top of page
Search
n19thst

Insights from the September 19th MPA Collaborative Meeting in Monterey




The recent MPA Collaborative meeting provided valuable insights into the ongoing discussions surrounding the binning process and the impact of current petitions on local fishing practices. A key highlight was the distinction made by Santa Cruz’s Brendan Crahan between recreational and subsistence fishing, emphasizing the scarcity of true recreational fishers in Central California. This perspective was well-received by participants from all sides, fostering a more nuanced understanding of the fishing community's dynamics.


The Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)  communicated the binning process where petitions are categorized into two bins, using the criteria to determine which petitions can be evaluated in the near-term (Bin 1, which doesn’t mean guaranteed approval; not a lot of information and effort is needed in the decision-making process). Bin 1 will receive initial recommendations by the end of 2024. and which petitions will require additional policy guidance, information, and/or resources before evaluation (Bin 2). Bin 2 will receive initial recommendations by the end of 2025. 


During the meeting, Keith Rootsaert, the petitioner for Petition 23, presented his ambitious plan to transform all State Marine Conservation Areas (SMCAs) into State Marine Reserves (SMRs) in the Carmel, Monterey, and Pacific Grove areas. His proposal also includes creating a new SMR at Del Monte/Tankers Reef and allowing for unlimited urchin culling within these new reserves. Additionally, Rootsaert suggested employing new vacuum technology for kelp restoration, removing overgrown native algae, and establishing grow-out facilities for harvested urchins.


Feedback from local fishers revealed significant concerns about these proposals. Many expressed that while they supported sustainable fishing practices, they found aspects of the petition problematic. Steve Broyles, a donor to the Big Kelp Project, indicated he would withdraw funding if these measures were pushed forward and even consider legal action if the petition passed. Other commercial fishers echoed similar sentiments, particularly opposing the idea of urchin grow-out facilities, which they felt should benefit experienced commercial divers instead.


A critical point raised during the discussions was the impact of kelp trimming and seafloor vacuuming on marine life, particularly concerning eggs and the early stages of kelp growth. Misinterpretations of Dr. Carr’s kelp report were addressed, clarifying that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have not been shown to support kelp recovery in this region. It was noted that the proposed culling and restoration efforts would not be permissible within any MPA.


The collaboration also touched on outreach opportunities aimed at educating youth and the public about MPAs and sustainable fishing practices. A standout moment was the introduction of an engaging coloring book produced to facilitate this education.


Despite the proactive discussions, frustration lingered among NGOs and government representatives regarding the vagueness of what constitutes “conserved” areas under the 30x30 initiative. There is a clear need for more defined criteria and guidelines to ensure effective conservation efforts.

30 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page