First Glimpse, External MPA Proposals - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Mr Mugu · 03-04-2009, 12:46 AM

landwhale · 03-04-2009, 05:32 AM

I will have info at the KFACA Booth at Fred Hall Stop By

THANKS MJ

Dan · 03-04-2009, 07:40 AM

thanks MJ. Number 3 --- WHOA!

rastrev · 03-04-2009, 10:04 AM

Thanks for the info.
Taking a look at the environmental group's proposed map...

Looks like they pretty much want to shut down every major kelp bed in so cal...

Fiskadoro · 03-04-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mugu

I just hope all those UA bashers take a good look at the maps. United Anglers proposal is by far the best but I imagine it's a long shot now after all the BS pulled by many in the fishing community, over the last few months for essentially political reasons.

Talk about read them and weep. What a shame!!!

Jim

forefrazier · 03-04-2009, 05:31 PM

I might need some correction here but it seems even the anglers groups are proposing extending the marine reserves in La Jolla and creating no take areas?

Fiskadoro · 03-04-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forefrazier

I might need some correction here but it seems even the anglers groups are proposing extending the marine reserves in La Jolla and creating no take areas?

United Anglers proposal:

Exline Proposal:

You know what the difference of red and blue is? Blue is a conservation area, red is a State Marine Reserve which means closed to fishing!!!!

From the DFG

State Marine Reserve [36700(a) PRC]

A "state marine reserve," is a non-terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following:

protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas;
protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or
contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems.

Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.

Allowable uses [36710(a) PRC]: research, restoration and monitoring may be permitted by the managing agency. Educational activities and other forms of non-consumptive human use may be permitted by the designating entity or managing agency in a manner consistent with the protection of all marine resources.

I just hope the guys who attacked United Anglers and demanded Raftkin's head on a pike for taking enviro money now will take the time to take a good look at all those maps.

UA may have made some deals with the enviro's but you know what? They were GOOD intelligent deals!!! That would of kept us fishing in some great fishing areas.

Now we'll see what we get from all the scorched earth rhetoric, that cost some their jobs and derailed a process that actually had a decent chance of going our way for a change.

Jim

Mr Mugu · 03-04-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Day

United Anglers proposal:

Exline Proposal:
You know what the difference of red and blue is? Blue is a conservation area, red is a State Marine Reserve which means closed to fishing!!!!

From the DFG

State Marine Reserve [36700(a) PRC]

A "state marine reserve," is a non-terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following:

protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas;
protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or
contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems.

Restrictions [36710(a) PRC]: it is unlawful to injure, damage, take or possess any living, geological or cultural marine resource, except under a permit or specific authorization from the managing agency for research, restoration or monitoring purposes. While, to the extent feasible, the area shall be open to the public for managed enjoyment and study, the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state. Therefore, access and use (such as walking, swimming, boating and diving) may be restricted to protect marine resources.

Allowable uses [36710(a) PRC]: research, restoration and monitoring may be permitted by the managing agency. Educational activities and other forms of non-consumptive human use may be permitted by the designating entity or managing agency in a manner consistent with the protection of all marine resources.

I just hope the guys who attacked United Anglers and demanded Raftkin's head on a pike for taking enviro money now will take the time to take a good look at all those maps.

UA may have made some deals with the enviro's but you know what? They were GOOD intelligent deals!!! That would of kept us fishing in some great fishing areas.

Now we'll see what we get from all the scorched earth rhetoric, that cost some their jobs and derailed a process that actually had a decent chance of going our way for a change.

Jim

LJ basically remains the same in both proposals, nothing new there except the current SMCA at LJ was converted into an SMR....which in effect, is basically what it's always been(minus the allowed commercial take of squid in its current congig.)
Current regs:

Tman · 03-05-2009, 12:20 AM

You know guys, I for one appreciate all that you are doing, the time and the effort you've put in.

It is scary to look at the maps and realize, hey, that's where I caught my first ________, that's where my honey hole is, that's where my child caught their first _______, the list goes on.

It's too bad that we can't just say, let's just lower bag limits. We don't need to catch 10 YT per trip, 2 calicos are enough for me, 1 halibut, etc.

I remember the old days, out in my boat, and leaving an area because we were catching too many 'small' YT. We rarely heard of a WSB caught. Calicos were a dime a dozen, barracuda everywhere, and, to date myself, we used to spear 1-2 halis per outing off MB jetty, even catch bonito from the jetty. Seeing abalone, knowing we couldn't take them because of the closure. Bugs everywhere, we would just come back the next night.

I do understand the need for the closures, but the reasonings and logic behind it stinks like a sewage spill.

I wonder had limits, restrictions, been imposed earlier, could that had been a difference. 3-5 YT daily limit. 3 Calicos, 3 Sandbass, 1 Halibut, 1 WSB in season, rockfish in season, goes on and on.

When is the last time you heard of a boater, a charter, or a sportfisher in US waters getting limits of YT? Bass, of course.

Now here's where I lose myself - based on the number of sea dogs we have hanging around LJ, spec. Children's Pool, what damage do they create?

Let's see.....hmmmm...

The California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) is a coastal sea lion of the northern Pacific Ocean. Their numbers are abundant (188,000 U.S. stock 1995 est.^[2]), and the population continues to expand at a rate of approximately 5.0% annually.^[3] They are quite intelligent.

