Set Gold Standard for Ocean Health Care

Mr. Chouinard has long been one of my heroes and this article confirms my view of him. Sadly a lot of misinformed folks will now come out with a lot of crazy nonsense and misconceptions about the MLPA and how bad it is for commercial and non commercial fishermen and woman. Don't be fooled. Those people are like little children squealing over having to eat healthy food or get their vaccines. Restricting access to some fishing areas may well hurt some commercial fisherman and woman in the short run but the great preponderance of evidence indicates that it will help them in the medium and long run.

This piece by the founder of Patagonia eloquently captures the need for long-term vision when it comes to protecting our natural resources. Setting aside special places in the ocean is not about destroying fishing and the businesses that depend on it; it is about looking forward and making sure that those past times and industries can continue to thrive and prosper for years to come. Additionally, as Yvon said, creating marine protected areas is also about preserving our natural heritage and conserving the marine life and habitats that belong to ALL of us, for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.

On December 15th, we will look to the Fish and Game Commission to exercise leadership and vision to ensure that the coastline of southern California remains healthy and vibrant for future generations. Let's hope they do the right thing for the ocean and for all Californians.

Great article by a guy who really seems to walk the walk. I saw 180 Degrees South and from what I can tell, Yvon is an authentic man who has experieced everything the world has to offer, and now wants to give back and do right by the world. And his company reflects that.

From what I can tell, MPAs are win-win. I appreciate Patagonia putting itself out there--once again--on something so signficant. I think Yvon is right--we are exceeding our resources and limitations in the oceans and it's time to step back and rethink our priorities. Doing that now will ensure that our marine life is sustainable for the future. And that's good for everyone.

Poor Yvon is getting old and missing the mark on this one. While I am a Patagonia supporter through and through, the answer to sustainable fisheries is NOT closure. Local fish populations have boomed since the ban of gill netting in the later 70's.

Few people understand local waters more than the dedicated freedivers who regularly dip themselves into local waters to silently observe what most never see. Ask any competent freediver and they will tell you local fish are growing in population and size. There are problems. Kelp bass and a few others are heavily targeted. The answer is management, not closure. Increase the minimum size and decrease the max limit you can take per day for kelp and sand bass. Closing nearly all the reefs in cities up and down the coast is nonsensical.

Also, the process of MLPA and determining MPA's has been adulterated with corruption. Stacked committees violating the CA Public Records Act intentionally having meetings during business hours to limit public involvement gives a distaste to the process. Communities will soon realize the disservice of this process when a valuable natural resource is closed. Huge respect goes to Yvon and all he has done. However, every great person has to flop at some point in life. His stance on MLPA is an unanchored repel.

Post Script:

For proof of booming fish populations through management versus closure, look at outright boom of the White Seabass population. Look at Black Seabass now seen in huge numbers. Look at the increase of the CA Halibut populations naturally rebounding after gill net bans. All these fish are not only growing in numbers, but in size.

Do not confuse local reef populations with true over fishing issues like with Bluefin Tuna which swim the open ocean.

SwamiJames, Sorry, but I'm afraid you're the one who has missed the mark here. First of all, the MLPA is not a fisheries management law - its focus is to better the integrity of California's marine ecosystems as well as protect our natural resources that we ALL value and depend on- not just fishermen.

Also, your examples of "booming fish populations" are perfect to identify the opposite of what you are claiming since all of these fisheries have had to go through drastic CLOSURES to see some resemblance of rebound from decline. White Seabass' better status is wholly attributed to the Gill Net BAN and the intense effort of restocking through the Enhancement and Hatchery Program. Black Seabass are no where near "booming" but their turn from the brink of extinction is only due to the 1981 law that CLOSED this species to fishing. Finally, it can be well argued that the Halibut fisheries would be in far worse shape if it didn't already have its own spatially explicit NO-FISHING zones - with trawling being prohibited in all state waters except within the CA Halibut Trawl Grounds.

So way to go, Mr. Chouinard, for speaking out about what everyone knows is needed, globally proven to work, and beneficial to all in the long run, and yet opposed by short sighted self-interest. So, on behalf of the rest of us who also log hundred of hours underwater and/or fishing - Thank you, Mr. Chouinard!

Hi Swami -- To put yourself out there as a freediver and then say fish populations are booming is either one of two things: either you are such an incredible novice and/or newbie you have zero perspective of what the ocean has looked like over time, or you are hoping no one else does. Dude. Ask one of your elders.

Nevermind that the efforts to increase management on specific species that you suggest are ALWAYS fought and usually defeated by sport fishing folks (such as yourself?), the fact is that we don't know or have the money to know the status of every fish stock out there and create proper management for each of them, all the while defending these steps against people who won't admit or don't care about a declining ecosystem.

