Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge (http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/index.php)

- General Kayak Fishing Discussion (http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/forumdisplay.php?f=11)

- - The newest maps are up (http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/showthread.php?t=6225)

The newest maps are up

Here is the email I just received about the newest proposals being considered by the BRTF:

Quote:

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Announcement

Who: MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF)

What: Information regarding marine protected area (MPA) options under consideration by the BRTF (see additional details below)

Where: An overview table, maps, descriptions of common MPAs, descriptions of MPA options at four geographies, and a side-by-side comparison of proposed allowed uses in the four geographies are available at http://resources.ca.gov/mlpa_scrsg/ in a folder titled “BRTF Options Under Review.” Monday afternoon these files will also be posted to the MLPA website (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa). Additional information is available on MarineMap at http://www.marinemap.org/marinemap/.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The BRTF reviewed the Round 3 MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (SCRSG) marine protected area proposals at its recent meeting (October 20-22). During this meeting, the BRTF considered options for what to include in a preferred alternative to be recommended to the California Fish and Game Commission.

A subset of MPAs was agreed upon by the BRTF to be potentially included in a preferred alternative. In addition, there are four general geographies where alternative options have been identified and requested for separate analysis: Point Dume (three options), Palos Verdes (two options), Orange County (two options), and San Diego (four options). All MPA options are currently under consideration and review by the BRTF, and none of the MPAs have been formally included in the preferred alternative. The BRTF will reconvene on November 10 to further discuss these options.

A number of materials summarize the MPA configurations that the BRTF is considering for a preferred alternative:

Subregional maps

Overview table of MPAs under consideration

Descriptions of common MPAs

Descriptions of MPA options in four geographies

Comparison of proposed allowed uses in MPA options for the four geographies

Additional Information in MarineMap

The options in MarineMap are included in five different arrays, titled:
·BRTF Options - MPAs Common to All Options
·BRTF Options - Point Dume MPA Options
·BRTF Options - Palos Verdes MPA Options
·BRTF Options - Orange County MPA Options
·BRTF Options - San Diego MPA Options

Looks like they will be on marinemap tomorrow.

Here is a side by side right now. It looks ugly for LJ.
http://resources.ca.gov/mlpa_scrsg/B...ons_091030.pdf

Bad, bad, bad.

There are 4 options in San Diego. Only one of them is any good. That's Prop 2.

If that's not enough, there are 3 at Malibu's Dume, including one that amounts to a death penalty. http://baytuber.informe.com/forum/images/smilies/no.gif

For PV the options are P2 or another map that takes out the bottom section of Rocky Pt.

Get those BRTF letters in!

Looks like we're the last option.

OK guys, I written the emails sent money to the fund and told everyone I know how important this thing is. What else can be done to influence the outcome?

While I admit more than a bit of confusion about all of this, it appears to me that option 4 of the newest maps would be the best for La Jolla with option 3 being almost livable. Options 1 and 2 will probably cause me to sell my kayak since everywhere I currently fish will be off limits.

Notice to the DFG, if I sell my kayak, I will no longer need to buy a fishing license.

This if very frustrating to me. I can only imagine how hard it must be on the heavy lifters who have fought this thing tirelessly for that past couple of years. I cannot express in words how much I respect you guys and how grateful for all your efforts.

Bob

What exactly can you do in the Blue areas ?
What is the exact language as per the mlpa ?
------------------

So Work Group 2 Map proposal is Now Called Option 4 ?

WTF -- Is this designed to add confusion to all the letters they are receiving from State Senators, Assemblymen, etc. ?

BRTF option 4 is what is best for fishermen in San Diego. It is the San Diego array from WG2.

Options 1-3 all expand the current LJ reserve, and add the Scripps SMCA that really screws us kayakers over. A proposed allowed use on the spreadsheet included in the link is to allow bait catching by H&L only in the Scripps SMCA. This is a step in the right direction to allow bait by H&L but this is still obviously unacceptable.

The difference between options 1 and 2 in is the boudary of the south LJ reserve. Option 2 is moved slightly to the south.

BRTF option 3 is best for Point Dume, with 2 being worse, and 1 being not acceptable.
In PV option 2 is OK, option 1 is unaccpetable.
I don't know enough about Laguna to comment on that one. Someone?
BRTF option 4 is best in San Diego.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

To fight this...
Get as many people possible to email the BRTF in support of the good options.

