Let's reshape the debate - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

dsafety · 10-06-2010, 09:45 PM

I will be attending the next MLPA meeting but will be ceding my time to one of the more experienced members of our family. I have plenty to say but feel that others might be more effective relaying the message.

So what message should we be sending. We could talk about the corrupt process. This will fall on deaf ears since the people we would be speaking to are deeply involved in that process. That aspect of this battle will likely have to play out in the courts.

We could talk about the bad science and quid-pro-quo back room deals. Again, I do not think this message would gain much traction at this time.

It occurred to me that rather than fighting our opponents, we might be better off proposing an alternative to regional closures that would probably be much more effective in the long run. How about turning the discussion away from closures and focusing on significant changes to the size and take limits along with seasonal restrictions for certain species.

The recovery of the WSB and BSB population can be directly attributed to these kinds of regulations, (along with getting rid of the gill nets and long line commercial fishing in the coastal waters.) Catch and release is something that many of already do most of the time. Why not take it a step further?

I am sure that this approach will not sit well with the sportfishing industry and some commercial fishing enterprises but a reasonably crafted reduced take approach would certainly be better than a total ban.

Are we too late to propose this kind of a solution? Is the idea too reasonable to appeal to our opponents? If we change the conversation to a solution that has proved successful and fulfills everyone's stated objectives, we might be able to craft a more reasonable result.

Any thoughts on this approach?

Bob

Gino · 10-06-2010, 10:15 PM

Honestly The lawsuit i think says more than anything we are going to say.

I think im just going to show up, look real angry and wave a really mean sign. and cede my time to someone else.

problem with trying to talk about a certain pint or w/e is the how much time we have to say it. 15 secounds - 1 minute isnt much to expose corruption.

kurt · 10-07-2010, 08:01 AM

As reasonable as your proposal sounds, Bob, it doesn't stop fishing which is what some of the Extreme Environmentalists are really after, I believe. And I believe the MLPA requires closures of some sort with minimum requirements.

I agree, conservation not closures. But this process is not set up for that.

dsafety · 10-07-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurt

As reasonable as your proposal sounds, Bob, it doesn't stop fishing which is what some of the Extreme Environmentalists are really after, I believe. And I believe the MLPA requires closures of some sort with minimum requirements.

I agree, conservation not closures. But this process is not set up for that.

I hope that you are incorrect on this Kurt but you may be right. Those with extreme views on most issues usually fail to see the forest for the trees. PAL, what do you think?

Bob

GregAndrew · 10-07-2010, 02:07 PM

Bob, the ideas you mentioned were brought up at several of the meetings that I attended and also fell on deaf ears. Their reason was something to this effect (they were not mandated by the MLPA law to "change the current laws" but only to set up a coordinated set of Marine Protected Areas). So unless your argument deals with where and/or what size and type of MPA they are not interested.

PAL · 10-07-2010, 02:12 PM

Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period. Those words in particular will get you nowhere. You might even earn a lecture from one of the more pompous pro-closure commissioners.

That doesn't mean there's no merit in your broader suggestion. It speaks to the larger point that there's no buy-in from recreational fishermen as the entire process was stacked against us (receding goalposts, BRTF manipulation, an illusion of RSG consensus by marginalizing fishing interests in the so-called cross-interest group, etc).

There were opportunities to bring us on board, by allowing catch and release zones and making other reasonable concessions. They were always rebuffed. The excuses included difficulty of enforcement or some scientific notion of "Level of Protection." My conclusion? They were dumped because the people funding this process are opposed to all fishing.

See Terry's post in the other thread. Terry is in favor of marine conservation, even reserves. He can't support politically and ideologically driven closures.

dmrides · 10-07-2010, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PAL

Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period.

Damn that's too bad. I have been thinking about what I would say if I did not cede time and I was thinking along the lines of what Bob was saying.

When they noticed that whaling was decimating the whale populations, did they close all the oceans to fishing? No, they just said you can't kill whales. Since then their populations have come back. To me, that seems like real science.

