FLORENCE — Despite the pleas on both sides of the issue — to protect or not protect — one of the biggest underlying complaints about marine reserves revolves around money.

Our Ocean’s North Coast coordinator, Bob Rees, said in public testimony he’s paid $4,000 a month to advocate for marine reserves. It was in response to repeated questions from Ocean Policy Advisory Council members at this week’s meeting about how much environmental groups are spending to push for marine reserves.

The $4,000 figure shocked fishermen, many of whom took a day off fishing or working to attend a meeting.

“I haven’t even had a paycheck since last September,” Charleston salmon troller Paul Merz said.

Even recreational anglers took days off work to attend.

“We’re all volunteers,” Lakeside resident Armand Pena said.

The Eel-Tenmile Salmon-Trout Enhancement Program volunteer stood next to his boat outside, talking to people who stopped by to ask about marine reserves.

“We’re competing against paid employees,” Pena said. “It’s not a level playing field.”

Some, though, like marine reserve advocate Charlotte Mills, aren’t being paid to attend, but others are.

But it took state representatives Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach, and Jean Cowan, D-Newport, to bring some reality to the table — and a frank discussion about money.

Both women sat at microphones on the table in front of the 20-plus council members. Boone read a letter from the Coastal Caucus.

The four-page letter identified several points, referencing Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s Nov. 1, 2007, promises to the public that guaranteed reserves should have no negative impact on coastal economies, fishermen or allied businesses. It also reiterated that the final selection should be made in a collaborative process.

“We have concerns that the entire MR/MPA process is being done ‘to the coast and not with the coast,’” the caucus wrote.

There are two exceptions, of course: the site proposed by the Depoe Bay Nearshore Action Team and the Port Orford Ocean Resource Team.

“... they have been developed over a multi-year, inclusive process,” the caucus said. “These sites were the ‘work product’ of a collaborative process that included stakeholders who recognized the critical balance between coastal economic health and coastal environmental protection.”

And that’s where the buck stopped.

Proposed reserves must yet go through a two-year study phase. Scientific baseline studies must be done, a scientific goal must be defined and socio-economic data must be gathered.

“The Coastal Caucus is very concerned that it will be unproductive to experiment with the implementation of marine reserves absent adequate funding to do the baseline survey work, ongoing monitoring and evaluation,” Boone read into the record.

And this was the kicker: “The cost of implementation of any more than two areas (Depoe Bay NSAT and Port Orford, for example) may well be impractical during these challenging economic times. Partial scientific inquiry or spotty and unpredictable enforcement is meaningless.”

Whether, which and how any marine reserves will be funded is up in the air.

Ed Bowles, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s fish division director and representing the governor’s office, said Thursday a very ballpark figure — more of a placeholder to provide a basis from which to start — was suggested at about $4 million per biennnium for between four and six sites. It must have more input and details before a final figure can be forwarded to the legislature.

Earlier this year, ODFW Director Roy Elicker said the bulk of the funding for reserves would come out of the general fund.

But many in the audience questioned whether the cash-strapped state will agree to take $4 million away from other programs for marine reserves.

  Two sites are nearly ready to go forward, but what if there is only enough state money for the Depoe Bay and Port Orford sites?

 “I’m real concerned about funding,” OPAC vice chairman Jim Good said.