A Future for Fishing
Jim Webb, SF Chronicle
Wednesday, November 21, 2007

One day last year, I was trout fishing in the Upper Klamath River, near the Oregon border. Arriving at dawn, I was dismayed to find a sign on this picture-perfect river that showed only six areas open for fishing on this stretch of water. The last stretch of the river, before becoming an Oregon river, was closed to angling and called an "in river hatchery." After driving more than half the length of the state to fish, I was outraged.

Dispirited, I pulled up to the first "open area," got out of my truck and took my gear down to the river. My second cast scored a nice rainbow trout. As did the next. I placed my feet carefully, and cast again. The fish leapt in the air and threw the spinner off to the side. Several casts later and I had caught my limit.

I did this for three days in a row. The hatchery up the river had worked as a practical and natural fish reserve that had produced a large number of fish that now populate the fishable stretch of the river. A few days of great fishing changed my view of the closures. Fish reserves now seemed like a pretty good idea.

The network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that the state Fish and Game Commission is designing with public input to run the length of the California Coast will produce similar benefits to the fish in our ocean. The first part of this network, established between Half Moon Bay and Santa Barbara in September, has left plenty of areas open to recreational fishing (more than 80 percent of the region), while preserving important areas to operate as a natural system of "hatcheries." Marine scientists tell us that marine reserves where fishing is not allowed increase the number, diversity, size and fertility of fish found both inside and outside of the protected areas. It's common sense that when fish are given areas to feed, breed and grow, they grow healthier, more fertile and larger. And that makes for better fishing.

I've seen the effects of marine reserves in our ocean with my own eyes. Last month, I joined a group of anglers and scientists who are monitoring fish populations at Point Lobos south of Monterey, where a small marine reserve established in the 1970s just got bigger. The abundance of fish in this area was incredible - we caught fish so quickly that the scientists on board were barely able to keep pace. The abundance, size and variety of fish were unlike anything I have seen in more than 30 years of fishing the California Coast.

No one is more interested in the long-term health of the ocean than fishermen, which is why recreational fishermen demanded marine reserves in the Channel Islands near Santa Barbara. This is also why I participated in designing California's plan for new protected areas along the Central Coast. These new protected areas were developed based on scientific advice but also with input from everyday folks, including fishermen like myself.

The unfortunate oil spill being dealt with in the San Francisco Bay Area points out the importance of having a "network" of marine reserves. Should disaster strike one area, we are not left with all of our eggs in one basket. Further, marine scientists have encouraged replication within the network so that important habitats are represented more than once. Just as one hatchery cannot meet all the freshwater stocking needs of this state; the same can be said for the ocean.

In the end, it's pretty simple. If you spend more than you earn, you will go into debt. As a fisherman, I know that if you take more fish than the ocean can replace, you won't be fishing for long. Unfortunately, that is just what we have been doing in California in recent years. There is a reason that old-timers spin fish tales - the fishing isn't what it used to be.

California's new Marine Protected Areas are an investment in the future. It is fishermen who will benefit most from this investment and should be their strongest supporters. Thirty years from now, the next generation of fishermen will be able to generate some tall fish tales of their own.


Jim Webb is an avid recreational fisherman who lives in Cambria (San Luis Obispo County).

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Ahh you hit a hot topic for me. I think these are the biggest load of BS the Nazi environmental group is ramming down our throats.

The weekend guy who catch's a couple of Trout is not harming the population. The factory up stream, run off from various human activities are harming their habitat.

As for the open ocean again the guy filling a cooler with Striper's isn't harming anything. The commercial factory ship that process's tons a day is.

The commercial fishing loby is like the farmers loby, they have a ton of money and can buy their way out. Ban the factory ships, restrict commercial fishing. I bet CA's problems can be traced back to Russian and Japanese fleets right outside our territorial waters.

These zones are just an attempt to pass the buck down to the recreational guy who doesn't have the money to loby congress.
http://www.igfa.org/campaign_gamefish_conservation.asp

Orivs is probably doing more to protect streams then any of these BS no fishing zones:
http://www.orvis.com/intro.asp?subject=502

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/target.htm


This issues needs to be broken into two parts, the commercial and recreational fisherman. The sportsman should not be banned from fishing anywhere.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Hattie, I'll agree that factory pollution damage, etc. is more of a problem than too much fishing, no doubt. The Klamath is in trouble largely due to old damns up in Oregon that are not that useful and warm the river such that salmon have a hard time getting by.

The ocean protected areas also guard against excess depletion from factory ships. But don't think that smaller comercial boats don't have an impact. Lots of evidence that various fisheries are in trouble from various directions.

And if this guy is noticing improved results, that counts for something. He didn't say how many years he'd been fishing, but the implication is that he's been around.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Get a clue, get a life, pal.

Who is the giver of fish, of game, of life itself? Show me anywhere in the bible where we puny mortals are encouraged to believe as you do, that life is but a brief vapor, or exactly whatever it is you cling to.

We are the only life form that we know of who has the capacity to consider his effect on his surroundings beyond the level of 'MMmmm, me hungry . . . . . .MMMmmm, me eat.'

Dude, get a massage, see a shrink, something, but spare me this knee jerk contempt and anger.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

God told Matt SD300 to suck the planet dry. The rest of you suckers He told to act as a steward of His creation.

B

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I don't see how this discussion has anything to do with ones politcal philosiphy.


If you like the outdoors, and spend some time their you tend to care about the environment, and want to protect it.

