KFASC November 2005 Newsletter

[PAL]

Kayak Fishing Association of Southern California
Dedicated to preserve and expand kayak fishing opportunities
www.kayakfishingassociationsocal.org

November 2005 Email Newsletter


MLPA INITIATIVE UPDATE – Positive Steps?
Coastside Goes to Court to Block MLPA Funding /
Some Reserve Proposals Go Public – Range From Near Total Closure to the Status Quo / Is the NRDC’s Plan Something We Can Live With? – A First Look / Oceana Survey Ranks Most CenCal Kayak Fishing Spots as Ecologically ‘Very Important’ Candidates for Closure /
CenCal Regional Stakeholder Group Mulling Over “Fisher” and “Conservation” MPA Proposals

For the past year recreational anglers have been holding their breaths, waiting for a glimpse of what the MLPA Initiative might have in store for us. We know there will be fishing closures, but on what scale? The picture is finally beginning to come into focus.

In September, the California Department of Fish and Game invited interested parties to submit proposals for a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Central California. Proposals flowed in from groups large and small, calling for anything from complete closure of state waters in the study area (Pigeon Point to Point Conception) to maintaining the status quo. Most noteworthy are those submitted by a couple of major environmental players, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Oceana.

The NRDC has had tremendous influence over the roll-out of the MLPA Initiative to this point. Their proposal, while not perfect from a recreational angler’s point of view, is far from a doomsday scenario. In fact, it protects kayak fishing access in Carmel and Cambria within State Marine Parks. On the other hand, Central California kayak anglers might as well sell their boats if Oceana’s vision comes true.

In the meantime, the Central California Regional Stakeholder Group has been busy crafting its own MPA proposal, which should probably be seen as the most likely outcome. Which will prevail, the “Fisher” or “Conservation” viewpoint?

In other major news, the Coastside Fishing Club made good on its threat to take legal action to block the biased, pro-closure funding of the MLPA Initiative. Coastside is in for a tough fight, as the environmental groups they are challenging are flush with funds to defend the suit. If Coastside is to prevail, they will need help from the recreational fishing community. To learn more about Coastside’s suit, or donate money to support their cause, visit www.coastsidefishingclub.com.

Paul Lebowitz
Director, KFASC

Coastside Will Have Its Day in Court: Pro-Closure MLPA Initiative Funding at Issue
From the moment the MLPA Initiative was revived by a big shot of private money, suspicion has reigned within the fishing community that pro-closure forces were intent on buying their way to reserves. A major portion of the funds came from the Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation, a special interest organization generally believed to favor widespread closures. In August, Central and Northern California’s Coastside Fishing Club warned the state that the club would file suit to challenge the biased funding of the MLPA if the arrangement was not terminated. On November 10th Coastside made good on the threat.

Bob Franko, Coastside Chairman of the Board, explained:

Today the Coastside Fishing Club filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Del Norte (Crescent City) against the California Resources Agency, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Resource Legacy Fund Foundation to stop special interest funding for the promulgation of California regulations. In the case, we seek to stop the flow of millions of dollars in funding from self-described "environmental" groups for the implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act. The case is not about the value or lack of value of the MLPA, the MPAs it seeks to establish, or the well-meaning people on both sides of this issue. Its target is solely the funding mechanism.

We feel there is something dramatically wrong when millions of dollars of special interest money is solicited and used to pay for the public welfare.

I have been told several times that the millions given by RLFF (and the "environmental" groups behind the RLFF) has no expected quid pro quo. Perhaps this is one of those rare circumstances when money does not buy political influence, but we cannot not take that risk. Nor can we live with a government that only pursues projects, and only follows legislative directives, when special interest funding is available. That is why we have a legislature -- if they want to accomplish an objective for the public good, they must be prepared to fund it and answer to the public. Through the private funding of the MLPA, however, there are no checks and balances.

By not filing suit, we feared that our collective future would be held hostage to the whims of special interest funding. In fact, just last week at the PFMC meeting, there was talk of the state soliciting private funds to fulfill other public responsibilities regarding fishery management plans. This new "formula" will be standard procedure unless we stop it now.

I want to make two more points before you read what we filed. First, we are taking on goliath, and the special interests behind the RLFF likely view "public-private partnerships" as a powerful weapon to get what they want. We expect them to fight to keep their new weapon, making Coastside a target. Second, and because Coastside will be a target, this lawsuit carries with it some financial risk. But, thanks to your donations the funds are available in our treasury to defend our right to fish, and to make sure that when our children grow up they will be able to catch a fish with their children.

