!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008
 

We thought we had more time.

Yesterday California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman announced that the process responsible for closing nearly 20 percent of the coast from Pigeon Pt to Pt Conception earlier this year will start looking at Southern California in spring 2008.

Most observers expected we'd have at least another couple of years before the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative came our way. This state law requires creation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in California waters.

The Southern California sector runs from Pt Conception to the US-Mexico border. There is no question that we will lose valuable fishing areas. The MLPA has proven an unstoppable juggernaut up north. If we participate in the process we should be able to protect and preserve kayak fishing's crown jewels. Places like La Jolla are obvious; we have to get together as a community to identify the other special places.

To that end, the Kayak Fishing Association of California is mobilizing. We're going to be asking your help down the road, for phone and letter campaigns primarily.

Our first task task is to win representation on the Stakeholder's Panel - claiming a seat at the table as it were. In the first round of this thing up in Central California kayak anglers were left in the cold, resulting in a couple of painful losses.

In the meantime, if you don't belong to United Anglers of Southern California or another advocacy group for recreational ocean anglers, it's time to join up and ante up to stay in the game.

Thanks for the heads up, Paul. I've thought a lot about what we as kayak anglers can do and while we are definitely a small group, it seems essential that we try all routes to preserve our sport. To that end, I think we should explore other routes of advocacy than the boat based anglers. In particular, I think we should try to emphasize that kayak angling is an extremely environmentally friendly activity that should be encouraged rather than suppressed.

1. Kayak angling burns no fossil fuels and results in zero potential for harmful spills or environmental contaminants

2. The impact of kayak anglers is minimal, particularly in LJ where we mostly target migratory pelagics. A rockfish closure would not be too big of a deal.

3. Most kayakers are very aware of the environmental quality and will pick up trash when they can. In general, when you are all but in the water as we are you tend to become more aware and concerned about it's quality.

4. Kayaking is very good exercise so there is a societal benefit in terms of improved health

5. Kayak angling has become a part of the "culture" of La Jolla, and the sport has been pioneered by many of the old timers here.

If the inshore waters that we can fish with the kayak are closed, then many of us will be forced onto gas guzzling boats so we can get further out. The net environmental impact would be negative.

I don't know if there is anyone willing to listen but it's worth a shot. Let me know if I can help you in any way. I would think that our local kayak sellers and retailers would have an interest in helping as well.

My personal dream is that they realize the benefit of kayak angling and make a series of "non-motorized only" zones. A fantasy, for sure, but it would be nice.

I got this email this morning...

Do you have any links to sign up for UASC or other orgs online?

It's going to take some time before the ball gets rolling. I'll try to explain roughly how it'll work. Excuse the alphabet soup.

1. The Blue Ribbon Task Force, a bunch of political appointees, runs the game.

2. The state compiles stakeholders from the region. That's anyone who "uses" the ocean: anglers, commercial fishermen, divers, bird-watchers, even artists who paint it, and oh yeah, representatives from well-heeled environmental groups such as the NRDC.

3. The stakeholders meet to cook up reserve proposals. Those are "evaluated" by the Science Advisory Team, who rank them for conservation value, recreation, and economic impact.

4. The BRTF / DFG send the packages off to the state Fish and Game Commission. That 5 member panel decides what to close.

Public comment is welcome throughout the process, either in person at public meetings (BRTF and F&G) or directly to the state via email. We'll let you know when we think it is worth your time, but I hope everyone will follow the process individually and take the opportunity to have his or her voice heard.

If you're still reading, my thanks. As I see it, kayak anglers are uniquely vulnerable because much of our use is determined by where we can get on the water. Our first step as a group is to get someone on the stakeholder's panel. The state will call for nominations in a few months.

I will submit my name. I hope others will as well, plus we'll need an alternate. At a minimum, the Stakeholder's Panel meets at least once a month during business hours. The meetings can be anywhere in the study area, in this case Pt Conception to the border. It is a serious time and travel commitment that will take roughly a year to complete.

Our candidates will need support via phone, snail mail and email.

The other near-term task is to put together our list of so-called holy sites. We'll begin the effort in a week or two.

Brad makes good points. In the first run-through of the MLPA up in CenCal, the powerboat community did not take care of our interests. Down here Tom Raftican of UASC has recited something very close to Brad's list.

I hope that helps. Anyone who wants to talk by phone is welcome to PM me.

