Science and the MPA's - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Aaron · 05-06-2010, 12:37 PM

Being involved in the academic community requires your attendance at a lot of ridiculous conferences. Typically its a lot of intellectual "chest puffing" with a constant effort played by all to be the smartest person in the room. Usually this involves talking way over people's heads by the speakers followed by the audience trying to stump the speakers with questions based on a 15 minute talk about a subject they have heard for the first time from a speaker in which that area is their expertise. Its like a big game, but its fun from time to time and you get to hear some interesting science.

All of that being said, I am attending a conference tomorrow at CSULA put on by the Southern California Academy of Sciences. They gave me a small grant to do some research stuff and I originally was going just to pick up a check, but I took a look at the program and was pleasantly surprised to see a huge chunk of the meeting is centered on so cal rec fishing and the MPA's. An entire morning session is titled "Sustainable Fisheries" and in the afternoon is "Rocky Reefs: Preparing for MPA’s". These are 2-3 hour sessions each with individual talks going for about 20 minutes with a little time for questions. People directly involved with the MPA's, various universities, and several marine research organizations are all presenting.

I'm really excited about this because its a bit out of my specific field (I am a paleontologist) and I have yet to directly hear some straight talk science on the MPA's in a setting such as this. Everything I hear is so politically charged it makes me sick. As a southern California fisherman, you all know where I stand on the MPA's. I think that we are all being shafted with all of this no matter which map is chosen. As a scientist, I'm looking forward to hearing some straight DATA in a forum where nobody is trying to recruit votes. This will be an interesting setting in that, like I said at the opening of this thread, everyone wants to be the smartest person in the room and skewed/incorrect/incorrectly obtained data will likely get called out. It should be interesting. My guess is that there will be a lot of "end of the world" comments during talks as a means of people making their research significant, but it really will be nice to see some concrete data.

If you're interested in looking at the program or maybe even attending, here is the meeting's website...SCAS annual meeting. I'll post some comments here on what I hear. If you look at the program and have anything specific that you want me to watch for or if you recognize any of the names, post away...I'd love to hear the backdrop! Dr. Pondella is presenting and is actually the person that I have been in contact with and he is on the science advisory committee for the MLPA so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. Again, this isn't a MLPA meeting that people need to concern themselves with showing up in mass. This is just a science conference that will involve the same people that are presenting the very data that is influencing the decisions being made. The questions asked will not be "so what map do you support in the MLPA process?" Questions will be more along the lines of "what methodology did you use to calculate biomass?" If that makes sense. Just don't want people driving to LA thinking that political trickery is going on!

Billy V · 05-06-2010, 12:53 PM

Thanks in Advance for attending.

Yes I agree, we all want to see the concrete data, and would also like to know the methods used to calculate those numbers.
-We have all heard the hypotheses of the MLPA Science Team members and green washing supporters who paid them well to spread the propaganda.

Feel free to "nail them to a cross" wherever you can.
These loser are making a mockery of science.

Good Fish Karma to You.

Dan · 05-06-2010, 01:25 PM

see if you can get pdfs or a slide deck from the speakers. I'd like to see that.

robmandel · 05-06-2010, 01:49 PM

you might be surprised to hear this, but real science had nothing to do with the MPA designations. For instance, look at rocky point (palos verdes). it was the jewel of the enviros, but all that got closed was a small section away from RP, no canyon, etc., AND a superfund cleanup site, full of PVC's (or soemthing like that) as well as being subject to much (natural) erosion and runoff. the enviros were pissed about losing RP. however, that was done in exchange for closing malibu (and I'm sure other places as well). two BRTF members (schem and anderson) are business partners, have the lease on the MDR fuel dock, and would have been hit hard with the closures. the never disclosed this and then they lied about all this to the F&G commission. all the local city councils, and many other pols (including state rep ted lieu) all wrote to support keeping RP open. that's for starters.

follow the money: packard foundation, monterey bay aq., stanford U. see all the names linked together: mike sutton, meg caldwell, barton thompson, many others.

the SAT? several members received HUGE grants from packard, some are linked directly with MBA and stanford. for some, pretty much their whole funding comes from the PF. two of the guys got 15 million last several years. but I'm sure their scientific integrity wasn't compromised.

