I joinied UASC. Talked to Lenny. MLPA meetings for SoCAl are in the spring '08.

angry person. :the_finger:

BTW: for those that have big boats and plan on motoring outside the reserves to areas they can fish:

In addition, there is a particular need to measure changes in recreational and commercial fishing and non-consumptive uses, not only as part of the evaluation of social and economic impacts, but also to determine if displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs. Further, cost-benefit analysis can give managers a better understanding of the impact of the marine protected area on stakeholders.


you can run, but you can't hide.

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

I couldnt agree more with you guys on this point. Unfortunately, it appears the process does not allow for setting up a sustainable fishery... bummer...

Paul, keep us informed.

Chris

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...:hmmmm:

My guess is that they will see that it has not worked and will then expand them to cover the entire coast line

The KFACA email addresses have apparently been down for a few days. If you mailed us and it bounced, our apologies. My thanks to Yakrider for letting us know.

Our email is back in business, so please come by the site and join the KFACA. We appreciate your support as we all work together to hang onto our key kayak fishing sites. www.kfaca.org

In my experience with the process, arguments such as this were brought up quite often but nobody really wanted to hear it. The process is to determine where to place marine reserves, whether or not they're justified. Arguing for better enforcement or stricter reg's is not what this process is for. That's a whole different battle in itself, which had it been done years ago perhaps could have avoided this whole mess. To get the MLPA process stopped and turned in the direction of reg's and enforcement would be a monumental legal task that all of our fishing org's resources put together still couldn't accomplish.

I completely agree that reserves aren't as effective as traditional management techniques and that we'd be better served to focus on enforcement and research to better govern individual species, but it doesn't matter. We're here to deal with the MLPA no-take reserves and make sure it's done fairly and intelligently. Arguing against reserves in general will fall on deaf ears not only for the decision makers, but our own representatives as well. It will happen, it's up to us to have a say in what happens.

And La Jolla having an existing reserve is a very bad thing because they will almost definitely want to expand that. It's a lot easier to expand existing reserves, especially if there's some sort of record of success, such as the huge number of fish being caught right outside of it every day. Whether there's yellowtail and white seabass at La Jolla has anything to do with that reserve is highly debatable, but you can bet your bottom dollar the pro-reserve activists will argue that.

No love from Arnold....


Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns
regarding Marine Life Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from fellow
Californians about important issues facing our State.

California continues to thrive because of the involvement and
commitment of people like you. While we may disagree on certain policies, we
share the goals of improving the quality of life in our State and
expanding opportunities for all Californians.

Again, thank you for taking the time to email and share your comments.
Your participation will help us restore the greatness of our Golden
State.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

Wow, talk about a lame form letter!!:the_finger: I am nowhere near a politician, but even I could have come up with a better "P.C." dismissal than that!:rolleyes:

A DFG officer stopped me at the launch when I came in today and asked me to complete a sort of survey about the fishing habits of kayakers out of La Jolla. She asked for target species, frequency of fishing trips, distance out, time actually fishing, how often I catch fish (ya right), etc. They seem to realize that we have very special needs that need to be addressed with the implementation of the MLPA process. She said that it is not very likely that they will close La Jolla to Kayak fisherman. She said that they will probably implement a type of situation where kayaks could not fish past the three mile point, allowing us to fish only within the three mile point... Interesting thought.:captain:

I wonder if they would allow the sport fishing boats or other PB within those limits as well...

Yeah, I got "measured" by that chick as well. :D

Funny thing, DFG officer pulled up as we were talking to her. We both had licenses so all was cool, but it made me wonder if the DFG has it's priorities straight. Wasting an officer's time to check a half dozen kayakers for licenses seems kind of silly for an agency that is contantly crying about budget shortfalls.

I wish that those of power would implement stricter measures to prevent the pollution of our waters from sewerage. IMO, it is total bullshit that something isn't done besides throwing up orange warning signs:the_finger:
Smaller creel limits and increasing the legal take size would increase the quantity and quality of the fish in our pond:viking:

Maybe we should all just boycott the DFG Officers at the launch sites when they ask us all these questions about how the fishing was. They will just use this info as ammunition against all of us. Just say you did not see any action and let them think we never catch anything anyway.