Here's a link to the DFG's MLPA page: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/

I think the idea of a non-motorized fishing zone is fantastic and may have some merit. Sure it would piss off a lot of motor boaters...I actually spent a few years researching the effectiveness of the Channel Islands MPAs for WSB, Calicos and sheephead. I will say that the science behind all this is in the dark ages. From my perspective this is unfortunate, as I believe that science should drive MPA design and I think MPAs have a role. If science determined it is necessary to close my favorite spots, I would live with it. However, because the science is so poor, it really is politics that decides these things. Non-motorized use of the areas we fish in in La Jolla could be a reasonable arguement if it gets to that point. Given the existing preserve, it would be better not to have motor boats flying around the area. This would also benefit the tourism (e.g., kayak renters would benefit from this). I think all of Mad Scientists points are very good and could provide a solid framework for a position on the stakeholder group. I may be moving back to Mendocino in a few months, but if I am still here I will gladly participate. I hold a degree in fisheries biology and have been a practicing conservation biologist for 6 years, so some of my skills may be useful in the future.

Just curious, which group would anyone recommend to join... to help preserve our rights in this matter...

http://www.joinrfa.org/

or

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

or both?

I agree with Brad, but seems like a slim chance... my understanding is UASC is a united front between recreational anglers, sports fishing, and commercial interests?

Chris

UASC is the major sportfishing voice here in SoCal. RFA is stronger up north. Their positions at times have differed significantly.

RFA's position has been that all fishing sectors should stick together, recreational and commercial. The RFA and commercial interests took the lead in the first MLPA process. Their representatives worked hard but their network proposal never had a chance.

UASC on the other hand puts recreational anglers first (bigger economic impact) and has supported banning "destructive gear" such as drag nets.

RFA reached out to kayakers up north, but I feel that NorCal's Coastside has done a better job. In fact they supported Sean White's candidacy for the stakeholder's board and work closely with him and NCKA. They are working towards a middle of the road solution that will have a better chance of adoption.

Tom Raftican of UASC and I have talked many times over the past few years. He "gets" kayak fishing. UASC gets knocked some times because they are strongly in favor of ocean parklands. We fit into this scheme.

Finally, UASC has a lot of political connections. Their support will help us get on the stakeholder's panel.

While I recognize that kayak anglers need to have our special requirements addressed in the MLPA process; I feel that it would be counterproductive to start the process by promoting positions that will exclude non-kayak anglers in certain areas. The kayak community is but a small portion of the overall fishing community. Alienating 95% of the fishing population with exclusionary proposals is not going to get our needs addressed. We need to go into this process with a united front; all anglers fighting for maximum access. I would only advocate a non-motorized reserve in La Jolla if it was the final alternative to a complete closure.

BTW: United Anglers has sent out some pamphlets to help identify the most frequently used/prime fishing grounds. This info will be used to create a listing of the "holy sites" that must be kept open. If you get one of these pamphlets in the mail, please fill it out and return it promptly. They might also be in local tackle stores and at the landings. I would strongly suggest that you join and support United Anglers and any other organization that is fighting for fishing access in State waters.

It seems as a concerned angler about the implementation of MLPA in SOCAL, the least I can do is join UASC...

I have read BiggestT's posts on BD, he seems to be a voice of reason, as his wife is an attorney for UA...

I encourage anyone else concerned about the implementation of MLPA to sign up as well.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

Chris

I think Doug raises some very good points here. And as Adam pointed out, in the end, politics will rule the day (see Central Coast). Don't think for a minute that the pro-closure forces won't be comming for La Jolla - and comming hard. Along with identifying our "holy sites", we also need to start thinking about areas we'd be willing to give up - as this appears to be a necessary part of the equation.

My own personal philosphy is "Management YES; Closures NO". But unfortunately, the State lacks the necessary expertise and the resources to properly manage fisheries - so outright closures are a perfectly acceptable outcome (for them).

