Oregon Marine Reserve Information: Cape Perpetua Minory Report

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Cape Perpetua Minory Report

The Cape Perpetua Marine Reserve community group has concluded its work in analyzing the creation of a new marine reserve at Cape Perpetua. All sustainable fishing, crabbing, and other subsistence harvest would be banned in the proposed reserve. The group has been working together for about a year to determine if the proposed reserve would be large enough to aid conservation, but small enough to protect coastal economies.

The minority report can be found at:

Minority Report

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's)

Q: Who is behind Marine Reserves in Oregon?

A: The largest proponent of Marine Reserves is an organization called Our Ocean. Our Ocean is a PEW Charitable Trust project company. PEW is a large East Coast organization with $4.8 Billion in assets. Additionally, several conservation groups have come together under the name of Oregon Conservation Network (OCN).

Q: Why is the PEW Charitable Trust, Our Ocean, and OCN interested in implementing Marine Reserves in Oregon?

A: Below is an excerpt from an internal OCN memo describing why Marine Reserves are important to OCN:

"Because the Our Ocean coalition is advocating for both MPAs and the more restrictive reserves, we are advocating for common-sense stewardship of the near shore to sustain our healthy ocean and plan for increasing pressures on this fragile ocean ecosystem. This is an opportunity for the environmental community to build power and access with the powerful Ways and Means committee and broaden our influence beyond the environmental committees because the implementation has implications into business associations, higher education and labor unions. Also, if we win this in a way that brings the coastal caucus along, we improve relationships with a key swing bloc of legislators. It is also a good access-builder with the Governor and his staff who are relying on us to demonstrate the support he needs to finish this priority issue. Finally, because the fishing industry has been quite vocal and public in their opposition, a win would demonstrate significant political power."

Q: Our Ocean web site states that:

"In a July 2008 Grove Insight poll of 500 voters statewide, 70% of Oregonians and 67% of those living in coastal counties supported the establishment of marine protected areas, including marine reserves, in our state waters."

Are these numbers correct?

A: A few word about polls:
- First of all, what is important is what YOU think, not what 70% of other Oregonians think.
- Second, and we all know this, the results of the poll are HIGHLY dependant upon what question is asked. You should look at the Grove Insight web site.
- On their web site, they state: We win because we have a wealth of experience asking the right questions, the right way.

So, you can decide on your own what is the purpose of this poll when 500 people in the state of Oregon (a population of 3.7 million) were polled by a company that advertises they will get you the result you want. 500 people in the state of Oregon represents 0.01% of the population – and (who knows) – may be the 500 people that support Our Ocean.

Q: I’ve read that fishing guides support Marine Reserves. Is this true?

A: Well, one guide does – he is an outspoken paid lobbyist who is currently on the Our Ocean payroll for $4,000 per month ($48,000 per year).

Q: Will Marine Reserves help Salmon populations?

A: No as salmon spend little time in the proposed Marine Reserve areas.

Q: How much will Marine Reserves costs and where will funding for Marine Reserves come from?

A: There is no current official estimate of the cost of Marine Reserves. Some data is available from which we can draw conclusions, however:

Fiscal analysis of HB 3609 (Biennium expenditures):
$172,000 – OPAC member reimbursements
$378,714 – ODFW salaries that work on Reserves
$395,000 – Additional expenditures should this bill pass.

These funds would come from the General Fund. No estimate on the cost of managing the reserves is made in this document, but it does stat that “these costs are expected to be significant”

Informal discussions with ODFW personnel indicate the study phase for Marine Reserves will cost around $2MM to $4MM. Full implementation around $40MM to $60MM per year.

The source of funding will likely be the General Fund – the same pool of money currently being used for schools, police, fireman, etc.

Q: Aren’t Marine Reserves sort of like a National Park or Wildlife Refuge?

A: Not really, because you can fish in most National Parks following regulations designed to manage fish populations and hunt in many Wildlife Refuges to manage game populations. Marine Reserves are not a fisheries management tool, but a means of denying access to a resource.

Q: How will we know if Marine Reserves are successful?

A: We won’t due to a number of factors:

1 - In order for something to be called a success, it first must have a goal it is trying to reach.
- No goals have been identified for Marine Reserves
- No measurements have been identified for Marine Reserves

2 - If the goal of a Marine Reserve is more fish inside the MR, then we first need to see how many fish are in the MR prior to making it a Reserve. To date, no studies have been done or are planned.

Q: The Our Ocean web site says "OUR OCEAN NEEDS OUR HELP", and then lists warning signs. Are these things true?

A: Lets look at the warning signs listed by Our Ocean and how Marine Reserves will help with these warning signs:

I. Fish populations like rockfish, smelt and salmon are suffering dramatic declines.

NOAA keeps track of species that are in decline or of concern. You can view this information at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

The important question for you to ask is, will the species mentioned above be helped by implementing Marine Reserves? The resounding answer is “NO”.