Thats why companies like Orivs do so well and are able to raise so much money for the restoration of habitat.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

As a professional captain who drives a 65 foot fishing boat this topic no only hits home but is relevant on many fronts. I've done quite a bit of study on this and the results of MPA's (marine protection areas) are different than what I thought they'd be. New Zealand has many MPA's that totally ban fishing and they are generally considered a success by all, yet are still locally fought against by both commercial and sport fishers. Personally I don't see much difference in commercial and sport fishermen anymore. Poaching sportfishermen tend to be the norm anymore in my view, and if you look at the fishing effort by sportfishermen on a given ground you will see it is not small. Nearly every fishing ground I see (and I am on fishing grounds up and down the USA east coast over 200 days a year) is fished every single day by dozens of boats. The fish's behavior and numbers are changed greatly by commercial fishing AND sport fishing. I served on the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Council as a representative of the CNMI (Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands - the islands north of Guam where I lived for 10 years) for two years, which advises NMFC (National Marine Fisheries Council) and tries to set fisheries rules their jurisdiction. Frankly I don't have time to write all I'd like to about this subject.
However- the greatest thread to ALL USA fisheries health is Bill Hogarth, one of the head's of NMFS. He has repeatedly been quoted as being a outright proponent of the commercial sector, and we have seen during his rule the decimation of nearly all species in all grounds. He ought to be shot- as in executed if you ask me. He does make some rational statements from time to time to fool the public and appear as a reasonable person.
National Geographic had a great article on Bluefin tuna lately- an excellent read. I do not and have not killed a bluefin tuna for a few years, and will not do so again. I will not kill a shark unless it means a payout of more than $10K either. In the last 4 four years I've caught over 100 pelagic sharks and killed four. I think no take MPA's are a good thing.
I also think from personal experience that marine scientists are biased, and the "reports" they give are greatly colored in order to secure more funding for whatever project they are involved in. I don't trust them any farther than I can drag them behind the boat as shark teasers.
William

Wow.

I'd like to know more about the NMFS guy. I hate that the gov gets appointees like that and it happens way, way too often. It's a combination of political pay-back through appointment and lackadaisical Congressional vetting & oversight.

Have Google, will unravel.

B

"National Fisherman" magazine is the most well read professional publication and he's been endless quoted in it over the last decade.

The problem with NMFS and research is that the same agency has regulatory responsibility and also research responsibility. That's the same set-up as the Corps of Engineers. It builds-in a conflict of interest. The best way to correct it would be to split NOAA into a regulatory agency and a research agency.

I used to work for an agency that had regulatory, land management, and research responsibilities and sometimes it was a nightmare with appointees having direct control over what the research scientists were allowed to publish. They wouldn't necessarily fudge the data, but if you played ball you got great funding and if you didn't play ball, they'd sit on your results for the remainder of the appointee's tenure.

And yes, I saw it under both Democrats and Republicans. Worse under Republicans but no Democrat should take that as a great endorsement -- they just suck less.

B

When I worked at Midway Atoll national wildlife refuge I had to work under "scientists" rules. Some scientists saw funding for whatever project they were working on dry up so they found other projects that would be funded so that they could stay there longer. If the study they were working on showed more study was needed they were generally funded more. If they study showed that it was in general agreement with what higher-ups wanted, they were funded more. It roundabout goes to what you point out Bosnt- that if the findings further the higher-up agenda, then they studies author's advance. The rules they set were down right amazing. We could not surf, or windsurf, or kayak, and we could not use bait inside the lagoon because it would injury the fisheries by changing the behavior of the fish. We could use a blood soaked sponge on the hook, but not bait. I set 8 potential world records there, and 7 we released the fish alive after doing all the requirements to meet the record, and only the later forced into retirement Head of Fish and Wildlife Refuge boss would come down as see the record process in action. Nearly all the fish we caught was catch and release, but some tuna and wahoo were kept for food. The "scientists" really disliked us... but they gobbled up the fish we caught every change they got.

That was an interesting bit and just when I thought this thread was going to die a quiet death. I saw the Nat. Geo article on the Bluefin. It was quite good. I think I'll find it and read it completely. Usually, I give those a pretty good browse.

MPAs, is that 'major predator' or something? I've been reading that the dramatic reduction of shark numbers will likely be really bad news. They say shark fin soup is pretty forgettable to boot.

My best high school bud has fished halibut in Alaska for about 25 years. I've heard a lot about the short window of the Halibut season. Is that sort of different way of doing a MPA?

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

An MPA is a marine protection area, which means that activities are restricted in some sort of way. It usually means that fishing of all types (which includes shell collecting or harvesting of anything) are prohibited year round. It usually also means you cannot have motor water sports activities. Short breaks in this, allowing fishing or harvesting, does seems to effect the fish's behavior and numbers.

I might be going out on a limb, but I think most recreational fisherman and hunters realize that you need to protect the very critters you wish to target as well as their habitat. That's why so many of us belong to organizations such as B.A.S.S., Ducks Unlimited, etc.

However there are cynics among our ranks, which I tend to agree with, that any government designated hatchery, fishery, nursery, < insert your favorite off-limits zone euphemism here> that has environmental groups' endorsement is just another incremental step towards the outright banning of hunting and fishing. It's one thing as an club/organization to work to maintain and improve the habitats and voluntarily place limits on takes in the interest of continuing their sport, it's another when government (local, state, federal), pressured by the environmental lobby, starts to impose them.

Unfortunately as recreational participants, our voices are no where near as loud and powerful as the commercial interests who are better able to dictate public policy and, arguably, more likely to cause long-term harm. That's why we'll be targeted first.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)