Also, the biggest proposal for MPAs on the table leaves 75% of the ocean area open. This same basic figure applies to the available rock reef, kelp, etc -- there are no more than a fifth or so of your fishing spots under consideration for setting aside for conservation.

By the way, what you call "closure" is viewed by the majority as "opening" some waters to experiencing our ocean heritage the way our grandfathers did. The hearing on the 15th will be historic, it's only a shame that the protection given to our land under the Parks hasn't until now been considered for our ocean. Come be a part of this history on Dec. 15. And many thanks once again Mr. Chouinard!

I remember when Patagonia first started making clothing using polyester fleece from recycled PET plastic bottles. Very innovative back then. Way to go Yvon and Patagonia! And now I know a little more about protecting our oceans and sealife.

I think everyone here has great intentions for our oceans, which is incredibly inspiring to me as I am an ocean enthusiast.
Ocean acidification, pollution and over-fishing are destroying our world's oceans at an unsettling rate. These problems are VERY complex. I think we can all agree that MLPA's are needed WORLDWIDE to take some pressure off of certain fish stocks.
But why are we putting so much focus on MORE MLPA's in California when California's fisheries are some of the best managed fisheries in the world? We already have MPA's in California, (which have already had a negative impact on local fisherman's livelihoods) and now we want more of them here? When you take 30% of a fisherman's area away, it forces that same amount of fishermen to fish in less area creating a destructive "every man for himself" attitude which can in turn cause fishermen to break rules and fish more aggressively. That isn't good for our ocean's or our fishermen (which are our neighbors too).
I wish more time and attention was focused on adding additional MLPA's WORLDWIDE, particularly in areas where fish stocks have been depleted by the Japanese and EU super-trawlers and other areas that don't already have MPA's in place (like we do).
I wish folks had their priorities straight and focused more on the actual bad guys doing really bad things (EU) and laid off our local fishermen, which are already feeling squeezed by the MPA's that are already in place. Give our current MPA's a chance to work before adding more.
To anyone planning on attending the meeting on the 15th, PLEASE GET BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY BEFORE MAKING UP YOUR MIND ON THIS COMPLEX ISSUE!!
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FISHERMEN!!!

I am inspired by the comments here, as well, 805local, but I do feel the need to clarify some of your points about CA's fisheries management. Yes, some of California's most recent and most extreme fisheries management efforts are now showing signs of working to rebuild some of the devastating exploitation that has occurred off our coast. But let's not confuse "some of the best management" with "good" or "sufficient" management. Unfortunately, you can be the best of the worst at something too. But what I love is how one's viewpoint of fisheries management can change on a dime depending on the agenda or point that is being supported. The only reason our state's fisheries management is showing 'better' signs than that in other regions is because of these drastic measures like full closures and bans of full fisheries like rockfish, abalone, and seabass. SO suddenly, as MoneyMaker points out, what was once called "draconian" fisheries management measures are now being touted as the foundation for why our state's management is so much better than others. Is that considered ironic?
I think it's high time we stop waiting for that alarm bell that signals our marine resources are on the brink of collapse and start proactively managing on precautionary principles.
But, I will agree with you, 805local, that these drastic measures have actually shown that California's fisheries management is learning what is necessary and showing signs of being willing to do it. So, if we are going to praise California's fisheries management, we should by all means identify its most recent Nearshore Fisheries Management Plan which actually explicitly identifies Marine Protected Areas as a critical tool in realizing more improved fisheries stocks. In fact the CA Fisheries Plan goes as far as recommending ~20% of our ocean should be protected in MPAs! And so, again, while the MLPA isn't a fisheries management directive, it looks like the implementation of protecting approximately 15% of our oceans for Southern CA is even a starting point toward what our praised fisheries management calls for. Maybe if we keep up doing what is best we really may someday be the 'best!'

@seatizen MLPA is a closure law and a complete buffoonery pushed by misinformation just like you are pumping with your closure comments. Not one of those mentioned species boomed from the closure of ALL SPECIES. Management is closing one impacted species if needed in the case of BSB. It is complete mismanagement to say the hell with it, let's close fishing to all local fish. Ridiculous!

You can say anything to argue a point on Halibut, but the ban on gill nets has been the single largest turning point to regaining healthy fish populations. And per the BSB comment, you need to come dive Southern California. If you are a freediver, you cannot dive the local kelp without seeing several fish. Most people do not see them because they are too loud while bubble blowing, too loud while free diving, or cannot hold their breath while silently dropping to 45 feet which is the depth the often hang.

@moneymaker "we don't know or have the money to know the status of every fish stock" You are absolutely correct. The MPA creation process is not based on scientific data. Closing large portions of our coastline to fishing without supporting data is nefarious.