Rockfish of concern (Canary, Yelloweye) live in the waters outside of the proposed Marine reserve areas. These species are deep water fish.

Smelt are anadromous (migratory) fish and spend little time in the proposed Marine Reserve areas. Smelt will see no benefit in Marine Reserves.

Salmon are also anadromous fish and spend little time in the proposed Marine Reserve areas. Salmon will see no benefit in Marine Reserves.

Since rockfish, smelt, salmon will not be helped by implementing marine reserves, we should be asking - why is Our Ocean listing this concern on their web site if this situation will not be improved with Marine Reserves?

The answer, of course, is that it is listed in order to generate fear in the reader that unless something is done (Marine Reserves) the situation will get worse. Notice that Our Ocean does not state that these species will be helped with Reserves. They only want to use these as examples to scare the reader into some sort of action – any action.

II. Canary and Yelloweye rockfish have been overfished (meaning that their original populations were reduced by over 75 percent) and continue to be depleted. The Yelloweye rockfish is not predicted to recover for 76 years.

As mentioned above, both Canary and Yelloweye rockfish live outside of the proposed MR areas. Juvenile Canary rockfish are occasionally encountered inside of 3 miles, but they are too small to be retained or fished.

The fact of the matter is, if we closed the entire Oregon Territorial sea out to 3 miles – ALL of it - to ALL human activity of any kind, the recovery rates of Canary and Yelloweye rockfish would remain the same.

If there is no benefit to Canary or Yelloweye rockfish, then why list this as a concern when justifying Reserves? The answer, of course, is that it is listed in order to get the reader to think they will be helped with Reserves. Our Ocean never claims these species will be helped. They only list them to get the reader to think they will be helped.

III. The sea whip, a soft, vertically growing coral that provides habitat to a wide range of sea life off Oregon’s coast, has declined sharply in areas where trawling is allowed.

Trawling does not occur today within the proposed MR areas.

The study cited on the Our Ocean web site describes the area of study as: "Using a manned submersible, we ran visual transects at Coquille Bank, 25 km off the central coast of Oregon, USA, including six half-hour (mean length 1184 m) transects over mud seafloors 183-361 m deep."

Marine reserves will extend 3 miles (4.8 km) offshore.
Since the study area was 20 km outside of the proposed MR areas, why was this study cited at all? The obvious reason is to confuse the reader and induce fear so they will be moved do take some action, any action – including closing areas not impacted by bottom trawling.

IV. Once abundant forage fish, such as the eulachon smelt (small fish that serve as food for predatory fish and birds), are in decline, indicating a stressed marine food web.

As mentioned previously, smelt will not be helped by implementing Marine Reserves.

Since smelt will not be helped by implementing marine reserves, we should be asking - why is Our Ocean listing this concern on their web site if this situation will not be improved with Marine Reserves? The answer, of course, is that it is listed in order to generate fear in the reader that unless something is done (Marine Reserves) the situation will get worse. Notice that Our Ocean does not state that this species will be helped with Reserves. They only want to use this as examples to scare the reader into some sort of action – any action.

V. Up to 70% of Oregon's estuaries and tidal wetlands have been lost due to diking, dredging, draining and filling of wetlands.

Marine reserves will not be placed in estuaries or tidal wetlands.

Since estuaries or tidal wetlands will not be impacted by marine reserves, we should be asking - why is Our Ocean listing this concern on their web site if this situation will not be improved with Marine Reserves? The answer, of course, is that it is listed in order to generate fear in the reader that unless something is done (Marine Reserves) the situation will get worse. Notice that Our Ocean does not state that estuaries or tidal wetlands will be helped with Reserves. They only want to use these as examples to scare the reader into some sort of action – any action.

VI. Researchers have documented increasing ocean water acidity off Oregon’s coast, which can corrode the shells of many marine creatures.

Acidity levels in the Ocean have been tied to high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (Link to the study).

Marine reserves will not change acidity levels off Oregon’s coast. Only decreasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can change ocean acidity levels.

Since acidity levels will not be impacted by marine reserves, we should be asking - why is Our Ocean listing this concern on their web site if this situation will not be improved with Marine Reserves? The answer, of course, is that it is listed in order to generate fear in the reader that unless something is done (Marine Reserves) the situation will get worse. Notice that Our Ocean does not state that acidity levels will be helped with Reserves. They only want to use these as examples to scare the reader into some sort of action – any action.

Oregon Marine Reserve Information

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Cape Perpetua Minory Report

No comments:

Contribute to RFA - Help maintain public access to public resources

Scientific Studies

Ocean Resouce Links

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's)

Oregon Marine Reserve Information

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Cape Perpetua Minory Report

No comments:

Subscribe To

Contribute to RFA - Help maintain public access to public resources

Scientific Studies

Ocean Resouce Links

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's)