To Whom It May Concern,PROTECT your RIGHTS to WALK on THE WEST Coast,Please Help

2007

To Whom It May Concern:

I am providing to you the enclosed PETITION TO PROTECT

OUR RIGHTS IN THE OREGON OCEAN because I believe you

are concerned about the future of Oregon's coastal

waters, Oregon's beaches, and Oregon's coastal economy

– or else because you are a decision maker whose

decisions and actions may impact those waters, beaches

and real-word economies.

Either way, I hope you understand that we are coming

to a crisis about the future of Oregon's coastal

waters. Soon – between various federal and state

actions and proposed actions – we will either lose our

rights, as Americans and Oregonians, to use, enjoy,

access and protect, according to our own lights (and

with due respect to the interests of other Oregonians

and Americans), these resources.

Or we may retain those rights of ours. Either way, the

key decisions are going to be made soon. And the

future will depend on you – and on me, and on

everybody we know.

We on the Oregon Coast need your help. We need you

support for

* retaining our access to the beaches and the

waters that are part of our home, our lives and our

economy;

* ensuring that environmental protections,

however well-intentioned, do not destroy our

economies, our livelihoods and our way of life by

over-reaction and excessive restrictions;

* turning back threats on the federal level –

oil and gas development; underwater methane

development; possible large-scale fish farms, and

perhaps even wave power (although we recognize that

local county government has taken the lead in that,

thus making that development, at least, more

accountable locally).

If we do not act now we will see the Oregon Coast and

its waters privatized, subdivided, and rendered

unavailable to Oregonians.

Please review the enclosed petition, sign it,

publicize it, pass it on to friends and associates,

and do what you can to help out.

Sincerely,

Edward Johnston

Dear Representative Macpherson:

I am proud that you have come out to support the

public's right to access and to use public lands. This

is laudable. I would like to ask you, with all due

respect, if you would also strengthen this position by

publicly endorsing our petition on ensuring access to

the Oregon Coast beaches and Oregon Ocean. If you have

any problems with specifics in the text, and have a

better way to put it and still protect the public's

right to access, use and enjoy these food,

recreational and commercial resources, please let me

know.

Thank you once again your your time and consideration.

Sincerely

Ed Johnston

--------------------------

Dear Attorney General Hardy Myers

I would like to ask you, as the incumbent Attorney

General and candidate for reelection, your position on

the enclosed petition to ensure public access, use and

enjoyment of the Oregon Coast's beaches and Oregon

Ocean. If you have any problems with specifics in the

text, and have a better way to put it and still

protect the public's right to access, use and enjoy

these food, recreational and commercial resources,

please let me know.

Thank you once again your your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Edward Johnston

PLEASE PASS ON

SB 734 2005

REAL PETITION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS IN THE OREGON

OCEAN,NO USER FEE"S Peace and God Bless,VOTE FOR YOUR

FREEDOM of user fee's

PETITION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ON THE OREGON COAST

Some of us support the idea of marine reserves; some

do not. We all want to keep the Oregon coast, ocean

seafloor and Oregon beaches available to all

Oregonians. Hasn't this all be debated once before. So

why are we to debate this again? This has to stop now!

So we oppose the creation of marine reserves which

sets aside even more coast, ocean seafloor and beaches

that, under federal law, much already very much like

marine reserves. In 2006, through Amendment 19, NO AA

Fisheries and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council

protected huge chunks of marine waters and seafloor

off the West Coast as Essential Fish Habitat (EFF).

There is EFF for ground fish, salmon, migratory

species and for other food resources. For ground fish,

it is from the high tide line to the 3,500 meter line.

Habitat areas of particular concern include reefs,

kelp, estuaries, sea mounts and undersea canyons. In

these previously established (2006) areas, regulators

may close off some or all fishing.

This is essential fish habitat that provides needed

food resources (lets not forget when Katrina destroyed

Louisiana, National Guards against their will were

required to arrest people for no more than catching

fish to feed themselves, according to media reports).

