07-28-2009, 10:51 PM | #1 |
Bad Clone
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 874
|
LJ today
This is an MLPA post in the fishing reports section. Deal with it. The threads with MLPA in the title obviously are being ignored or aren't working. August 3rd. Carlsbad. Be there. Public Comment starts at about 3:30 according to the agenda. Get there at least 15 minutes early. MEETING LOCATION Holiday Inn 850 Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-438-7880 www.carlsbadhi.com If we don't show up we could lose every ocean spot that is kayak fishing accessible in San Diego County, or where ever your favorite spot is. There won't be many more chances. Fish like this for kayakers may be no more than a memory when this is all over:
__________________
MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th. Last edited by tylerdurden; 07-29-2009 at 06:44 AM. |
07-28-2009, 11:07 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Ho
Posts: 1,382
|
Let me add this for the people that did not want to go fight for La Jolla.
At today's meeting approximately 100 Environmentalist showed up wearing light blue shirts with little blue fish pasted all over them. -The shirts said "MLPA's Work" They paraded little girls up to the podium one after another to repeat how they love fishing, and diving, and how they are in support of Large Closures. -This went on and on, monoplizing almost all the public speaking time. To the extent that I ran short of time when delivering my prepared statement. (Because I did Not have anyone there that could cede time to me) ------------------------------------------------------------- This time next year you'll be kicking yourselves in the ass that you did nothing to protect your fishing area, and you can thank those little girls in the pretty blue shirts for the well placed kill shot they delivered. ------------------------------------------------------------- Aside from that, Thank You Tyler, Greggo, Curt, and Paul Lebowitz for all your efforts. You can also thank Martin T-Man for taking the time to compose a letter which was delivered for the public record. PS . After signing it for you, I gave them you personal cell phone number, address, social security number and complete Medical History. -I know- I know, you want to Thank Me. LMAO Billy V for Martin H. By Power of Attorney Last edited by Billy V; 07-29-2009 at 12:20 PM. |
07-28-2009, 11:36 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 698
|
Thanks to the folks that attended today and those who will go tomorrow.
|
07-29-2009, 08:46 AM | #4 |
Support your local pangas
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lj
Posts: 976
|
BUMP!!! Big thanks to my brother in law and the rest of you boys who are showing up to fight!! Remember I am buying beer if you show up and speak at carlsbad.....dude free beer!!!!!!
__________________
Thanks Matt F. |
07-29-2009, 09:04 AM | #5 |
Bad Clone
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 874
|
Yes, we will be meeting at Pizza Port after the August 3rd meeting .
Also if you are running late, call me and I can get your comment card filled in for you as long as you can make it in time for your actual comments.
__________________
MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th. |
07-29-2009, 01:06 PM | #6 |
BRTF...bought & paid...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,247
|
You know where I live...
__________________
Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher |
07-29-2009, 07:26 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ...waaaay out there
Posts: 794
|
Thanks for going guys. Work wouldn't allow me to get up there this week, and next week I will be in Indiana meeting my new niece. I really appreciate those of you that remain diligent. Please know that I would have been there this week and would be there next week if I could.
A reminder to those that go: Be polite & courteous, and t-shirts with bloody fish (i.e. bloodydecks) on them are not the best way to represent yourself (and the rest of us).
__________________
|
07-30-2009, 09:40 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 490
|
I'll see you guys there. I won't make it right away but I'll be there before the public speaking section. Please make sure as many of you can get there as possible. I remember th LA meeting where all of the pro fishing community wore black t-shirts. Any plans along those lines this time? We need to offset the enviro's BS efforts.
|
07-30-2009, 11:27 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Ho
Posts: 1,382
|
No, we do not plan to wear Black Shirts.
-Just as in the case of the Blue Shirt Enviros on 7/28 it works against them in that The Chairman (Ken Wiseman) asks that the Large Group be represented by (1) person from the group. Effectively Neutralizing Them. Wear a collared shirt. We are Gentlemen, and have conducted ourselves as such in the face of rude, and intimidating environmentalist bullying and harassment. -I submitted that for the record on 7/28 -------------------------- There will be more advice given at the meeting. |
07-30-2009, 02:48 PM | #10 | |
Bad Clone
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 874
|
More info to think about
Quote:
Here is an interesting article Terry posted on spearboard. If you read the whole thing there are lots of neat tidbits. http://www.independent.com/news/2009...0/fight-bight/
__________________
MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th. |
|
07-31-2009, 01:54 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: I work in the little Village of La Jolla
Posts: 139
|
Great Article, Should be Required Reading for all on BWE
Thank You Tyler for posting the link to the article from the Santa Barbara Independent. Very interesting article with good empahsis on impacts to fisherman. Great photos of the SB Kelpbeds as well for those that need further inticement to view. The link once again is http:http://www.independent.com/news/2009...0/fight-bight/
See you on Monday at Carlsbad Hilton on the old Coast Hwy. |
07-31-2009, 02:33 PM | #12 |
Bad Clone
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 874
|
More info...