It is really a shame that they refuse to hear any other alternatives to all out closures. Are full closures really what the DFG wants? Or just what they are being wrangled into?

walrus · 10-08-2010, 08:00 AM

I have prepare my comments, see below:

I believe that all the members on this panel want to protect California’s natural resources and your final decision will reflect that desire. As a fisherman, I also want to protect California’s natural resources.
The uneducated knee jerk solution is to restrict all human interaction. It sounds great, but it’s an extreme action, because like it or not humans are part of natural evolution. From past history we know that when man has interfered with the predator/prey balance unexpected consequences have occurred. This includes the extinction of some species due to overpopulation and disease. The same species man thought he was protecting.
It’s time to pay attention to lessons nature gives us. Nature does best when balanced. Life exists in extreme heat or extreme cold and flourishes in between these extremes. California’s natural resources will survive if you make an extreme ruling like unrestricted fishing, or complete closure, but, it will not flourish in the extremes.
The balance is to manage each species individually using size limits, catch limits, and catch seasons. Require dynamic revaluation of this management. Help the environment, help nature thrive, balance your ruling between the extremes. Listen to nature it knows better than any man or woman.
Thank You.

PAL · 10-08-2010, 05:45 PM

Guys, this is about the MLPA, a state law that requires establishment of a network of marine reserves. It isn't about fisheries regulations. If you go down that road, you won't be effective except for adding to our overall numbers (itself important).

There are a few options to engage this thing, which I'm going to lay out very briefly and in no particular order.

1. The court ruling is clear. The Blue Ribbon Task Force and Science Advisory Team are state agencies. They didn't follow state rules. South Coast MLPA work must be suspended until these serious issues are resolved.

2. We support RSG Proposal 2, the true cross-interest plan created by anglers, harbor communities, yada, yada, yada.

3. Limit comments to the IPA (Integrated Preferred Alternative), which the Commission is considering. There are significant issues in play, including whether to expand the proposed South La Jolla reserve and reconfigure the second one that would cap us off at Scripps Pier. We have to watch these closely.

All of these speak to the issues. I don't want to go into too much more detail in the open, but I'm happy to explain how we got here and what's at stake.

This is complicated stuff. That's a deliberate strategy of the other side, to discourage public participation. Like our staunch allies the free divers, kayak anglers don't discourage easily. Please come on out to the meeting even if the issues aren't quite clear. You'll find a lot of help from fellow watermen.

cowboybill · 10-09-2010, 08:09 AM

I think numbers matter more than words at this point! I am trying to get friends to go ....

cowboybill

dmrides · 10-09-2010, 10:19 AM

Bob and PAL,

I am glad you guys have posted on this thread. It is very easy to get sidetracked and try to bring it back to regulations, since they seem to make sense, but again I am reminded that is not what this is about. This is about closures and this is about us showing up to support RSG Proposal 2. CowboyBill, you are right, we need numbers to show how many of us will be affected by this.

roadx · 10-09-2010, 06:21 PM

is this the scrsg proposal #2 ? for the san diego area

10-06-2010, 09:45 PM	#1
dsafety Olivenhain Bob Join Date: May 2008 Location: Olivenhain, CA Posts: 1,121	Let's reshape the debate I will be attending the next MLPA meeting but will be ceding my time to one of the more experienced members of our family. I have plenty to say but feel that others might be more effective relaying the message. So what message should we be sending. We could talk about the corrupt process. This will fall on deaf ears since the people we would be speaking to are deeply involved in that process. That aspect of this battle will likely have to play out in the courts. We could talk about the bad science and quid-pro-quo back room deals. Again, I do not think this message would gain much traction at this time. It occurred to me that rather than fighting our opponents, we might be better off proposing an alternative to regional closures that would probably be much more effective in the long run. How about turning the discussion away from closures and focusing on significant changes to the size and take limits along with seasonal restrictions for certain species. The recovery of the WSB and BSB population can be directly attributed to these kinds of regulations, (along with getting rid of the gill nets and long line commercial fishing in the coastal waters.) Catch and release is something that many of already do most of the time. Why not take it a step further? I am sure that this approach will not sit well with the sportfishing industry and some commercial fishing enterprises but a reasonably crafted reduced take approach would certainly be better than a total ban. Are we too late to propose this kind of a solution? Is the idea too reasonable to appeal to our opponents? If we change the conversation to a solution that has proved successful and fulfills everyone's stated objectives, we might be able to craft a more reasonable result. Any thoughts on this approach? Bob

10-07-2010, 08:01 AM	#3
kurt Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: 2 inches above sea level Posts: 502	As reasonable as your proposal sounds, Bob, it doesn't stop fishing which is what some of the Extreme Environmentalists are really after, I believe. And I believe the MLPA requires closures of some sort with minimum requirements. I agree, conservation not closures. But this process is not set up for that. __________________ "All I got was a rock"

10-09-2010, 08:09 AM	#10
cowboybill Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Santee, CA Posts: 103	numbers matter I think numbers matter more than words at this point! I am trying to get friends to go .... cowboybill

10-09-2010, 06:21 PM	#12
roadx . Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,155	is this the scrsg proposal #2 ? for the san diego area __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-06-2010, 10:15 PM	#2
Gino Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 520	Honestly The lawsuit i think says more than anything we are going to say. I think im just going to show up, look real angry and wave a really mean sign. and cede my time to someone else. problem with trying to talk about a certain pint or w/e is the how much time we have to say it. 15 secounds - 1 minute isnt much to expose corruption.