What exactly are the proposed new marine reserves

protecting? Financing a study of the existing areas

would show what works, what doesn't and what

corrections are needed. To close these areas to

fishing without clear knowledge of what has worked

seems harmful. What information and studies justify

closing these areas for fishing and showing people

have done more harm then what is being proposed. For

that matter what harm have people done in fishing and

enjoying their beaches? Don't these same people clean

the beaches annually and actively participate in

seeing to it they are kept from pollutants, filth, and

chemical endangerment.

Certainly without an independent study closing further

areas to fishing and human presence simply isn't

justified. Worse, yet, all this may be a preview of a

coming federal and/or state effort to zone and

privatize, resulting in closing off much of our

publicly owned ocean. As the proposed Senate and House

Bills as well as the media have already shown,

detailed areas will be set aside for undersea frozen

methane research and development (will this have any

effect on global warming or cause additional loss of

water); some areas are to be for huge fish farms (how

will the additives given to fish in these farms affect

our food supply or us); developing reserves for oil

and gas is of less importance than seeing to the

development of other energy sources and until they

exist having oil companies plants open and able to

process. An Honor the 1846 Treaty and thier OTHA"S.

.

In time, all public access to fish whether

commercially, for subsistence and even for pleasure

will be lost. Families won't be able to take their

families to picnic, play volleyball in the sand, to

walk hand-in-hand on the beach anywhere on the Oregon

coast.Losing our public right to access and enjoyment

of our beaches sets a precedent that will surely be

followed in other areas now available to the public. A

legacy entrusted to us and for which we've paid taxes

to sustain for generations will be lost.

Hon. Tom McCall proposed this without including his

constituents, the public - with no debate, no

discussion of the larger picture. We oppose having

this Bill which benefits many large corporations and

businesses at the expense of the tax paying public. We

sign

below to keep Oregon Shores in as Oregon's Territory

and Keeping the vision of Former Gov. Tom McCall, Not

to divide our community's and public’s access to the

beaches and our ocean’s coast.ODFW is Employee of the

General Public ,And IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION,

Not to privatized any more Public lands

WITH NO USER FEE"S

Sign: PRINT Name:

Date

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mail to

your Oregon Senator's and House of Reps.

900 Court Street

NE, Salem, Oregon 97301

Also local County, City Representatives in your local

area,

We Are not the only State

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...

Some links to read

www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/...

oregontrackers.com/Evolution_of_ODF...

oregontrackers.com/OregonTreaty_of_...

www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.h...

www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/ocapream...

www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/...

www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/...

www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/...

swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Divis...

www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/admacts....

.http://fishwildliferights.blogspot.com/

www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2...

www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2...

www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2...

www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2...

www.newportnewstimes.com/articles/2...

ODFW concerns

www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/...

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Concerns

Let’s not forget the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife LIED to all of us in 2004. The cost was loss

of local jobs, lost tax revenue from local business in

counties and cities businesses closed and family

incomes were destroyed causing a welfare burden to the

middle class and working poor; including public and

private employees. This proposal affects all of us in

one form or another.

In the 2005 Senate hearings I testified to our natural

inherent. Former Representative Jeff Kropf stated that

they (ODFW) are not off the hook for damages they

(ODFW) caused to the taxpayer's.

ODFW "Recreational" Ground Fish Management Issues and

Closure

As an eighth generation American born I personally

feel it is our Constitutional right to feed ourselves

and not be dependent upon handouts, I'm a sustenance

fisherman from necessity, though commercial and

pleasure fishermen will also be affected.

Below are links to pertinent information you need to

form your opinion,

Status

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) has

closed the sport fishery for major ground fish species

in all saltwater areas (including fishing from shore,

in estuaries and the ocean) effective Friday,

September 3, 2004. This closure includes all rock

fishes, ling cod and green ling. OFWC closed the

carbon sport harvest August 18 because the harvest cap

was claimed to be reached. Carbon have good survival

rates when released (because they do not have air

bladders), which allowed the Commission to impose

non-retention for carbon without affecting other

fisheries.

When a rock fish species attains its harvest target,

however, non-retention is not an option. Most rock

fish will suffer embolisms (because they have air

bladders), and will not survive landing and release.

