Team Obama Ocean Policy

[dizzy]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54658
Does anyone have any thoughts on how this might effect the marine ornamentals industry? I heard something about this on a radio talk show and they were saying it would have a negative effect on sports fishing. Sounds like change may be coming to people who collect marine ornamentals in US waters like Florida and Hawaii.


The following is from the article:
"Decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes should be informed by and consistent with the best available science. Decision-making will also be guided by a precautionary approach as reflected in the Rio Declaration of 1992 which states in pertinent part, '[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.'"

 

[spawner]

Mitch this is classic precautionary approach. It's talked about a lot as the correct approach to resource management but hardly ever realized.

 

[Anonymous]

Good, especially when terminology like "social justice" is included in this "report". But we have ourselves, in this time of broke governments, yet another agency/bureau that will take more resources. So I have to ask, this couldn't have been done any other way?

 

[spawner]

I'm not certain of the agency structure. I know that NMFS is a large part of the problem. So if they are removed from this that would be a good thing, most likely not. NMFS is like the FAA in the sense that the commerical fisherman are their customer not the citizens or resources. That is how you get insane things like the allowances for destructive fishing practices, such as long line fishing and dragging over large areas. When if they were resource minded they would only allow sustainable fishing measured over generations of fisherman and fisherman not big companies might be able to make a good living. Instead they allow stocks to be hammered by large commerical boats, miles of longlines, traps and then they suddenly wake up one day to find the fishery collapsing and they slap the fisherman with huge restrictions making it almost impossible for them to feed their faimlies or pay their bills. That has been the current method for resource management, anything that is different from that would be an improvement.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not certain of the agency structure. I know that NMFS is a large part of the problem. So if they are removed from this that would be a good thing, most likely not. NMFS is like the FAA in the sense that the commerical fisherman are their customer not the citizens or resources. That is how you get insane things like the allowances for destructive fishing practices, such as long line fishing and dragging over large areas. When if they were resource minded they would only allow sustainable fishing measured over generations of fisherman and fisherman not big companies might be able to make a good living. Instead they allow stocks to be hammered by large commerical boats, miles of longlines, traps and then they suddenly wake up one day to find the fishery collapsing and they slap the fisherman with huge restrictions making it almost impossible for them to feed their faimlies or pay their bills. That has been the current method for resource management, anything that is different from that would be an improvement.

Two thumbs up!!!

I think Peter (Rubec) might have something to add though, I think he's with NMFS

 

[PeterIMA]

Gresham,
As far as the link provided at the beginning of this thread, I believe it addresses the need to take a more holistic approach to support ecosystem-based management. This includes better regulations to reduce coastal pollution and/or nutrients that are contributing to oxygen-deficient dead zones and red tides. Habitat loss and habitat degredation due to dredging, shipping, coastal development, reductions in freshwater inflow and other human activities can impact estuarine fish recruitment and coastal fisheries. I believe the URL dealt with these issues. Many of these issues cut across government departments and may be outside of the jurisdiction of the fisheries management councils and/or NOAA/NMFS. At the most, NMFS may get to comment on issues that influence Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). But, EFH species are only the ones that move from State waters to Federal waters during their life histories. Many coastal species that stay in State waters are not covered by the EFH provisions in the Magnusen-Stevens Fisheries Management Conservation Act. The USA needs to take a broad ecosystem-based approach to protect coastal habitats and their associated communities of fish and other organisms. I believe that was the intent of the link provided. One should not blame all of the problems impacting the fisheries on the Councils and/or NMFS. It may also be unfair to blame the fishermen.

 

[Anonymous]

A holistic, scientific approach is one thing. Inserting agendas that begin and end with concepts such as "social justice" are another and in my honest opinion do not belong. If the aim is to truly sustainably manage these areas and resources, then I would like to see the rhetoric removed completely.

 

[spawner]

Part of the problem, most of it, is that NMFS has always interjected social justice in to the fishery issues. That is how they can say well we have to let longliners put out 5 mile lines of hooks and kill thousands of sharks, turtles and marlin to catch a swordfish. That is what they mean by Social Justice. It would be like arguing that we have to allow CN fisherman to keep using CN because they have been fishing that way for a long time.