I know, it's hard to believe

there were lies upon lies presented as "fact": overfished stocks, declining popualtions, loss of habitat habitat, etc. in fact, many of the concerns, the laguna tuna platoon and their sand build up, has nothing to do with fishing. in fact, almost nothing they were concerned about is addressed with MPA's.

the process was as dirty as a thai whorehouse. and no paper bothered to even write a word. and we wonder why california is in such a shitty position.

-scallywag- · 05-06-2010, 03:04 PM

Rob,
I sure miss hearing you speak at the MLPA meetings....

Aaron · 05-06-2010, 03:18 PM

I'll see what I can get in terms of .pdf's. Usually you get a cd with abstracts for the talks when you show up. I won't post them directly here if I get them, but I sure can email them to you if you're interested.

Science had nothing to do with MPA's? No doubt politics play a huge/the main/the key role, but no doubt science is involved. In fact, we are relying upon science to stress our points as recreational fisherman. Not to mention the team of more than 20 research scientists in the SAT and what you have to understand is that data is data, the story and mistakes that are made in science lie in the interpretation of that data. I am 100% with you that politics and money heavily influenced and still influence the decisions being made and heavily influence the interpretation of collected data. But to say that science has nothing to do with it is saying that data is not being collected and that's simply not true. Data is being collected, its the interpretation that we are having a problem with and this is a great opportunity to look at the raw data without the political filter and interpretation that skew what we hear over and over again. I'm looking forward to it. Give me some numbers. The concrete, quantitative and qualitative facts of why places like LJ may be shut down. As soon as you hear "this data suggests..." then you can turn off. If the data is strong, you shouldn't have to tell us what it suggests. My guess is that like most cases of "pushing the interpretation envelope data" that the exact opposite points can be made using the same data set from those that are being utilized to push for the most strict closures. You're completely right about how skewed this stuff is. completely, and I want to say thanks for your efforts with the mlpa.

MrPatrick · 05-07-2010, 08:12 PM

I see your Smilodon and raise you a Short-Faced Bear.

Paleo humor

robmandel · 05-08-2010, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -scallywag-

Rob,
I sure miss hearing you speak at the MLPA meetings....

thanks.

as for the science part, those that were there more on the inside machinations can certainly explain more. things like "persistent kelp" was created as a new condition. there was no mention of specific species. they overlooked or ignored data showing our fish stocks are healthy.

the final science report was supposed to be available for peer review, section 2858 of the bill. you're a scientist, peer review is the sine que non of scientific research. without any data, without peer review, I can only remain suspect.

there were supposed to be SAT members from Parks and Rec and from Sea Grant. None were present on the South Coast SAT. however, they WERE present on the Central Coast SAT. so they have no excuse possible for the exclusion.

there are other things. I hope that you can dig deeper into the "science" and learn something. our position all along was management. closures are unscientific and draconian totalitarian measures.

I hope you didn't take anything I said in a negative way towards you. I am so furious at this my blood is boiling right now as I write this. I can't even begin to describe the rage I feel.

Aaron · 05-09-2010, 09:54 AM

I just spent 20 minutes doing a write up and bumped the wrong button on my little netbook keyboard and watched it all go away. friggin bummer...I'll redo the write up but just know that the bulk of the scientists there were also fisherman, spearos, and divers and do not support just shutting down access. I'll give you a set of #'s that I think you'll like before I burn this netbook for having the refresh key in a stupid location...

There are 1.7 million saltwater anglers that go on about 5.8 million trips in a given year. There are about 380 charters operating in the state which are responsible for taking a significant portion of those anglers on those trips. Fishing brings $2.2 BILLION to the state economy, $160 million to state and local taxes, $20 million in the form of excise taxes on hard goods and provides jobs for more than 20,000 California residents. And this is not LA times data...That data comes from a little organization called NOAA. Fishing is vital to this state which was the point of the NOAA fisheries service talk. 'nuff said.