Slot limits slot limits slot limits,

All the MLA process does is save fish in one area and force people to fish in other areas. at least slot limits would preserve the breeding stock, increese the amount of fish released and improve the fishery all around.

For example current DFG regs limits catch size to the age of the fish for beeding size to allow them to breed atleast once.

Bass 12in make slot limit 14-17in
Halibuts 22in make slot 24-28in
WSB 28in make slot 30-38in
YT 26-32in (not sure what breeding YT size is)

Lets the fish get to breeding size, and saves the older breeding fish. this reg can also be counter acted by reducing catch size.... do you really need to keep 10 bass and 5 hali's in one trip?

Slot limits might work for bass but they are highly impractical for the bigger fish.

YT are very migratory, grow like weeds, and the recreational anglers are not putting that much pressure on them. No need for slot limits there. Commercial pressure in Mexico is the probably the biggest threat our YT populations face.

WSB seem to be doing very well with the limited commercial pressure and the Hubbs restocking programs. It is also not easy to C&R big WSB, so you'd end up killing a lot of big ones anyway.

Not sure what the data says about halibut, but that range of slot limits seem more appropriate for the bays. I'd hate to not be able to target the big flatties in the ocean. Also requires netting of big fish, which carries a lot or risk to the fish and becomes somewhat self defeating.

It would be a huge pain in the ass to have to measure big fish on the yak. The YT and halibut bag limits are way over what a yakker typical catches, so I'm ambivalent on those. Very few yakkers I know take more than a couple bass at a time, if any. But I suspect the party boats are the ones most interested in maintaining the current 10 fish limit, since that's their bread and butter a lot of the time.

Marine Protected Area/Reserve info
 

Here are some useful links if you want to find out more about marine reserve/marine protected area design and effectiveness.

Ghost Forests in the Sea: The Use of Marine Protected Areas to Restore Biodiversity to Kelp Forest Ecosystems in Southern California


Effectiveness of a Samll Marine Reserve in Southern Caliofrnia


The San Diego-La Jolla Ecological Reserve:Implications for the Design and Management of Marine Reserves

Ed Parnell, PhD., one of the authors and an ocean ecology researcher at SIO, spoke to members of the San Diego Oceans Foundation last Wednesday. It is likely that he will have some input into the SoCal MPA process. Based on his presentation and additional material that he provided, I created a map in Google Earth showing his proposed MPA for La Jolla.<st1></st1> NOTE; THIS IS JUST A PROPOSED MPA. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL BE THE FINAL PRODUCT OF THE SOCAL MLPA PROCESS.

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall..._Jolla_MPA.jpg

The upper shaded area is the current La Jolla State Marine Conservation Area. The lower shaded area is the proposed MPA. The proposed area is bounded by <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Law St.</st1:address></st1:street> on the south end and Palomar on the north. The southern leg is approximately 2.9 miles and ends in about 45 fathoms of water; the north side is 2.4 miles long and ends near the 50 fathom contour line. Here is the source map.<o></o>

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...MPA-source.jpg

<o>
</o>

Received My MLPA Survey Today
 

Anyone else in the "5 days to complete" whirlpool?

Strategies? Thoughts?

Wotan:yt:

quote=aguachico;19373]mas info; please note the date. I am also looking for an article that was in the UT. There's also a prominent scientist/diver from scripps that is barking about how there are no more fish in the kelp blah blah blah.

http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/PR...ytonRCZ177.pdf

Looks like your prominent Scientist/Diver just got appointed to the Science Advisory Team that will advise the Task Force.

This might be the right compromise, closing the kelp south of Windansea. It appears to be based on science and balanced to allow continued recreational fishing.

I'm too ignorant on the facts to have a strong opinion myself, still trying to figure it all out.

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=csgc