Therefore, when the black rock fish cap was reached, a

full closure was necessary because most black rock

fish caught inadvertently with other ground fish

species would not survive. Federal and state harvest

management harvest limits are set for both commercial

and also by selected recreational fisheries. Harvest

caps result from the formal federal stock assessment

of each species.

The Oregon sport ground fish fishery has operated

under federally imposed impact limits for several

species designated by the agency(CLAIMED) to be

"OVER-FISHED"during recent years. This includes ling

cod, canaryand yellow eye rock fish.

Harvest caps for these species are developed through

the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) adopt these

caps for state waters (three miles from shore) and may

impose more restrictive (but not less restrictive)

conditions.

OFWC also sets management measures for near-shore

species and sets harvest caps for these species, which

include carbon, green ling, “other near shore rock

fish,” and black rock fish and blue rock fish

combined.

The Harvest Targets for 2004 (ODFW Claimed) allocated

76% for black rock fish in Oregon recreational and 24%

commercial.(But the truth is Commercial fishing has

more than 50% as stated at 2005 hearing on Senate Bill

805 regarding Public Resources without Public

Compensation)

The 2004 Oregon recreational targets for these species

are as follows. (The harvest as of August 22, 2004, is

in bold.) black rockfish (342 metric tons/322 mt),

canary rockfish (6.8 mt/3.0 mt), yelloweye (3.2 mt/2.1

mt), lingcod (110 mt/108 mt), cabezon (15.8 mt/ 17.2

mt closed 8-18-04), greenling (5.2 mt/4.3 mt) and

other nearshore rockfish (11.4 mt/6.5 mt).

Plus LETS NOT FORGET WE the public still had 80 mt to

go,(2004)

ODFW omitted that they closed it down when it didn't

need to be (Thank you Miss Burke for your honesty).

But as the former director Lindsey Ball stated, they

went for federal funds. So you understand Mr. Ball is

an Honorable MAN in my opinion he plays it by the

book.

Recent history of recreational harvest management

2003 California exceeded the entire West Coast harvest

of lingcod and canary rockfish in its sport and

commercial fishery. This caused a late season closure

for lingcod and an offshore closure to protect canary

rockfish COASTWIDE.

All three states were subject to this federal closure

in November.

Oregon and Washington sport and subsidence anglers

were strongly opposed to another state driving

closures coast wide.

Approximately 94 percent of the Oregon sport allowable

black rock fish take of 345 metric tons was harvested.

While this was extremely close to the limit, factors

such as weather and a healthy salmon fishery prevented

an early closure. We lost over 40 mt(down from 382

prior of 2004) harvest rate in roughly three years.

(2004)

With the support of the state’s sport fishing

community, Oregon worked with the PFMC to support

separate state stock fishery targets for the limiting

species such as black rock fish, ling-cod, canary and

yellow-eye. California imposed severe restrictions on

its sport fishery. For federal and local jobs and

money as well, California has closed its black

rock-fish fishery in the north most of this summer

through December.

New for the 2004 Oregon sport fishery were offshore

closures outside of 40-fathoms during the June through

September period to reduce impacts on canary rockfish

and yelloweye rockfish. This closure shifted fishing

effort closer to shore where more reef black rockfish

and lingcod harvest was likely. ODFW realized this had

the potential to drive early closure-sin 2004, but

scientific "models" did not have a way to predict

exactly how the fishery would shift. A strong salmon

year could have mitigated this shift, as occurred in

2003. Public decision-making should be done by the

general public only and represent the public's

opinion. Not by our public employees because that pose

a conflict of interest.

I attended many of the public meetings when ODFW held

a series of coast wide public meetings beginning in

March 2004 to discuss the 2004 fishery and options for

2005-2006 fisheries. The options and findings were to

be adopted under the federal PFMC process during 2004.

During those meetings the public was informed that the

result of the new offshore closures on angler behavior

was unknown and that catch of black rockfish, the

backbone of the sport groundfish fishery, could be

escalated, which might result in fishery closures as

early as September. Oregon’s sport monitoring program

is extensive. One in every three sport anglers is

interviewed at the landings, and ocean boat

observation provides data on discards. Data sets are

fact-checked and analyzed with a population model

factoring in length, weight and by-catch estimates.

