So I have studied this issue extensively. I personally know Jon Holcomb, the vacuum inventor. First, to dispel any myths. There is zero funding for this effort. It also takes a solid month of effort to clear a football field sized area. Compare that speed to the breeding cycle of the invasive urchin species boom and you have a very ineffective method of population control. Although his efforts were innovative. Jon will echo my comments. I live in the coastal community area between Fort Bragg and SF. I have been diving for nine years now, and I can attest to the fact that the ocean is literally barren here. We are talking no sea life except these urchin and rocks. Most if not all urchin divers have sold their boats, and laid off their crew. They have no retirement, little savings and live under or just at the poverty line. The effects spread from the South to the North. The starfish population "boom" in Oregon isn't returning to normal, they have yet to survive the maelstrom that creeps their way. It is serious devastation out here.

I'm confused. (I literally mean it, I'm not advocating anything). If the urchins were dying off, I can understand why that would devastate the urchin divers, but why would a boom in urchins put them out of business? Why aren't the urchin divers doing the vacuuming and making more money than ever from a bumper crop of urchins?

There two species involved. From the linked article:

"Compared to red urchins ... [purple urchins are] smaller, less meaty and not worth fishing for. And they're voracious eaters of kelp."

https://www.kqed.org/science/1357320/scientists-and-fisherme...

After vacuuming up a bunch of purple urchins, would it be possible to alter their DNA to be more like that of red urchins? Then release those genetically modified urchins back into the ocean to pass their “red-shifted” traits into the greater purple urchin population.

I realize there are plenty of ethical issues surrounding an attempt at genetically modifying an entire species. Perhaps doing so would be irresponsible? It’s not my area of expertise.

Probably not, but a gene drive to get rid of purple urchins might be possible. Definitely irresponsible however.

I'm not saying that the kelp weren't devastated by those 3 things, I'm saying that the resulting devastation is not permanent.

Funding especially is an addressable issue; Patagonia, for example, donates to kelp restoration activities in SoCal and would presumably donate to similar efforts in NorCal if asked.

Sure, nothing is permanent - but the question is can the recovery happen in enough time that it doesn't have a devastating effect on the ecology and on the humans that live around there in human-time?

Say we push too far and endanger our species - we're doomed, but the planet will recover just fine. It has plenty times before over billions of years.

"The ecology" is fine, it's just different now.

Hey I agree. Even the ice age wasn't permanent.

Are those urchins edible/tasty? What you might need is urchin-eating tourism, then you’ll get your funding for cleaning them up.

I go scuba diving in the Monterey peninsula area and the effects have been similar there. Without the predatory sea stars (starfish) to keep them in check, purple sea urchins have scoured many areas clear of any other life. I haven't seen a sun star in years.

Wow, thanks for your input. How much different was it 10 years ago?

Ten years ago it was like a reef. You could find fish 5 ft/1.5m from the shore. The kelp beds were literal forests underwater. Now it's like a bomb went off. Plains of empty shells. Just death all around.

We're just getting out of a La Nina according to the climate prediction center (April was the first ENSO neutral month) and El Nino is on track to return later this year with a 50% and growing likelihood by winter 2018.