D.out

I agree that arguing the "kayak only" position should be more of a last resort. However, I caution against a "no MPA" position. There will be more MPAs down here, the only question is where and how much. Even though the science will be poor, it will be important to understand what is being proposed and to counter (where necessary) from an objective / non-emotional perspective as much as possible. Regulators will be more receptive to well drawn arguments than "not in my back yard" or "I love that fishing spot" positions. Additionally, we should be aware that arguments may be made that the best fishing spots may also be the most "important" as these are productive spots not only for fishing but possibly also for reproduction. I will try to determine what research has been conducted regarding the fishery in La Jolla, I doubt there is much, but I think it is important for us to be on top of this. The previous points about separating rockfish from migratory pelagics are also very relevant. I think fisheries which were previously target by nearshore gill nets have probably improved since the ban on nearshore gill nets (white seabass, halibut, etc.). I am sure others disagree with me here, but I do think that rockfish populations are in less good shape. In my short life time I have noticed that I need to fish deeper for rockfish and what I catch is smaller. These are not good signs of fisheries health and the quality of our fishing has suffered.

Adam

Great discussion.

Looking at what happened up North, the only question is how big of a hit are we going to get. We ought to come together and do everything in our power to try to “minimize the damage”.

"United sport-fishing anglers front" approach has its values, but I don’t think it is bad to have kayak fishing community interests represented from sort of a separate body. Yes we are tiny compared to boaters, but we’re another interested party. We share concerns of other sport fishing folks, but we’re rather different. The impact on kayakers will be much greater if they put certain inshore areas off limits to fishing. Boaters will just motor away further out; the kayakers don’t have that option.

The Jewel, having existing preserve, is probably among the 1st things they’ll be looking at. Expanding preserve lines sure seems like an easy road for these committees to turn to. We, the kayak fishing community, have to make sure they understand that expending those preserve lines for even a few miles can effectively put the fishing grounds out of kayakers’ reach.

Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions.

We have The Battle For La Jolla coming up ladies and gents.

I don't have a great record - lost more than a few things in my life...

But I'm ready to fight for LJ like a lion. Let me know how can I help.

I was very involved in the process when I lived in Santa Barbara. I went to every meeting and public hearing from Sacramento to San Diego and the stakeholder meetings in SB and wrote up full reports of each meeting to post online.

Overall a very frustrating and pointless process. In the end whatever they want to do is what gets done. Public input had virtually zero impact. Every public hearing was overwhelmingly anti-reserve (besides one where a UCSB professor gave students extra credit to attend and lobby for reserves... pretty funny when I asked how many in the audience had ever visited the areas in question...) but none of that was reflected in any type of action regarding maps or reserves in general. On the day of the final vote 3 of the 5 original committee were "coincidentally" absent and replaced by pro-reserve fill ins. Of course the proposal passed. All said and done an enormous waste of time just to put on a show for the sake of legal process.

The only time we got anything close to being accomplished was through personal meetings with committee members and DFG reps at a sit down meeting. We had very little impact on size and locations of reserves, that was all pretty much hammered out by the stakeholders themselves.

The only thing we did get accomplished was the types of reserves. There are varying levels of reserves that they set up: no take, rec. only, shore based only, etc. We were able to define some reserves as shore based angling only, especially if we used the angle of low income families depending on the bounty of the sea, etc. I really believe we need to look out for our own best interest first and foremost and if anyone else's agenda lines up with ours on any certain situation then so be it. But locking into the motor boat agenda or commercial agenda or whatever could come back to bite us. None of the fishing org's really have enough power to combat the enviro org's anyway, so as far as jumping onboard for the clout factor, forget about it. Not to say it's not worth joining org's like UASC but don't count on your dues out-spending NRDC.

We tried the united front angle with both rec and commercial, then eventually commercial kind of started looking out for themselves so it was all rec. anglers but for our interest we were really most aligned with freedivers by the end. My opinion is that we need to decide right now who we're aligning ourselves with and stick to it. I highly suggest advocating as specialized a need as possible so that we're not stuck trying to minimize the amount of reserves and can rather focus on allowing kayaks at la jolla for example. If we can hammer a few small points home repeatedly it has a much better chance of getting through than being anti-reserve in general.

Another thing we need to do is get some good people on that stakeholder board and setup meetings with them as well as any DFG officials and politicians that have any say in the matter. If we can work with somebody that has any amount of pull it will be much more effective than whining at public hearing meetings every month.

OEX will be happy to facilitate any meetings or offer any services we can. Paul, please continue to keep the boards posted on the process. I'll jump back in and see if we can get anything done this time.
-Brian

I disagree. I doubt we would alienate any but a very small fraction, and so what if we did. For the most part, they don't care about kayakers (speedbumps, as they call us). Besides, many of the boaters I know focus exclusively on offshore species, so they couldn't care less about LJ. The main point I am trying to make is that adding our voices to the general angling crowd is to be the equivalent of Luxembourg in the EU. The needs and goals of the kayak community are very different than those of the sportboats, who want to continue their 1000 bass weekend fish counts. The kneejerk adversarial reaction to the "treehuggers" is not necessarily the best way to go, and the track record of the fishing associations is pretty dismal, from what I hear.