Lobby the local council members and county supervisors to support the good options.

Thank the government officials who have supported us.

Billy V's comment raises a good question. In my email to the MLPA folks I specifically said that I support option 2. Option 2 is now option 4. Should we all resend our emails?

Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsafety (Post 46587)

Billy V's comment raises a good question. In my email to the MLPA folks I specifically said that I support option 2. Option 2 is now option 4. Should we all resend our emails?

Bob

Yep. Go ahead and send a clarifying email. Better safe than sorry.

edit->
We still support the map from Work Group 2.

The difference is in the BRTF options 2 is no longer the good option, 4 is. The BRTF options are all new. I wish the labeled them ABCD instead.

So WG2 is good, BRTF 4 in San Diego is good.

Any other questions go ahead and ask.

In all my e-mails I word it as follows:

I Support Work Group 2 Map Proposal. -This differs from the Now Option 2, but I strongly feel they will use it to screw us over anyway they can.

Lets try to keep it together in these last few days. Believe me, I know what stress you are going through. Thats all i want to say for now.

-They will spin it into a word game.

Persistent kelp
Maximum kelp
Elk Kelp
Giant Kelp
your sisters ass kelp

Fisherman preferred BRTF options by geography:

Santa Barbara: None. There’s only a single BRTF option. It includes an SMCA at Naples. SUPPORT RSG PROPOSAL 2

Malibu: Option 3. The boundary is WEST of Dume.

Palos Verdes: Option 2. Keeps Rocky Pt open.

Orange County: None. Both options are inefficient and hard to enforce wedges focused on the shoreline. SUPPORT RSG PROPOSAL 2

San Diego: Option 4. Leaves LJ as is.

Catalina: Again, there’s only a single option and it includes an unnecessary SMR at Long Pt. SUPPORT RSG PROPOSAL 2

I would suggest in the interest of safe guarding ALL OUR hard work that we send additional E-Mails that clarify our position for San Diego.

"I Support Work Group 2 Map Proposal, and BTRF Option 4 for San Diego"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy V (Post 46594)

That sums it up for SD. I agree.

Be very careful about what you support.

WG2
BRTF 4 for SD

I spoke to the I-Team.

They said they still accept comments for WG2 and the new BRTF options.

The sample letters on Spearboard and Bloodydecks

http://www.spearboard.com/showthread...88#post1080588

I have been revised to carefully point out WG versus Options.

Trust me guys. I heard enough expletives about the new BRTF option designation to make a sailor blush. This is FUBAR on their part.

Recommendation: Resend the emails to clarify that you are, for SD, supporting WG2 map and BRTF Option 4.

FFFFF, I just sent my letters then I read this.

I just spoke with I-Team Member Kelly Sayce

A Meeting is taking place today for the I-Team Members, they are discussing the issue of any possible confusion between letters supporting:
"Work Group 2 Map Proposal"
or
"BTRF Option 2"

They are well aware of the issue, and have heard from many of our representatives from the Kayak, Spear, Commercial, etc. Community regarding this matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-A suggestion I made to Kelly was, since the BTRF Options 1 through 4 were created and released Sunday Night, November 1st. - any letter from that date forward should be scrutinized for accuracy.

- Any E-Mail, or letter of support received prior to Nov. 1st. was a support letter for the original "Work Group 2 Map Proposal".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
She will contact me later today after her meeting.

A question for Billy V.

Do the people you are talking to really care about the contents of the emails and letters that are being sent in or are they just taking care of the bookkeeping? It would seem to me that if this group really cared about the comments they are receiving, they would read every one carefully to determine the intent of each message.

Maybe I am just too skeptical of the system. Please tell me I am wrong.

Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsafety (Post 46699)

There are some members that are very sympathetic to our cause. Your email gives them support and the ammo they need.

If you don't send in an email, they won't stick their neck out for you. If you back them up, they will stick up for us.

I don't know if they read every email personally, I know the Iteam staff summarizes the emails for them sometimes and compiles them.

Personalized emails are always better. Just sending in a forum letter and adding your name is not as good as drafting something your self.

I do know they read a lot of the emails personally. Some of us have gotten personal responses from the MLPA people to emails we have sent in.

Any other questions, go ahead and ask.