The Wildlands Project plan is to "rewild" up to 50% of the World Land mass, by the removal of humans from dedicated preserves, with motorized off-road recreation as one of the first uses to be banned.

The same exclusionary goal is being applied to the World's Ocean waters, with recreational fishing as one of the first uses to be banned. They want a minimum of 20% of the worlds oceans to be exempt from man's presence.

The thought process and fight against this project may appear familiar to active off-road enthusiasts (the green at all expense ideology will be familar).

Happy Trails!

=====================

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-reserve24oct24.story?null

Fishing Permanently Banned Around the Channel Islands
A reserve, encompassing 175 square miles, takes effect Jan. 1 and is one of the largest in the U.S.

By Kenneth R. Weiss, Times Staff Writer

SANTA BARBARA -- The California Fish and Game Commission on
Wednesday permanently banned fishing from 175 square miles of ocean
around the Channel Islands, approving one of the largest marine reserves in
U.S. waters.

The decision culminated four years of scientific and public study and debate
over the wisdom of substituting traditional fishing restrictions, such as size
and catch limits on selected fish, with a reserve system that protects all
forms of marine life.

"California once again is in the vanguard of environmental protection,"
said Fish and Game Commissioner Bob Hattoy. "This is good
for the fish, good for the fishermen and good for future generations."

Hundreds of angry, placard-carrying fishermen said the decision would cut
into their livelihoods as well as put some of their favorite fishing grounds off
limits.

"We pay a lot of dollars [in fishing license fees] to the Department of Fish
and Game for the management of fisheries," said Tom Raftican, president of
United Anglers of Southern California. "I have a very difficult time paying
for an area I cannot fish."

The commission's 2-1 vote establishes a network of 13 marine reserves and
conservation areas in state waters strategically placed around the five islands to give a wide array of fish
and shellfish a chance to recover from decades of excessive fishing.

Enforcement of the marine reserves will begin Jan. 1. The size of the areas set aside could grow
depending on action by the federal government. Over the next year or two, federal officials will decide
whether to expand the cluster of reserves into federal waters, which begin three miles from shore.

A combined state and federal reserve system could ultimately encompass 426 square miles, making it
the largest complex of marine reserves in the continental United States. The nation's largest surrounds
the northwest Hawaiian Islands.

The reserves established Wednesday are considerably different from the federal actions taken over the
summer to ban bottom fishing for rockfish across much of the continental shelf off California.

Under those rules, fishermen may continue catching tuna, barracuda or squid near the surface. They
also can fish for halibut, which generally live on sandy bottoms, away from the rocky reefs that are
home to rockfish.

In contrast, the new Channel Islands marine reserves are permanent and protect all sea life, from the
biggest bass to the tiniest snail.

Eleven of the 13 areas are no-take reserves, which means no fishing of any kind, no diving for lobster
or urchins and no harvesting of kelp.

Two of the 13 areas are designated as "conservation areas" and allow for limited recreational fishing
and commercial lobster trapping.

Gov. Gray Davis said he was "delighted" by the vote.

Approving the Channel Islands reserves was a test case for state Fish and Game officials, who next
year will consider imposing no-fishing zones and conservation areas along the state's 1,150-mile
coastline.

Although the concept of reserves is not new, existing reserves are tiny. Around the Channel Islands, for
instance, the only reserve is a 37-acre area off Anacapa Island.

Still, scientists say the sea life inside the reserve boundaries is remarkably abundant compared to
surrounding waters that are open to fishing.

According to Mark Hixon, a marine scientist at Oregon State University, the larger the reserves, the
larger the potential benefits, including the size of the resident fish. The larger the fish, the more eggs it
tends to produce, Hixon told the commissioners.

"You have to have big, fat females in the system, because they produce an enormous amount of eggs,"
he said. The problem, he said, is that with intensive fishing, most fish never get a chance to reach that
size.

Only about 1% of the world's oceans are now closed to fishing. In California waters, less than .02% is
inside no-take reserves.

But reserves have begun to appear all over the globe, as the world's leading marine scientists have
called for 20% of the oceans to be set off-limits to keep many types of fish from becoming extinct.

Bob Fletcher, a lobbyist for charter boat operators, insisted that the commissioners were being misled
by "theoretical science" about the benefits to sea life while failing to consider the very real economic
loss to fishermen.

Recreational fishermen argued passionately that they were not responsible for the decline of fisheries.
Instead, they pointed to commercial fishermen who sweep through with massive nets that kill tons of
fish.

But government scientists say that's not entirely true around the Channel Islands and elsewhere in
Southern California. Fish have declined to such an extent that many of the commercial fishermen have
moved on or gone out of business.