This provides ODE with the ability to track the

fishery monthly.

Catch levels for black rock fish were evaluated

monthly through July 2004 when the catch was

approximately 242 of the 342 metric ton limit. With

100 metric tons remaining, ODE staff projected the

black rock fish fishery would sustain through Labor

Day and into September based on the modeling.

As summer continued, ODE staff made more frequent

estimates. After the first week in August 2004, the

sport catch was reviewed. Increased catch of black

rock fish was relatively minor as weather had been an

issue. During the next two weeks ocean conditions were

much improved, catch rates increased and the average

size of fish had increased. The poundage/catch impact

for ground fish species is in metric tons, not numbers

of fish, as with salmon.

A review of catch through August 22 (by ODE) resulted

in only 20 metric tons remaining of the sport black

rock fish limit. It takes several days after the catch

week for data from the field to be entered,

error-checked, analyzed and catch-estimated, thus it

was not until Friday, August 27, that this black rock

fish catch numbers were established. The numbers made

it clear that an early closure was necessary, but ODE

staff was not sure if the fishery could be sustained

through Labor Day weekend, which would greatly

mitigate impacts of the closure. It was decided to use

a manual call-in system to estimate the August 28-29

weekend harvest so that staff could establish whether

the fishery could remain open over Labor Day.

An informal emergency meeting with sport anglers,

charters, ports and community leaders and the Newport

media was set for Monday, August 30, at 10 a.m. at the

Marine Resources Program office in Newport. Others

along the coast joined in the discussion through a

conference call (approximately 40 individuals

participated). By 10 a.m., staff had hand-analyzed the

weekend sampling data, which showed that the harvest

exceeded 12 metric tons (of the remaining 20 mt), with

some ports still not reporting. It was clear that a

closure before Labor Day would be necessary. Within 30

minutes staff shared this information at the public

meeting. A number of options were discussed for

extending the fishery (hook and release in shallower

water, for example) or opening up other sport fishing

opportunities (salmon, halibut or yellow tail rock

fish in the deeper closed area), but because of

alleged enforcement concerns and the risk of

additional mortality, most suggestions had to be ruled

out and the black rock fish fishery had to be closed

in order not to exceed newly federally adopted limits.

Expanding sport halibut and salmon opportunities are

still being pursued. Staff analyzed public options,

briefed the department’s leadership and prepared a

final position by 4 p.m. Monday, August 30. A news

release was distributed by 5 p.m. At 7 p.m. a

previously scheduled halibut management public meeting

provided further opportunity to share this information

and discuss public concerns. In November it was stated

at a meeting held at the Embroidery in Newport that it

was determined that the agency (ODE) did not have to

close public fishing. But it was to late to open it up

again. By whom? Employees at ODFW???????.

Continuing sport-fishing opportunities

This closure does not limit all marine recreational

fishing opportunities. Anglers still may fish for

salmon, tuna, flounder, sole, sand dabs, perch,

herring, anchovy, striped bass and other offshore

pelagic species.

Commercial groundfish fishery

Commercial harvest of these species also is being

closely monitored. Projections are made on a biweekly

basis using fish ticket landings. Black rockfish were

projected to be harvested at a rate that would close

that fishery early, so the bimonthly trip limits were

severely reduced by an OFWC temporary rule in July.

All commercial fisheries for near shore species

currently are projected to be sustained to October 31

through trip limit controls. "NO public fishing"

What follows is a letter I wrote regarding this:

October 30, 2004

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Lindsay Ball, Director

3406 Cherry Ave.

Salem OR 97303

Dear Mr. Ball:

I am writing to present the recommendations of the

Lincoln County PAC for the upcoming sport/charter

groundfish season. A large number of ideas have been

presented, and the job is to work through them to

select the best or best combination.

