damage control letter

[toggy]

i thought i'd share a letter i wrote

I believe MPAs are, in general, a bad idea as I would much rather see the resources be applied to wise fisheries management (I wish i had written this letter years ago when this whole MLPA thing was going down). I love spearfishing and do not want to see my access limited because of a political experiment/whim. Yet I realize that the MLPA initiative has passed, and MPAs are to be implemented. So now my aim is to try to get them to be as small and unobtrusive as possible. To attain my goal I have written my letter in a manner that tries not to attack the MLPA process. Please understand that this letter is written with the intent of a damage control letter...not with the intent of explaining why we should not enact MPAs

feel free to use the content as you want
I think it would be nice to add something to this regarding this thread too: http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=81178

anyway, here it is:

Dear XXX,

Re: a misuse of political intention regarding the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

We all want sustainable fisheries. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the governmental agency charged with ensuring a healthy ocean ecosystem, appears to be falling behind in its task. Budget cuts to the DFG make doubtful the prospect of them stepping up enforcement and, more importantly, refining regulation. There is skepticism that the DFG will be able to fulfill its trust.

While ocean fisheries deteriorate another initiative is evolving. Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the California Ocean Policy Act (SB 1319). This Act, designed to guide ocean policy and coastal protection, called for enacting a Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force. The task force is charged with consulting both scientists and the public in order to determine where marine protected areas (MPAs) should be placed. (Source: Schwarzenegger Announces 'Ocean Action Plan': California's Model Leads Nation in Protecting Oceans. Published: Oct 2004 by the Office of the Governor)

There is much to be gained by establishing MPAs. These select regions, which will be removed from human influence as much as possible (ideally shielded from human exploit and located away from significant run-off), can provide reference ecosystems for study. Establishing conservation areas is an important step to safeguard the future of our natural resources.

Establishing conservation regions, however, is not the pathway towards sustainability. Selective abstinence leads to continued decimation in unprotected regions – imagine uncontrolled logging everywhere but in our national parks. Sustainability must be driven by blanketed and informed DFG regulations. Recognizing this, the California Ocean Policy Act never intended the establishment of MPAs to be interpreted as fisheries management, but primarily as a method to provide the DFG needed information. Unfortunately, attending the recent publicly open MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force meetings made it apparent that most the involved participants fail to understand, or are ignoring, their assigned task. There is a strong drive to compensate for DFG shortcomings by choosing conservation regions that will most restrict the commercial and recreational fishing industry.

Marine protected areas must be enacted from the perspective of furthering science. The question is not which conservation regions will save the most fish. It is the DFG’s role to protect the ocean ecosystem. The question assigned to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force is which selection of conservation regions will best help the DFG by growing the understanding of our ocean.

Designating MPAs inline with this theme of furthering science, and in the best interest of recreation and the economy, is possible only though strong collaboration between conservationists, fishermen, and scientists. My hope in raising these points is that you will be able to remind the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that MPAs are a means to sustainable fisheries, not an ends. Fisheries must be regulated, not closed, and MPAs are to be implemented to help determine these regulations. In short, I ask you to remind the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force of their original, and rather straightforward, task.

Implementing MPAs that meet the science objective can be carried out without devastating the commercial fishing industry, and with only minimal hindrance to the recreational fishing industry. The direction the process is currently heading, pitting conservationists against fishermen, will negatively impact the prospect of long-term fisheries sustainability. Staying true to the intention of the California Ocean Policy Act, however, will be a win-win situation, keeping the fishing industry strong, providing the DFG with much-needed knowledge, and re-joining conservationists, fishermen, and conservationist-fishermen.

Thank you,

Matt

[Logan]

That is a nice, well-written letter and I think it points out one of the major problems with how this initiative is proceeding. One thing I might caution against for other letters is stressing the impact of increased fishing pressure in non-reserve areas. It is my personal belief that fishing pressure is not really the problem for the majority of species. Many others are making this same argument. When the point is made that closing certain areas might lead to destructive fishing pressure in other areas this logic is easily extended to say that distributed fishing pressure is, in fact, also part of the problem. I observed this first-hand when one of the RSG members questioned the extent of closures in the external "C" proposal at the last MLPA meeting.

This is similar to the argument that hoop-netters or commercial lobster fisherman need to be more regulated. The obvious conclusion is that they need to be more regulated because the fishery is in trouble and the result will be that everyone loses out. Consumptives need to stick together.

Thanks for sharing your letter, that is helpful for other who are trying to compose their own.

Logan