2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

In your introduction, you stated that we need more research on fish populations. You stated that establishing marine reserves provides that research. How would it do that? Wouldn't simply more research provide more information than simply establishing marine reserves?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Oregon fishermen don?t wish to "just say no" to marine reserves. I believe that when the scientific evidence is shown that this will be of benefit to the citizens of Oregon, fisherman will be very supportive. Currently, statements such as "of course marine reserves are a good idea" are being used as the evidence - which is, of course, no evidence at all, only opinion.

The current process of establishing marine reserves is being politically driven, not science based. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council already has numerous fish population sub-committees that use best available science, statistical population models, sampling surveys, etc., to get at best science based biomass estimates. Other sub-committees combine that data with socieo-economic impacts, tempered by existing law (Magneson-Stevenson act) to set catch limits.

I would like to suggest that rather than set aside large areas of the ocean "because it's obvious it would be a good thing", we instead funnel the faith-based funding that is going toward establishment of the marine reserves into the already existing science-based research and policy making being done by:

ﾷ Pacific Fisheries Management Council
ﾷ International Pacific Halibut Commission
ﾷ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

I do not believe the vast majority of Oregonians know of the current restrictions, management layers, etc., that already exist, or of the results currently being achieved using existing processes.

Yes, the ocean is a shared resource - not belonging to the commercial fisherman. As such, lets make sure it stays accessible to Oregonians. Locking up the coastline will make large sections only accessible to those that provide funding for those sections. Make no mistake, marine reserves, like wave energy parks (also coming in the near future), are nothing more than a land grab designed to privatize large sections of the coastline - exactly the opposite effect that most MPA proponents envision.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context