1. If we have to reduce the catch and/or effort in

sport ground fishing, the best time to do it is during

the winter. These months are the period when many

groundfish species are giving birth to young, and

therefore is the time they and their offspring are

weakest and most need protection. Happily, this period

is also the time when there is already very little

groundfish fishing going on at the coast due to the

weather conditions. It is true that, over the years,

coastal businesses have struggled to bring business

into the coast in the winter. But that business is

still pretty small - far less than, say, the Labor Day

weekend. And it is not only the tiny groundfish sport

fishery that brings wintertime visitors. People come

to Newport and the rest of the Oregon coast for the

Seafood & Wine and similar festivals, and to enjoy

watching stormy seas from safe hotel rooms overlooking

the ocean. If we have to cut the groundfish charters,

the dead of winter is better than the high point of

summer or Labor Day - times when, many charter fishers

say, a cut in catch levels could hurt them at least as

much as a cut in winter sport catch. If we want to

protect weak species:

1. Closing the tiny winter season is probably the best

way to do it.

2. Also, many commercial fishers said that we should

allow a higher commercial trip limit, so as to have

fewer trips, while not changing total catch allowed.

This will save on gas and other costs without cutting

the revenues brought in. If we allow higher trip

limits - or at least don't cut them - in the summer,

we can to some extent make up for winter losses to the

broader coastal economy if we stop wintertime

groundfish sport catch.

3. It is a continuing scandal that we force fishers to

throw back large quantities of fish that are dead or

will, in many cases, die anyway - either because their

air bladders burst or because they are otherwise

injured or because they become weak and are easily

eaten by predators. We should find ways to use these

fish - other countries already commercially use many

species we do not - instead of killing them and

wasting them. For example, batfish can be used for cat

food processing, instead of just thrown out. As it is

now, lower dollar value fish get thrown back, like bat

fish, so fishers can get the extra volume of higher

value fish. If we had the fishers retain what they

catch, they could still make money, spend less time

out there (and less on gas and other costs) and not

wreck species not now used as commercial catch.

Here's a way to make ecological sense at minimal

economic cost.

We need the Elected and Public Official (IN HONORING

THEIR Oath’s), elected and Public employees,

environmentalists and the fishers to work together for

all our Americans children's food resources future.

These are ways to do so right.

Sincerely,

Ed Johnston

ODFW Recreational Groundfish Management Issues and

Closure

www.dfw.state.or.us/public/NewsArc/...

www.dfw.state.or.us/Comm/schedule.h...

We have seen the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife make serious mistakes (in my opinion), if not

worse, in the past. The stunning Labor Day weekend

closure of ground fishing in 2004 when there was no

need for it in terms of the condition of the protected

ground fish is certainly at the top of that list.

ODFW’s destruction of hatchery salmon runs is another.

The imposition of protections not only for fish that

professional fishermen, sport and subsistence fishers,

scientists and regulators believe are in trouble, but

also fish whose condition is in dispute - and even on

some species their own scientists say are not in

trouble. In one amazing Case the individual fishermen

reported having landed many more tons than ODFW had

stated were brought in by all Oregon fishermen, is

another example.

Fishing for many people on the Oregon Coast, and

elsewhere, is not a past time or hobby. It is a way of

feeding their families, enabling them to make ends

meet. For those it is a right to life (as in "life,

liberty and happiness" in the Declaration of

Independence, and "life, liberty or property" in the

USA Constitution). It is also a tradition that helps

define many of our cultures, our way of life. As a

source of food, salmon and other marine fish are among

the most nutritious and healthy around.

Due to the factors mentioned on the petition, we in

Oregon and many other coastal states will lose our

rights to fish, as well as our rights to enjoy and use

the ocean and the beaches.

XXX

Lets not forget that former Rep. Jeff Kropf and other

members of the state legislature stated that the state

and federal regulators are not off the hook for the

damages that they caused to the taxpayer's, citizens

and residents of Oregon. Lets not forget the agency

LIED to all of us in 2004,For Federal Grants as I was

told at a ODFW meetings in 2005-2006. XXX

As to ODFW's "Recreational" ground fish management,"

like so many other Oregonians, I want to know when we

lost the Rights to feed ourselves. Was it when the

agency attempted to take total control of Oregonians

food resources? Or when they made all these mistakes

in doing so? This is not “Recreational fishing."

