WEATHER »

Comments by JeffCrumley

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on March 14 at 4:13 p.m.

As far as personal gain, niether Mr. Rebuck or myself are making money fishing/diving at this time. So, that argument isn't really applicable. We have previously, though and that is the reason for our debate and discontent. It's not about the money, we get paid from no one. This is about the truth and the lies. It's about the decimation of species in favor of one; that may not make it anyway. This was vetted and compromised by all parties 20 years ago. A law was agreed upon. The only failure here is the otters ability to survive and the otter fans and the Federal governments failure to obey the law we all compromised on.

Steve Rebuck can't sign on the Independent for some reason. He's asked me to post....

Sothep once again asks some good questions.
1) "...seek sustainability..."
Sounds good. Cox, 1962, California Fish and Game Bulletin 118: "The red abalone catch averaged two million pounds per year from 1916 through 1960 and almost all came from this region" (Cape San Martin to Cayucos). 44 years at 2million pounds per year sounds very sustainable.

2) "Then come to the table seeking compromise."
This is what happened in 1985 before congress. Friends of the Sea Otter and US Fish and Wildlife Service wanted San Nicolas Island. Fishermen were forced to "compromise" giving up one island to preserve the others. Now, some want fishermen to compromise again. How about the FSO and USFWS compromise by obeying the laws they helped create?

3) "...allowing the species to geographically expand could counter their current decline..."
Sure, but some of us have already witnessed what this brings, and for fishermen, there is little future. Once the south-central coast was depleted of 90% of shellfish (Miller, 1980, CalCofi report) we now have sea otters dying of malnutrition (aka starving). What's the point? Is this good wildlife management, or just a bad example of no management?

4) "Every harvest industry needs regulation as protection against itself..."
It would take a couple dozen pages to include shellfish regulations on humans. We have closed areas, seasons, size limits, in some cases sex limits, bag limits, etc. Sea otters have none of these limitations. Sea otters can overshoot their food resources. Kenyon (1969) reported: " ...it appears that a large population of sea otters could seriously deplete food resources with their home range. Evidence is available that this does in fact occur." In addition, "Because of the general depletion of invertebrates and the apparent inability of juvenile otters to obtain an adequate number of fish and mollusks, these young animals are compelled to eat abundant and easily obtained immature sea urchins. An otter would have to consume nearly 6,500 of these immature urchins daily to supply the 3,000+ calories which appear to be required."

On Fishing Attracts Tourists Too

Posted on March 13 at 12:04 p.m.

Read this article. It speaks volumes and if you have any ounce of common sense in your skull, you will understand.
Why take a chance on loosing all shell fish when the indicators show otters aren't thriving? This would just prolong the inevitable inability for otters to survive and we end up with neither otter or shell fish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/sci...

On Fishing Attracts Tourists Too

Posted on March 13 at 8:19 a.m.

@Sothep via Steve Rebuck...

Clearly, the answer is the purchasing power of the environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs). Pew, Packard, Walton, Heinz, et al, have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into these issues and other fisheries issues. Commercial and recreational fishermen pale by comparison.
Sothep asks some good questions. But, his questions are loaded, making me think he may actually know the answers.
1) Who stand to profit? Well, both sides. One side produces food and has years of experience as observers. The other-side is in the abstract. Many have no experience in observing sea otters in their natural habitat. In my experience, I have met few "sea otter experts" who dive. What can they really know about a marine mammal without entering their habitat? Book learning?
2)Sothep said, "...an industry believes said animals infringe on their way of life." Wrong. The "industry" KNOWS what happens. There is significant published data by California, academic and federal scientist documenting the loss of multiple fisheries, primarily shellfish" abalone, sea urchin, Pismo clams, etc. However, sea bass, rock fish and halibut commercial fisheries have also been precluded. Have you noticed the cost of any of these fish these days? do you not understand the economics of these issues? It is not just the cost of retail fish. Add to it the loss of taxes to your community. The loss of jobs and infrastructure. Recreation. Do you care about this?
3)And about "promoting rights of animals" or fishing. Do you think food in the grocery store is manufactured in the backroom? Sorry, it is not.
Some environmentalist have found ways to promote their own agendas, make a nice living, and gain power over others. Fishermen harvest food under a myriad of regulation: City/county fees, state and federal permits and taxes. If you observe all those fishing boats in the Santa Barbara Harbor, how much do you think it costs just to park your boat? And, this, plus fuel, groceries, maintenance, licenses, etc, before one goes to work.
Steve Rebuck

On Fishing Attracts Tourists Too

Posted on March 12 at 10:08 p.m.

Junk science, marine aquariums and tourism. Heck, they get money from the broke-ass post office, gullible folks on their tax form, Barbara Boxer got 'em 25 mill from congress...I mean you and me. The most studied animal and the worst recovery...are you kidding me!?

There is documented, empirical fact that says otters are sickly in California. The further south, the sicklier. There are studies that show otters can not survive further south. There is documentation otters are sickly in Monterey.
Why...really honestly, Why would we want otters south to destroy healthy shellfish with the threat of loosing both shellfish AND otters?

Otters have been exploited to create an entire financial economy. These otter people are not telling you the truth, period.

If you want to discuss of debate the facts with proof, get a real identity. I don't waste too much time on phantoms.

On Fishing Attracts Tourists Too

Posted on March 11 at 8:43 p.m.