PAL · 05-09-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

There are 1.7 million saltwater anglers that go on about 5.8 million trips in a given year. There are about 380 charters operating in the state which are responsible for taking a significant portion of those anglers on those trips. Fishing brings $2.2 BILLION to the state economy, $160 million to state and local taxes, $20 million in the form of excise taxes on hard goods and provides jobs for more than 20,000 California residents. And this is not LA times data...That data comes from a little organization called NOAA. Fishing is vital to this state which was the point of the NOAA fisheries service talk. 'nuff said.

Not new info, although the reminder is always nice to see. Too bad most fisheries and marine ecology scientists who disagree with the scientific underpinnings and justification for the MLPA (like the members of your panel) lack the moral courage to take a stand against the corporate greenwashers.

The MLPA is an end run around NOAA and their management based scheme. And even NOAA is no safety net for recreational anglers these days, but remains a political battleground. In practice, all environmental policy is politically determined.

I don't suppose your laptop is an HP?

Billy V · 05-09-2010, 10:19 AM

Thank You..

We all appreciate your involvement. Many of us have given countless hours and dollars toward the mlpa fight. Its refreshing to be able to gain access to accurate data.

I believe the best way to thwart off vast MLPA Closures is to rid this state of Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone like him.

-Its time to vote them out of here.

Aaron · 05-09-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAL

Not new info, although the reminder is always nice to see. Too bad most fisheries and marine ecology scientists who disagree with the scientific underpinnings and justification for the MLPA (like the members of your panel) lack the moral courage to take a stand against the corporate greenwashers.

The MLPA is an end run around NOAA and their management based scheme. And even NOAA is no safety net for recreational anglers these days, but remains a political battleground. In practice, all environmental policy is politically determined.

I don't suppose your laptop is an HP?

I know not new info, but yes, important to see and I thought nice to see a good consolidated reminder that was the opening slide in a talk given by the NOAA fisheries service.

The only thing that I think I disagree with you on is that you called it "...your panel". Oh please oh please don't lump me in with any MLPA panel!

We've actually met in the past somewhere, can't remember where, maybe a mothership (?) but I did want to say thanks for all of your efforts as well with the mlpa process. I won't list out some big long letter of gratitude here, but thanks. Its appreciated by the entire fishing community...past, present and future. Hope to see you out there again some time. I owe you a cold one.

Even worse than an HP...eMachines! I just couldn't help myself when I saw that it was $230 at best buy!!

Aaron · 05-09-2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy V

Thank You..

We all appreciate your involvement. Many of us have given countless hours and dollars toward the mlpa fight. Its refreshing to be able to gain access to accurate data.

I believe the best way to thwart off vast MLPA Closures is to rid this state of Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone like him.

-Its time to vote them out of here.

My involvement pales in comparison to all of you guys!

PAL · 05-10-2010, 04:51 PM

^ Sorry, I meant the panel you viewed as a spectator, not to imply you are part of the process. Any insight you can provide is much appreciated. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and hope to fish with you again sometime soon.

GregAndrew · 05-10-2010, 07:23 PM

Here is a question that no one seems to be able to answer. If 39% of species do better outside of reserves (PISCO Marine Reserves Handbook), then why was the reserve size science based on capturing 90% of the area species? They base their minimum and recommended reserve sizes on capturing 90% of the available species. This creates at least 2 problems: the costs associated with larger reserves than are necessary, and driving the 39% further from where they would want to be.

I would agree that there is a lot of science in the process on both sides, but little of it is being utilized in a scientific way by the powers that be.

