First Glimpse, External MPA Proposals

[Mr Mugu]

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

[landwhale]

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

THANKS MJ

[Dan]

thanks MJ. Number 3 --- WHOA!

[rastrev]

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]

Originally Posted by Mr Mugu

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

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]

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]

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:

1. protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas;
2. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
3. protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or
4. 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]

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:

1. protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas;
2. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems;
3. protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or
4. 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]

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]

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

[forefrazier]

What is the best thing that a concerned individual can do at this point to help save our fishing waters?

[landwhale]

PLEASE!!!

Click here
Add Yourself to the MLPA Initiative Mailing List

or here
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/mailinglist.asp

This will keep you up on the latest on the process. You can also view online arcives of the last meetings which will give you a feel of what they are like.

Then be ready to give the time to come to the Stakeholders meeting in late June or early July and October to show your support for our fishing areas by attending these meetings.

[Mr Mugu]

Right on Steve!

Stay on top of things for now as it's still early. But not too early to start firing off a few e-mails and letters voicing your concerns to your elected officials(more details from PAL forthcoming.)

The most important dates to mark on your calendar are: June 29 & 30 and July 1, 7, 8 & 9, 2009
These days are Public workshops regarding draft marine protected area proposals. The workshops will be up and down the coast so one will be local to you.

Perhaps the most important dates of all come in October as you can
see below what they will be doing on Dec. 10th.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force
October 20-22, 2009
October 20: 1:30-5:30 p.m.
October 21: 8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
October 22: 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.


December 10, 2009
Joint meeting with California Fish and Game Commission
Deliver south coast marine protected area recommendations

[PAL]

Paul here, fresh from this week's big MLPA meetings. The first round is in the can and off to the Science Advisory Team for scoring. While we won't have the results for weeks and weeks, maps of these first draft arrays should hit the net in roughly a week - probably around March 12 or 13.

So here's where we stand as I see it. We have three external proposals, two fishing-friendly and one decidedly not so. Of the internal proposals, each workgroup produced one fishing-friendly proposal and one on the other side. None of the proposals is remotely close to finalized. They will likely change drastically once the SAT issues its grades.

The ideas and concepts in the external proposals won't go far unless they are adopted by the RSG work teams, which has happened for the most part. Until the internal proposals finally go public, you can get a good idea of what the internal networks look like by glancing through the externals which MJ linked in the first message in this thread.

The internal fishing-friendly proposals include MPAs at Coal Oil Pt, Santa Barbara; Sycamore Canyon / Pt Mugu; Malibu east of the pier; the southern side of Palos Verdes; a swath off Laguna in Orange County roughly between Newport and Dana; and a large MPA off Del Mar. Catalina included the Farnsworth Bank. Also, the military is closing most of the northern side of San Nicolas Island and two areas off the north end of San Clemente.

Notice the differences between the FIN and UASC maps. It's useful. The FIN plan contains more high protection reserves, with the goal of most efficiently meeting the MLPA's conservation goals. Higher protection equals fewer MPAs. On the other hand, the UASC plan contains catch and release and slot limits in some areas. Now we'll get to see how the Science Advisory Team grades these previously untested MLPA concepts.

Before I move on, I want to note the unprecedented cooperation and teamwork evident in the fishing-friendly proposals. We need it.

Generally speaking, the preservationist proposals include large MPAs at Naples Reef; Coal Oil Pt; Sycamore / Mugu Pt; Malibu including Pt Dume and BKR; the northern and western sides of Palos Verdes; most of the coast between Newport and Dana; the Cardiff area in northern San Diego County; all of La Jolla; parts of Pt Loma; south San Diego bay; and large areas of Catalina and the southern islands.

[PAL]

Now that we have lines on the map and the first proposals in the can, its time to ramp up the public comment. MJ did a great job of listing the critical upcoming meetings. Don't let your fishing areas go down without getting your say in at the upcoming workshops and especially October's BRTF sessions.

Once we've had a few days to get organized and let the dust settle from this latest set of meetings, we'll put together a public comment plan. Please check back soon and don't hesitate to contact MJ or me with questions, concerns, and even criticisms. But don't just sit mute.

[joyjiggin']

I emailed a letter of protest to MLPAComments@resources.ca.gov,Ken.Wiseman@resource s.ca.gov and SAshcraft@dfg.ca.gov
Does this help at all? Or does it fall upon deaf ears? Please give us email addresses that we can bombard with emails of protest. Joy

[Holy Mackerel]

Thanks again MJ, and Paul, the explanations of events, helps lift us out of the dark, esp. when we currently are feeling somewhat helpless.

chris