It's interesting that you can shut a factory down, lay people off, tell them you are sorry. But if a fisherman is using a destructive fishing method in the US, well that is ok. "They have been doing that for generations and they can not do anything else, we have to allow them to continue their lifestyle." Is that what they mean by social justice?

 

[Anonymous]

Oh that's right Peter, sorry. No offense was meant, but I did know you'd have something to say about this issue

My take is different as my area has no dead areas and coastal pollution isn't the big issue with at least one fishery. The main one is the groundfish and that is due to utter overfishing. In the early 70's they issued a bunch of long line permits of which wiped out the groundfish. The reaction was to close the major areas, a good thing, but way too late and devastating to both commercial fishermen and "party boats". If applied right it could be a sustainable harvest IMO but that is not going to happen now that the stocks are so low. Best thing would to be to make them totally off limits for a decade (boy am I going to catch flack from that). The fishermen are pretty much done around here all ready. They can't eek out a living on what is being given to them. The lack of zooplankton due to the lack of phytoplankton blooms is also hurting one of the more abundant groundfish, one we call "bluefish". They've noticeably declined over the last 3 years in areas I dive. I used to see hundreds, now I'm lucky to see a dozen little guys.

The other big one for us around here is Salmon but that does have it's other issues, like to low of flow in streams/rivers, dams, runoff, siltation and overfishing. Some fishermen blame seals as well but that's just a scape goat. The real issue IMO is the damming of the rivers to send water to Socal and for power.

 

[dizzy]

Here is an article that shows the concern from the sportfishing industry:

ASA CONCERNED OVER THE INTERAGENCY OCEANS POLICY TASK FORCE

Published on: October 14, 2009
A sweeping oceans and Great Lakes management policy document proposed by the Obama Administration will have a significant impact on the sportfishing industry, America's saltwater anglers and the nation's coastal communities. The draft policy, the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, issued on September 17, will govern federal Pacific and Atlantic Ocean waters and Great Lakes resource conservation and management and will coordinate these efforts among federal, state and local agencies. This past June, President Obama created the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, led by the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to develop a draft national policy and implementation strategy for conserving and managing the United States ocean territory and the Great Lakes.

"While we are by and large supportive of the intent of the Interim Report, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) has serious concerns regarding the direction the administration is taking regarding how to manage our nation's marine and freshwater public resources, choosing a tone of preservation over conservation," said ASA Vice President Gordon Robertson. "We are very disappointed that the task force failed to recognize recreational fishing's significant conservation, economic and social contributions and include recreational fishing as a key policy component. The sportfishing community strongly supports healthy and abundant ocean, coastal and fishery resources which have a direct impact on sustaining vibrant local coastal communities. Outdoor recreation, especially recreational fishing, is an integral part of coastal economies throughout this nation and therefore should be included as a priority in any national ocean policy."

"In regards to recreational fishing specifically, it is a long-standing policy of the federal government to allow public access to public lands and waters for recreational purposes consistent with sound conservation including the nation's wildlife refuges, national forests, and national parks and should be reflected in a national policy for the oceans and Great Lakes. In fact, the use of public resources by recreational anglers is essential to the conservation model used in this country for fish and wildlife management," said ASA Ocean Resource Policy Director Patty Doerr.

Doerr further said, "As with any good federal policy decision, discussions about measures that may restrict public access to public resources must involve an open public process, have a solid scientific basis and incorporate specific guidelines on implementation and follow-up. We are very concerned about the abbreviated 90 day timeline which forced the Task Force to issue this policy document prematurely. The implications of such a policy are vast and nationwide. Therefore, the review process should be very deliberate and go well beyond the 30 days public review and comment period which started on September 17." The Task Force's Interim Report is currently under a 30-day public review and comment period.

Since 1950, with the passage of the Sport Fish Restoration Act, anglers and the sportfishing industry have provided the bulk of funding for fisheries conservation and management in the United States through fishing license fees and the federal manufacturers excise tax on recreational fishing equipment. According to NOAA Fisheries, saltwater anglers contribute over $82 billion annually to the economy. Despite taking only three percent of the saltwater fish harvested each year, the recreational sector creates nearly half the jobs coming from domestic saltwater fisheries.