They can dive to 1,000 feet (304.8 m) and swim up to 25 miles per hour (40 km/h) in short bursts. They can also swim silently in the water.

To me, the whole reasoning behind the MLPA is sound, but lost in the translation. Kind of like having a flat tire and keep filling it with air instead of sealing the leak....no pun intended.

The kayakers, the surf fishermen and women get the shaft, when our take is based solely on our capacity and of what we will eat, in my opinion.

Boaters, charters, sportfishers, can move to deeper waters, but I tend to think that PB'ers, charters, realize. I think the party boats do try to educate the consumer, but at the same time, their profits are based on catch ratios and the bragging rights of the uneducated.

Is the solution closing prime habitats? No.
Is the solution changing fishing catch counts? Yes.
Are these self-financed groups seeing the big picture? No.

I can imagine how tough of a battle you guys face, how frustrating it must be. Keep up the great work, we are here if you need us.

Thank you, rant over....

Fiskadoro · 03-05-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mugu

LJ basically remains the same in both proposals, nothing new there except the current SMCA at LJ was converted into an SMR....which in effect, is basically what it's always been(minus the allowed commercial take of squid in its current congig.)
Current regs:

Well you proved me wrong on that one for sure Mugu..

That still does not change the fact that as a whole the UASC proposal has less closed areas to fishing then the other proposals. From looking at the XXX-keeper proposals I think this is going to get really ugly.

Jim

03-04-2009, 12:46 AM	#1
Mr Mugu Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Malibu Posts: 48	First Glimpse, External MPA Proposals Here you go. The first is from FIC/FIN, second United Anglers, and last an enviro based proposal. External Proposals: Joe Exline fishing information network - http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n4ii.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n7.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n4iii.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n4i.pdf United Anglers of Southern California - MAPS http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n5ii.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n8.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n5i.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n5iii.pdf santa barbara channelkeeper, santa monica baykeeper - MAPS http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n6ii.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n6i.pdf http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n6iii.pdf

03-04-2009, 05:32 AM	#2
landwhale Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Seal Beach Posts: 506	I will have info at the KFACA Booth at Fred Hall Stop By THANKS MJ __________________

03-04-2009, 10:04 AM	#4
rastrev Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: SD, CA Posts: 173	Thanks for the info. Taking a look at the environmental group's proposed map... Looks like they pretty much want to shut down every major kelp bed in so cal... __________________ "If a fish could keep his mouth shut, he would never get caught." - U-Roy, Fisherman Style

03-05-2009, 12:20 AM	#9
Tman BRTF...bought & paid... Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,247	You know guys, I for one appreciate all that you are doing, the time and the effort you've put in. It is scary to look at the maps and realize, hey, that's where I caught my first ________, that's where my honey hole is, that's where my child caught their first _______, the list goes on. It's too bad that we can't just say, let's just lower bag limits. We don't need to catch 10 YT per trip, 2 calicos are enough for me, 1 halibut, etc. I remember the old days, out in my boat, and leaving an area because we were catching too many 'small' YT. We rarely heard of a WSB caught. Calicos were a dime a dozen, barracuda everywhere, and, to date myself, we used to spear 1-2 halis per outing off MB jetty, even catch bonito from the jetty. Seeing abalone, knowing we couldn't take them because of the closure. Bugs everywhere, we would just come back the next night. I do understand the need for the closures, but the reasonings and logic behind it stinks like a sewage spill. I wonder had limits, restrictions, been imposed earlier, could that had been a difference. 3-5 YT daily limit. 3 Calicos, 3 Sandbass, 1 Halibut, 1 WSB in season, rockfish in season, goes on and on. When is the last time you heard of a boater, a charter, or a sportfisher in US waters getting limits of YT? Bass, of course. Now here's where I lose myself - based on the number of sea dogs we have hanging around LJ, spec. Children's Pool, what damage do they create? Let's see.....hmmmm... The California Sea Lion* (Zalophus californianus) is a coastal* sea lion of the northern Pacific Ocean. Their numbers are abundant (188,000 U.S. stock 1995 est.^[2]), and the population continues to expand at a rate of approximately 5.0% annually.^[3] They are quite intelligent. They can dive to 1,000 feet (304.8 m) and swim up to 25 miles per hour (40 km/h) in short bursts. They can also swim silently in the water. To me, the whole reasoning behind the MLPA is sound, but lost in the translation. Kind of like having a flat tire and keep filling it with air instead of sealing the leak....no pun intended. The kayakers, the surf fishermen and women get the shaft, when our take is based solely on our capacity and of what we will eat, in my opinion. Boaters, charters, sportfishers, can move to deeper waters, but I tend to think that PB'ers, charters, realize. I think the party boats do try to educate the consumer, but at the same time, their profits are based on catch ratios and the bragging rights of the uneducated. Is the solution closing prime habitats? No. Is the solution changing fishing catch counts? Yes. Are these self-financed groups seeing the big picture? No. I can imagine how tough of a battle you guys face, how frustrating it must be. Keep up the great work, we are here if you need us. Thank you, rant over.... __________________ Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher

03-04-2009, 07:40 AM	#3
Dan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,053	thanks MJ. Number 3 --- WHOA!

03-04-2009, 05:31 PM	#6
forefrazier Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: OC Posts: 397	I might need some correction here but it seems even the anglers groups are proposing extending the marine reserves in La Jolla and creating no take areas?