Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Tom Hilton
Posts: 1,595 Captain
Role of Artificial Reefs In Fisheries Management
Tom Hilton
Posts: 1,595 Captain
Here is the video from the last Council meeting where Dr. Shipp is proposing for the Council to designate artificial structures (artificial reefs and certain oil platforms) as Essential Fish Habitat.
http://vimeo.com/37538879
Now here's a video that totally dispels the myth of "attraction" and clearly shows a vibrant, functional ecosystem where the fish live out their life - wait a minute - I just described ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT. These reefs are PRODUCING bait, red snapper, mangrove snapper, corals, fans, etc. https://vimeo.com/38004915
This underscores what Dr. Shipp is trying to explain to the fisheries managers.
Look at the amount of food (small fish) swimming around these structures, then imagine what that area of ocean would look like WITHOUT those structures there.
And to think that the enviros such as Ocean Conservancy, Environmental Defense, and PEW do not approve of artificial reefs. Apparently, they do not really care about the environment, but are more concerned about ideologies and profits - that much is clear.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
http://vimeo.com/37538879
Now here's a video that totally dispels the myth of "attraction" and clearly shows a vibrant, functional ecosystem where the fish live out their life - wait a minute - I just described ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT. These reefs are PRODUCING bait, red snapper, mangrove snapper, corals, fans, etc. https://vimeo.com/38004915
This underscores what Dr. Shipp is trying to explain to the fisheries managers.
Look at the amount of food (small fish) swimming around these structures, then imagine what that area of ocean would look like WITHOUT those structures there.
And to think that the enviros such as Ocean Conservancy, Environmental Defense, and PEW do not approve of artificial reefs. Apparently, they do not really care about the environment, but are more concerned about ideologies and profits - that much is clear.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
Replies
true colors........Their Anti-Fishing ideology and agenda!
Everyone famaliar with the basic's of marine science understands the role structure
plays in the marine ecosystem. The Tropical regions especially underscore the
importance of structure as the basis for marine habitat creation. The limit of
Biomass astructure is directly related to its size. Increase size, and increase
potential Biomass. As such increase the number of artifical reefs in the SA and
GOM regions, and increase the Natural Habitat, and Biomass (Inverts, Fish, Marine
Mammals, etc).
Of coarse with increased Biomass, and the supported fish populations, the ability
to support a greater participation in the fishery, both recreational and commercial
becomes obvious. This is where the ENGO's find a problem. Do they choose
Conservation, "Science", or Policy? We see how many have chosen, even inventing
fanciful attempts to suggest artifical structure hurts the marine ecosystem. They
so desparatly want to eliminate a "Significant Fraction of the Fleet" that they are willing
to go against what is better for the fisheries, fishermen, and ecosystem to accomplish
their goal. They might as well be flying a pirates flag, since their true colors are exposed.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
I don't think the question of artificial reefs is whether or not they can function as well as a natural reef, but can they help natural reefs. In that respect they should absolutely be allowed. My only problem with artificial reefs is when they are used as mitigation by municipalities and private corporations for destroying natural reef since it is not an even swap. However, that is an entirely different thread altogether.
Really? Where did you get that idea?
Sarcasm??? If not, the answer is simply "from the horses mouth". They even suggest
that AF's hurt the enviorment. These often cite failed experiments not used anymore, like
tires, but its still their suggestion that they are not good. Those on the water know different.
The AF benefits are multi-fold. Increased Biomass threshold, and reduction in pressure on
natural structure. When AF is deployed in Tropical and Subtropical waters Coraline, and
coral colonies eventually make it a working reef, supporting fish typically found on only
natural structure, including juvineles. Most establishes AF's in these waters are nearly
indecernable from natureal structure, but it does take time to gain this quality. Either
way both short term and long term benefits are found from this conservation measure.
The only thing I saw remotely close was one member of the OC (Sobel) stating some of the well-known shortcomings of typical artificial reef programs -- toxic waste (undeniable) and the tendency of artificial reefs to congregate juveniles (done by researchers un-related to OC/EDF/PEW/etc.) and aggregation of fishing pressure (hardly earth shattering).