Just so you know, Steve Benavides is one of the people who is more pro closure. The following are comments from RSG members posted to OC Diving. More to think about for Monday. From: steve@sgbcpa.com Sent: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:27:37 -0700 To: news@ocdiving.com, diving@divebums.com Subject: [OC Diving -News] BFTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force ) Guidance on MLPA issues Things are coming very close to finishing up the primary job of the regional stakeholders group. Next Monday and Tuesday the regional stakeholders will meet to begin our final round of adjusting our proposed maps prior to submission to the BRTF. I also spent two days this week at the BRTF meeting in Santa Monica. Here are the highlights of that meeting. First off, not a single one of the six maps that were forwarded from round 2 met the SAT (scientific advisory team) guidelines. The chairman of the BRTF made it perfectly clear that we would be required to submit maps which meet the minimum scientific guidelines or product would not be forwarded to the Fish and game commission. Of course what this means is that the BRTF will be happy to take our product and modify it, along with the help of the scientists, in order to meet minimum scientific standards. We call this " making sausage" The clear problem is that any increase in the level of protection imparted to any of the maps will come at an increased socio-economic cost, which translates as less revenue for the fisherman. The levels of protection on most of the maps actually fell from round one to round two. It will be very difficult to turn this around and it will be very painful for the fishing community. When we meet next Monday and Tuesday we will be under incredible time pressure to complete our tasks. Basically, we will be divided into one of three groups. One of those groups will be charged with creating a map that contains levels of protection at the "preferred" level. My guess is that this map will look something like Opal B. from round one. The second group will be charged with attempting to create a cross interest support map using the Topaz map as a starting point. The final group will consist of members who are charged with turning External A (the FIC/FIN proposal) and bring that map up to conformance with scientific guidelines. It is interesting to note that in so doing, the BRTF collapsed all three of the fishing maps (external A, external B., and Lapis 2) into a single map. This was done because the three maps have virtually identical scoring in the evaluation that was just delivered at the BRTF meeting. What this means is that they're going to be three maps prepared by the close of business next Tuesday. One of those maps will be prepared primarily by the consumptive fishing coalition and their supporters. A second map will be prepared which will reflect generous conservation values and an enhanced level of protection but with significant socioeconomic cost to commercial fisheries. The third map will fall somewhere in between those two. It will be interesting to see if this cross interest map can actually be produced. I say that because there has been a distinct reluctance of the polar opposites involved in the process to move off their entrenched positions. I think it's fair to say that the BRTF will move them off their positions if we don't move them ourselves. If the Maps meet the correct guidelines they will be forwarded to the California Fish and game commission for approval. One of them will receive a preferred endorsement from the BRTF. So after we are done, and in the BRTF is done, the final decision will be made by the California Fish and Game Commission sometime this December. We are going to have a very difficult time at that meeting and will be working very long hours. There will be an opportunity to provide public comment next Monday afternoon. You should be aware that while we do listen to the comments and enjoy some of them greatly, at this late stage negotiations are going to come down to about six very difficult geographies including Catalina Island, La Jolla/point Loma, Laguna Beach, Palos Verdes, and Dana point. There is probably very little that can be done at this point to change the direction of the process, kind of like the rudder on the Titanic. If you do choose to speak, please remember the quality is more important than quantity. Some of the representative groups have chosen to cede their time to a few chosen speakers and do a coordinated, well thought out, well delivered presentation. I think I speak for a number of the RSG members that we far preferred this type of presentation over listening to 200 people saying the same thing. I especially like to hear from children, especially when they read their letter, not their dad's. That said, t5he process over the next few months will have a profound impact on the way that we and our families interact with the ocean. This is a very important issue. I am sad that so few people have taken the time to become knowledgeable about the Marine life protection act and appreciative of this opportunity and at the same time impressed that some of the user groups such as the kayak anglers and Spearos are so thoroughly schooled, prepared and well represented at the meetings. If you have been following this process here are three very good reasons to consider attending the next meeting. Orange county is a particularly difficult geography. Remember, that if the Marine reserve posed by the fishing coalition is accepted as the final product there will be a no take marine reserve from Irvine Cove to three arch Bay. That means no spear fishing and a lobster hunting in Laguna Beach anymore. Attempts to move this