05-06-2010, 12:37 PM	#1
Aaron Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 175	Science and the MPA's Being involved in the academic community requires your attendance at a lot of ridiculous conferences. Typically its a lot of intellectual "chest puffing" with a constant effort played by all to be the smartest person in the room. Usually this involves talking way over people's heads by the speakers followed by the audience trying to stump the speakers with questions based on a 15 minute talk about a subject they have heard for the first time from a speaker in which that area is their expertise. Its like a big game, but its fun from time to time and you get to hear some interesting science. All of that being said, I am attending a conference tomorrow at CSULA put on by the Southern California Academy of Sciences. They gave me a small grant to do some research stuff and I originally was going just to pick up a check, but I took a look at the program and was pleasantly surprised to see a huge chunk of the meeting is centered on so cal rec fishing and the MPA's. An entire morning session is titled "Sustainable Fisheries" and in the afternoon is "Rocky Reefs: Preparing for MPA’s". These are 2-3 hour sessions each with individual talks going for about 20 minutes with a little time for questions. People directly involved with the MPA's, various universities, and several marine research organizations are all presenting. I'm really excited about this because its a bit out of my specific field (I am a paleontologist) and I have yet to directly hear some straight talk science on the MPA's in a setting such as this. Everything I hear is so politically charged it makes me sick. As a southern California fisherman, you all know where I stand on the MPA's. I think that we are all being shafted with all of this no matter which map is chosen. As a scientist, I'm looking forward to hearing some straight DATA in a forum where nobody is trying to recruit votes. This will be an interesting setting in that, like I said at the opening of this thread, everyone wants to be the smartest person in the room and skewed/incorrect/incorrectly obtained data will likely get called out. It should be interesting. My guess is that there will be a lot of "end of the world" comments during talks as a means of people making their research significant, but it really will be nice to see some concrete data. If you're interested in looking at the program or maybe even attending, here is the meeting's website...SCAS annual meeting. I'll post some comments here on what I hear. If you look at the program and have anything specific that you want me to watch for or if you recognize any of the names, post away...I'd love to hear the backdrop! Dr. Pondella is presenting and is actually the person that I have been in contact with and he is on the science advisory committee for the MLPA so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. Again, this isn't a MLPA meeting that people need to concern themselves with showing up in mass. This is just a science conference that will involve the same people that are presenting the very data that is influencing the decisions being made. The questions asked will not be "so what map do you support in the MLPA process?" Questions will be more along the lines of "what methodology did you use to calculate biomass?" If that makes sense. Just don't want people driving to LA thinking that political trickery is going on! Last edited by Aaron; 05-06-2010 at 12:52 PM.

05-07-2010, 08:12 PM	#7
MrPatrick Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Waiting to launch Posts: 1,381	sapdawg I see your Smilodon and raise you a Short-Faced Bear. Paleo humor

05-06-2010, 12:53 PM	#2
Billy V Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bay Ho Posts: 1,382	Thanks in Advance for attending. Yes I agree, we all want to see the concrete data, and would also like to know the methods used to calculate those numbers. -We have all heard the hypotheses of the MLPA Science Team members and green washing supporters who paid them well to spread the propaganda. Feel free to "nail them to a cross" wherever you can. These loser are making a mockery of science. Good Fish Karma to You.

05-06-2010, 01:25 PM	#3
Dan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,053	see if you can get pdfs or a slide deck from the speakers. I'd like to see that.

05-06-2010, 01:49 PM	#4
robmandel Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 186	you might be surprised to hear this, but real science had nothing to do with the MPA designations. For instance, look at rocky point (palos verdes). it was the jewel of the enviros, but all that got closed was a small section away from RP, no canyon, etc., AND a superfund cleanup site, full of PVC's (or soemthing like that) as well as being subject to much (natural) erosion and runoff. the enviros were pissed about losing RP. however, that was done in exchange for closing malibu (and I'm sure other places as well). two BRTF members (schem and anderson) are business partners, have the lease on the MDR fuel dock, and would have been hit hard with the closures. the never disclosed this and then they lied about all this to the F&G commission. all the local city councils, and many other pols (including state rep ted lieu) all wrote to support keeping RP open. that's for starters. follow the money: packard foundation, monterey bay aq., stanford U. see all the names linked together: mike sutton, meg caldwell, barton thompson, many others. the SAT? several members received HUGE grants from packard, some are linked directly with MBA and stanford. for some, pretty much their whole funding comes from the PF. two of the guys got 15 million last several years. but I'm sure their scientific integrity wasn't compromised. I know, it's hard to believe there were lies upon lies presented as "fact": overfished stocks, declining popualtions, loss of habitat habitat, etc. in fact, many of the concerns, the laguna tuna platoon and their sand build up, has nothing to do with fishing. in fact, almost nothing they were concerned about is addressed with MPA's. the process was as dirty as a thai whorehouse. and no paper bothered to even write a word. and we wonder why california is in such a shitty position.

