LJ today

[tylerdurden]

I really like fishing. In fact I like fishing so much I used some vacation time from work to drive 140 miles each way from my place to Santa Monica. I didn't catch any fish there, but instead sat in another forsaken hotel ballroom and listened to a whole bunch of people talk about how we should have massive fishing closures. Most even promoted a plan that would close all of LJ that is kayak accesible from the shores. This isn't the first time I've used my precious vacation time to do something this futile. It was so much fun sitting there I just thought I would share the experience with all of you internet fisherman, since that's what internet message boards are all about, sharing the fishing experience.

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:

[Billy V]

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

[FISHIONADO]

Thanks to the folks that attended today and those who will go tomorrow.

[Matt]

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!!!!!!

[tylerdurden]

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.

[Tman]

Originally Posted by Matt

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!!!!!!

You know where I live...

[Corey]

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).

[Sherm]

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.

[Billy V]

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.

[tylerdurden]

More info to think about

So Cal Spearos,

This has been a very disappointing two days for me and apparently for BRTF chair Benninghoven who said he was disappointed by the complexities of the So Cal Region and by the fact that no array proposal achieved SAT guidelines.

His statement (paraphrased) is that next Monday when we begin Round 3, and that the "guidance" from the BRFT is that the primacy for array evaluation will be the score achieved by meeting SAT guidelines. Of secondary consideration is water quality and socio-economic impacts. So, the very man who got up the very first day of the process and who said publically that he wanted the economic impacts to have high priority, has fundamentally changed his position. Now, the pain of losing your best fishing hole is secondary to the almighty SAT guidelines.

On Monday, we are being assigned into 3 groups: Lapis I, Topaz, and External A. Our charge is to make each conform to SAT guidelines, which even the BRTF acknowledges is impossible to achieve for such habitat replicates as deep rock. We are free to expand our initial reserves and to use rejected reserves such as External B and External C as "libraries" from which to augment our arrays.

With socio-economic concerns relegated to secondary, the preservationists are free to expand their proposals to meet the hallowed SAT guidelines. At the end of round 3, we will advance these 3 improved arrays to the BRTF who will choose their "preferred" array. The remaining 2 along with the preferred will then be forwarded to the F&G commission for the final choice on which closures will become law.

Terry

Thank you all for your continual support at each meeting. I only wish someone was listening!

Stole this from spearboard. Terry Maas is an RSG member fighting for fishermen, just like Paul and MJ.

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/

[kurtfish]

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.

[tylerdurden]

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

[tylerdurden]

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