Without fish, we do not eat right. This is the case

for all classes of fishermen, and under both the

constitution and the Declaration the fish belong to

all of us. The government and private interests have

only as much right as we allow. In my opinion,

commercial BY-Catch should be deducted from the

commercial industry only.

Its true ODFW has stated that only 4% of those fishing

are subsistence fisher persons. The 4% is so

negligible as to have no real effect. Certainly not

impinging upon their Constitutional right to feed them

self should be upheld. As ODFW has stated in June and

July 2006 meetings, it is federal MONEY that is more

important to them then Oregonians' Constitutional

right to feed themselves. We certainly do not want to

have our elected and pubic officials just sign away

our Americana's Constitutional rights. We need to work

with the agencies not 501(c)(3)agencies should not

allowed to have any authority over public land. Nor

should they dictate how public lands should be used.

But let us not forget to respect each other on this

very important issue.

For our family, friends, neighbors, elected and public

employees. We have to remember Oregonians all equally

share responsibility for our publicly owned coast and

resources we are stewards of the land for all

Americans to enjoy.

This is my opinion. I believe it may well be yours

after reading the information, citations and

documentation contained within the web sites listed

above. I am asking you to do your homework and make

informed decisions, so you and your children retain

Yours and thier Consitional Rights and access to

fishing, beaches, seashore and the joy our beautiful

Oregon coast provides.

Also scientists can only give us a “Guesstimate” as

they have stated, because there is no way we can ever

know how many fish are in the oceans.

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is

created by the individual who can labor in freedom." -

Albert Einstein (1879-1959)

Ed Johnston

1540 N Nye St

Toledo,Oregon 97391

www.oregonrackers.com

Lets not forget you will lose your constitutional and

civil rights to use your beaches, and why some are

willing to pay for for their born Americans "RIGHTS"

of our FREEDOM of our American PUBLIC LANDS.

Also you can Forget that our founding fathers gave us

the Bible and The United States Consitution for our

freedom.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

OR Good by to the Amirican DREAM of FREEDOM

This Is My Opinoin

Read your Consitutions

Sincerly

Ed Johnston

541 336 1233

My Proposal

THE OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - 2005 REGULAR SESSION

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in

an amended section is new. Matter within { - braces

and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New

sections are within { + braces and plus signs + }

Senate Bill 734

Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE

Relating to marine protected areas; creating new

provisions; and amending ORS 390.180.

A Bill For An Act

Whereas the creation, site location and size

determination of marine reserves must be determined by

all the stakeholders in the Oregon territorial sea's

marine resources, including the public at large,

relevant state agencies, conservationists, local

county and city officials and the fishermen and

fishing industries and related local businesses of the

coastal fishing communities; and

Whereas Oregon's marine biodiversity is a vital asset

to the state because Oregon's ocean waters contain

recreational, commercial, subsistence, ecological,

historical, educational and aesthetic values; and

Whereas the marine environment is subject to damage

and loss of ecological integrity due to human

activities, including overfishing of some groundfish;

and

Whereas local coastal communities are directly

affected by the degradation of the marine environment

and have an economic interest in preserving and

restoring healthy marine populations and critical

bottom habitat; and

Whereas state and federal agencies have concluded that

marine reserves are a valuable management tool for

protecting and recovering the marine environment for

the benefit of the marine ecosystems and their

components and for the benefit of future generations

of Oregonians as a food source; and

Whereas the biology of groundfish is in its early

stages, but marine reserves are known to act as

nurseries for groundfish, allowing older, more

productive fish to survive while producing greater

numbers of offspring that may help replenish

populations outside the reserves; and

Whereas a significant risk to marine fisheries is our

lack of understanding regarding the biology of marine

life, and marine reserves can help expand our

knowledge of marine life and its ecosystems; and

Whereas sound management of ocean resources requires

adequate financial resources and close coordination

with the federal government; and

Whereas a limited system of marine reserves, designed

and managed according to clear conservation-based

goals and guidelines, can provide the state with

multiple benefits, now therefore

Be It Enacted by the People of Oregon:

