the Oregon Sea Grant outreach meeting tonight in Newport would have found several prominent members of the RFA interacting very well with all stakeholders.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I find it unfortunate that misinformation is constantly used to pull at the heartstrings as an appeal to "get with the program".

Unlike what is stated above, in fact Washington does not have protection in place in the form of Marine Reserves in their Ocean waters. Marine Reserves in the state of Washington are all located within the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, San Juans and Straight of Juan de Fuca, with the bulk of these being located within close proximity to dense population centers. The ecosystem in the Puget Sound is similar in that it is also a marine environment consisting of salt water, but much different in that it has such significantly higher population base in very near proximity, high traffic from shipping, ferrys, barges, as well as other users. Surface water runoff from farms and communities which has leached vast quantities of pesticides and fertilizers into the Puget Sound and Hood Canal has created an ecosystem that is significantly damaged and continues to be threatened.

The west coast of the State of Washington is very similar to the coast of Oregon with low population bases and relatively little impact which is managed well. There are no Marine Reserves on the West Coast Ocean side of the State of Washington. As proactive as people have been in the Puget Sound going back 30+ years, no identifiable need has been shown in the Washington State ocean waters.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

It is important to point out that a large majority of those that you perceive as "protesting" Marine Reserves are not actually doing so. The largest share of these individuals are protesting the process that is taking place for implementation. There is a lot of mis-information put out there regarding marine reserves and unfortunately many people that are uneducated about the waters off the Oregon coast let emotional responses overwhelm the analytical thought process.

Mike, your comment in particular shows a very common misconception made by the general public in Oregon. The primary misconception being that there is a "need" for a reserve. In the waters that these reserves would be located, there is not currently a species that is determined to be in an unhealthy status. In fact, species such as black rockfish and lingcod (two of the primary stocks in the nearshore habitat) are very healthy and being managed very successfully.

The second portion of your statement you reference that reserves have "proven" to be species generators. This is a very misleading statement that should be qualified by referencing specific examples. The truth of the matter is that there is a scarce few studies that have been done that demonstrate this, and those areas where species have rebounded have been in areas that the fish populations had been severely damaged by unregulated fishing, contaminated waters, and other environmental concerns. To date there is no study that I have found that has shown that there is a net benefit to adding a marine reserve in an area that already has a healthy marine environment such as the Oregon Coast.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

As a proponent of sustainable fisheries and ocean conservation I have read and reviewed many documents regarding Marine Reserves. One such document, The Science of Marine Reserves generated by the PISCO Foundation is an often referenced example by proponents of the Marine Reserve process. With core funding provided by the Packard Foundation, a key advocate for Marine Reserves, this booklet would seem at the least to be the proponents "manual" for implementation of these areas.

I would like to reference page 16 of The Science of Marine Reserves to share much frustration and concern with the current state of Marine Reserve implementation in Oregon.

PAGE 18

[SNIP]
Social scientists have begun to identify the social and economic factors that enhance the success of marine reserves:

* Clear Goals
* Supportive institutions and legislation
* High participation in community decision-making
* Involvement of people with diverse interests
* Effective use of scientific advice
* Effective conflict-resolution mechanisms
* Sustainable finance
* Initiatives to provide fishermen with alternate income
* Equitable sharing of economic benefits
* Fair enforcement

Increased attention to the human dimensions of marine reserves and the ocean governance will be necessary to ensure effective management over the long term.

[SNIP]

I would like to address a number of these points with my current concerns.

Clear Goals- At this time, the only goal I have been made aware of is that of establishing Marine Reserves. There has not been any information put forward at this time that specifically addresses what species, or ecosystem will be helped, or in what specific way. Many times proponents reference the need to help two species of rockfish that are currently problematic. These species (Yellow-eye and Canary) are offshore varieties that Marine Reserves would not impact. There is currently no threatened or listed near shore rockfish stocks that marine reserves would impact to bring back to a "healthy" status. I would ask that prior to moving forward with any other proposals with regard to Marine Reserves that clearly defined goals and proposed benefits based on specific scientific fact would be established and shared with all stakeholders and the public in general.

Supportive institutions and legislation- A personal agenda by the Governor of Oregon for "Heritage Sites" in my opinion does not constitute legislation, but rather, personal interest. It would seem prior to moving forward that open discussion in the Oregon Legislature with the facts and information provided by OPAC and the ODF&W would be prudent.

High participation in community decision-making- I welcome and appreciate the opportunity afforded by the Oregon Sea Grant Outreach. I would like to stress the importance of this process to listen to the coastal community and ask that further open forum comment periods be arranged. Pre-selected questions to discuss limit the socially diverse comments that may be asked by each community sector.

Effective use of scientific advice- It is critical that many scientific considerations be listed and performed before any action involving implementation of Marine Reserves takes place. At this time, with the very limited mapping of the Oregon Territorial Sea at 5%, any implementation of Marine Reserves is guesswork at best. Without scientific baselines for establishing the goals for the marine reserves (which as noted, have not been established) there is no practical or reasonable way to measure benefits. All of the net benefits possibly attributable to a Marine Reserve system at this point would be arbitrary. Establishment of a Marine Reserve system should assure those that are bearing the social and economic cost that there is in fact a net benefit that is measurable and sustainable.

Sustainable finance- At this point I have not seen any information regarding cost of implementation, cost of maintenance, cost of enforcement, cost of boards and committees or any other associated government agencies. Prior to implementation it would seem of utmost importance to give to the public a reasonable assessment of their initial tax burden as well as the estimate for continuing tax burden. Also important would be to define how this tax burden is to be assessed. Would it be to the general public in Oregon, coastal communities, fishing license taxes, gas taxes, etc? Associated costs for Marine Reserves in California should be reviewed and shared with the public as a baseline. If any private sector plans on contributing to the cost of Marine Reserves, that information should be made public and determined whether a conflict of interest is apparent. As Marine Reserves would be destined for public waters, private operation and costs should be strictly forbidden.

Initiatives to provide fishermen with alternate incomes- Until the economic costs are determined, then it will be impossible to determine what alternate income may be needed by those such as commercial fisherman and charter boat operators. As above, it should be determined who will be paying for these alternate incomes.

Fair enforcement- Presently I have not seen any information regarding enforcement. Establishing "Paper Reserves" will not effectively perform the proposed benefits of a Marine Reserve. Legitimate enforcement would seem to be the responsibility of the State Police in Territorial Waters but at this time the fish and game division of the OSP is already stretched very thin. Establishing increased enforcement responsibilities may have the effect of eliminating other much needed game enforcement for fish and wildlife.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am fully in support of ocean conservation and fully believe that as individuals and as a state we absolutely must be good stewards of our Territorial Sea. I have been angling both as a recreation and as employment in Oregon waters for most of my life. I have very positive beliefs in the current state of our ocean resource management through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and do not feel that a rush to marine reserves will provide any net benefit that is not being accomplished through responsible management. At this time I would ask that any movement forward with Marine Reserves at a minimum take place by answering and establishing specific criteria as suggested by PISCO and the booklet The Science of Marine Reserves. In addition to this booklet, I would ask that a peer review on the science used to establish Oregon Marine reserves be done to verify that our specific and unique coastline in fact needs Marine Reserves.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context