Recreational anglers caught 150 tons of bocaccio from 1998 through 2000, while commercial
fishermen caught 23 tons during those same years, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Bocaccio, a popular red-colored fish commonly sold as "rock cod," is so depleted it is being
considered for listing as an endangered species.

A number of fishermen directed their wrath at commissioner Hattoy, a former Sierra Club regional
director and Clinton administration official who was recently appointed by Davis to the commission.

"Some of you will call me wrong," Hattoy told several fishermen who heckled him. "But your
grandchildren will call me right."

In voting for the reserves, Hattoy was joined by fellow Davis appointee Sam Schuchat. Commissioner
Mike Chrisman, who was appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, voted no. Two other commissioners
were absent.

Now, the staff of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and National Marine Fisheries
Service will begin a lengthy process of federal rule-making that will help determine the ultimate size of
the reserve system.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which sets federal fishing rules, will also take up the matter.
Executive Director Donald McIsaac said that while the council generally supports marine reserves, it
had not come to a decision about the Channel Islands.

A panel of scientists had recommended that 30% to 50% of the waters around the Channel Islands be
protected to allow depleted species to recover and begin "seeding" surrounding areas with larvae and
spillover fish.

Fishermen wanted 13% or less placed off limits.

When a two-year effort to reach consensus failed, the state Department of Fish and Game and the
Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary came up with a compromise plan. The first phase was approved
Wednesday.

If the federal officials follow suit, the combined reserve system would protect about 25% of the waters
immediately surrounding the islands.

"This is a good first step," said Linda Krop, chief counsel of Environmental Defense Center of Santa
Barbara. "Hopefully, this will be seen as a model for additional reserves along the West Coast."

Good.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Good.


coming from someone who's lively hood and/or way of life isn't affected..... :rolleyes:


when are you going to realize that this isn't about the oceans or the fish or the environment - it's about CONTROL...:shaking:

my neighbor fishes all over the country (oceans) and says that the Channel islands area is one of the best places to fish because of the conservation that is already in place and the ENFORCEMENT of the concervation in place....

this is going to throw things out of balance more and cause bigger problems IMO, as more fisherman are pushed into less of an area.... just like when wheeling places get overcrowded due to land closures....

Congrats to the FWD for making a virtually non-existing problem into something that will ruin a lot more than it will help....


:usa:

Originally posted by YellowSub1962




when are you going to realize that this isn't about the oceans or the fish or the environment - it's about CONTROL...:shaking:



:usa:


More Control -- Exploiting other peoples (grant fund) money ...



http://cbs2.com/news/AP/APTV/State/CA/n/CA--OceanStudy-kn/news_html

Report calls for ecosystem focus on fishing
management

Monday October 28, 2002

By ROBERT JABLON
Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) Overfishing of the world's seas may be causing a
ripple effect that can devastate the ecosystems on which future
catches depend, according to a study released Monday.

``The overwhelming weight of evidence from available fishing data
points to the severe, dramatic and sometimes irreversible
consequences of fishing on marine ecosystems,'' said the report
released at an oceans conference in Santa Barbara.

The report calls on the United States to protect ecosystems by
comprehensively zoning waters for industrial, commercial fishing or
recreational uses rather than making piecemeal closures of certain
fishing grounds.

The report comes on the heels of last week's decision by the
California Fish and Game Commission to declare 130 square miles of
ocean around the Channel Islands off-limits to fishing, beginning next
year. The ban aims to protect individual marine species by preserving
their entire ecosystem.

In the past, state officials had attempted to do that by setting size
or catch limits or enacting seasonal closures.

The report for the Pew Oceans Commission took a comprehensive
look at other studies of fishing. Worldwide, 25 percent to 30 percent
of all fish stocks currently being caught are being overfished to some
degree and another 40 percent is at risk of soon being overexploited,
the report said, citing a 1999 study.

A report to Congress last year from the National Marine Fisheries
Service found that about one-third of the 304 U.S. fishing stocks for
which the status was known were being overfished, the study.

``Even populations that show no immediate impact from being fished
may (through their loss) cause disproportionate declines in
abundance of species that forage upon them,'' the report said.

Global overfishing is masked somewhat because new technology
allows fishermen to go after previously unreachable fish and
because, as one species declines, commercial fishers turn to other
ones lower down on the food chain, the report said.

Current fishing procedures also destroy important habitat where fish
breed and grow up, such as corals, seagrasses and sponge beds, the
study said.

In addition, fishing can decimate populations of seabirds, turtles,
sharks and other species that are caught inadvertently.