SECTION 1 { + Section 2 of this 2005 Act is added to

and made a part of ORS chapter 501. + }

SECTION 2 { + (1) The Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife shall establish a limited system of marine

reserves within waters in the Oregon Territorial Sea,

up to the three-mile limit for the following purposes:

(A) protecting and restoring specific areas of marine

habitat that are of particular benefit or importance

to marine life and for the Oregon economy including

subsistence, commercial and sport fishing, including

but not limited to valuable groundfish species and

their habitat; (B) providing and protecting areas that

may serve in the future as the source of baseline data

for scientific research, and (C) the restoration and

enhancement of marine life, including but not limited

to valuable groundfish species and their habitat.

(2) The Fish and Wildlife Commission shall identify

and designate specific marine reserves in the Oregon

Territorial Sea. The creation, and the determination

of their site location and size determination shall be

pursued and decided through the following process.

(A) The Commission shall organize a Marine Reserves

Site and Size Determination Committee (hereinafter

Marine Reserves Committee, or, the Committee). The

Committee shall have eleven members. It shall be

composed of two members of the Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, one member of the Oregon Department

of Parks and Recreation, one member of the academic

and/or scientific community professionally involved

with marine biology and/or marine fisheries, one

representative of the commercial fishing industry, one

representative of the sport fishing industry, one

representative of coastal subsistence fishers, one

representatives of conservation organizations, one

representative of a coastal county, one representative

of a coastal city, and one public-at-large

representative. The Commission shall, in consultation

with the Office of the Governor, make the appointments

specified herein, and the membership of the Committee

shall be seated and be authorized to begin work until

the Committee's membership has been approved by both

houses of the state legislature. Each legislative

chamber shall vote yes or no on the entire roster of

Committee members proposed by the Commission, and may

not change, add or subtract from the roster as

proposed by the Commission. The members of the

Committee shall be reimbursed by ODFW for their travel

expenses and overnight lodging when reasonably needed.

(3) In making its determination as to the site

location and size of Oregon's marine reserves, the

Committee shall consider the following factors, to the

best extent possible given the present state of

knowledge about marine biology and marine ecology, and

about the Oregon coastal economy: (A) the importance

of any given area or underwater feature as mating,

spawning or rearing habitat for groundfish species

(including rockfish and bottomfish species), with

particular emphasis on commercially valuable species

and, amongst those a primary emphasis on those species

that are deemed overfished; (B) the larval travel

patterns of the larvae of groundfish species

(including rockfish and bottomfish species), with

particular emphasis on those species that are deemed

overfished; (C) the protection of habitat favored, if

such be known, by large, old, highly fecund females,

(D) the importance of specific other biological

elements and/or habitat in the Oregon Territorial

Sea's ecosystems, including kelp beds and keystone

species, (E) the importance of any proposed area to

commercial, sport and charter fishing and subsistence

fishing and to the coastal economy.

(4) The Committee shall seek to maximize the

ecological benefit of each reserve while also

minimizing the economic detriment to the coastal

commercial, sport and charter and subsistence fishing

industries and communities. In doing so, the Committee

shall balance ecological benefits against economic

detriment, seeking first, significant ecological

benefits that come with no or only slight economic

detriment, then moderate ecological benefits that come

with only slight detriment, then significant

ecological benefits that come with moderate economic

detriment, then, only if none of the foregoing can be

identified, moderate ecological benefits that come

with moderate economic detriment. Only if none of the

foregoing can be identified, then the Committee may

identify as reserves areas with significant ecological

benefit that come with significant economic detriment.

