Surfrider MLPA meetings starting Tue 9/23 7PM S.C.

[kurt]

Way too hold your temper, Martin. You're definitely the better man.

[dmrides]

It was also encouraging to hear that there is not a great deal of support for WG1, since we all know how much that would suck.

Thanks again to all of you who continue to put in all your hard work to spread the word of what we want.

[Holy Mackerel]

Here ya go, Surfrider SD for MAP 3.

http://www.surfrider.org/files/Surfr...FMemoFINAL.pdf

[tylerdurden]

Actually, if you look at their specific recomendations by region, San Diego doesn't do too bad as far as kayakers are concerned. I wouldn't want to be a commercial lobster or Urchin guy though.


They really fuck over the guys in Malibu.

WG2 meets all the guidelines with the blue SMCA west of point Dume, at a HIGH level of protection. WG2 captures every habitat with this SMCA other than deep rock. None of the other plans captures deep rock either, but they go out of the way to screw over kayakers. Make sure you let them know this at the BRTF meeting.

[FISHIONADO]

I just read the paper and Surfrider did not support any of the maps, they only noted that many of their members supported Map 3. Their specific recommendation for La Jolla is below:

"La Jolla:
First, the existing La Jolla Cove SMR is a valuable area and “heritage site” that we recommend should be left intact. We see no compelling reason for “squaring off” the boundaries to meet the “feasibility” guidelines (as suggested in Map 3). This area has been protected for a long time and the boundaries are well‐known. In fact, changing the boundaries to meet strict adherence to the “feasibility” guidelines may only serve to undermine the intent of the guidelines – clarity, public awareness and ease of enforcement. Changing the well‐known boundaries may cause unnecessary violations. Although not included in Map 1, we want to highlight our opposition to inclusion of an SMCA between the existing La Jolla Cove SMR and the Scripps Pier. We are not convinced this area is high value habitat nor that it is necessary to meet the spacing guidelines.

Second, we recommend the current La Jolla South SMR and SMCA cluster be
modified into a single SMR with the northern border at Windansea and the southern border north of the Crystal pier (similar to Map 3).

Finally, assuming the final map would include the La Jolla South SMR
recommended above, we see no need for the Point Loma SMR. The La Jolla South SMR is sufficient to provide unique and valuable protection for this sub‐region. And, the Pt Loma SMR unnecessarily restricts fishing opportunities for boats leaving
Mission Bay."

[Tman]

Well, can I say it now without worry of offending them?

'A majority of our audience...support Map 3'

To the idiot who made that dumbarse comment to me at the Encinitas meeting, I kept my cool, no need to anymore.

Hey smurfriders, even though half of your members probably don't surf, and your loudmouth member who said maybe I 'shouldn't take a 50 lb 9 year old out if he can't handle it' looks like a kook, you do realize that if they take Swami's, you could potentially lose an epic surf spot?

You guys do realize that, don't you?

Maybe someone should make a run to Swami's today, tomorrow, and this weekend, hand out fliers telling them that smurfriders suggest a reserve at Swami's...hmmm...bet that'll go over good...

[PAL]

The opening portion of the Surfrider report reads like an executive summary, suggesting they support WG 1 and 3. In fact, only in OC do they care for anything from WG 2, and that one they find insufficient. 1 = 3, an outrageous, extreme position.

Most damning is Surfrider's position on Malibu, where they too sell out Malibu's kayak anglers to justify lesser but still devastating closures at Palos Verdes. This is precious turf to us, birthplace of modern kayak fishing. They strike right at our heart.

I will never again sympathize with a surfing access or preservation issue. I will remember this betrayal of fellow watermen and women forever. I hope you are with me, that you'll withdraw all support of this group.

I'm ready to take a bulldozer to Trestles and build that proposed highway they hate. And I'm looking forward to the day when either one of their fellow environmental NGOs or an aggrieved fishing group sues the state to compell closure of the wildlife and habitat damaged by surfers at Swamis and the like.

The meeting doesn't start until Tuesday, so there's still time for the Surfrider leadership to make this right. I urge them to do so or they may yet rue the consequences.

[Grego]

You know what should happen...is since we require a permit to fish but we won't be able fish in certain areas. The only right decision is to mandate permits for surfers to surf in the SMR's !!! They can pay for the enforcement...it's a great idea! don't you think?!!! Let's start pushing that agenda, it makes sense and it will help the state maintain an adequate DFG force.

[FISHIONADO]

Originally Posted by PAL

The opening portion of the Surfrider report reads like an executive summary, suggesting they support WG 1 and 3. In fact, only in OC do they care for anything from WG 2, and that one they find insufficient. 1 = 3, an outrageous, extreme position.

Most damning is Surfrider's position on Malibu, where they too sell out Malibu's kayak anglers to justify lesser but still devastating closures at Palos Verdes. This is precious turf to us, birthplace of modern kayak fishing. They strike right at our heart.

I will never again sympathize with a surfing access or preservation issue. I will remember this betrayal of fellow watermen and women forever. I hope you are with me, that you'll withdraw all support of this group.

I'm ready to take a bulldozer to Trestles and build that proposed highway they hate. And I'm looking forward to the day when either one of their fellow environmental NGOs or an aggrieved fishing group sues the state to compell closure of the wildlife and habitat damaged by surfers at Swamis and the like.

The meeting doesn't start until Tuesday, so there's still time for the Surfrider leadership to make this right. I urge them to do so or they may yet rue the consequences.

I'm busy with life and haven't been able to digest all of the paper or the issue, but I'm probably not as far to the right as you are. I would welcome folks to join me as members of Surfrider and help influence their views. I disagreed with them on the Trestles issue because of their claim it would impact the surf break, I did not support the private road on public land but didn't believe any of the construction would actually impact the break at Trestles. Surfrider and Coastkeeper have done more to clean our rivers, bays, and coastlines than anyone else. I like to consume fresh healthy fish. We should partner with them rather than call them the enemy.

[PAL]

I'm busy with life and haven't been able to digest all of the paper or the issue, but I'm probably not as far to the right as you are.

As far to the right? This has nothing to do with partisan politics. I'm busy with life too, and after devoting 100s of hours over the past year to preserving reasonable fishing opportunity for kayak anglers, which means doing what I can to make sure the MLPA doesn't single our environmentally benign group out for punishment. I have little tolerance left for mis-statements, deliberate or out of ignorance (not yours, SR's).

Let me put my anger over Surfrider's Malibu position into a context that everyone who fishes La Jolla will understand. Let's say they endorsed closing all of La Jolla except a few acres of stringy kelp on the southern tip. It would be ok, right, because you'd have 100s of acres of sand to fish down to the pier. Right? Would you feel that was a 'fair' compromise?

Not at all, it would be the end of San Diego ocean kayak fishing.

That's exactly the fate Surfrider wishes to impose on Malibu's kayak anglers, people who are every bit as passionate about their sport as we are here.

For those who haven't been paying attention, there are three proposals. Don't believe the propaganda - proposal 1 is not a compromise, cross-interest proposal. Don't believe me, compare it with proposal 3 authored by representatives of the environmental NGOs without the need to deal with any grubby fishermen. If you need the details, contact me via PM.

Proposal 2 protects roughly 0.5% less acreage overall, achieves tremendous conservation, and does so at dramatically decreased socio-economic cost. It's a point the Surfrider of today ignored, whatever their past achivements. Despite the good faith efforts of many here on this board, they chose to disregard their fellow watermen, possibly at the cost of their own future loss of access. They no longer deserve support.

YES ON TWO

[Tman]

Originally Posted by ;45840

We should partner with them rather than call them the enemy.

You have got to be kidding...you are, aren't you?

Partner with a group that says they have watermen, surfers, divers, fishermen, yet turn around and try to destroy the activities of each of these groups?

Let's see...the Encinitas meeting was a public forum...then why did Stef say, "Just out of curiousity, raise your hand if you are a member of smurfrider..."

Sorry FISHIONADO, I want nothing to do with a group with a member that prob doesn't even surf, that tells me I shouldn't be taking my son out to fish 3 miles if he can't handle it. Yes I am pounding the chit out of this, but they have their own agenda and I for one will not and do not trust them.

They are supposed to be based on surfing, hence their name, I don't recall seeing many tan people at the meeting. They are in disguise. Enviros, PETA freaks, FOS, all synonyms for smurfrider...