Arnie and his enviro cronies screwed us--AGAIN

[kurt]

If you weren't at the meetings and involved with the process, it's hard to explain how the BRTF changed the rules, or tried to change the rules, when it didn't suit them. How one side was admonished for being threatening and uncompromising for wearing one color shirt, only to see the other side wear the same color shirts at future meetings, and nothing was said. How new closures were all of a sudden added on to existing maps.

We went to these meetings in good faith, offering our input, hoping that the public would be heard. Unfortunately, these meetings had a predetermined goal and we were virtually ignored. This is all politics, with little or no science involved, as far as I can see. You can see that with the governor's dismissal of a DFG commissioner who committed the sin of wanting more time for a 548 page document to be studied. I'm sure the new commissioner who was appointed today will vote for no extension. His background indicates he will.

[AquaticHunter]

Originally Posted by zenspearo

From: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1

Jack Baylis to be appointed Fish and Game Commissioner


Baylis, is on the board of the state Coastal Conservancy and is a former board member of nonprofit local advocacy group Heal the Bay. "

We need to start calling State Senetors to make sure this guy is not confirmed.

Originally Posted by Grego

What the F...seems like the enviros are hunting and fishing around this board AGAIN with this stan man and bmercury login names

Exactly what I was thinking. But I'm proud to stand and fight with the rest of you guys. As Rob said, "I'm on the ground for you anytime you call!!"

[robmandel]

everything you need to know is that when sustos asked some questions based on science, and simply wanted more time to review the document, he was fired. we don't have any species in danger.

truth is the mpa's won't help fisheries at all. there is no science to back it up. the only evidence offered was mpa's in other countries which a) were never managed at all in the first place and b) suffered from the tragedy of the commons.

now, I teach economics in high school and college (well, did in college before the budget axe!!). any economist will tell you that when you make a resource off limits, you effectively make its value zero. in other words, it has no value, and is worthless. what this means is that there is no reason or incentive to protect or preserve or in any other way take care of the resource. so expect the polluting of those areas to increase. why? well, the water has no value, and polluting it cannot lessen the value in any way. period.

the other problem any economist will tell you is that in closing those areas, you create an economic drain. maintenance and protection require vast effort, and will always be a losing proposition. since you can't utilize the resource, it offers no benefit.

as for the mpa's working, well, they don't. there is no evidence of the "spillover effect". it won't benefit pelagics obviously as they migrate through. as for residents, like calico bass, there is something called carrying capacity. and when any area in particular reaches it, populations won't keep growing and expending. besides, what they closed off or wanted to close off) were particularly (well, except in PV) good habitat areas so there's simply not the habitat to support expansion on the periphery. and, do you think the sport boats won't have those gps coords plugged in? you think they're not going to sit on the edges and pick off any spillover bass? please. what fools those people are!!

see also the DFG artificial reef program.

the problems that the coast and the coastal fishery faces - over-development, runoff, pollution, erosion, et al. - are not and cannot be addressed by the mlpa. go ahead and read the bill. I did. there's nothing in there which addresses those problems as a whole, which (pollution for instance) will "spill over" from non-mpa's into mpa's. so the fundamental issue isn't addressed. but, there's a catch: the burden on the localities to maintain, and worse, the requirements:

"the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state."
also
"Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area are avoided."

which means that it's going to hit local areas very hard. that's a huge economic impact which was NEVER considered. which by the way, was addressed somewhat at the F&G meeting in march. the local city gov'ts are scared.

which is another problem in economics, the infrastructure problem. pols love building bridges - jobs, fancy signs, even get to name them in west virginia!! - but afterwards, the upkeep gets to be enormously expensive. and it'll be a drain on california's, and the local's, economies for a looooong time. and the unforeseen consequences, the loss of fishing, etc., and the impact on jobs, hell, all of south SaMo bay cities lobbied hard to keep rocky point open. yo uthink it was all abotu fishing? please.

and this:
To ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines.
none exist. DFG wardens already said they can't.

and this:
An identification of select species or groups of species likely to benefit from MPAs, and the extent of their marine habitat, with special attention to marine breeding and spawning grounds, and available information on oceanographic features, such as current patterns, upwelling zones, and other factors that significantly affect the distribution of those fish or shellfish and their larvae.

none of this was part of the process. it was about closures, but no mention of species was presented.