(5) The Committee may not identify more than 15

percent of the total area (measured as square miles or

percentages thereof) of the Oregon Territorial Sea as

marine reserves, nor less than five percent. Except,

however, it may identify up to 20 percent, or down to

three percent if the Committee provides to the

Legislature a Report that makes the request,

identifies with particularity the reasons why, and the

Legislature agrees to the variation above 15 percent

or below five percent. Such area or areas shall be

designated as a Second Tier area or areas. (A) In

making such Report, if requesting more than 15

percent, the Committee shall specify: (a) the area

that comprises the most important 15 percent, and the

ecological reasons for the area or areas involved, (b)

the need for the additional area or areas above 15

percent, (c) the particular biological or ecological

value or function of the area within the most

important 15 percent, and (d) the particular

biological or ecological value or function of the

areas above that 15 percent, (e) the economic

detriment associated with the 15 percent, (f) the

economic detriment associated with the additional area

above 15 percent, (g) and the reason why the

additional economic detriment from the additional area

or areas is very substantially outweighed by the

additional ecological benefits. (B) In making such

Report, if requesting less than five percent, the

Committee shall specify: (a) the economic sectors it

deems likely to be negatively impacted by the

additional areas above three percent and below five

percent if they are set aside as reserves, (b) the

need for the avoidance of such economic detriment to

such economic sectors, (c) the particular biological

or ecological value or function of the area within the

three percent to five percent range that would

otherwise be protected if the minimum five percent

were not lowered to less than five percent, (d) and

the reason why the additional ecological benefits from

the area that would be set aside if the minimum were

not lowered to less than five percent and why they are

very substantially outweighed by the additional

economic detriments.

(6) If the Committee determines to designate areas

totaling within the five percent to 15 percent range,

the Committee shall rank those areas according to the

factors specified in Section 4 of this Act, and the

Commission shall not be required to seek approval from

the Legislature for its designations. If the Committee

determines to designate areas totaling less than five

percent or more than 15 percent (that is, down to

three percent or up to 20 percent of the ocean

surface), the Commission shall be required to take the

areas identified in that second tier of importance,

and obtain approval from both Chambers of the

Legislature for that variance upwards of 15 percent or

downward of five percent.

(7) The Commission shall appoint Reserve

Oversight/Monitoring Committees (ROM Committees) for

each coastal county in Oregon., based on

recommendations it shall solicit from the groups,

interests, entities and agencies to be represented on

the ROM Committee. Each ROM Committee shall have the

same eleven-person membership structure as the Marine

Reserves Committee, and shall have responsibility for

overseeing the operation and monitoring of the marine

reserve or reserves within the Territorial Sea off

their portion of the coast. If a reserve is within the

Territorial Sea area of two or more counties, each

county shall participate in the ROM Committee for that

reserve, with the county whose Sea includes the

greater part of the reserve holding the county seat on

the ROM Committee, and the county whose Sea includes

the lesser part holding the city seat.. Each ROM

Committee with representatives from more than one

county may vary duties and responsibilities in

proportion to the part of the reserve within their

Territorial Sea. If there are several areas in a

reserve, linked by similar geological, biological

and/or ecological considerations, they should be

treated as one reserve for simplicity of management.

Each such ROM Committee shall issue an annual report

to the Legislature and Governor's Office. It shall

describe the reserve, identify any and all research,

and any and all fishing industry beliefs or reports,

as to the progress, increase or decrease in the

ecological functioning and commercial (commercial,

sport/charter and subsistence) impacts of the reserve

or reserve, and its ecological functioning and

progress towards sustainable levels for species deemed

overfished.

(8) No member of the Marine Reserves Committee, nor

any member of any ROM Committee shall be liable for

any otherwise lawful act taken when serving on, or

acting for the ROM Committee, nor liable to any person

for the consequences of any decision, action or

omission by the ROM Committee. Any legal recourse

against any action by the Marine Reserves Committee or

any ROM Committee shall be against the ODFW, and any

liability found shall attach to the Department or the

state generally.

(9) No groundfish, bottomfish or rockfish tags,

licenses or other device establishing a fee or charge

for implementation of this Act shall be created and no

such tags or licenses or device shall be issued or

charged for. Unless otherwise expressly prohibited by

law, the Oregon Department of Motor vehicles shall

work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to

create a specialty license plate in support of Oregon

Marine Reserves with a design relating directly to a

marine and/or marine reserve theme. A contest among

High School students should be the preferred method

for obtaining such design. + }

Submitted by: Edward Johnston,

1540 N. Nye St., Toledo, OR 97391, (541)-336-1233