Now you might suggest the long term benefits out-weight the shortcomings -- and I would agree with you -- but to deny the shortcomings is not being objective.
Furthermore, I did not see -- anywhere -- things like that which was suggested in the last paragraph of Mr. Hilton's original post. Even more to the point, to identify the shortcomings of a particular action (in this case artificial reefs) hardly makes them guilty of being "against" them any more than I would be against taking aspirin while recognizing the effect it might have on my stomach.
Listen, I know it's cache around here to blame the OCs, EDFs, and PEWs of the world for everything bad going on in the world, but once you get under the covers of things that argument falls on its face because of faulty logic -- hasty generalizations, cherrypicking, and in many cases a healthy dose of conspiracy theory -- just like the faulty logic apparently being used in Mr. Hilton's original post and also your own.
Of course, I don't pretend to be an authority on these topics but neither am I ignorant, so if you're going to make such accusations you should also be able to produce evidence to support your position.
So please post where the OC, EDF, or PEW have come out against artificial reefs -- as I could simply not find anything to suggest they have.
Respectfully and objectively submitted...Mike
p.s. the one quote I see remotely suggesting the position was:
Jack Sobel, director of Ecosystem Programs for the non-profit Ocean Conservancy, says, "Artificial reefs are no replacement for natural reefs or for proper fisheries management, and we don't want people to view the oceans as a dumping ground for our wastes." Sobel argues that there is no scientific evidence that artificial reefs can sustain as much biodiversity as natural systems.
He also said, when speaking of the artificial reefs built with tires:
"There's little evidence that artificial reefs have a net benefit", citing concerns such as toxicity, damage to ecosystems and concentrating fish into one place (worsening overfishing).
Source: http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/6895
Objectively, I can't disagree with anything he said above, but he does look past the common-sense assertion that there may be more biomass than normal because of them. And in my research nowhere does he, or anyone else representing OC/EDF/PEW, come out "against" artificial reefs -- the quotes I found simply pointed out the shortcomings.
Ultimately, artificial reefs are no replacement for natural ecosystems, says Sobel. "We'd be getting much more bang for our buck by focusing on the things that we know work." That is, by establishing more marine reserves, which have been proven to restore overfished populations, even if they don't spur the same economic gains that artificial reefs do.
Source
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/19/are-artificial-reefs-good-for-the-environment.html
Now considering Bob Shipp's work on biomass and history are you sure you really want to go further?
I'd like you to prove where anyone has come out "against" artificial reefs. They are simply pointing out the shortcomings and suggesting there are more effective ways to use resources.
To use an analogy: Just because I like Advil because it has less side effects doesn't mean I'm against aspirin. It just means I prefer Advil.
Said a bit differently... Just because your litmus test for the efficacy of artificial reefs is biomass doesn't mean that's the only way to value things, nor does it mean someone who values things differently has an "Anti-Fishing ideology and agenda" or "are more concerned about ideologies and profits".
That's ridiculous, but what's worse is you apparently don't even see it or acknowledge the fallacy. :shrug
"Unfortunately it's one of these things where people take a very superficial view--drop something in the water and a bunch of fish come and that's wonderful," says Jim Bohnsack, a fisheries biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The reality is not so simple."
I suppose that's just Jane and the EDF talking, right?
Except, of course, it was in July 2008...before Obama and Jane.
In this thread, fish. Please try and stay focused.
I can certainly relate. Safe travels.
Another example is the deafening silence from ALL enviro.orgs with regard to the current ramping up of operations to remove idle oil platforms. Many of these rigs have been standing for 40-50 years, creating complex ecosystems and Essential Fish Habitat, and becoming de facto artificial reefs. Part of their strategy is to remove the very environment that supports fish populations that fishermen target - similar to how the US government put a bounty of buffalo back in the 1800's. The buffalo were decimated, and with them, the American Indian way of life, forcing them to move onto reservations. Attacking our fishing locations and our access removes the incentive for people to go offshore anymore, trying to force us to move to alternative FMPs such as Catch Shares / Sector Separation.