The department shall establish a process for external peer review of the scientific basis for the master plan prepared pursuant to Section 2855.
never happened.

the mlpa violated the law also as it the SAT didn't have the required members

(A)Staff from the department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board, to be designated by each of those departments.
(C) One member, appointed from a list prepared by Sea Grant marine advisers, who shall have direct expertise with ocean habitat and sea life in California marine waters.

A and C were not part of the South Coast but WERE part of the Central Coast. Their absence cannot be simply an oversight. It is a clear violation of the law. The entire outcome is therefore null and void. damn sure if it was reversed, the enviros would be screaming bloody f***ing hell on this one.

I've said enough. just please know this, when fishermen take the position that "it's not that bad", or "we need some closures", etc., a) there's alot of people here that gave everything they had and then some to keep it "not that bad" and b) you're aiding groups that want to shut fishing down completely. I know alot of the guys here, mostly from the meetings and what not, and you won't find a better group of people anywhere. to have happen to them what happened is a crime. period.

take it or leave it. I'll stake my camp with the guys I fought with.

[Gino]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Well thanks for wasting my time.

Thought you were a reasonable person, but looks like you're one of the zero-conservation extremists that don't give a crap about maintaining our fisheries beyond your own lifetime.

And you'll dismiss any research I bring up, without any logical justification...Other than you don't agree with it.

(Also love your whining about "enviromentalists" telling you what you cannot do when you seemingly complained about "san francisco" judges, ie, Prop 8 getting overturned?)

And Aparently you dont know anything about fish either. You think Fish species sit on the same kelp all there life? maybe blue perch do
Take a hike buddy, Conservation could have been done in other ways, lowering fishing limits, or increasing slot sizes. Not closing down the sections of the ocean to no fishing in general. Fish have tails my friend. Soem of those "kelp Species" can swim a couple miles or more a day.
Thats the point buddy. There is no logical Science behind this MLPA process. alot of the science used in this process had alot of hole in it. There is no threatened fish species along our coast.

Do you know where the 9th circuit court of apeals is? I could have been clearly speaking amongst other things. I said nothing about Prop 8. And it has no buisness in this thread. You brought it up.

When a Gorilla comes to you door and grabs your lunch bag, lets see you have a "Reasonable conversation"... Your clearly some sorta Latte Lifting Enviormetal Lefty. Or some guy just looking to flex his internet testosterone. or both rather.

So spare everyone here the headache and the time and get lost. I was more than willing to answer your questions. And still am if your willing to man up and talk like a big boy.

[bellcon]

Damn Stan,
I wish you were here a year or so ago...
could have saved me a bunch of time, money and frustration...

I'm officially on Stans side now.
He went from being ignorant about the MLPA issue to an expert in less than 24 hours...

I have been mislead by Paul, Chris, Grego, Billy, Tyler, Zenspearo, etc. etc.
oh also Clay and his gaffing dad

I want a few hundred hours and few hundred dollars back...
Rob your the economics professor, figure it out, who do I send the bill to?

I hate being mislead...

[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

30 seconds in google search turned up this, study of florida MPAs

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/54423.pdf
.

Very weak study. And I'm not the only one who thought so:

Science 15 February 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1233 - 1235
DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5558.1233b

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Letters
Marine Reserves and Fisheries Management
In their report "Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries" (30 Nov., p. 1920), C. M. Roberts and co-authors present data indicating that fishery yields have increased in waters adjacent to marine reserves in St. Lucia and east Florida. In many developing island nations like St. Lucia in the Caribbean, fisheries are seriously overexploited, and little or no fisheries management exists. In such cases where marine reserves are the primary means of control of fishing effort and catch, they can result in increased yields compared with a no-management scenario. However, the St. Lucia example is specific to coral reef fisheries and does not prove the global utility of reserves to fisheries.