Who would have thought the NYT's would run this story. Too bad there is not a Yellowtail suburban overpopulation problem. This is not kayak related but is something to consider in arguments to MLPA. My main motivation for fishing La Jolla is "fresh local meat".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/op...th&oref=slogin

By STEVEN RINELLA
Published: December 14, 2007

EVERY year, 15 million licensed hunters head into America’s forests and fields in search of wild game. In New York State alone, roughly half a million hunters harvest around 190,000 deer in the fall deer hunting season — that’s close to eight million pounds of venison. In the traditional vernacular, we’d call that “game meat.” But, in keeping with the times, it might be better to relabel it as free-range, grass-fed, organic, locally produced, locally harvested, sustainable, native, low-stress, low-impact, humanely slaughtered meat.

That string of adjectives has been popularized in recent years by the various food-awareness movements, particularly “localism.” Like many popular social movements, localism’s rallying cry is one of well-founded disgust: the average American meal travels 1,500 miles from field to fork, consuming untold gallons of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels along the way.

As a remedy, so-called locavores encourage a diet coming from one’s own “foodshed” — usually within 100 or 300 miles of home. The rationale of localism is promoted in popular books and Web sites: it leads to a healthier lifestyle and diet; brings money to rural communities; promotes eating meat from animals that are able to “carry out their natural behaviors” and “eat a natural diet”; allows consumers to visit the places where their food is raised; supports the production of foods that have fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and it keeps us in touch with the seasons.

While those sound suspiciously similar to the reasons many Americans choose to hunt, the literature of localism neglects the management and harvest of wildlife. This is a shame, because hunters are the original locavores. When I was growing up in Michigan, my family ate three or four deer every year, along with rabbits, squirrel, ducks and grouse that were harvested mostly within eight miles of our house.

I carried that subsistence aesthetic into adulthood. During my first semester away at college, for instance, my brother and I killed four deer on land that was 11 miles from campus; we never purchased a pound of industrially raised meat. We’d gone local and organic before anyone thought to put those two words together in a sentence.

Nowadays, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney blasting a donor in the face while shooting pen-raised quail, and the former rock star Ted Nugent extolling his “whack ’em and stack ’em” hunting ethos, American hunters do not have a very lofty pedestal from which to defend their interests. We could gain a great deal by refocusing the debate onto our relationship with a sustainable, healthful food supply.

There’s an obvious place to start: Even most nonhunters are aware of the deer overabundance in suburban areas. Annually, whitetail deer cause $250 million in residential landscaping damage; deer-vehicle collisions injure 29,000 people and kill 1.5 million deer; and 13,000 Americans contract Lyme disease.

State and federal wildlife management agencies contend that public hunting is the only cost-effective long-term management strategy. Yet they are forced to experiment with costly deer-control measures like high-wire fencing (it can cost $10,000 to $15,000 per mile), infertility drugs ($550 per deer), police sharpshooters ($100 to $250 per deer)and trap-and-euthanize operations ($150 to $500 per deer).

Why? Invariably, the answer comes down to a handful of factors: landowner aesthetics, liability concerns, social attitudes about guns, firearm-discharge restrictions and states’ public-relations concerns. Or, in short, because of tensions between hunters and the public.

While many people will never give up their opposition to killing Bambi, others may change their minds when they realize that destroying a deer’s reproductive abilities or relying on the automobile for population control is really no less wasteful than tossing fresh produce into a landfill.

Maintaining the ability to cull semi-rural and suburban deer herds is just one of many struggles facing hunters today, along with battling land development on wintering grounds, limiting oil exploration in our last wilderness strongholds of Alaska and combating the introduction of livestock diseases into wild animal herds in the Midwest. But an emphasis on resort-based quail shooting and whack-’em lingo are not going to persuade the critics.

Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we know and love, collecting indigenous, environmentally sustainable food for ourselves and our families.

Steven Rinella is the author of “The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine” and the forthcoming “American Buffalo: In Search of a Lost Icon.”