Robertson concluded, "The sportfishing community believes that recreational activities such as responsibly-managed and regulated recreational fishing deserve full consideration and incorporation in the administration's ocean and Great Lakes policy. Providing the angling public with access to public resources is no less important than conserving those resources. Therefore, we urge the Task Force to include recreational fishing as a separate and distinct ocean and Great Lakes priority. We also urge all anglers and recreational fishing supports to make their voices heard."

In July, ASA staff met with White House staff to provide comments to CEQ and the Task Force. In August, ASA staff met with Department of Interior staff to discuss their involvement in the Task Force and provide ASA's perspective on various ocean policy issues, including marine spatial planning and marine reserves.

 

[Anonymous]

The other big one for us around here is Salmon but that does have it's other issues, like to low of flow in streams/rivers, dams, runoff, siltation and overfishing. Some fishermen blame seals as well but that's just a scape goat. The real issue IMO is the damming of the rivers to send water to Socal and for power.

When it comes to chinook that need waters in the Sierra for spawning, look to agencies such as East Bay MUD. They want to build more/higher dams and won't give up any such plans in their long term planning reports.


Sounds like everyone's forgotten completely about one Ed Ricketts and his work, too. Cannery row became a tourist destination, maybe all the other little fishing villages can do the same thing.

 

[Anonymous]

The other big one for us around here is Salmon but that does have it's other issues, like to low of flow in streams/rivers, dams, runoff, siltation and overfishing. Some fishermen blame seals as well but that's just a scape goat. The real issue IMO is the damming of the rivers to send water to Socal and for power.

When it comes to chinook that need waters in the Sierra for spawning, look to agencies such as East Bay MUD. They want to build more/higher dams and won't give up any such plans in their long term planning reports.


Sounds like everyone's forgotten completely about one Ed Ricketts and his work, too. Cannery row became a tourist destination, maybe all the other little fishing villages can do the same thing.

Herring harvest has begone again. They've returned, not in massive numbers, but they are back.

True about EBMUD but they are only a part of the problem, there are others doing just as much, if not more. That one is just a hot button issue for you with their current intentions (saw your SUMP post). My county takes no water from the Sierra's

 

[PeterIMA]

To Spawner and Gresham,
We can all agree that there are many factors impacting freshwater and coastal-marine fisheries. As a scientist, I believe that sound science should be applied to manage fisheries. But, what one sees is that fisheries management has become very political. First, many council members are political appointees rather than scientists. Secondly, the Recreational and Commercial interests have been at each other's throats. The Recreational anglers are well finanaced and have been actively lobbying the politicians. But, the Commercial fishermen are not the only ones contributing to overfishing. Over the past decade Environmental groups have become actively involved with the Fishery Management Councils in the USA and have been pushing for the creation of no-take MPAs and for the implemtation of Catch Shares (also called individual fishing quotas). They have much more money and political influence than the fisheries organizations. I found it of interest today to read a short article (in the journal Biological Conservation) by someone from the Nature Conservancy stating that the Environmental Groups needed to work with fishermen rather than against them, to help find solutions.

I find Spawner's comments about Social Justice of interest. I have not seen that term used in the fisheries literature. The councils use the term Optimum Sustainable Yield (OSY), which means that the councils must allocate aquatic resources to maximize social and economic benefits to society. Politicians and managers should be concerned about: a) Sustainability of the resources being exploited, and b) about equitable allocation of the resources to the various user groups (whether they be Recreational, Commercial, or Other). That is what I would call Social Justice. The resources belong to the nation. They can be allocated to the various user groups through Quotas, Catch Shares, and other strategies. But, in the end governments need to act to protect and/or conserve aquatic resources for present and future generations.