reserve south, towards Dana point, into what many (and me) believe is better habitat, is being fiercely resisted by commercial fishermen who will suffer loss of habitat if the reserve is shifted south. No matter what, because of spacing guidelines, there is going to be a large state marine reserve located somewhere between Newport and Dana point in the odds-on bet, like it or not, is smack dab in the middle of Laguna Beach. As difficult as Laguna Beach is, the La Jolla Cove/ Pt. Loma area is an even more complex geography. We have probably heard more about the San Diego area than any in the south coast study area. There are several competing geographies and only a couple of them are similar. The only thing I can say is that it looks like the northern edge of the La Jolla kelp down to somewhere below Casa Cove will be left open to fishing and other consumptive activities. The kayak fishermen and consumptive divers have made a very good case for leaving this particular area open and it appears that most of the competing proposals honor their wishes. There is also going to be considerable pressure to locate a state marine reserve on the west face of Palos Verdes. There is considerable political and scientific opposition to locating one of the backbone reserves on the south facing side of Palos Verdes near the White's point sewer outfall and the Portuguese Bend landslide. It is virtually certain that there will be some type of large marine protected area located somewhere on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Again, the spacing guidelines and the need for adequate representation of habitats and replication of the same command the location somewhere at that point. I don't think anyone is going to like whatever the final solution of Palos Verdes will be. The intensity of use and the number of people utilizing the resource is considerable. Stephen G. Benavides South Coast RSG member steve@sgbcpa.com 949-474-7427
__________________
MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th. |
07-31-2009, 02:34 PM | #13 |
Bad Clone
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 874
|
Dave Rudie is also an RSG member. He owns or works at Catalina Offshore Products. He represents commercial fisherman.
From: dave@catalinaop.com Sent: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:24:30 -0700 To: steve@sgbcpa.com Subject: Re: [OC Diving -News] BFTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force ) Guidance on MLPA issues Steve, In general I agree with your report. However I have a little different view point. The Science Advisory Team (SAT) report to the Regional Steakholders (RSG) on the status of the compliance with the guidelines is not a simply a flunking score. The plans had many times more than required the habitat replication of the key habitats. The sizes were mostly in the minimum size with a few preferred size. Also the unique habitats were represented for all the well mapped habitats. All of the 13 habitats were represented in all the bioregions with the exception of a few rare deep habitats. The only failure was the spacing report and the SAT has now told us which of the spacing guidelines were are possible to meet. The spacing requirement is only for the mailland coast as they use the Bioeconomic model at the islands. The most difficult gap (over 62 miles) to fix will be for the Persistence kelp habitat. This is habitat represents a least 3 years of surface kelp in 1989, 1999, 2002-2006 on the day of the survey of that year. As you know this has been big subject of discussion. We can and will make better maps that meet more of the SAT science advise in the next and final round 3. Like you said the difficult spots will be Orange County and Palos Verdes because of the sand, sewers, power plants, and harbors the fill the gaps between the rocky reefs of Orange county Palos Verdes, San Diego and Point Dume. San Diego is very close to meetings the guidelines. Only Opal got all 13 habitats in San Diego county. The others got 12 of the 13, but were missing the 100 meter rock, one of those rare habitats. What is the tolerable financial sacrifice the sport and commercial fishermen and divers should have to absorb? We have asked the BRTF this question, but we get no answer. Almost all fishermen are willing to accommodate the process, some are hopeful the MPAs will work, some are angry. Fisheries management has been shown to to be more important than MPAs for the recovery of fish stocks. MPAs may be one tool for fishery management as we have seen in the rebuilding of the rock cod complex. We have been shown by the SAT especially by the UCSB models developed by Dr Costello the Fisheries management outside the reserves in the most import factor in the success of the fish stocks. MPAs show the most dramatic success where the fishery management is failed. California has good fishery management. The California Marine Life Management (MLMA) and Federal law make overfishing illegal I was glad to see you brought your sausage maker to meeting. No one wants to see the BRTF make sausage. We have seen how the BRTF made sausage in The North Central MLPA process. The fight is still going on at the F&G Commission. I'm optimistic in Plan 1(the old Topaz) we will continue to look for that sweet spot that meets all the possible science habitat spacing guidelines and minimize the economic loss for our local family fishermen. These are not corporate fishing company boats like we have seen in the "end of the line" movie. These are families in our community. In San Diego these are mostly day boat lobster trappers and sea urchin divers. We also have a few spot prawn trap fishermen and crab trappers. We do have our work set out for us, and the clock