I'm not trying to "rain on everyone's parade" and I'm willing to join the cause to help keep LaJOlla open - but we are forgetting that the MPA's were bought and paid for by PRIVATE funding to schwarzenegger's fund.

The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing.

My suggestion is to "SHOW ME THE MONEY" I call every angler in CA to not buy a fishing license for as many years the MPLA's are in affect. At $30-40 million per year, this should send a strong message how serious we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back.

Money talks.

Are you willing to give up fising in CA for a few years? I am. I'll take my $40 and give it to the PAC. Fuck the DFG, how long will they stay in business without your $$$?

Let's do it!!! :the_finger:

Let's take 50-60% of this:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdff...sales_10yr.pdf

I tend to agree, that's why I think our only hope is to try to convince the buyer that kayak fishing is what they want.

We should organize some sort of kayak rally to draw attention to our special needs and increase our chances at getting a seat at the table. If we could get 100 or so of us out there, maybe line up at the reserve edge or paddle up and down the shores in formation with banners saying "Save LJ" or whatnot, and get some local press coverage it might go a long way to reinforcing our points.

Be careful what you ask for. I just returned from Hong Kong where there were no junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist for many years and now they have zero sport fishing. They lost all their grouper, sharks, and rays. An "East Coast Whopper" there is less than an ounce. Now they are begging for the junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist to bail them out. I agree with you mostly Art, but I don't think the answer is at either of the extremes.

True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts. If you give the California liberal a fucking inch, they'll take your arm, pickup and incandescent bulb in one bite.

I'd love to set an resident inshore limit to two fish, but we(fisherman) need to set those parameters - not Peter PETA.

So if we create a PAC to funnel the DFG's $66million into. We'd only have to give up fishing for a few years. Take up golf. We can cripple their budget and department. Then we need to put someone into office that will look after our interests. Then instead of buyging $20 worth of useless tackle every month, we get the one million anglers to donate that money to the PAC and keep on fishing. Look at the unions - they know what side the bread is buttered.

Imagine the impact we could have on CA if we gave it up for two years. The sportfishing industry, tackle shops and related businesses would suffer, but if they want long term growth, they need a short time sacrifice.

Let's get it together and get a booth at the Fred Hall. We can start the campaign for no licenses for '09, '10.

Count me in. If they close La Jolla I have no use for a license anyway.

That's what I'm talking about.

What about posting a poll on the major fishing boards in CA and get a consensus of how many people wopuld be for or against this idea.

We could shape the way the reserves and regualtions are designed. This could be a mini version of the "equal rights movement" in the 21st century.

We could have bad ass bumper stickers all over the state.

"hands off my $100 million" for the low-key version
"Will fish for $100 million"
"FUCK OFF Schwarzenegger" is the going on my truck.


I'm going to do some research on the private funding, just to have ammo on who to blame.

stand-by

Ditto that for me too!!

If they do close La Jolla, I will have to get that damn Mokai, to get to where I can fish!:cool:

The tree hugging PETA types have deep pockets and I think they would be more than happy to have you hang up your fishing licenses. I think they would be celebrating in the streets if this was our form of protest.
There must be a better way to fight it than that.

In comparison to the entire CA fishing population relative to us kayakers who fish LJ--- we are a spec of sand. The DFG will not feel the financial sting if we (SD Kayakers) all stonewall and hold back buying licenses. Most people (other fisherfolk) will just shift their areas. I don't feel it is productive, and neither will it put any emphasis on our position or make us more likely to be heard. Has to be another way...

I think the word Slot Limit is a foreign word to them. its eather open or closed to finfish no exceptions. talk about crapy research.

Jim;

I'm having trouble finding out how much and by whom the MPA's were privately funded. The fish lovers have deep pockets - yes, but we have deeper. Fisherman spend thousands if not more per year to fish. The problem is that we are segregated between inshore/offshore, yak/boat and fresh/salt.

We need to consolidate our buying power and put it use. The state of Californnia is in financial trouble. We need to make this happen for fy'09.

These are questions I could used answered to contine this project:

1. How are the sportfishing licensing fees distributed?
2. What private organization funded the reopening of the MPA's?
3. How much was used from private funding and public to reopn the MPA's?
4. How much additional monies are needed by the DFG to implement the MPA's.
5. Over the past 10 years, what is the break down on levied fines to fisherman? Commercial, recreational - poaching, licensing.