Their mantra is that oil platforms and artificial reefs simply attract fish thereby making them easier for fishermen to catch - the end result being a negative impact on the fish populations. Nevermind that the 45 mile stretch of Alabama coastline has accounted, sustainably, over 40% of ALL recreationally-caught red snapper in the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico. If they are simply "attracting" these fish, where are they attracting them from? Fact is that these reefs, and the thousands of oil platforms in the Gulf have PRODUCED a red snapper fishery as never before seen in history, and our federal fisheries managers are playing God with our Gulf ecosystems by upsetting the balance of nature, as this over-abundance of snapper is causing damage to trigger fish and vermillion populations needlessly. In other words, the red snapper themselves are "overfishing" other species - NOT us fishermen, yet it will be us fishermen who will be punished for this mismanagement through shorter fishing seasons/smaller bag limits.
The NOAA scientist cited is heavy into Marine Protected Areas. What are they protecting the fish from? Us fishermen. Nevermind that we have been on the front line of conservation for decades now, enduring draconian cuts in our access/limits with the "promise" that things will get better, which they never do.
Do some research on the guy and you will find him standing shoulder to shoulder with Lubchenco and other enviro, tree hugging, anti-fishing extremists.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
Why responsible practices are just nuts....
http://www.environmentaldefensecenter.org/learn/current_cases/offshore_oil/rigs_to_reefs/UC_Marine_Council_Decommissioning_Report_2000.pdf
"Decommissioning of offshore oil production facilities will involve offshore as
well as onshore structures, and the various alternatives would involve a broad
array of possible consequences that include not only the marine ecological
effects we have addressed, but also economic, political and social impacts.
These factors would need to be evaluated together to reach a final decision
as to whether a decommissioning alternative other than platform removal is
desirable. Nevertheless, with the current state of knowledge, predicting
effects of decommissioning options on regional stocks of marine species is
not possible. Indeed, there is no clear evidence of biological benefit (in the
sense of enhancement of regional stocks) of the platforms in their present
configuration. Thus, in light of the lack of strong evidence of benefit and the
relatively small contribution of platforms to reef habitat in the region,
evaluation of decommissioning alternatives in our opinion should not be
based on the assumption that platforms currently enhance marine resources."
Certainly not what some folks around here would like to read...and this was California not the GoM...but it does seem to echo some of the sentiments shared earlier in this thread.
Environmental Defense also said that the oceans would be devoid of fish due to overfishing by 2048 leaving only jellyfish swimming in the oceans released at a time designed to influence fisheries policy. Now that they have gotten what they wanted, they are retracting those statements; "Doug Rader, chief ocean scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, conceded Monday his organization's 2008 policy paper predicting a jellyfish-dominated oceanic catastrophe oversimplified the problem.
"Oceans of Abundance," which was underwritten by the Walton Family Foundation and co-authored by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, then an EDF official, foresaw "the collapse of global fisheries in our lifetimes," to be replaced by "massive swarms of jellyfish" — unless the wild stocks were immediately privatized and commodified for "catch share" trading in the global investment market."
The EDF artificial reef paper cited says EXACTLY what the enviro stance is regarding artificial reefs; "Indeed, there is no clear evidence of biological benefit (in the sense of enhancement of regional stocks) of the platforms in their present configuration. Thus, in light of the lack of strong evidence of benefit and the relatively small contribution of platforms to reef habitat in the region, evaluation of decommissioning alternatives in our opinion should not be based on the assumption that platforms currently enhance marine resources."
Clearly the reefing areas off of Alabama provides strong evidence of enhancing marine resources since the 1950's.
Clearly the complex ecosystems built on the legs of oil platforms have provided strong evidence of enhancing marine resources over the last 60 years or so.