Respectfully
Bob Franko

To learn more about Coastside’s suit, or donate money to support their cause, visit www.coastsidefishingclub.com.

They Want to Close What? Private Party Reserve Network Proposals Finally Go Public
At long last rank and file recreational anglers have some idea of the scale of closures we face. The view comes from a reading of alternative MPA network proposals submitted by private groups at the invitation of the DFG. As anyone is welcome to submit a proposal of what waters in the Central California study area should be closed to meet the goals of the MLPA Initiative, the submissions vary drastically.

For example, in a White Paper released earlier this year, the Coastside Fishing Club proposed that current and de facto closures (such as cow cod conservation areas and deep water rockfish closures) meet the statutory requirements of the MLPA Initiative. In other words, the status quo. Naturally, there are other organizations that would like nothing more than a total closure of state waters. One such group is Monterey’s Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment, which argues that protection of the sea otter merits locking down the first mile from shore over the entire study area. Neither Coastside’s nor Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment’s plans seem likely to come to pass.

What, then, should we take more seriously? Proposals from two major environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Oceana, merit closer looks.

The NRDC Plan – Good News for Kayak Anglers?
The NRDC is a powerhouse of the environmental community. They’ve appeared to have had a strong influence on the development of the MLPA Initiative to this point. Their proposal should be taken very seriously. Chances are it is a realistic representation of what the Central California MPA network will look like.

At first look, the NRDC proposal doesn’t look too bad. It certainly isn’t a doomsday scenario. The plan appears to respect recreational fishing as it doesn’t rely solely on massive reserves, and protects kayak fishing access in Carmel and Cambria. There is a nice variety of marine parklands and conservation areas in the mix, places where most or at least some fish species would be open to fishing.

The full NRDC report is available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...rdc_101505.pdf. Let us know what you think of the NRDC proposal by sending us mail at news@kayakfishingassociationsocal.org.


The NRDC plan calls for the following MPAs:

1. Ano Nuevo SMR
2. Ano Nuevo SMCA
3. Sand Hill Bluff SMR
4. Elkhorn Slough SMR (inland estuary only)
5. Soquel Canyon SMCA (closed to bottom fishing, but salmon fishing ok)
6. Portuguese Ledge SMR
7. Monterey Bay Shale Beds SMP
8. Edward F. Ricketts SMR (Monterey Peninsula Lover’s Point area)
9. Hopkins SMR
10. Pacific Grove SMCA
11. Cypress Pinnacles SMR (Pebble Beach area)
12. Carmel Bay SMP
13. Pt. Lobos SMR
14. Big Sur SMR (Pt. Sur)
15. Big Creek SMR
16. Piedras Blancas SMR
17. Cambria SMP
18. Cambria SMR
19. Morro Bay Estuary SMR (eastern lobe of bay only)
20. Pt. Buchon SMR
21. Pt. Sal SMR
22. Pt. Arguello SMCA

SMR: State marine reserve, closed to all fishing
SMP: State marine park, closed to commercial fishing, recreational fishing subject to additional regulation
SMCA: State marine conservation area: commercial and recreational fishing subject to additional regulation

The centerpiece of the NRDC plan is the Big Sur SMR which would run from Pt. Sur about 22 miles south to Julia Pfieffer Burns State Park. The only kayak fishing access points on this remote stretch of shoreline are at Andrew Molera State Park (1 mile portage) and Pfieffer Beach (dangerous surf). A second large reserve is sited at likewise remote Point Sal.

The biggest impacts on kayak anglers would be felt in the Monterey-Carmel area, where the area north of Lover’s Point would be closed as the Rickett’s SMR, as would the small offshore Cyrpress Pinnacles SMR in the Pebble Beach area. The Pacific Grove SMCA would allow recreational fishing for finfish. The NRDC, in recognition of the importance of Carmel Bay to kayak anglers, leaves the Carmel SMP open to recreational fishing.

Continuing south, some kayak anglers could be impacted by the Piedras Blancas SMR, although the reserve does not appear to extend to San Simeon Cove (the NRDC has not provided a map). The Cambria SMR would also likely impact kayak anglers, although the adjacent Cambria SMP provides kayak fishing access.

All in all, most area kayak anglers can probably live with the NRDC plan. It doesn’t threaten many of our most popular and reliable launch sites in the Central California region, and leaves us some remote and challenging water such as at lower Big Sur. What do you think? Please help us formulate the KFASC response by sending your comments to the KFASC at news@kayakfishingassociationsocal.org.

