Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge - MLPA Letter writing campaign!!

To:

MLPA Committee members, Advisory Groups, DFG, and Hon. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ,

I am deeply concerned about the thought of closing areas to recreational fishing in Southern California. I am a strong proponent of conservation and a steward of California’s rich biodiversity. The only reason I love the ocean and the life that swims within is because my father would take me fishing as a kid. Both from shore or on sport boats I got to experience the diversity of many different species and also encounter a whale or dolphin every now and again. Fishing is one of life’s most inspirational and nature oriented activities.

In today’s society we need to be able to escape to nature from our busy caffeinated lives. Most of our open space in Southern California has been paved over with over development. It is a shame that I have to drive my children 30 miles away to look at wild flowers and maybe an occasional deer or coyote running about. By closing areas throughout the coast of Southern California you are creating missed opportunities for people to connect with nature. Our kids today already are bombarded with advertisements of ipods, cell phones, and play stations which are making our kids unhealthy and inactive.

Please do not institute closures on recreational fishing throughout our coast. Already, it is difficult enough to find access to expose my daughter to nature experiences which will also make her a steward of the environment. Fishing connects people to the environment and creates life long memories. Did you know that fishing is so important to youth that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order proclamation in July of 2007 supporting the “Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights.” This bill includes 10 outdoor activities that all children should partake in before age 14. “Catch a fish” is one of the ten.

When reviewing the massive amounts of data and documentation that are contained in the South Coast study, I find it troubling to find what exactly you are intending to protect? What threatened and endangered species are identified? If there is a species that is threatened can we not take action by way of specie regulations? The Black Sea bass, (Stereolepis gigas) was almost extinct when DFG took proactive action to enact a no take policy. As an avid scuba diver and free diver I am constantly encountering Black Sea Bass while in the water where as 10 years ago they were rarely seen. This tells me that with species specific regulation you can ensure thriving populations of threatened and endangered species. On land we don’t close the forest to hunting deer because Big Horn Sheep numbers are low. This rational doesn’t make sense on land and surly doesn’t make sense in the ocean.

Generally, the public are law abiding when fishing our coastline. Fishermen respect limits and catch and release has been widely accepted and adopted. Fishermen have been instrumental in White Sea Bass Repopulation. Fishermen care about the fishery and are flexible in accepting change as long as they are still allowed fish. From my personal experience I only will take a fish if I am going to eat it within 2 days. I do not stockpile my freezer, and I release large fish because I know that they are dominate and successful in reproduction which promotes sustainability. I am very confident that if there are areas of concern of fish populations that the simple alteration of bag limits including slot limits can increase the sustainability of the fishery.

I strongly ask you to look at the affected individual species and make recommendations accordingly. If needed, change current take limits and impose slot limits to ensure that people are releasing proven reproductive fish. Closing areas of coast is really just an easy way to say you are protecting the resource. However, this is not resource management. This is a knee jerk reaction. You will lose your credibility as science experts and as a resource agency and many people will resist.

At Año Nuevo SNR State Natural Reserve why don’t we just deny the public access altogether? The reason we don’t is that we want the public to see and experience the Elephant Seals in nature so that they can appreciate them and will seek to protect them for generations to come. By closing the ocean altogether to fishing you will lose your stakeholders and appreciation for the species that swim within. You will also lose a substantial amount of revenue generated form fishing licenses needed to enforce the new MPA zones. People will not be buying fishing licenses to give them the ability to fish in muddy areas of non productivity.

If there are shoreline fishing closures or closures in areas where I can safely launch my kayak, or have to paddle miles to get to a non MPA “Desert zone” I will not buy a fishing license. I know I am not alone with this rational. Most of the MPA arrays target people that are shore fishing or kayak fishing. In today’s economy, most of the population cannot afford 50K+ vessels and offshore fishing. By making no take / no fishing zones you will be preventing the low and middle class from partaking in one of life’s fundamental recreational activities. The coastline in most arrays also fail to describe that much of the coastline is sealed off already. Multi-million dollar home communities, Camp Pendleton Coast and the geography features limits access. By having more limitations you cannot expect people to fish at all. The areas that are not listed in the arrays include non productive areas where fish are not generally abundant.

Is recreational fishing having a negative impact on our fishery? If you answer this question based upon science that includes impacts from all sources then it is fair to limit the activity. I have not seen this in any of the documentation though. For example, I have not seen in documentation about the proliferation of our California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) and the CA Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulin). The mass overpopulation of these species is a main culprit of our alleged demise in our fishery take along our coastline. The problem in Oregon and Washington is so bad that State officials have been seeking to reverse the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). If the goal of establishing MPA’s is to preserve biodiversity then I would also seek to study the effects of the overpopulation these mammals have on the fisheries. Resource management of these overpopulated species can have a lasting impact as opposed to shutting down access to fishing from non-low impacting anglers. Nobody wants to touch this issue because of the thought of trepidation; however it simply is not a natural condition to have so many seals and sea lions along our coastline. Other factors affecting the fishery surveys could include climate change, pollution, and undocumented migration patterns. Do not punish recreational anglers if they are not the ones impacting the fishery.

In closing, I want to remind you that you have an extraordinary amount of power in your capacity. Most public members may not even know that this process is going on because they take for granted the notion that the CA. Coastline belongs to everyone. Most won’t get involved until closures actually happen which is a shame. Please make your decision based upon science. Make sure you know the cause and effect. Please give alternatives a chance instead of outright closures. Fish and Game regulations in the South Coast area has been relatively the same during the last 10 years. If there was a problem with recreational anglers why wasn’t there action then?

Remember your own outdoor experiences throughout your lifetime. What if someone was to take away something from you that you had a passion for but didn’t have a concrete reason? Do not punish recreational fisherman when recreational fisherman are not negatively impacting the fishery. Recreational fishing is much more selective than commercial fishing and the volume of take is much smaller. Recreational fishermen would be more than happy to reduce limits or abide to slot limits. Remember, recreational fishermen also want a balanced ecosystem so they can prosper in their fishing endeavors and make their children’s outdoor experiences more memorable.

I have had many great fishing experiences both with my father, friends, and individually along Southern California’s coast. Taking this away will leave me bitter and empty. Every since the birth of my daughter, I began to look forward to taking my daughter fishing in the ocean. When she comes of age what will I do if I can’t take her fishing because of new MPA non-take zones? How do I properly answer her if she asks me why we cannot fish in the ocean? Do I make her look up on the internet what fish live in the sea? What kind of world is this if I can add relevance to my daughter’s life and connect her with nature? What kind of future constituents will the environment have if our kids are told that they cannot experience the outdoors?