In regard to Dr. Nielsen’s comments – the sustainability of the sea palm harvest at Sea Lion Cove is proven by the fact the algae is still there after 30 years of harvest. And this statement – “We have hundreds of examples of how unregulated (or poorly regulated) fisheries and other commercial industries fare.” Oh really? Can you give me an example of any unregulated fisheries in California? What has shocked me during the MLPA process is how many scientists with an academic background in marine ecology have almost no knowledge of fishing regulations, fishery management the laws that govern them.
“The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, in contrast to the “just trust us” model, has been built on a foundation of the best available science.” Please read the MLPA statute – it does not require the “best available science” (that is a phrase found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act). It only requires the “most readily available science.” As in: Look! I found some science! It’s a much lower legal standard than that which manages our fisheries. It’s not even science, it’s hypothesis based in political advocacy.

Overall, the comments here show the bias of the MLPA process against fishing as the sole human impact on marine life. The attack on sustainable fisheries means that fishermen will not support the vast expansion of MPAs in California and the MLPA is doomed to failure. (see Tundi Agardy’s paper on this). Our fisheries are sustainable, but the MLPA isn’t.

Jim Martin

P.S. You picked the wrong type of hippies to mess with!

Commercial take of seaweed is growing rapidly, regulations are virtually non-existent, and some species are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation because of their ecology. We have hundreds of examples of how unregulated (or poorly regulated) fisheries and other commercial industries fare. You need only look to the declining availability of local fish in your local market, the limited (if any) fishing seasons for many local species and the current financial crisis to see how well self-regulation works. “Just trust us” just doesn’t sound like such a good idea anymore.

The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, in contrast to the “just trust us” model, has been built on a foundation of the best available science. The networks of sites are proposed by a dedicated, hardworking and thoughtful group of stakeholders (including commercial and recreational fishermen, divers, conservationists, tribal representatives, educators, etc.) in a very public process with many opportunities for community input. Each proposed network is evaluated by a team of leading marine scientists to assess how well they conform to scientific guidelines (based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence). Each team of stakeholders then has the opportunity to revise their proposal several times in light of a wealth of scientific, socio-economic and public input to try and find an appropriate balance among these factors while meeting the minimum, scientifically based criteria for effectiveness.

Contrary to the assertions of many seaweed harvesters, access to the entire coast will not be denied to them and others interested in reaping commercial gain from the ocean; instead a few areas of the coast will be set aside as marine reserves, spaced so that they work together as a network to conserve intact ecosystems and allow organisms to disperse among them. These protected areas not only serve as “natural capital” protecting the plants, animals and seaweeds within their borders, but they can also replenish areas outside their boundaries where people will engage in commercial and recreational fishing and gathering. Additionally, they help compensate for some of the inadequacies of fisheries management in the face of inevitable uncertainties in stock assessments, unpredictable changes in ocean conditions and political pressures. Evidence for these outcomes can be found in the rich scientific literature on marine conservation.

Karina J. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology, Sonoma State University
Member of the Science Advisory Teams for the North Central Coast MLPA &
CA Ocean Protection Council

The article also mentions that more needs to be done about water quality. I totally agree. I was VERY involved in creating the (south) Central Coast network of marine protected areas (Pigeon Point to Pt. Conception). We heard the same mantra: “Work on water quality, not on protected areas.” I would invite those folks to the Regional Water Quality Control Board meetings; I’m there every month and I never see any of the nay-sayers there.

The Marine Life Protection Act was country-leading legislation that encourages us to think about the future… beyond our self interests. Yes, some people may have to find new favorite spots. But our kids and grand kids will have places to marvel at if we set aside some special places NOW.

Steve Shimek
Monterey Coastkeeper
The Otter Project

Sea palm is unique to the west coast, but its harvest has been banned in Oregon and Washington, so all collection efforts are concentrated in California, where there are currently ZERO restrictions on sea palm harvesting. Selling at $40 per pound with no regulations, it’s easy to imagine how this resource can be quickly decimated as demand increases further.

To characterize the MLPA Initiative and process as representing private interests is misleading at best. The process has been an open and inclusive one, with extensive public input and participation. Moreover, the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) was not the favored proposal of the “Environmental advocacy groups” as your sources may have led you to believe. Rather it was a compromise of compromises, developed through a year and a half of discussions, collaborations, public workshops, and meetings. Stakeholder representatives like me were the ones that sat around the table with microphones and namecards, but the other people in the room, and people outside of the meetings had just as much “say” in the process and in the development of the proposals. The public and its interests were considered every step of the way.

The MPA process takes the importance of the sea palm into account and allows for commercial and subsistence harvest while setting some areas aside to ensure the resource remains viable into the future. MPAs are good for business, good for California, good for us, and good for the planet.