is ticking. Dave Rudie RSG member representing sustainable California fisheries From: steve@sgbcpa.com Sent: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:18:21 -0700 To: dave@catalinaop.com Subject: Re: [OC Diving -News] BFTF (Blue Ribbon Task Force ) Guidance on MLPA issues I've always enjoyed our conversations Dave. And I agree that we will be able to reach a point where our maps will meet the SAT guidelines. The hardest question you asked is whether it was the tolerable financial sacrifice for sport and commercial fishermen. The answer to that is no one knows for sure but it will certainly be considerable. That answer is dictated by the spatial geography of rocky headlands surrounded by vast sand flats and the intense commercial use of every inch of our coastline. You will remember what happened six years ago when the Northern Channel Island closures went into effect. You and I know that loss will be considerable. It's not very comfortable to sit next to the chairman of the California urchin Association and put a red line on a map where his people fish. Nonetheless, we're going to have to get by this somehow and that is why you and I will probably never be able to come to an agreement we both like and that is why the BRTF stands ready to make that decision if we cannot. It is one of the unfortunate consequence of the failure of fisheries management. You made a comment above this is California has good fishery management. I think this is far too broad and general statement. California's record for fishery management over the past 50 years has not been good in all cases. As you read this post to imagine a line running from the upper left-hand corner of your monitor down to about 1 inch from the bottom of the lower right hand of your screen. This downward sloping line is an almost precise representation of the decline of the total amount of biomass and species diversity in the oceans. That line almost exactly mimics the worldwide harvest of almost 90% of the top 10 predator species. No matter when you started diving, and I started scuba diving in 1967, 42 years ago, even if you started two years ago, the number and diversity of species in the ocean is less today than it was the day we all started diving. If California had good fishery management and why are we involved in the ML PA initiative? If there is proof out there that we have managed all of our fisheries well, then why is the tension so great about the closure of a single square foot territory of Southern California? I think the answer is that there's not enough fish. There's not enough fish because we, in the government sense, let too many fish be harvested by too many people. I found it incredibly interesting that the modeling by the Department of Fish and game showed that if Fish and game did not do a good job and in fact continued a port management regime that the ML PA proposals with the highest levels of protection, those most hated by the fishermen, delivered the most positive economic results in a management poor environment. Think about that. If the ocean goes to hell in a handbasket, big MPAs will actually produce more economic benefit than a lack of MPAs. This tells me that if we are wrong, and if we make more mistakes about ocean management of our resources, that our best hope would be to have imposed a robust protective system of marine protected areas. I know this is counterintuitive, but I truly believe is closer to what we will see than what we would wish to see. Being a businessman, with a track record that mirrored California's successful management of his fishing stocks, I would buy a lot of insurance. That's why support MPAs. They are insurance against the failure of our own best intentioned efforts. By the way, in evaluating what the success or failure of California's fishing management regime might be in the future, take a look at what is happening today. The state is broke. It has no money. They are laying off and furloughing DFG personnel. State Parks is getting hammered and neither of those departments has fared well in the budget cuts. Successful management requires information. Information derived from the ocean is extremely expensive. It is unreasonable to believe based with today's systemic deficits and the critical state of the California economy, that there will be a significant rebound or increase in the level of investigation as to the current state of California resources. In the past 10 years we have enjoyed a kind of artificial surplus as the state was awash in money while incomes were rising and businesses were thriving. The next 10 years doesn't look so rosy. Remember that after five years the success of the MPAs will be evaluated and the system has the built-in provisions for adaptive management. I think it is also fair, as a person interested in conservation, to comment on the fact that the nonconsumptive users of a public trust resource have already had a significant decline in the huge impact on our enjoyment of the ocean resources. The people that walk the beach, swim in the waves, dive under the waves and take pictures, and ride them on boards back to the beach are just as entitled to a thriving and pristine ocean environment as those who would seek to harvest the portion for their own use or sale to others. No one has answered what the economic cost of drawing the ocean resources down to the levels they are today has been to the non-consuming public. These are not common property resources. These are public trust resources. If the resource managers had done their job we would not be having these difficult conversations Dave. Steve Benavides South Coast RSG Member
__________________
MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|