05-06-2010, 03:04 PM	#5
-scallywag- Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: on the road... Posts: 598	Rob, I sure miss hearing you speak at the MLPA meetings....

05-06-2010, 03:18 PM	#6
Aaron Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 175	I'll see what I can get in terms of .pdf's. Usually you get a cd with abstracts for the talks when you show up. I won't post them directly here if I get them, but I sure can email them to you if you're interested. Science had nothing to do with MPA's? No doubt politics play a huge/the main/the key role, but no doubt science is involved. In fact, we are relying upon science to stress our points as recreational fisherman. Not to mention the team of more than 20 research scientists in the SAT and what you have to understand is that data is data, the story and mistakes that are made in science lie in the interpretation of that data. I am 100% with you that politics and money heavily influenced and still influence the decisions being made and heavily influence the interpretation of collected data. But to say that science has nothing to do with it is saying that data is not being collected and that's simply not true. Data is being collected, its the interpretation that we are having a problem with and this is a great opportunity to look at the raw data without the political filter and interpretation that skew what we hear over and over again. I'm looking forward to it. Give me some numbers. The concrete, quantitative and qualitative facts of why places like LJ may be shut down. As soon as you hear "this data suggests..." then you can turn off. If the data is strong, you shouldn't have to tell us what it suggests. My guess is that like most cases of "pushing the interpretation envelope data" that the exact opposite points can be made using the same data set from those that are being utilized to push for the most strict closures. You're completely right about how skewed this stuff is. completely, and I want to say thanks for your efforts with the mlpa.

05-09-2010, 09:54 AM	#9
Aaron Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 175	I just spent 20 minutes doing a write up and bumped the wrong button on my little netbook keyboard and watched it all go away. friggin bummer...I'll redo the write up but just know that the bulk of the scientists there were also fisherman, spearos, and divers and do not support just shutting down access. I'll give you a set of #'s that I think you'll like before I burn this netbook for having the refresh key in a stupid location... There are 1.7 million saltwater anglers that go on about 5.8 million trips in a given year. There are about 380 charters operating in the state which are responsible for taking a significant portion of those anglers on those trips. Fishing brings $2.2 BILLION to the state economy, $160 million to state and local taxes, $20 million in the form of excise taxes on hard goods and provides jobs for more than 20,000 California residents. And this is not LA times data...That data comes from a little organization called NOAA. Fishing is vital to this state which was the point of the NOAA fisheries service talk. 'nuff said.

05-09-2010, 10:19 AM	#11
Billy V Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bay Ho Posts: 1,382	Thank You.. We all appreciate your involvement. Many of us have given countless hours and dollars toward the mlpa fight. Its refreshing to be able to gain access to accurate data. I believe the best way to thwart off vast MLPA Closures is to rid this state of Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone like him. -Its time to vote them out of here.

05-10-2010, 04:51 PM	#14
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	^ Sorry, I meant the panel you viewed as a spectator, not to imply you are part of the process. Any insight you can provide is much appreciated. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and hope to fish with you again sometime soon.

05-10-2010, 07:23 PM	#15
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	Here is a question that no one seems to be able to answer. If 39% of species do better outside of reserves (PISCO Marine Reserves Handbook), then why was the reserve size science based on capturing 90% of the area species? They base their minimum and recommended reserve sizes on capturing 90% of the available species. This creates at least 2 problems: the costs associated with larger reserves than are necessary, and driving the 39% further from where they would want to be. I would agree that there is a lot of science in the process on both sides, but little of it is being utilized in a scientific way by the powers that be.