As a native Californian, I am pleased to see the fate of abalone getting ink. However, if I could jump into a AAG discussion, I would ask them to address the following points. First, it seems that all participants need to agree on a common goal, whether merely within the bounds of current law or something more conservative. For example, should the population structure reflect otters present, or perhaps 1950’s post-otter levels? Without a common goal, such projects could be doomed even by miscommunication. Second, while Jessie Altstatt’s approach should be applauded as conservative and inclusive, it does not justify taking action in the first place. Similarly, even though Jim Marshall’s love and nostalgia for the fishery are understood, he has also failed to justify taking action for any other reason. Third, the basic resilience of our coastal ecosystems is roughly on par with the negative trajectory ascribed to global climate disruption. In other words, it is likely that we have a reduced capability to predict what a ‘safe’ population level is given the general health of our beloved coastal waters. (Perhaps this is why withering syndrome took hold in the first place?) The truth remains as the author softly points out: “San Miguel Island’s colony of abalone truly is an isolated remnant of a once-tremendous resource.” Sadly, in my opinion, any action to remove (or move) abalone from the San Miguel ecosystem rings of lack of courage to do what’s right, or misplaced faith in the science of relocating, or even self-interest. How can anyone look at the Big Picture and explain to the next generation the following scenario: “Well, populations for all ab species from San Diego to San Francisco were rundown, bordering on collapse (if not extinction, for white abs), except at San Miguel Island. We decided to bring that population down to the wire, too.”? How could such action be ‘mischaracterized’? Only by degree, and I have yet to see any degree of action as being justified.
Previous Month
Posted on July 7 at 11:28 a.m.
As a native Californian, I am pleased to see the fate of abalone getting ink. However, if I could jump into a AAG discussion, I would ask them to address the following points. First, it seems that all participants need to agree on a common goal, whether merely within the bounds of current law or something more conservative. For example, should the population structure reflect otters present, or perhaps 1950’s post-otter levels? Without a common goal, such projects could be doomed even by miscommunication. Second, while Jessie Altstatt’s approach should be applauded as conservative and inclusive, it does not justify taking action in the first place. Similarly, even though Jim Marshall’s love and nostalgia for the fishery are understood, he has also failed to justify taking action for any other reason. Third, the basic resilience of our coastal ecosystems is roughly on par with the negative trajectory ascribed to global climate disruption. In other words, it is likely that we have a reduced capability to predict what a ‘safe’ population level is given the general health of our beloved coastal waters. (Perhaps this is why withering syndrome took hold in the first place?) The truth remains as the author softly points out: “San Miguel Island’s colony of abalone truly is an isolated remnant of a once-tremendous resource.” Sadly, in my opinion, any action to remove (or move) abalone from the San Miguel ecosystem rings of lack of courage to do what’s right, or misplaced faith in the science of relocating, or even self-interest. How can anyone look at the Big Picture and explain to the next generation the following scenario: “Well, populations for all ab species from San Diego to San Francisco were rundown, bordering on collapse (if not extinction, for white abs), except at San Miguel Island. We decided to bring that population down to the wire, too.”? How could such action be ‘mischaracterized’? Only by degree, and I have yet to see any degree of action as being justified.
On Diving for Delicacies and Dollars