September 3, 2006

Howard Egan: Another perspective on Marine Life Protection Act

Last week's "Conserving ocean gems for future generations" regarding the Marine Life Protection Act process did not fully inform the public as to the real issues. The editorial by Steve Shimek includes significant misinformation.

First, it claims that the statewide network of Marine Protected Areas MPAs was "scientifically based." It's true the law requires the use of the "best available science," but this is not what happened. In fact, the Science Advisory Team SAT that created the guidelines for the state was wrapped in advocacy rather than science, and full of conflicts of interest. Incredibly, some of the scientists are also stakeholders, having a vested interest in the outcome of the process for their institutions or their own careers. One leading member of the science team actually received a grant of $150,000 to implement a large system of marine reserves as part of the Marine Life Protection Act process. Many people who have a lot of at-sea time had serious questions as to the validity of the science guidelines. A Scientific Peer Review of these guidelines was commissioned and completed by three of the most highly regard fishery biologists on the West Coast. The outcome of this peer review can be found at www.cafisheriescoalition.org.

The Peer Review says that the guidelines adopted by the state are so misguided that the MPA Network essentially creates an "illusion of protection" rather than real protection. This will alarm anyone interested in the health of the ocean. It is our experience that the leaders of the large environmental organizations have such an investment in the notion that marine reserves have got to be good for the ocean that they just can't change gears when faced with scientific reality. They applied enormous political pressure onto the gubernatorial campaign and the Fish and Game Commission to adopt this flashy network; however, it actually makes no scientific sense.

The additional claim of local depleted fisheries and overfishing are also misleading. The state heard repeated expert testimony from senior scientists from NOAA fisheries that overfishing is no longer occurring on the West Coast, that the seven species of groundfish that were considered depleted in 2000 are recovering faster than expected ling cod is already considered to be fully recovered, and that additional MPAs are not needed to assist their recovery. This is because fishing regulations have become so very conservative in the past 10 years.

The claim that the adopted network of MPAs was a result of stake holder participation is also completely phony. I was on the stakeholder group and I can tell you that the plan that received the great majority of stakeholder support was completely disregarded and this can be proved.

The claim that's also made in Mr. Shimek's editorial, that the adopted plan represents a compromise by all, is fundamentally ridiculous. While it may be true that the big conservation organizations, some diving groups, etc. didn't get everything they wanted, there was only one group that actually incurred real loss economic or recreational, and that was the fishermen. The other groups really had nothing to lose except the fishermen.

Lastly, the editorial alludes to the fact that 18 percent of our ocean is now protected, inferring that the remaining 82 percent is open to fishing. The real story is that approximately 60 percent of the best, most continually productive fishing areas were put off limits to fishing. This will force that fishing effort into the remaining 40 percent, with the very likely outcome being the overfishing of these ares. This, in turn, will create an imbalance in the ecosystem because you will have areas where there are fish and other areas where there are no fish. This is hardly the realization of the ecosystem management goal of the Marine Life Protection Act, and yet this is what is occurring with the state's plan. The fact is the state's plan is not scientifically based, not well thought out, not stakeholder supported, and is not good for California's marine environment. What a shame that the opportunity presented to do something good for the ocean has been missed.

Howard Egan is a member of the Monterey Bay Advisory Council and the Recreational Fishing Alliance.