The 4th point is a big one. If we can prove that the DFG has acted in their own best interest by embracing the MPA's - then they will have lost any argument that they are here for the fishermen. I feel the DFG has embraced the MPA's to increase their patrolling duties. The increase in duties allows them to ask for more funding(job security).

We need to take it to these fuckers and hit them hard. As I start to gather more information I can then start small polling projects to see if this is actually feasible. I can't do this alone and will need help from all that are interested.

We are 1 million strong and need to be heard.

Fuck the DFG. Let's remove their power by removing their money

Yes Jim. the PETA would love the for us to not buy licenses. But the PETA types are not making the laws. I believe the State would not want us to stop buying licenses and would have to recognize our buying power. So even if you have to buy a license, like yourself and your customers - creating and funding the PAC would get this train moving.

Creating and funding a PAC is not enough. We just become another special interest group. By removing funding from the state, then we are recognized and powerful.

We have to remember someone has to pay for these MPA's to be implemented. What keeps the state from increasing you licenses fees to $200-$300 per year over the next couple of years?

Art,

I can see how cutting DFG funding through boycotting license could work in theory, I think it’s a big Utopia in the real world.

It would be impossible to organize and recruit enough people to actually make an impact.

Realistically - even if you’d hear or read from enough folks claiming they would support the idea and stick to it, I'll bet you it wouldn’t happen.

Art,
I bet PAL could help get you the information you want, I am sure United Anglers has much of this info also.

Adi;

your probably right. I've spoken with enough people to understand that even though we (fisherman) will not give up our right to fish, even if there are no fish in the area we are allowed to fish.

What a glorious fantasy it was thinking that we, as a collective, could undo the unjust.

Without the support of the small congregation of yak fisherman, the ones most impacted by the MPA's, what chance would I have with the power boaters. The power boaters in SoCal are least affected by the MPA's with the access to Mexico.

The access to Mexico is shrinking. You will see limited or no access to the Nados in the near future. You will see the tuna and YT farming increase in size and efficiency limiting the schools in number. I've seen first hand dodo's and yt being netted, chopped and iced to feed the BFT in the cages. The eco-reserves are starting to be implemented in Mexico argeting recreational fisherman without commercial impact - stupido pendejos.

I hope with this mini series of lunatic ranting, I've been able to press a few buttons and turn on a few light bulbs about our future yak fishing.

Bueno suerte cabrones and cabronas :rolleyes:

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

ditto

Paul, let me know how I can help. You know I'm familiar with the political process involved, and one route that should be entertained when dealing with the state is through our district representatives.

Unfortunately, I'm not working with any state lobbyist at this time for the City , otherwise I'd have someone to get a little insight. I'm not sure if we can find a nexus between the beach cities and negative effects of the closure to their constituents, but if so, they should be willing to have their state lobbyist investigating those issues and supporting our stance.

Anyhow, give me a call anytime to discuss.

Grego

Great discussion here. I respect the passionate opinions people have taken the time to post.

I call it like I see it. As I've said elsewhere, my goal and that of everyone at the KFACA is to work within the MLPA process to create the best possible outcome for kayak anglers. In earlier action at the Channel Islands and Central California, refusing to participate played right into our opponents' hands. They got almost everything they wanted, and we didn't get a say in the result.

Attacking the MLPA itself is beyond our limited scope and best left to other, better funded and more widely supported organizations.

The aim of the MLPA - a healthier aquatic ecosystem - is something we as recreational anglers should support. It's the implementation that is flawed. It is a rushed, haphazard politically driven system. The word "politically" is in bold italics because it's the key to understanding our situation. Anglers don't have the governor nor the legislature. Our political capital is severely limited; what we as anglers have will be spent carefully and cautiously.

All of the following points can be argued:

The science the MLPA is based on is shaky. It is not tied into conventional marine fisheries management, which has been showing gains in the past years. It is based on population surveys that are arguably inaccurate to the point of insignificance but used none the less. It has a potential to damage marine resources by focusing commercial and angling effort into limited geographic areas. The system has at times been co-opted by various user groups for their personal economic gain. Image has trumped cold, dispassionate fact. It is funded via an MOU from the pro-closure Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation.

EVERY one of the preceding points is irrelevant to our effort to win participation in the Regional Stakeholder's Group for Southern California. Now that I've said it, I'm putting the negatives behind me and moving forward.

