Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California revives plan to create string of restricted fishing zones along coast
Associated Press ^ | Tuesday, August 31, 2004 | Terence Chea

Posted on 08/31/2004 2:02:26 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

SAN FRANCISCO — State wildlife officials announced plans recently to revive a program to create marine reserves along California's 1,100-mile coast. The program would set up restricted fishing zones expected to serve as models for protecting ocean habitat.

Plans for the state-mandated network were shelved eight months ago because of budget woes. State agencies have now secured $2 million from private donors and $500,000 in state funding.

"This governor is committed to protecting and restoring these oceans, particularly in California," state Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman said.

The program represents a new approach to marine conservation. Rather than protecting individual fish species, reserves seek to protect entire marine ecosystems and restore fish species depleted by overfishing, pollution, and other human activities.

The marine reserves would only cover state waters, which extend 3 miles from the coast. Some experts estimate 10 to 20 percent of the coast could be off-limits to fishing.

Many commercial and recreational fishers are opposed.

"We don't know that they're going to work. I think there needs to be more studies done," said Bob Strickland, president of the United Anglers of California. "I don't like the idea that they're getting money from outside sources who have an agenda."

Private donations were led by the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation in Sacramento.

California already has a number of protected marine areas, but many have conflicting boundaries and restrictions. The new initiative is an effort to develop a more systematic statewide approach to protecting coastal habitat, Chrisman said.

A task force will oversee planning and solicit views from fishers, environmentalists, recreation groups, and others. The task force, along with a scientific advisory board, will then draw up a new set of reserves.

A statewide plan is expected by 2011


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; coastalenvironment; environment; fisheries; fishing; nofishingzone; resources; rights; water
In principle, this is a good idea (so is Communism) that probably won't work.

The oceans and fishing are the classic "tragedy of the commons" and something does need to be done to keep market forces from encouraging individuals from "catching the last fish" - which our technology now makes possible.

But, since this is California and leftist groups are leftist groups chances are that the final law will be that restricts economic activity and does minimal good for commercial fish stocks with huge loopholes when applicable.

Alas, doing something is still necessary. At least we have California to make the mistakes for us (apologies to Freepers who live there).

1 posted on 08/31/2004 2:02:26 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

ping to you


2 posted on 08/31/2004 2:03:10 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax Energy not Labour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

I forgot to mention: if something bad happens, ITS BUSH'S FAULT.


3 posted on 08/31/2004 2:06:07 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax Energy not Labour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

If they pass this bill it should include provisions to implement the reserves over a period of 5-10 years, starting with the areas considered the most damaged.

Funds should also be allocated to marine wildlife research geared toward helping the fisheries to adjust to the new restrictions without suffering economic distress, either through technologies research, or a better understanding of marine wildlife. I bet we've already done most of the research but it hasn't been brought together in a manner that would be useful. The funds allocation could be allocated for the first year to show the industry what has been done and what potential there is. After that, there will only be matching funds for research sponsored by the fisheries. So, if the fisheries don't want to spend money to research, they get no matching funds. No research gets done, and it is their fault.

Hmm... and if they whine, call them girlie men.


4 posted on 08/31/2004 2:12:43 AM PDT by coconutt2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000; Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The idea is to create an area where bottom fish can grow to the size where they are most prolific as breeders. Young fish will then tend to move away from the reserve to refill the areas open to fishing. The older larger fish tend to stay in one area while younger fish are more open to migrating.
5 posted on 08/31/2004 2:55:45 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit; adversarial; Alylonee; AmericanHombre; blaze; BornOnTheFourth; ...
Sacramento Area Ping:

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

6 posted on 08/31/2004 7:07:07 AM PDT by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

BTTT!!!!!!!


7 posted on 08/31/2004 7:22:09 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

IMNHO they should start by just restricting commercial fishing. I really don't think recreational fishing is a threat. If that doesn't work they can look at recreational fishing restrictions later.


8 posted on 08/31/2004 12:22:19 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

The other solution, and more conservative, market-oriented solution is to privatise the fish stocks in the oceans. Rather than create a quota system which the government will certainly screw up, the fishing rights to certain oceanic coordinates should be sold to various companies. The rights should be for a very long time and they should naturally have certain, necessary conservation-oriented qualifiers.

The companies will then have every incentive to maximize the amount of fish they can possibly catch in the long-term and preserve their waters.

There is a nice curve of fish reproduction with which maximum reproductive capacity is fairly easy to establish in the real world with modern technology.

Under this scenario, the companies would likely have limited production for the first 5-8 years and then see a dramatic increase in their catch until a period of levelling off. But the profits and the jobs would remain stable.


9 posted on 08/31/2004 12:28:59 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax Energy not Labour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit; Grampa Dave; Sabertooth; Joe Hadenuf

California had no problem selling exclusive rights to airwaves for cellphone providers. At one point, California even sold drilling rights for oil producers.