The full NRDC report is available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...rdc_101505.pdf.


Oceana Plan Targets Virtually Every Kayak Fishing Launch Site in CenCal.
Unlike the NRDC plan, which protects popular kayak fishing access points, the Oceana proposal looks like it could be a kayak fishing killer. But before we go any farther, let’s address a point of confusion regarding Oceana’s report. Oceana didn’t use the state's MPA terminology (Reserve - full closure / Parkland - no commercial fishing / Conservation Area - additional regulations). Instead, their report identified areas that are ecologically Very Important / Important / Relatively Important. Are they equivalent to the state’s MPAs?

One source within a recreational fishing advocacy group believes they are not. Instead, Oceana's proposals could equate to management recommendations not expected to get far. Furthermore, this source believes the NRDC proposal might be the worst we could expect. We should hope this assessment is correct.

Oceana doesn’t explicitly say one way or the other. For a bit of clarity, let’s look at Oceana’s concluding remarks, taken from page 14 of their report:

Implementation of these three layouts will allow comparison of overall regional strategies to meet multiple conservation objectives while maintaining opportunities for sustainable use in important ecological regions. Since these sites will have different levels of fishing regulations, it will enable the use of MPAs as reference sites for fisheries management.

In conclusion, this preliminary proposal represents a systematic approach to identifying an improved network of Marine Protected Areas based on scientific principles and the best available information. We look forward to further contributing to the MLPA Initiative process by continuing to incorporate additional information into this proposal and participating in discussions with local stakeholders.

The way I read it, Oceana intends the areas identified as ecologically Very Important / Important / Relatively Important to be considered as the basis for MPAs. If that is the case, Oceana’s proposal would impact every popular kayak fishing spot from Natural Bridges south to Morro Bay. About the only one that looks open without restriction is Spooner's Cove at Montana de Oro State Park south of Morro Bay. Their maps tell the story:

Cambria area: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...ghi_101505.pdf

Big Sur to San Simeon: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...2ef_101505.pdf

Point Sur area: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...2cd_101505.pdf

Monterey / Carmel / Santa Cruz / Moss Landing: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...p2b_101505.pdf


Isolating the areas considered Very Important by Oceana, which can reasonably seen as areas proposed for closure, produces the following list:

Santa Cruz: areas directly east and west of Santa Cruz Harbor
Moss Landing: inland and offshore,
Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Bay: nearly the entire peninsula
Big Sur: Pt Sur to Pfieffer Beach, the Julia Pfieffer inshore area, Lopez Pt, Plaskett (including Limekiln and Mill Creek and south)
Piedras Blancas: from north of the point to San Simeon Pt
Cambria: the area listed as Cambria north.

Closures on this scale would devastate kayak fishing in Central California. The KFASC is preparing a letter of opposition to the Oceana proposal.

Read the Oceana proposal yourself at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/pdfs/...s/o_101505.pdf

“Fisher” or “Conservation” Viewpoint to Rule at CenCal Stakeholder Group?
The Central California Stakeholder Group is working on its own MPA network proposal for the Central California study area. According to a report posted on the Coastside website by Tom Mattusch, Coastside Political Coordinator, two competing proposals have the most chance of emerging from the process.

The first, known as the Fisher’s Array, is supported by the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC). The CFC is composed of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), the Sportfishing Association of California (SAC), and about two dozen commercial fishing organizations. The CFC plan would place about 15 percent of the study area in MPAs. The competing Conservation proposal would protect 23 percent of the study area waters.

The two plans are not yet available for review. Once they are posted on the DFG MLPA Initiative website, the KFASC will take a good look at them.


Your Help Wanted

The KFASC needs your help to attend or otherwise monitor upcoming meetings of the Central Coast Regional Working Group. Meetings are held during business hours in Central California. If you'd like to help, please write news@kayakfishingassociationsocal.org for more information.


Who are the KFASC?

You! Our rank and file members are the heart of the organization. We need your backing to act more effectively. Please help us recruit more members by spreading the word amongst your fishing buddies and friends. As always, anyone who wants to do more is welcome to contact us at news@kayakfishingassociationsocal.org. We could use the help.

The KFASC staff is:

Paul Lebowitz, Director
Keith Martin, Webmaster

The KFASC Advisory Board is drawn from prominent members of the Southern California Kayak fishing community. Additional information is available at our website.