The only thing to consider when reading that article above is which trash bin is it going to be thrown in.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
I'm not going to defend the "jellyfish" world described in that paper, but I will defend the underlying observation that if left unchecked our 21st century industrial fishing will decimate fish stocks. There are simply too many examples from history that shows this to be the case. Add to that increasing population (our other thread) and the resulting increased demand for fresh fish, and it will only get worse over time. Stick your head in the sand if you wish, but please don't be offended if I disagree.
So, let me get this right. You think that you're right and the scientists -- many of which have been studying this for decades, completely separate and distinct from any EDF influences -- are wrong?
All I can say to that is your methods of deduction could use a little help, and you would be wise to show a bit of humility in the face of professional scientists. A bit more bluntly, pretty pictures of artificial reefs and the application of (your) common sense do not make for scientific proof. So your "clearly" and the scientist's "clearly" are clearly not the same.
That's not to say you're wrong, but rather there is not evidence you're right. Remember, a lack of evidence is not proof. If we are to be objective, we should keep this in mind.
Respectfully...Mike
Just because there are a lot of fish on an AR, doesn't mean they work. It's like saying, because there are a lot of fish biologists at a Council meeting, fishery management works.
Second to this, a large scale monitoring program should be done to see what these things do. If they work, then they should be better designed.
Perhaps funding could come from NMFS catch share money.
You apparently are not aware of how it works in these types of scenarios. Well-funded groups with an agenda hire a "scientist" to provide "scientific" support to arrive at a pre-determined outcome as dictated by the people with the $$$. Have you heard of the term "grant ****"? Believe me, there are many out there that do this very thing.
A great example of this type of chicanery is NOAA Fisheries hiring MRAG Americas to determine the PSA (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis) in Setting Annual Catch Limits for U.S. Fisheries. http://www.lenfestocean.org/sites/default/files/psa_workshop_report_may_09_mrag_final.pdf
Look at who has their hand in this, and you will see that NOAA Fisheries has abdicated its responsibilities to perform such analyses themselves, and is relying on these extreme anti-fishing .orgs to determine the parameters for setting our ACLs. WHAT??? Remember that it was MRAG Americas who wrote the Catch Share Manual for EDF, and have recently been hired by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to determine how effective Catch Shares work (hint: I can already tell you the pre-determined outcome of this "analysis").
Perhaps General Patton would have been more successful if he had more humility when dealing with our enemies - NOT. He cut to the chase and told it like it is, and he caught hell for it from the politically correct bureaucrats, but he was usually correct in his assessments, and deadly effective in his dealing with our enemies.
"Pretty pictures" of the artificial reefs and oil platforms shown, eh? No, decades of RESULTS, documented by how man has provided the basis for today's immense populations of fish in the Gulf through the deployment of the 10's of thousands of artificial reefs and thousands of oil platforms. Now, hundreds of these platforms are slated for removal, and with them the immense, complex Essential Fish Habitat that these structures provide.
The people who call themselves "environmentalists" are silent on this enviromental devastation, because, as you researched yourself, they don't want any "artificial" structures in the Gulf. To hell with the "environment" that supports and enhances fish populations, they want a "natural" environment out there and are willing to sacrifice millions of fish as collateral damage as a result of their agenda.
Surfman is correct - the "term" artificial" is misleading, as they provide the hard substrate to eventually evolve into complex, productive "natural" reefs.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
There are a lot of fish on the artificial reef and there are a lot of fish on the natural reef and those fish all had to come from somewhere. A reef whether artificial or not creates habitat, and basically what a fish needs to survive and propagate. I am not a scientist but it certainly seems perfectly logical to me that a artificial reef that is covered with the same stuff a natural reef is covered with will provide the same necessities a fish needs to survive, otherwise the fish wouldn’t take up residence there.