Dr. Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Great post Peter, seriously

 

[dizzy]

Peter,
The term social justice is used 5 times in the document linked below. It is lefty code for spreading the wealth.
Here is the definition from Wikipedia: Social justice is a term, generally applied by the left, to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.




http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/docume ... FINAL2.pdf

The suggested National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes would provide a comprehensive national approach to uphold our stewardship responsibilities; ensure accountability for our actions; and serve as a model of balanced, productive, efficient, sustainable, and informed ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes use, management, and conservation within the global community. The National Policy recognizes that America’s stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically and intimately linked to environmental sustainability, human health and well- being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and other environmental change, social justice, foreign policy, and national and homeland security.

 

[spawner]

To Spawner and Gresham,

I find Spawner's comments about Social Justice of interest. I have not seen that term used in the fisheries literature. The councils use the term Sustainable Optimal Yield, which are buzz words indicating that the councils must allocate aquatic resources to maximize social and economic benefits to society. Politicians and managers should be concerned about a) Sustainability of the resources being exploited, and b) about equitable allocation of the resources to the various user groups (whether they be Recreational, Commercial, or Other). That is what I would call Social Justice. The resources belong to the nation. They can be allocated to the various user groups through quotas, Catch Shares, and other strategies. But, in the end governments need to act to protect and/or conserve aquatic resources for present and future generations.

Dr. Peter Rubec

I've set at fishery meetings, workshops, etc and I've always been dumb struck at the stupidity used to make fishing rules.

Another interesting term used in fishery manager lingo is "equitable" which in no way means equal or any derivation there of.

 

[PeterIMA]

While we all have expressed our opinions about many factors influencing ocean policy. We have done it in view of the present situation wherein fisheries are managed in a narrow fashion by the States (through state fish and wildife agencies) and the Federal Government (through the councils and NMFS). I believe the pronouncements by the Whitehouse imply that some of the recommendations made by the Bush Ocean Commission and/or the Pew Ocean Commission Reports will be implemented. The Pew Ocean Commission went further than the Bush Ocean Commission in recommeding the creation of a new Oceans Council that would unite the various federal departments in managing ocean resources (broader than biological resources). It is encouraging to see the Obama Administration pushing for the creation of a National Oceans Council. One needs to manage resources holistically, taking into account all uses of the ocean (like mining, navigation, shipping, fishing, offshore wind and tidal energy etc). Almost everything has a spatial component (you can't drill for oil without a lease site, protecting fisheries may need an MPA). One of the most interesting ideas expressed in the URL is the implementation of Marine Spatial Planning. This concept is broader than the push by some NGOs for no-take MPAs.

The concept of Marine Spatial Planning is something I strongly support. There is a need for the implementation of spatial management strategies in the oceans. But, this should not be limited to biological resources such as fisheries. I presently work for FWC at the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute headquarters situated in St. Petersburg, Florida. I am a member of the Center for Spatial Analysis (the group that uses GIS and spatial models ). My job is concerned with habitat suitability modeling (HSM) using GIS-based spatial modeling. The HSM links fish abundances to water-column and bethic habitats to produce maps predicing zones of low to high abundances of fish species by life stages within seasons. Part of my job is also to synthesize information about estuarine and coastal marine species of fish and invertebrates (like shrimp). The species life history (SLH) profiles are being added to a database called the Florida Estuarine Marine Living Resources (FLELMR) System. The HSM maps are being used in a holistic manner to support fisheries management and to support oil spill response. For example, we are adding the HSM zones to our oil spill GIS called the Florida Marine Spill Analysis System (FMSAS).

Marine Spatial Planning was developed in Europe and takes a broad holistic approach that can benefit society (everyone). It is similar to regional planning on land. By determining where various activities occur using GIS, it should be possible to reduce conflicts between user groups and also between government agencies that have a variety of narrow regulations and mandates that often conflict with one another. I don't see this as being a socialist conspiracy by the left. It can benefit the economy and help support management of marine resources (including mining, drilling for oil, fisheries management, coastal zone management etc).

The questions that we should be discussing are which recommendations coming out of the Ocean Commission reports will the Obama Administration seek to implement? The press releases sound like the Obama Administration is considering many new changes in Ocean Policy. They are needed and are long overdue.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.