!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008

[PAL]

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.

[madscientist]

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.

[esdees]

I got this email this morning...

For Immediate Release: Contacts: Melissa Miller-Henson

Dec. 6, 2007 (530) 400-2545

Sandy Cooney

(916) 715-9674



SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES MIKE CHRISMAN ANNOUNCES ORDER FOR REMAINING MLPA STUDY REGIONS



Process in place for entire California coast, landmark Marine Life Protection Act



Sacramento – Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman today announced the order of three remaining study regions to implement California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) by 2011. Data collection will begin in the MLPA South Coast Study Region, (Point Conception south to the border with Mexico), in early 2008, followed by the MLPA North Coast Study Region (Alder Creek north to the border with Oregon), and then the MLPA San Francisco Bay Study Region (from the Golden Gate Bridge northeast to the Carquinez Bridge). A specific timetable for the remaining regions has yet to be established.



“With our announcement today we have finalized the order of the five Marine Life Protection Act study regions that will cover California’s coast,” Chrisman said. “In many ways this is a stage that some people never believed we could reach. More importantly, today’s announcement represents a milestone that we have achieved together, scientists, fishermen, elected officials and environmentalists, all working for the benefit and future of our ocean and its marine life.”



The MLPA North Central Coast Study Region, the second region identified for implementation of the act, is currently undergoing a process for evaluating marine protected areas (MPAs).



In 2004, Gov. Schwarzenegger directed the Resources Agency to launch an effort to implement the Marine Life Protection Act as part the administration’s ocean and coastal protection policy. In March 2006, a blue ribbon task force delivered recommendations on the first study region (from Pigeon Point to Point Conception, called the MLPA Central Coast Study Region) to the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the California Fish and Game Commission. In April 2007, following extensive public input and scientific analysis, the Fish and Game Commission identified 29 marine protected areas within the Central Coast Study Region. Those regulations went into effect in September 2007.



Building on a model that has been demonstrated successfully to complete one region and is being used in the process on another, a blue ribbon task force will be appointed by Secretary Chrisman in early 2008 for the South Coast Study Region. The task force and DFG will appoint another regional stakeholder group to ensure local interests and knowledge play a role in developing MPA proposals for the region. DFG will also name a science advisory team to make use of the best readily available science.



About the MLPA:

The MLPA directs the state to reexamine and redesign California’s system of MPAs through a comprehensive program and master plan. Its primary goals are to protect marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems and marine natural heritage, as well as improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems. MPAs include state marine conservation areas, state marine parks, and state marine reserves.



For more information on the MLPA visit www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa.



-30-



_______________________________________________
MLPAInitiative mailing list
MLPAInitiative@lists.resources.ca.gov
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options please visit:
http://lists.ceres.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ma...mlpainitiative

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

[Adam]

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.

[PAL]

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/

[Holy Mackerel]

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

[PAL]

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

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.

[dgax65]

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.

[Holy Mackerel]

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

[Dupree]

Originally Posted by dgax65

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.

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

[madscientist]

Originally Posted by dgax65

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.

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.

[PEMEX]

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.

[cb_wotan]

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

Strategies? Thoughts?

Wotan