``For centuries, we have viewed the oceans as an infinite resource
beyond our capacity to harm. We now know that this is not true,''
Leon Panetta, chairman of the Pew Oceans Commission, said in a
statement.

The study concluded that the United States needs to overhaul its
fishing laws, which it called cumbersome and unenforceable, to
concentrate on protecting ecosystems rather than single species. It
also said lots of costly new research is needed to determine the
state of the seas and fish populations.

``The time has come to reorient fishery management around the
goal of protecting ecosystems and to install flexible management
that emphasizes caution,'' study lead author Paul Dayton of the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography said in a statement.

The Pew Oceans Commission, a nonprofit group of scientists,
fishermen, conservation, business and political leaders, plans to make
recommendations for a new national ocean policy to Congress next
year.

=

On the Net: http://www.pewoceans.org

(Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Originally posted by YellowSub1962



coming from someone who's lively hood and/or way of life isn't affected..... :rolleyes:






Uhh, yes my way of life is affected. How about when I want to go scub diving there and see something other than water? How about it ten years when i want to eat seafood?

Oh wait, I can't do either now because there was no thought put to sustainability or the future for that matter. You and the fishermen are only thinking in the now.

I bet a fisherman's lively hood wont be too great when there aren't any fish left in the sea.

Not that how it directly effects me matters in my stance on the subject. You of all people should reconise this being an fourwheeling activist. I guess the common non-fourwheeler just shouldn't care if all the trails are closed right? Whats that quote someone has in their sig about not raising their hand for anyone else and when they were all gone no one was left to stand with him?






Originally posted by YellowSub1962



when are you going to realize that this isn't about the oceans or the fish or the environment - it's about CONTROL...:shaking:





I don't know, probably when you drop your self rightious stance, stop worrying about the bueoracy of it, and step back and look at the big picture and relise that its about making decions and changes now that we can't just go back and change when we relise we fucked up, once something is extienct its gone forever.

Why doesn't it show that I replied? Is it just me?:confused:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why doesn't it show that I replied? Is it just me?:confused:
I can see it, I just wish I could fix your spelling.:flipoff2:

Originally posted by GENA

eye can c it, I jsut wishe eye cuold fixx you're speling.:flipoff2:


Thnaks ;) ;) :flipoff2:

I'm looking at the big picture, and talking to those that LIVE it....not those like you and I that "want to go there in the future"

like I said, the local fisherman say this area is a great continued renewable resource because of the way it is managed and enforced currently... so we have something that is in balance between responsible use and preservation and now we're going to just say screw it and lock it all up.... I dabbled in Marine Boiolgy in College, and have actually been to the area we're discussing several times and the majority of the area is thriving with fish and spawning grounds, and there are only certain times of the year (non spawning) that you can fish for certain fish.... this allows them to breed uninterrupted by humans, which both preserves the population and sustains the local fishing needs....

now take away the fishing and you have nothign to control the population...kinda like the people in L. A..... where are the fish going to get low income housing and welfare? there is going to be a shortage of food and housing which will lead to a mass die off and then the whole gene pool will be screwed up and the species will probably die off... so this is hurting them more than us fishing, where we actually help them maitain genetic diversity through population control....

human are part of nature, not controllers of it....


and the quote you're looking for is:


“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” -- Martin Niemoeller





:usa:

I fit is allready being sustainably fished then how come The California Fish and Game Commission after four years of scientific and public study and debate recommeneds it to be closed? Not that I think they're god's wor don any subject, but what motive do they have to close it except to benifit the fishies? The fishermen obviously have the motive of money to say that of course verything is fine, leave us alone. And how come the Bocaccio is considered for listing as an endangered species if everything is ok?


The only reserve now is a 37-acre area, thats doesn't seem like much at all. they seem to be only going after 25% of the waters after the 50% recommendation by the scientists.

I've got to go to class, but I'll try and look at it again later tonight.

Thanks for the quote.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I fit is allready being sustainably fished then how come The California Fish and Game Commission after four years of scientific and public study and debate recommeneds it to be closed? Not that I think they're god's wor don any subject, but what motive do they have to close it except to benifit the fishies?


the same reason they need to close our trails for endangered gnats.... It's about money, power, and exploittation of the American people....



Thanks for the quote.

you're welcome :)

Originally posted by Berzerker
I fit is allready being sustainably fished then how come The California Fish and Game Commission after four years of scientific and public study and debate recommeneds it to be closed? Not that I think they're god's wor don any subject, but what motive do they have to close it except to benifit the fishies? The fishermen obviously have the motive of money to say that of course verything is fine, leave us alone. And how come the Bocaccio is considered for listing as an endangered species if everything is ok?

