Can We Manage the Ocean?

The US has set aside 15 ocean areas (and one Great Lake area) as “National Marine Sanctuaries,” and empowered local communities to decide what activities to allow in these areas and what to forbid.  For the next few weeks our “Ocean People” will be the staff and Advisory Council of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

I read a small notice in the local paper that the Advisory Council of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary had some open seats and the public was encouraged to apply.  At the web site I found that the Council was a “stakeholder” group, 23 seats representing various groups with personal or professional “stakes” in the management of this huge ocean protected area (300 miles of coastline, from San Francisco south to Cambria, and up to 25 miles out to sea.) 

I did a scout of one of their public meetings.  The Council sat around a big table with name tags in front of them that said “Harbors,” “CAL EPA,” “Commercial Fishing,” “Diving,” “Conservation,” “Recreation,” “Business and Tourism,” “Local Government,” “State Parks,” “Research,” “Education,” and more.

There were also three seats for “Members at Large.”  That’s what I applied for.  In my application I said I was an active ocean volunteer (Aquarium, State Parks) and a Big Sur resident (it looked like most of the council members were from Monterey or Santa Cruz and I knew the big Sur community had strong opinions pro and con management of “their” large stretch of this wild coast.) 

I was hesitant to say I was also an ordained minister and could represent the wider religious community, which I believed to be supportive of ocean protection and stewardship.  I did not want people’s various odd projections onto clergy (that we are somehow different, holy, conservative, anti-science, boring, prudish.)  And I wanted to improve the odds that I would be selected. 

But finally I decided to include my professional credentials (“don’t hide your light under a bushel, let your light so shine that others may see your good works….”) and added a section on how as a minister I was familiar with the concept “sanctuary” and might bring some additional perspectives and connections to the group. 

Of the 50 applicants for that Member at Large seat, I was surprised and delighted to be selected.   I assumed it was because at the interview I talked about how much I loved maps and already had a Sanctuary map hanging in my kitchen.  Or it might have been because I was honest; when asked how I would represent the Big Sur community, I said that I would reach out and listen, but actually no one can represent such a varied and passionate community. 

But it turned out, I learned much later, that the reason I was chosen was that Council had been having so much conflict, fighting between fishing and conservation interests, advocates of “resource protection” or “multiple use,” (two of the Sanctuary goals), bad feeling at meetings and nasty emails, that they thought bringing in a minister would help them all get along better.

Hah!  They soon learned the folly of their ways.  I attended a few meetings, observed the different parties and issues and disputes, and instead of casting calming oil on the water I rolled up my sleeves and jumped right into the fray.  Mostly I spoke and voted on the side of conservation, resource protection.  I was not much better than the others at seeking common ground, making compromise, rising above it.  Those fishing and harbor people were political and conniving, so we conservationists had also to be wise as serpents.  This was all some years ago, I served on the SAC from 2000-2009, but looking back it reminds me of the current political scene in Washington.  There was not much currency in being the nice accommodating person.

During those years we discussed and fought about specific issues, like jet skis, expanding the boundaries, wildlife disturbance, desalination plants, disposal of dredged material, water quality and agricultural run-off, shipping lanes, and much more.  We also had strategy disputes: do we tell the Sanctuary Superintendent and his staff what to do, or just “advise,” decide by vote or consensus, how much attention should be pay to public comment sessions, where to meet, should we add new seats, etc.

After five years on the Council my colleagues voted me to be Chair.  It was a very close vote and again I heard expectations that at least I was a “safe” candidate, but also fears that I would be too much on the conservation side.   Mostly my job was preparing agendas and running meetings, and I am proud that I did get them to work more on consensus than voting, and I did work to establish personal relationships with all the members, visiting them between meetings at their workplaces.  They elected me to a second term as Chair, we completed a massive new Management Plan, but then after 9 years I decided it was time for something new. 

Last week I attended my first SAC meeting in many years simply as an interested member of the public.  Much was the same, but some differences.  Trump’s greedy policies and interest in opening up Marine Sanctuaries for oil and gas drilling was a big topic.  It was community opposition to “extractive practices,” like oil and gas drilling, that originally led to the Sanctuary’s designation 25 years ago.  Last week even the harbors and fishing reps said preserving natural resources was more important that “multiple use.”

I’ll spend the next few columns describing some of the issues and personalities of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council during my service, and what’s happening now. 

I remember a meeting about limiting the krill harvest, a lucrative fishery, but food for many other fish and marine mammals.  At one point tempers ran so high that a SAC member said, “Holy shit, can’t we figure this out?” and then quickly looked at me and apologized for swearing.  I said, “No problem, just make sure it’s holy shit, like holy mackerel, holy moley.  It’s all holy.  Let’s try to keep it that way.”

Copyright © 2017 Deborah Streeter