THE FIX IS IN!!! 30x30 in California...One-Sided Anti-Fishing Path
After over a year of the sportfishing community and others trying to partner with the state of California on 30x30 to create a broader based, more middle ground approach to the marine portion of California 30x30, we continue to be shut out of any meaningful input into the process. It is now crystal clear, THE FIX IS IN. Unless the process drastically changes, more unnecessary closed areas are guaranteed. That will result not only in a major blow to California's sportfishing industry and community who are the original marine conservationists in California, but to the marine resource as well.
The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has allowed elements of the environmental community to control the California 30x30 process. At the same time, the fishing public, marine science that counters their agenda, the middle ground perspective of most Californians, and anybody else who does not support their No-Fishing Marine Protected Area (MPA) goal has been shut out of the process. CA 30x30 is marching forward without serious consideration of other better options such as what the other side of the science says, what is already being done in California to protect the ocean environment and its biodiversity, or what is being done more inclusively elsewhere in the US. Many California government representatives currently don't know how far out of step California is on its marine portion of 30x30 when compared to other states and even the federal government's 30x30 marine planning by President Biden's team in Washington DC. Helping more of our CA leaders and representatives become aware of the current flawed process will be an important key to creating a CA 30x30 that blends the needs of fishing public and others with real marine biodiversity benefits.
Why We Are So Concerned
Last April we were promised to be part of the critical 18-member 30x30 Advisory Group that would develop the process and guidelines for 30x30 in the CA. That did not happen. We feel lied to and believe we are being deliberately kept out of meaningful involvement in the CA 30x30 process. The telling result from the Advisory Group is that they determined the only thing that can qualify as protecting the resource are specific No-Fishing MPAs. They say no biodiversity benefit is credited for example with our CA Marine Sanctuaries. That is absurd and is in direct opposition to what the federal government has concluded. They also show no understanding of the many real and productive biodiversity and marine conservation efforts already in place. They credit no real benefit to the significant fisheries management, guidelines, rules, regulations and closures from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. There is no way the Advisory Group could have concluded MPAs are the only real biodiversity protection option in CA if better options were in fact seriously considered that did not fit into the predetermined desired outcome of the CNRA.
What Does The Science Say About No-Fishing MPA's?
It depends on what science you decide to consider. There is a great deal of science on both sides of the MPA debate depending in large part on the perspective of the people doing a given study. MPA's effectiveness are situational depending on type and need, and which type of MPA is being applied. The science states that U.S. No-Fishing MPAs (often referred to as No-Take MPAs) do not produce a meaningful increase in fisheries productivity and that proven U.S. fisheries management does. MPA's broadly can certainly provide habitat and biodiversity benefits, they are however not the panacea for fisheries management. For example, a no take MPA in a decimated foreign fishery on an isolated island with no protections in place can certainly improve fisheries as there is no better alternative. However, in California waters with robust fisheries management it's different. CCA Cal and others in the sportfishing community recognize MPAs play a legitimate conservation and habitat protection role. Our concern is with No Fishing MPAs where anglers are denied access without any real identification of the actual damage being caused by recreational fishing, and therefore no real conservation benefit. A conservation minded member of the CCA Cal, or a conservation minded marine scientist, will look at the situation different than a preservation minded environmentalist or preservation minded marine scientist. Hence, there is science on both sides of the MPA debate. Currently, California is only hearing the "shut it down" preservation perspective. Decisions are being made from a one sided and incomplete scientific perspective that fits the narrative of the CNRA. For a more complete representation of the science around CA 30x30 refer to THE SCIENCE BEHIND 30X30..
Unintended Consequences
The current one-sided process for CA 30x30 and its overstating the value of MPAs to fisheries not only presents an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on the angling public and the large industry they support, but it also has a negative impact for CA 30x30 and the marine resource. It creates unnecessary conflict between anglers and environmentalists and prevents us from working together to create the best CA 30x30 possible. It also inhibits the ability of the CNRA to carry out its own goal of increased ocean access to underserved communities. The sportfishing community has already demonstrated a unique ability to do just that. For example, the Captain Rollo's Kids at Sea Foundation has taken at no charge 170,000 people fishing from underserved communities over the last 15 years on their commercial passenger sportfishing boats. This is just one example of the many unintended consequences of why it makes no sense for the CNRA to continue to freeze the sportfishing community out of its CA 30x30 process.
Since the original purpose of CA 30x30 is to support biodiversity, the biggest unintended consequence of the current CA 30x30 path is the harm it does to the marine resource itself. By overstating the value of No-Fishing MPAs, it takes our eyes and focus off the current, proven fisheries management tools that are working and are far superior. It also takes focus off real impacts on the ocean environment such as global warming, land-based impacts, and certain specific fishing gears.
The CCA Cal Plan
CCA Cal will continue to try and work directly with the CNRA. However, our plan now is to also focus on educating the governor's office and our elected officials about the one sided process for 30x30 in California described above. To succeed the first step is for you the angler in CA, to understand what is happening as we need you to be involved. This effort will take place over the next 12 months as there is still significant time remaining before the actual lines on the map will be drawn and implemented to close your favorite fishing area. However, we do need to start now and something we need from you is to learn about your relationships with elected officials. With almost 1 million members in the CA sportfishing community, there are many close and personal relationships between anglers and key elected officials. Over the next several months we need to find those connections and set up meetings with you, your friend, and a CCA Cal member familiar with the complexities of CA 30x30. We also need your time and your monetary support. Going forward we will provide you with several options to contribute, including larger one-time donations and smaller monthly automatic donations. So, stay. tuned. The battle has just begun, and we will continue to keep you posted as it proceeds.