The studies are sponsored and underwritten by the scientists that want the preserves established, with the expected recommendation -- establish preserves.

The Bocaccio is experiencing one of the healthiest years in the past thirty years. Why? Because the existing conservation strategies work, the strategies employed before these closures. This does not even include the most recent ban on bottom fishing waters deeper than 120 feet, a conservation measure that has yet to even complete one season of enforcement and monitoring (to see of it successfully helps the established conservation measures).


Originally posted by Berzerker
The only reserve now is a 37-acre area, thats doesn't seem like much at all. they seem to be only going after 25% of the waters after the 50% recommendation by the scientists.



This attitude, it's only x%, is easy to ignore unless the area they want to take is one you know and enjoy. It's also troubling if you learn the process that lead to these bans on fishing (and the lack of monitoring time to allow preemptive conservation measures to take effect)


Imagine someone taking a section in the center of your backyard, and fencing it off, preventing your entry and enjoyment, just to preserve the insects that thrive in the surrounding annual flowerbeds?

You know your backyard, and let the Scientists know that the insects always come back, after the spring rains fall with an overabundance during the summer (when the annual flowers come back). The Scientists tell you the research they completed in winter is without error (revealing declining insect populations) and proceed to show you how the methods of research they used during the winter study are documented and valid. Hey, you comment, it was a winter drought, with minimal insect activity. Maybe we all need to do a long-term study, and try some intermediate mitigation measures?

You offer to eliminate the summer parties from getting close to your backyard flowerbeds and your neighbor's backyard flowerbeds too, to cooperate and help the restoration of the insects next summer (giving them a full season to complete a more valid research model of the insect issues). The Scientists take you up on the offer, and immediately close your flowerbeds, and your neighbor's flowerbeds. They thank you for your cooperation and concern, and author press releases to reflect their enthusiasm for the help.

Then they repeat that their study is without peer, and is the "best science" available to protect the insects, and demand the government force a comprehensive closure of your yard (the entire yard). They say that their study reflects an impending crisis, one that may lead to extinction of the species if not acted upon, immediately! Then, they author press releases with quotes made by you regarding your concern and your generous offer of voluntary closure, to bolster their demand to close your yard by government intervention (what they say is if you agree with their concerns, even a little, then you must be fully supportive).

The hard argument to counter, from an unbiased outsider point of view, is the Scientists are only telling the truth, they found a declining population of insects in your yard. Yes, it was winter when they made the research samples, but it's still the "best science" available. Yes, anyone who digs in your backyard (even the dog) knows the insects die off in winter, but look at the study results and it's alarming! This threatened and endangered insect needs the most comprehensive protection action immediately to protect it for future generations. The Judge makes a ruling based on the information available … Yard Closed!

You feel cheated; to lose the yard, but it's for a good cause, right?

Now, it's twenty years later, and the only time you can visit your backyard is when you sneak in to retrieve your wayward puppy (they continued to lock you out because the government could not fund continuing research to confirm the initial study results). Well, it's summer and the insects are everywhere, but it no longer looks like your backyard, as it is a wild and primitive place. Well, you vow to return when you can, and see if the insects you cared so deeply about are well and thriving.

Time goes by, it's now twenty-one years after the fences went up, and you again sneak into your backyard with your son. You want to show him an area you loved when you were young, but he has never been allowed to visit. Well, it's winter and the insects are gone, and it no longer looks like your backyard (not even the wild and primitive place of summer), as it is barren with only dead plants.

What really seem impossible is you find one of the Scientists has taken it upon himself to continue the underfunded research on the insect, by applying for private grant funds, and raised his family in your backyard. They were camped out in your backyard (rent-free) for the entire time (you just could not see them due to the thick growth and tall fences).

Boys being boys, your son and the Scientists son get together and talk. The boy offers an apology, about the poor condition of the yard, with a mention that the last time his dad said it was this bad was twenty-two years ago. A lethargic insect flies onto your sons arm, and the other boy moves over to swat it, dead.

The boy sees the look of horror in your face and offers, "those things are so thick in summer that dad kills them by the net full, I really love the winter when they all die off, your damn lucky you came this time of year."

Right then you catch sight of the Scientist (out of the corner of your eye) with a Federal Marshall leading an armed escort with orders to take you (and your son) directly to jail.

Happy Trails!

El Nino, solar cycles, and changes in ocean currents and baitfish spawning have seasons that run longer than a year ... or five years. The 120-foot fishing ban has been in effect less than six months.