"..the biggest proposal for MPAs on the table leaves 75% of the ocean area open. This same basic figure applies to the available rock reef, kelp, etc" Complete bullocks!!! If you view the MPA maps, rock and reef is monopolized especially on the up-current side where fish typically aggregate. The implementation of most map options will not only steal the ocean from us as a resource, but it will destroy industries such as local sportfishing, commercial lobstering, commercial fish trapping, and urchin diving. Not to mention, our bankrupt state doesn't have the money for DFG to patrol a long list of confusing MPA borders. Less Government, more accountability from the people.

Lastly @moneymaker, unless you can hold your breath to 80 feet while down for 2 minutes or grab your board and spin around on 40 foot waves, you probably stand little ground to discount my abilities as a freediver.

Here is the best answer to management of impacted fish at this point in time. Change kelp and sand bass size requirement from 12 to 14 inches and maximum 3 fish per day. Change the limit on Sheephead to 3 fish per day. End of story. That is a cheap and easy way to solve for the issue right there!!!

As for Ivon, Patagonia has done so much good over time, I have to forgive them for their misstep on this issue. Really they are a rock climbing company at heart. You can hop on Fletcher's boards and they work marginal at best. All in all at their core, they are climbers along with the Malloys as their face for surfing. I can't name an ambassador in the Southern California coast that would accurately represent freedivers. So with all do respect, they simply need to be educated on this one.

The Proposed closures (yes closures, unless you are harvesting kelp for your abalone farm) Are from campus point up to elwood. Naples reef, and a huge area off of point conception.
For those of you who surf, and know goleta
this is pretty much the same as closing campus, dev, sands and haskells to surfing
While this is a relatively small portion of the coastline. It is almost all of our spots. Sure goleta beach, poles and the whole stretch from campus to dev would be open, but no one surfs there.
Any diver who lives in goleta learned at Dev, and on a given day, that is where 90% of divers will be found, especially those without the money for boats or the age for a Drivers License.
Banning spearfishing, the lowest impact method of take, at devereux and campus runs completely contrary to patagonia's message.

Dear goletakid,
It sounds like the proposed reserve at Campus Point is a difficult one for you to swallow. I'm truly sympathetic. As you likely know the MPAs you see on the proposed maps were created by stakeholders - representatives of all the ocean user groups in southern California- a majority of which represented fishing interests. These fishing representatives spent long hours with their constituents to come up with acceptable MPA placement. I know spearfishing representatives from SB were present at those meetings. The concern I have for you is why this MPA, that you take issue with, was actually the VERY FIRST MPA that FISHERMEN PROPOSED nearly two years ago! I imagine some of your frustration might be based on that. I would be very interested in how your interests weren't heard by those representatives.

@swamijames.. I know very well what "closure" means from a fisheries perspective. Every example you gave was a spatially explicit CLOSURE of a population(s) of a species. Yes, entirely different thing than the principles behind an MPA but, not surprisingly, MPAs are well documented to not just improve ecosystem integrity but also species specific abundance and biomass- even for fisheries!. Added benefit, some would say, eh?!

Here is the short and sweet version. MLPA's and the well financed enviro's behind them (Julie Packard, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, & many others) are a HUGELY politicized, back room deal making effort to turn OUR ocean into an aquarium. I'm glad you want the ocean PRESERVED for our children & grandkids. Unfortunately, they will only be able to stare at it. MLPA's are forever and permanent, are not financed by state voters and are not run by the Dept of Fish & Game at this point. The California Dept of Fish & Game is responsible for managing our wildlife resources, both land and water based. This MLPA process hijacks their authority AND removes the right of ALL tax paying California citizens to share in those managed resources..
The MLPA effort is ramming bad or non-existent science down our throats with a helping of SAVE OUR OCEAN. As a diver and native Californian I firmly believe in letting DFG manage the resource as they are PAID to do. Special interest groups and public referendums have no place in that process. Take some pictures of those pretty fish. Your grandkids won;t be allowed in the water to disturb them thanks to MLPA's and closed access.

@ seatizen
The closure at campus is not just a closure at campus it closes part of elwood, all of deveraux, and campus, and everything in between.
It was proposed as part of a compromise to allow fishing to continue at Naples, by far the most economically important reef in our area, this was discussed at length, and included in various proposals, but eventually certain groups such as surfrider and heal the bay, reneged on their promises, and voted to close naples to all access, which is on the IPA.