10-07-2010, 02:07 PM	#5
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	Bob, the ideas you mentioned were brought up at several of the meetings that I attended and also fell on deaf ears. Their reason was something to this effect (they were not mandated by the MLPA law to "change the current laws" but only to set up a coordinated set of Marine Protected Areas). So unless your argument deals with where and/or what size and type of MPA they are not interested.

10-07-2010, 02:12 PM	#6
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	Sorry Bob, Kurt's right. We've covered this ground. The MLPA is about fishing closures, period. Those words in particular will get you nowhere. You might even earn a lecture from one of the more pompous pro-closure commissioners. That doesn't mean there's no merit in your broader suggestion. It speaks to the larger point that there's no buy-in from recreational fishermen as the entire process was stacked against us (receding goalposts, BRTF manipulation, an illusion of RSG consensus by marginalizing fishing interests in the so-called cross-interest group, etc). There were opportunities to bring us on board, by allowing catch and release zones and making other reasonable concessions. They were always rebuffed. The excuses included difficulty of enforcement or some scientific notion of "Level of Protection." My conclusion? They were dumped because the people funding this process are opposed to all fishing. See Terry's post in the other thread. Terry is in favor of marine conservation, even reserves. He can't support politically and ideologically driven closures.

10-08-2010, 08:00 AM	#8
walrus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Baja fish camp Posts: 478	I have prepare my comments, see below: I believe that all the members on this panel want to protect California’s natural resources and your final decision will reflect that desire. As a fisherman, I also want to protect California’s natural resources. The uneducated knee jerk solution is to restrict all human interaction. It sounds great, but it’s an extreme action, because like it or not humans are part of natural evolution. From past history we know that when man has interfered with the predator/prey balance unexpected consequences have occurred. This includes the extinction of some species due to overpopulation and disease. The same species man thought he was protecting. It’s time to pay attention to lessons nature gives us. Nature does best when balanced. Life exists in extreme heat or extreme cold and flourishes in between these extremes. California’s natural resources will survive if you make an extreme ruling like unrestricted fishing, or complete closure, but, it will not flourish in the extremes. The balance is to manage each species individually using size limits, catch limits, and catch seasons. Require dynamic revaluation of this management. Help the environment, help nature thrive, balance your ruling between the extremes. Listen to nature it knows better than any man or woman. Thank You.

10-08-2010, 05:45 PM	#9
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	Guys, this is about the MLPA, a state law that requires establishment of a network of marine reserves. It isn't about fisheries regulations. If you go down that road, you won't be effective except for adding to our overall numbers (itself important). There are a few options to engage this thing, which I'm going to lay out very briefly and in no particular order. 1. The court ruling is clear. The Blue Ribbon Task Force and Science Advisory Team are state agencies. They didn't follow state rules. South Coast MLPA work must be suspended until these serious issues are resolved. 2. We support RSG Proposal 2, the true cross-interest plan created by anglers, harbor communities, yada, yada, yada. 3. Limit comments to the IPA (Integrated Preferred Alternative), which the Commission is considering. There are significant issues in play, including whether to expand the proposed South La Jolla reserve and reconfigure the second one that would cap us off at Scripps Pier. We have to watch these closely. All of these speak to the issues. I don't want to go into too much more detail in the open, but I'm happy to explain how we got here and what's at stake. This is complicated stuff. That's a deliberate strategy of the other side, to discourage public participation. Like our staunch allies the free divers, kayak anglers don't discourage easily. Please come on out to the meeting even if the issues aren't quite clear. You'll find a lot of help from fellow watermen.

10-09-2010, 10:19 AM	#11
dmrides Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Point Loma Posts: 584	Bob and PAL, I am glad you guys have posted on this thread. It is very easy to get sidetracked and try to bring it back to regulations, since they seem to make sense, but again I am reminded that is not what this is about. This is about closures and this is about us showing up to support RSG Proposal 2. CowboyBill, you are right, we need numbers to show how many of us will be affected by this.