If California wants to see fish populations boom, then it simply needs to sell fishing leases. Private companies will do the rest.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

10 posted on 08/31/2004 12:34:19 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

What about recreational fishing?


11 posted on 08/31/2004 12:49:27 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Good thing we will all be moving to Mars soon. That way we can put the Earth in a giant baggy and preserve it for when we need to come back. Assuming Earth doesn't get hit by an asteroid in the meantime, sounds like a good plan to me.
12 posted on 08/31/2004 12:52:02 PM PDT by snooker (Looks like the Swifties snookered the dims ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

Oh, sorry.

The companies that own the rights to oceans would sell liscenses to fish on their propety. At first that might well stop a lot of people from fishing, because the prices they charge could be high. I really don't know the economics of it.

It might be that the companies decide to bag the commercial fishing altogether and send out their boats with recreational fishers from whom their profit margins are higher.

It would certianly make some people mad, and might require some minor adjustments to legislation, but it is probably the solution with the greatest benefit and least pain for people and the environment.


13 posted on 08/31/2004 12:53:18 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax Energy not Labour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The companies that own the rights to oceans would sell liscenses to fish on their propety.

No thanks. Fish stocks belong to all the people, and fishing (and hunting) licenses fund the DFG. I don't want to have to get permission from some corporation to fish. Most likely they would simply decide that dealing with recreatiional fishermen is too much trouble, and refuse to give persmission. Hunters and fishermen were the original conservationists and set up the license and conservation programs in place back in the 1930s, funded by a tax on hunting and fishing equipment. That is an investment made over decades. Since then fish and game stocks have made a dramatic comeback in places where activities are regulated for hunting and fishing purposes. To turn it over to private companies would be a theft of that investment. This is one area that I think government is a better solution.

14 posted on 08/31/2004 1:10:53 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit; Carry_Okie; farmfriend
I can't find a current thread on this topic. A 38-page report on this plan was unveiled Oct. 18 with Gov. Schwarzenegger enthusiastically endorsing it. The announcement featured an unlikely group including Clint Eastwood and Democrat luminary Leon Panetta flanking Schwarzenegger in Monterey.

Carry Okie, I'm particularly interested in your take on this issue. It dovetails nicely with SchwarzenKennedy's Sierra lock-up and puts an interesting spin on his governorship. There's a huge story on this in Sunday's Ventura Star under John Krist's byline. I'd flag you all to the URL but they've passworded their web site and I won't register to get in. The story quotes an official of the California Resources Agency as saying:

"This issue isn't just controversial. It's thermonuclear."

Anyhow, I'm interested in what the governor's activism on this issue means in the context of California's future, and what it means for sportfishermen and commercial fisheries. On one hand it seems somewhat sensible in that it presumes to protect against overfishing. On the other hand it has all the earmarks of a classic elitist environmentalist Agenda 21 lock-up of public property. Comments?

15 posted on 10/31/2004 9:57:01 AM PST by Bernard Marx (Don't make the mistake of interpreting my Civility as Servility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx; calcowgirl; hedgetrimmer
Carry is on vacation. Hedgetrimmer is very knowledgeable and calcowgirl's research is the best. I'll ping the rest of the troops.
16 posted on 10/31/2004 1:55:07 PM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
17 posted on 10/31/2004 1:56:28 PM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx; farmfriend

It all depends on enforcement, if cheaters are not caught and punished then nothing is accomplished for the fisheries and respect for our government and laws will be seriously undermined. If they pick the right areas and enforce it then the larger fish that produce the most offspring will be protected and as the young fish grow they will migrate to the open fishing areas. It should work for bottom fish that tend to be territorial as adults.


18 posted on 10/31/2004 2:46:00 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

BTT!!!!!!


19 posted on 10/31/2004 2:46:05 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx

I just got back from a three week hiadis. It'll take me a couple of days to dig out and get back to you.


20 posted on 10/31/2004 7:42:06 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx; Carry_Okie
hiadis = hatius.

Note to self, read the post first.

21 posted on 10/31/2004 7:43:46 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I had one of them hiaduses once. After surgery it was just fine. I'll be interested in your views on this business whenever you have the time and opportunity to write. Or if you've written about it elsewhere direct me to it. Thanks.


22 posted on 10/31/2004 9:09:21 PM PST by Bernard Marx (Don't make the mistake of interpreting my Civility as Servility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
This is the same problem we had with turkeys, waterfowl, deer and other species. Market hunting had to end. Market fishing is now at that point. The techniques to raise fish on farms is now available and should be required for selling fish.

Recreational fishing and hunting is proving to be able to exist with the resource thriving. For proof look at waterfowl hunting statistics, there are now so many ducks and geese that the calls are going out to limit their numbers.

The basic problem is the governments refuse to acknowledge that market fishing is doing the damage. Those campaign contributions are causing the problem. Bag limits limits and season closings limit the recreational take to sustainable numbers.
23 posted on 10/31/2004 9:17:32 PM PST by snooker (Bush 2004 --- stay with the strong horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson