Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
256 Figueroa Street #1, Monterey, CA 93940
www.alliancefisheries.com

 

from you and Bill Douros that having MPAs is not a goal of the Sanctuary Program, in fact it is.  It would seem that the correct scientific assessment to be made by such a science team would be the question of whether or not there are indications that the marine ecosystem in the region of the Sanctuary is somehow compromised.  Secondly, if problems are identified, are MPAs the best, most cost-effective way of addressing the problems?  Third, do existing regulations and other management measures substantially accomplish the conservation goals of the NMSA?  Answering these questions would get to the heart of the need question, rather than having the scientists design a system of MPAs.

·         It also concerns us that you wanted to start the discussion of the need for additional MPAs with a list of MPAs proposed by the conservation members of the Workgroup.  We hope that this was corrected, and that a first task will be a GAP analysis.  This would start with a discussion of the same questions cited above for the Science Team.  This would include an evaluation of existing MPAs, including those near adoption by the State of California and the Davidson Seamount.  It would include the Essential Fish Habitat Areas and the benefits of the Rockfish Conservation Area.  It would also include the benefits of the Sanctuary as an MPA with water quality and other resource protection regulations.  It is only after fully assessing these questions and existing tools that some sense of a need for additional MPAs will become clear.  We also point out that a definition of “marine ecosystem health” Is needed.  As it stands, between the science team work and the draft needs assessment list, it appears that, in the eyes of the Sanctuary, if you don’t have an MPA in a particular habitat, then you need one.  We hope that is not the path that this workgroup is on.

·         Another important problem with this workgroup process is the artificial premise being advocated by the MBNMS that there is a distinction between its “Ecosystem Protection Mandate” and “Fishery Management”.  This is a false assumption that will skew the results of this process.  In fact, any regulation that changes the behavior of fishermen, whether intended or not, is fishery management. 

To conclude, the question was raised as to whether fishing interests on the workgroup want veto power over the process.  The response to that was a reminder that the best available science on these MPA processes says that stakeholder and community support is needed or MPAs and MPA efforts invariably fail. 

We are willing to keep working in this MPA process unless it becomes evident that making it a fair process is hopeless.  If we do feel that it’s hopeless, we, like any other member of the workgroup, maintain the right to drop out and either pursue our own MPA assessment and plan, or take other actions.

Sincerely,

  

                                                      ________________                  ________________
Tom Canale                                 Wilson Quick                               Mike Ricketts      
SAC Commercial Fishing Rep           Commercial Fisherman                    Commercial Fisherman 

________________                   ________________                                                   
David Crabbe                              Howard Egan                             Steve Scheiblauer
SAC Commercial Fishing Rep (Alt)    SAC Recreational Fishing Rep         Coastal Community
                                                                                                            Fishing  Infrastructure Rep