YES, we will lose fishing access. NO, it's not time to sell our gear and take up bowling or golf. When the MLPA process has run its course, we'll still be fishing.

So, let's roll up our sleeves, get to work, and make sure our voices are heard in the stakeholder's process. We have to take care of our own business. Allies are great, and we'll work with other user groups where our interests overlap. If we don't stand up for ourselves, I guarantee other stakeholder's will put their needs at the forefront.

A scattershot of comments:

LJ and plenty of other key kayak fishing areas. As far as identifying closure areas, in a sense that's what the launch sites project is about. The areas we don't use - from our point of view, great places to put the mandated reserves - will be obvious.

At times the process has been quite rational. Even in CenCal where kayakers had no stakeholder representation, the network proposals were tweaked in recognition of our short range and limited sheltered access points. The argument still holds force - you bet we'll wield it.

Some things have changed since Brian (Useful Idiot) followed the Channel Islands reserve process. The MLPA is a separate beast, but what he said about the effectiveness of negative public comment remains mostly true. Stakeholders have influence and a vote in the outcome. Public speakers, not so much.

Unfortunately the effectiveness of personal lobbying via meetings with DFG staff has been reduced due to changes in the process. We'll still talk with everyone we can get to listen, including the Fish and Game Commissioners.

It can't be said too many times - we will not carry water for commercial or even other recreational fishing interests at our own expense - we're here to look out for our interests first.

Brian, thanks for the offer of help. Gratefully accepted.

Actually, we've been doing it for years via our tournaments, which I've documented in the sportfishing press since 2005. We can convincingly demonstrate kayak fishing's high participation levels and its relative importance. As far as mainstream press goes, we must carefully avoid negative impressions and focus on the positive.

UASC continues to work on it. Other sportfishing interests are fighting reduced limits. It takes a long time to change old habits.

Grego, consider yourself hired. Local municipalities will influence the shape of MPAs to come. We need your expertise. Thanks and welcome to the team.

FYI - other people with specialized knowledge are welcome to assist in our stakeholder efforts. We're all in this together, and because the MPAs will be spaced no more than 20 miles apart, no stretch of SoCal coastline will be immune.

And finally, please consider that our opponents are watching everything we do, and practice discretion in your postings. Image IS reality for the MLPA decision makers.

Stop fishing(boycott licenses) because of one persons (angry) idea, thats amazing. Stop speculating and join UNITED ANGLERS.....give them yourself and/or money........

Thanks for keeping us informed Pal. I don't know what to think of it right now, but I am following what is going on and I support UASC.


Good to hear some good news and some precedent that our interests are looked out for.


Good. Blindly aligning ourselves with commercial or boat based anglers may or may not be in our best interests, as they for sure have very different needs and wants than us.

The one good thing about the process coming to SD when it has is that we now have plenty of experience to draw off of from the past. We know the approaches that are effective, and which aren't. I very strongly agree that we need to look out for our own interests first and foremost and align with whoever if the situation presents itself. Piggy backing off of a more powerful ally almost certainly backfires at some point along the way.

As kayak fishermen, and even fishermen as a whole, we don't have the resources or power to bitch slap this thing out of our house. All we can do is try to steer it in the right direction. Getting everybody aware of what's coming up is the first step if we're going to have any kind of success with this. Please join UA and KFACA and start spreading the word about this process. The more support we have for our insignificant, low impact faction of users, the better chance we have at working with the system.

And like Paul said, show up to kayak fishing events and meetings of any type to show that we do have true numbers of active kayak fishermen. Political stunts are great for media coverage, but real numbers at tournaments and seminars hold much more meaning for decision makers.

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

I looked at the USAC site and there's an interesting brochure to print and mail.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/pdf/SCmlpa.pdf

D50; .....

So many very good and valid points! :luxhello:

Does anyone that has been involved in this type of political juggernaut think that courting / lobbying some of the more powerful law firms might bring about some clout, and sound advice (not necessarily law suits, but I would not rule them out either) to help us navigate this process / battle?

I will get as involved as my time and resources will allow, but a large Thank You is in order to all of you that spend time and money to help support our passion and interests, whether or not we win, lose, or draw!:notworthy:

According to my marine science proffessor, this is going to happen no matter what, pure politics, no "treehuggers involved". The model is New Zealand. The date for these clossures is 2010, so keep your fingers crossed andd hope they leave at least one productive area open within paddling distance.