You people who blindly support the MLPA after being fed some hippie liberal propaganga sicken me. What's the point of a closure when FISH SWIM AROUND? are you going to put up nets around each MPA to ensure the fish stay within the boundaries? what about SMCAs? how are the pelagics supposed to move into a reef area if there's a big goddamn fence around it. get a clue you idiots. the fish are coming back and they way we help them is through conservation, not preservation. each habitat can only support so much life, by allowing fishing all along our coast we are actually helping sustain healthy reefs. the answer is increased minimum size, reduced bag limits, and education of our fishermen/women. closures are nonsensical and will actually do more damage than good. Santa Barbara has a history and tradition in fishing. as a fourth generation LOCAL i understand and embody this. all you enviro hippie liberals can go back to LA where you belong.

Wait a second, cheezburger. You know there are no fences around the MPAs, right? No nets either. In fact, that's exactly the point--fish swim in and out of these protected refuges freely. So the benefits inside MPAs eventually spill over outside as well, which is why protecting what's inside means better fishing outside.

Sounds to me like you might want to go back and check your facts.

Best available science unless it does not match your grant.

How about the nearshore ground fish study of our bight?? 2 years of work by volunteers,10,000 rockfish tagged but where is that study? and yes I tagged a good # of those fish, from Pt Conception and our Islands to Carp reef, so why did this study get dropped? why did the "Blue Ribbon task force" give UCSB the IV kelp beds as a closure? what are you protecting? old sofas?

This is whacko science that is based on radical environmental agenda's and getting and keeping grants

@goletakid,
The MPA is called the Campus Point State Marine Reserve, that is why I called it "Campus Point." I know well what areas are within it. And no, the Campus Point SMR was not a compromise between conservationists and fishermen, in fact it was in the very first MPA proposal generated by fishermen. And you are entirely wrong about Naples - Naples isn't closed to all fishing - spearfishing of all pelagic fish and white seabass is allowed. This is the compromise made between conservationists and fishermen - let this extremely critical source of biological productivity receive some protection, and leave other critical fishing spots like Mussel Shoals, Carp, Summerland, One-Mile, Mohawk, Black Rock, Ellwood, Tajiguas, and Auggies Reefs ALL remain open. Now who gets the best out of this compromise??

There is no feesable way to enforce the MPAs--I am sure it will require an electronic fence-the current VMS or vessel monitoring system forced on the commercial guys will be expanded to all sport vessels- so at your cost you will be required to have a satellite tracking device even on small craft like Kayaks-that some MPA crony will monitor from afar and issue $5000 citations with no prima- facia evidence- this is already the case for commercial boats- I am sure this suits the MPA people just fine as from what I have seen they do not value freedom, our constitution or democracy- wake up people this is coup and take over with dire implications reaching far beyond fisheries. The MPA mechanism created to shove this down out throats feeds itself off our freedom and our money- it will only grow from here -- George Orwell was right- just exchange Big Brother with Big Green

I will never buy PATAGONIA again.

Long live a free ocean!

THE MLPA IS PART OF A MUCH LARGER GLOBAL CONTROL MECHANISM- MEET YOUR NEW MASTERS-

STAND UP AND FIGHT OR BOW DOWN AND KISS THEIR RING-THE CHOICE IS YOURS

I am sorry, but half the spots you mentioned are only utilized by commercial fisherman and PBers . Black rock is not accessible unless you happen to have 3 million dollars for one of the houses on the point. For spearfishing, especially shorediving, the only spots in SB are campus Dev and Mesa, Mesa will be left open, but is the least consistent of all three, and can be undiveable for months on end(such as last winter)
You are wrong on the Naples thig, the IPA does not allow spearfishing at all at naples, or at Dev/campus/ all of which are SMCAs, not SMRs as you stated.
the Campus SMR was changed to an SMCA after the fact, because somehow the oil seepage tents, platform holly, and other assorted debris were "overlooked", additionally the Abalone farm wanted to still be allowed to harvest kelp there.

Environmental apartheid is a real thing- The mpa's expand government a create an elitist exclusionary system on par with old south Africa or Jim crow laws- I have no idea why any American would welcome such a draconian expansion of government-- perhaps willful ignorance prevents many academic elitists and NGOs from seeing the danger of killing freedom and expanding government while creating the new apartheid- and I pitty their short sightedness- I don't care if it makes the fishing better- the moral and human cost is simply too high.

long live a free ocean!

Boycott Patagonia is the point of this article. If Ivon isn't going to take the time to understand both sides of the story and realize the truths from people who regularly observe our local reef life while fully understanding the responsibility of sustainable fishing, then spread the word to never purchase their products (now largely made in china). Do not buy Patagonia!

A shame!!! Yvon went from hero to zero in a heartbeat. I went from a Patagonia supporter to never willing to purchase their products in the future while encouraging every friend to do the same.

The hypocrisy is so glaring that Patagonia Cardiff sells pea shooter spearguns for reef fish. Not two hundred yards from their store, it will now be illegal to use such a speargun along with 12 square miles of ocean in Encinitas. Pure dunces. Shame on Patagonia!