Our fishing and ocean recreational communities are being critically threatened by radical special interests groups who are trying to close an immense area of island harvesting zones in the guise of "ocean protection." The result, if they are successful, will most likely bring an end to our local fishing industries as we know it. We need everyone to get involved so that these NGO lobbyists do not decimate our domestic fishing and ocean recreational industries for our families and our future generations. The impact on creating the proposed MPA's on Santa Rosa Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Cruz Island, and Carpinteria beaches will erase our industries off the map and we all will lose. And ironically, the environmental impact will be opposite of what these lobbyists are advocating for.
Allwaters Org is doing a fantastic job at advocating on behalf of all of us ocean users. I have sent my own letter of opposition to fgc@fgc.ca.gov and I urge you to do the same so we can save our industries.
You can also sign our counter petition here.
I was born in Southern California into a diving family, and I have spent my entire life of 40 years living on, in and around the pacific ocean. I have had a mask on and my face in the water since I was a toddler, exploring tide pools and kelp beds up and down the coast. This life experience led me into a career in the sea, which started at the age of 19 up in Santa Barbara, where I was hired as a deckhand for Truth Aquatics , a live aboard dive boat operation where I worked from cleaning toilets and scrubbing decks to Captain. I took this job while I was in the Marine Diving Tech program at Santa Barbara City College, and it allowed me to explore the channel islands from San Clemente to San Miguel and as far north as Schmeider Banks off of the Monterey Coastline diving 1000s of dives during this time alone. I have had my eyes on the sea and under the sea for my entire lifetime.
I currently live in Ventura Ca and I have owned and operated a commercial seafood diving and trapping business out at the Channel Islands since 2010.
I have sat on the board as the commercial fishing seat for the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council for 2 terms and I am currently sitting as the Alternate seat this term. I am a member of the California Sea Urchin Commision, the California Sea Cucumber Divers association, Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara member, the California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's Association member, and have sat on board seats over the last decade and a half.
I am in strong opposition of Petition 2023-2033. Specifically I am in opposition of any changes or additions to the already existing MPAs at Gull Island Santa Cruz Island, and South Point Santa Rosa Island. But also, I am opposed to all of the proposed changes.
Over the years we have been sold a bill of goods with the MPA program, with the facilitators reneging on their word and not following through with the original stated plans of the proposed MPAs back in 2003. There are a lot of great things that MPAs can provide I believe, if they are managed properly. However there are alot of problems that are not addressed and they create more harm than good in some areas.
One of these issues that is not addressed is the fact that when you close off certain areas of use, then the surrounding areas get more pressure from fishing and use. Will this become a good intention but a bad idea scenario in the future? Another key factor not mentioned is that some of the MPAs are worse off than when they were started. They are barren of kelp, and sea life is hindered in these areas specifically off of San Miguel Island. These closures did nothing to protect the habitat even with the creation of No Take MPAs. The kelp forest decline that predominantly occurred between the 2014-2016 years happened regardless of the MPAs or not. The kelp forests did not all benefit and flourish inside of the MPAs either. So why and how would closing more areas in the MPA zones do anything different to bolster up the persistent kelp canopy? The existing MPAs did not seem to provide that protection during these events.
Another issue with the proposal is that it repeatedly brings up the Southern Sea Otter. This ideology is riddled with fallacy and only supports an agenda of a few. Throughout my entire lifetime of diving and fishing on the California coastline the kelp forests and reefs have been flourishing and they continue to do so in many many areas. ALL WITHOUT THE SEA OTTER. They have never been down south of PT Conception in any great numbers in my lifetime. And the Ocean and Kelp forests were as big as ever during my lifetime.
I can say with most certainty that I personally have spent more hours observing the underwater world off our California coastline than any of the scientists listed on this proposal, and with most certainty any of the signers in support of this proposal. And with that time spent in observation, I can tell you that this proposal is not based on real observation or real data facts, what I see on a daily basis contradicts the proposal.
I dive reefs with countless sheephead, lobster, crab, sea stars, etc..... All things listed in the proposal saying we need to add more MPAS to bring back these species. They are far from gone. They just are not going to eat all the purple urchins. Another species that has had a vibrant recovery is the Abalone population here in the southern california area. Abalone are flourishing in many areas, a great comeback. But because they are out of sight out of mind, what isn't told to the public is that there are so many abalone in places like San Miguel island that they are stacked on top of each other fighting for food. If the Sea Otters were left unchecked, they would and will decimate everything in their path, and leave the bottom a barren waste land in their wake.
Finally, I would like to say that if protecting the kelp forest and bringing the kelp forests back to life and full vibrancy they once had is the ultimate goal, then we should be working on solutions to actually rehabilitate all of our existing kelp forests. We should be creating programs, which already exist, but on a larger scale, utilizing already state licensed Sea Urchin and Sea Cucumber divers to cull the invasive purple sea urchin (which no predators will go after because of the low return on nutrients). We should be seeding and planting kelp at the same time, we should be running programs to weed the invasive seaweeds like sargassum and truly managing our kelp forests. We should drive jointly tasked solution based initiatives putting the forces of our brightest minds with our commercial harvesters who are the eyes and ears of the sea - fins in the water - together putting forth aggressive efforts of ocean science and rehabilitation is what we need.
The recreational and commercial users of the ocean are truly the first line of defense and the current proposed petitions written by people who live nowhere near our communities, never have even come to us, the stakeholders, the business owners, the residents, and asked for our input. Instead of legitimate solutions backed by SCIENCE and real DATA, I have seen approvals for kelp farms to grow kelp on lines in the middle of the ocean, creating large areas of anchors and lines in the water column, all while telling fishermen that their fishing gear is posing a threat to marine life, but this corporate company can throw a mess of line in the water to grow kelp on a string to process it and feed it to cows.
Let's get our priorities straight, stop these blanket closures keeping the very people who love the ocean the most out, and let's work on real solutions to these problems. Closing down the sea is not addressing the real issues we are facing, it is meerley sweeping the large corporate problems under the rug and taking the easy way out, and is only a win for the Armchair Activist who has once seen the sea on a biased Documentary on Netflix.
John Hoadley