Transparent, generic ridicule with no merit whatsoever. Ignorant summation recited from indoctrination - "Radio." Turn off the TV and read; read something besides a Monterey Bay Aquarium pamphlet with a donation advertisement on the back.

Moronic, infantile insults from an anonymous profile - "Brilliant."

On Sea Otters in Crosshairs of Gallegly Bill

Posted on March 10 at 12:01 p.m.

@John -
If you read the article by Mr. Lutterman, you might understand this response.

The sea otters are expanding into SoCal in the search for food, as they have consumed all the food in the north. Notice the slow growth of the population in the last few years, but expanded range. Also, take note of the mortality of these populations. They are unhealthy and dying from terrestrial sources.

Mr. Rebuck represented shellfish fisheries in the creation of the zonal management. The jist of this letter is to display the outright contempt, lies and disregard for the law that Luttermans organisation promotes in supporting the USFWS actions.

Just like the recent articles by these otter orgs. and the priceless piece by Prof. Estes, Luttermans article embraces the ignorance of truth and the hypocrisy of junk science for money.

On Fishing Attracts Tourists Too

Posted on March 6 at 8:50 a.m.

Twisted lies Lutterman.
1. Harvest of shellfish has NOT declined from over harvest. It has declined from fishermens self imposed regulations reducing the number of fishermen.
2. Withering foot syndrome is the cause of white & black (all abs)abalone's reduced numbers. White abs are too deep to harvest.
3. Sea otter & shellfish co-existing... DFG Pt. Lobos report, Pismo clam study, ect...
4. Otters never existed in California in the "hundreds of thousands" but, there are nearly 200,000 today; ranging from Japan, through Alaska and to California.
5. "Special interest?" What are you? How does the public benefit from your special interest?...Tourism. We have multi-million dollar community involvement...from fishermen, boat builders, ports, restaurants, consumers and all the folks in-between.
Funny how you lie to make fishermen look evil. Jesus was a fisherman...are you an atheist anti-human preservationist that thinks man is not an animal and not part of the eco-system?
Your ignorance is quite apparent. So is your effort to promote your money-cow.
It wouldn't look so bad if you weren't such a one sided LIAR!

On Sea Otters in Crosshairs of Gallegly Bill

Posted on January 10 at 5:28 p.m.

Yeah Steve, I wish more people would take a minute to research the real truth. Instead of parroting what they hear from the people exploiting otters for monetary gain.

There's a new video on youtube that explains this impossible relationship of trying to have sea food to eat or otters to look at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH1J0a...

My big question is: what will happen to otters after they move down the range and deplete their food? It seems to be a loose/loose situation. First we loose shellfish, then the otters will starve and be gone anyway. HMMM?

On Slimy Invertebrates

Posted on October 6 at 8:46 p.m.

Not spitting hair at all, Mr. Shimeck. In fact you can't produce any taxonomy that shows the "southern sea otter" is any different from the otters in Alaska. These otters in Big Sur "dicovered" back in the 30's were translocated from Alaska to make room for a military firing range. Funny how they landed in Margaret Ownings "back yard." They were listed as threatened as a favor to Margaret by some Gov. big wigs that her husband designed for as an architect.

What's more, your idea that otters should inhabit their entire range is insane at best. The ecosystem is nowhere near what it was 100 yrs ago and the prospect of otters having a sustainable food supply is a step beyond reality. To have otters in So Cal is akin to putting my kids goldfish in a jobsite port-a-potty and expecting it to thrive. Read "Otters in a Dirty Ocean" - Jessup 2007 (co-authored By Melisa Miller) You can't even keep the ones alive in "pristine" conditions of Central Cal.

As for how long it takes to decimate other species...you say it will take a decade? HA! First off, it is incredible that you would accept the demise of even one other specie so you can exploit otters.

The Cojo Anchorage in northern SB County was eliminated in less than 2 years by100 to 200 sea otters in 1998/99. This would have been avoided but for USFWS.

This same thing happened at Pt. Buchon between Port San Luis and Morro Bay in an
approximate 2 year period between 1973-1975 as published by the California
Department of Fish and Game in Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Baseline
Studies, 1983/84. And to the Pismo clam fisheries at Morro Bay and Pismo Beach.

To top that off, otters were found dead from infections and having abscessed teeth from broken mussel shells they ate from severe hunger; after eating/destroying pismo clams at Pismi Pier.

Go ahead and continue this with me here Steve buddy!! I'll break out the file cabinet and show your fans proof of your deceit and miss-information.

I know all about you, Julie and your sea otter lies.

Standing By.... over...

On Otters or Shellfish?

Posted on October 6 at 12:02 p.m.

Matt, Matt, Matt... you should be reprimanded for publishing false information.
Otters are NOT an endangered species.
The no otter zone was a compromise after the "otter fans" and the USFWS violated the marine mammal protection act by unilaterally translocating otters to San Nic. This only happened cause they got caught.
The USFWS has not kept the obligation of following the law for the last 20 yrs.
The otters original range can no longer support their need for food.
Otters are dying from pollution & starvation.
All this from some folks who don't care about the ecosystem or other species... they want otters cause they make a lot of money off of them(expoitation). And, being a "THREATENED" species, they keep fishermen away.
There is no other animal that earns more money/grants in California.
I have one word for this bias article...."Myopic."

On Otters or Shellfish?

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Billy Collins & Aimee Mann

Presented by UCSB Arts & Lectures, Former U.S. Poet Laureate ... Read More