Basically the only thing artificial about an artificial reef is the core material, that is it, really there is no difference once the reef is covered with marine growth. We sure as hell don’t need another wasted government study what we need is more reefs. These studies have already been done and done over. They know what fish like they just need to put it out there. What study did God do to determine how to arrange the rocks on the bottom of the sea for the ultimate gag or snapper habitat, I am thinking that the rock arrangements are just kind of haphazard. But what do I know?
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Are you a "fish ****" because you believe that you should have more fish in your box, and more fishermen to order sea surface maps from your company? Are "fish ****" any less objective than "grant ****", or are you simply arguing the other side of the argument, every bit as invested as the career scientists who disagree with you.
You see, Tom, that blade cuts both ways.
Lastly, your pretty pictures prove nothing, and they do nothing to disprove the assertions of the "grant ****" as you have called them. If you suggest otherwise, either you know nothing of how science works or you are being intentionally disingenuous in your assertions.
If you are right, where's the scientific papers supporting your position?
Oh, that's right, according to you the EDF, "grant ****", and other "enviro-whackos" control everything.
lol
I think you make a very good point. However, the same could be said for any fishery-related statistic, couldn't it?
So, the science is fine if it supports one's own position, but it's called into question if it doesn't?
Doesn't that seem a bit like like having your cake and eating it too?
:Agree
The Japanese have been using them for hundreds of years, maybe there is something to be learned from them. In fact in all things fish there is probably something to be learned from them.
Why is it everytime I point out how our fisheries management process has been hijacked by the extreme anti-fishing enviro.orgs does it become about me, or my company? Also, you guys like to pull out the "conspiracy theorist" argument whenever you run out of legitimate points.
Lame.
You dismiss the basic dishonesty associated with the funding of pre-determined outcomes - doesn't that wipe out any legitimacy to your "science"?
There is PLENTY of science to back up the fact that artificial reefs enhance (significantly) fish biomass - Dr. Shipp has authored numerous peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Dr. Szedlmayer has been studying the artificial reefs offshore of Alabama for many years now and has concluded that these reefs have PRODUCED a SUSTAINABLE fishery ecosystem where none existed before.
Deploy reefs specifically designed to enhance juvenile survival offshore - forget about "attracting" big fish. Place these in reefing areas that have enough scale so that they can be placed in unpublished, undetected locations. Reefing areas provide de facto "bycatch refuges", protecting the juvenile croakers, flounder, crabs, snapper, etc. from shrimpers nets thereby building ecosystems from the ground up. Take ANY wildlife management scenario where you increase the food supply, and you increase the biomass of the wildlife you are managing. Paying attention to the habitat needs of that species is also crucial to success - man can significantly enhance fisheries habitat through the use of artificial reefs.
Do the same with the larger reefs, as they did with the truly private reefs in the Alabama reefing program. Give incentives to people to place reefs, again, as they did in the Alabama reefing program as marinas required CFH captains to deploy several per year as part of keeping their boat there. Keeping them private allowed people to CULTIVATE them, like a garden, as they had no incentive to nuke them, but to nurture them. It worked incredibly well, that is until the NMFS destroyed the reefing program by enacting the draconian seasons/bag limit reductions.
Paying "scientists" to produce junk science such as the jellyfish scam or that artificial reefs/oil platforms do not enhance fish populations still cannot prevent the reality of what the reefs are showing fishermen everytime they go out there - FISH. The REALITY is that these structures ARE Essential Fish Habitat as they prvide the hard substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Go out to any of the Alabama reefs today and you will find PLENTY of fish that have grown to MATURITY.
The needless destruction of the oil platforms should be halted immediately, a Gulf-wide artificial reefing program modeled after the Alabama artificial reef areas should be implemented as soon as possible, and Magnuson needs to be restored to its pre-EDF hijack status.
Imagine the fishery that could exist if they took those 10's or 100's of millions of dollars wasted on promoting/implementing Catch Shares and actually put it into providing habitat for the resource.
There is a very real possibility that we could regain our year-round fishing seasons once again if common sense prevailed at the federal fisheries management level - it's certainly worth fighting for.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers