UT Article LJ closure - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

aguachico · 09-18-2006, 09:35 PM

Just got back to San Diego. Yak fishing in Baja was good. Not great, just good. Chlorophyl charts are pretty accurate for water clarity.

Anyway; there was an article in the UT yesterday about the clousures. The LJ kelp forest is on the wish list. Than the UT publishes a tree huggers opinion piece about the removal of the predatory species.

It was a bunch of crap and poorly written. It compared a south Pacific reserve to LJ without one shread of evidence. I hate the media and would love to the the UT burn in hell.

Our little piece of heaven is on the chopping block and I'm not sure there's anything we can do.

What do you think?

ski · 09-19-2006, 12:56 AM

I did not read the story, but I think it would suck if the area was to be closed to fishing. I think it would benefit the ecosystem if there were more artificial reefs in the local water.

PAL · 09-19-2006, 06:53 AM

This is the article in question: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...-2m17sala.html

I agree, it was a one-sided fantasy that should have been printed on the opinion page, not the front page of the City / Local News section.

All of the prime fishing areas within state waters are under the gun for closure under the MLPA. A number of organizations are working to protect our access. At the very least, every angler should at least join one.

United Anglers of Southern California will front the fight for recreational anglers when the MLPA moves down here. They've been active in the statewide aspects of the MLPA, but defered to local interests in the Central California process that wrapped up recently. www.unitedanglers.com

Do you want to help bankroll a legal challenge to the private, pro-closure MLPA funding? Central and Northern California's Coastside Fishing Club is going after the money. These guys were instrumental in saving this year's recreational salmon season. www.coastsidefishingclub.com

Howard Egan and the northern California chapter of the Recreational Fishing Alliance took center stage in the aforementioned CenCal MPA process. Egan worked tirelessly against a stacked deck. The RFA is a national organization. Will your money stay local? Ask RFA, which does have a SoCal chapter. I'd post the chapter website but couldn't find it.

UASC and RFA are often at odds. UASC opposes what they see as non-sustainable commercial fishing operations. Unlike UASC, the RFA joined the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC), which was dominated by commercial fishing interests including trawlers. The CFC is fundraising for potential legal action. www.cafisheriescoalition.org

Support RFA and the CFC if you feel all fishermen should stick together.

My personal opinion? If you fish in SoCal, join UASC, then hedge your bets by supporting the other organizations that you deem worthy.

dbitte · 09-19-2006, 09:32 AM

Must be a slow news day. Maybe that Scripps biologist they interviewed should have informed them that yellowtail are not tuna :roll: Oh well, I guess being informed isn't a prerequisite for a job in journalism anymore.

Fishin Phil · 09-19-2006, 09:46 AM

The conclusion of the article was... that they are not even sure if they exteneded or added additional reserves to California that it would change the acceleration of the decline of the assorted marine species in question.
I agree with ski that it would be more beneficial to have more artificial reefs. And possibly more fish hatcheries like they do with the white sea bass.

09-18-2006, 09:35 PM	#1
aguachico Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 719	UT Article LJ closure Just got back to San Diego. Yak fishing in Baja was good. Not great, just good. Chlorophyl charts are pretty accurate for water clarity. Anyway; there was an article in the UT yesterday about the clousures. The LJ kelp forest is on the wish list. Than the UT publishes a tree huggers opinion piece about the removal of the predatory species. It was a bunch of crap and poorly written. It compared a south Pacific reserve to LJ without one shread of evidence. I hate the media and would love to the the UT burn in hell. Our little piece of heaven is on the chopping block and I'm not sure there's anything we can do. What do you think?

09-19-2006, 09:46 AM	#5
Fishin Phil Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 288	UT Article The conclusion of the article was... that they are not even sure if they exteneded or added additional reserves to California that it would change the acceleration of the decline of the assorted marine species in question. I agree with ski that it would be more beneficial to have more artificial reefs. And possibly more fish hatcheries like they do with the white sea bass. __________________ God, Family, Your Health, You're Fishing.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-19-2006, 12:56 AM	#2
ski Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: El Cajon Posts: 273	I did not read the story, but I think it would suck if the area was to be closed to fishing. I think it would benefit the ecosystem if there were more artificial reefs in the local water.

09-19-2006, 06:53 AM	#3
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	This is the article in question: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...-2m17sala.html I agree, it was a one-sided fantasy that should have been printed on the opinion page, not the front page of the City / Local News section. All of the prime fishing areas within state waters are under the gun for closure under the MLPA. A number of organizations are working to protect our access. At the very least, every angler should at least join one. United Anglers of Southern California will front the fight for recreational anglers when the MLPA moves down here. They've been active in the statewide aspects of the MLPA, but defered to local interests in the Central California process that wrapped up recently. www.unitedanglers.com Do you want to help bankroll a legal challenge to the private, pro-closure MLPA funding? Central and Northern California's Coastside Fishing Club is going after the money. These guys were instrumental in saving this year's recreational salmon season. www.coastsidefishingclub.com Howard Egan and the northern California chapter of the Recreational Fishing Alliance took center stage in the aforementioned CenCal MPA process. Egan worked tirelessly against a stacked deck. The RFA is a national organization. Will your money stay local? Ask RFA, which does have a SoCal chapter. I'd post the chapter website but couldn't find it. UASC and RFA are often at odds. UASC opposes what they see as non-sustainable commercial fishing operations. Unlike UASC, the RFA joined the California Fisheries Coalition (CFC), which was dominated by commercial fishing interests including trawlers. The CFC is fundraising for potential legal action. www.cafisheriescoalition.org Support RFA and the CFC if you feel all fishermen should stick together. My personal opinion? If you fish in SoCal, join UASC, then hedge your bets by supporting the other organizations that you deem worthy.

09-19-2006, 09:32 AM	#4
dbitte Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9	Must be a slow news day. Maybe that Scripps biologist they interviewed should have informed them that yellowtail are not tuna :roll: Oh well, I guess being informed isn't a prerequisite for a job in journalism anymore.