In contrast to St. Lucia, the recreational fisheries in east Florida are stringently regulated. Currently, the bag limit for red drum is one fish per person, with a slot limit of 18 to 27 inches (~46 to 69 centimeters) long (1). What effect have these regulations had on sizes of red and black drum along the entire east coast of Florida? According to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, the mean weight of red drum and black drum in east Florida has more than doubled since the 1980s (2). Although the reserves in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge examined by Roberts et al. reportedly have provided trophy-size fish to a limited area outside their boundaries, "traditional" fisheries management has resulted in size increases across the entire fishery. Furthermore, it is estimated that 80 to 90% of reserves have not succeeded in meeting their management objectives, even in coral reef systems (3).

Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery, and how might current reserves be better managed so that they attain their fishery goals.

Mark H. Tupper
University of Guam Marine Laboratory,
UOG Station,
Mangilao, GU 96923, USA.
E-mail: mtupper{at}guam.uog.edu

References and Notes

1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Red Drum Management Plan (Specific Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Florida Constitution, chaps. 83-134, Laws of Florida, amended 1991).
2. Data were queried from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey available at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreatio...ies/index.html
3. G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, S. Wells, A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1995); J. Alder, Coastal Manage. 24, 97 (1996); T. McClanahan, Coral Reefs 18, 321 (1999).

The study by C. M. Roberts and colleagues seems little more than a promotional tool for proposed no fishing zones styled as marine reserves. The authors conclude that marine reserves off the southwest coast of St. Lucia and the east coast of Florida have enhanced adjacent fisheries, but such a conclusion is overreaching, given the data they present.

In the latter case, for example, Roberts et al. examined data from the two reserve zones in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge at Cape Canaveral. They conducted seine samples and report that they found more and bigger fish inside the area than outside where fishing was allowed. The study is presented as if the research were current, but no true dates are given for the seining. In fact, the seine samples go back to 1987-89 (1), a period when the fished waters were subjected to wanton commercial gill netting at its peak. In 1995, a Florida constitutional amendment finally banned the gill nets. This reform accompanied numerous new limits on recreational fishing. As a consequence, fish stocks have skyrocketed in the same fished area, as demonstrated in young-fish research projects by the state. So, all that Roberts et al. have shown is that when commercial pressures are curtailed, fish stocks thrive.

The authors bolster their conclusions about the Cape Canaveral marine reserves by listing a number of recreational fishing records supposedly set because of big fish migrating out of the reserves. However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat. In addition, there was a spurt of records along Florida's east coast, largely as the result of line-class categories created by the International Game Fish Association, as well as $1000 awards paid by a line manufacturer. Importantly, many records were set in areas far removed from the reserve areas, including Mosquito Lagoon waters that are separated by land from them.

The real cause of perceived problems in fisheries management is the commercial take-for-profit. There is no justification for banning family-level angling, which is allowed in Yellowstone and Everglades national parks and other fragile areas. Good management does not require draconian prohibitions.

Karl Wickstrom*
Florida Sportsman Magazine,
2700 South Kanner Highway,
Stuart, FL 34994, USA.
E-mail: karl{at}floridasportsman.com

*Founder and Editor-in-Chief

References and notes

1. D. R. Johnson, N. A. Funicelli, J. A. Bohnsack, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19, 436 (1999).

The conclusions by C. M. Roberts and colleagues that the effects of the Soufri`ere Marine Management Area (SMMA) extended beyond its boundaries and that commercial fish yields were increased because of the marine reserve are weak, for two reasons. First, there were no controls in the study and thus there can be no strong evidence for an effect of the experimental treatment. Second, the increase in abundance and catch outside the reserve was far too rapid to have been due to a buildup of a spawning population inside the reserve and export of eggs and larvae.

Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves. For this chain of events to happen and for the exported eggs and larvae to grow to sufficient size for fishing would require time. Yet Roberts et al. report that the abundance outside the SMMA increased immediately after its establishment, despite the fact that fishing effort and catch increased outside the reserve. The rapid increase in abundance outside the SMMA could not have been due to increases in spawning stock inside. Alternative explanations for the data include an environmental change, as Roberts et al. suggest, or the effect of the experiment, which involved not only the establishment of the protected area, but "daily patrols by wardens," heightened public awareness, and other factors that could have contributed to improved compliance with existing regulations.

Ray Hilborn
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
E-mail: rayh{at}u.washington.edu


You seem to be a master of the ad hominem attack (e.g. people who might disagree with you are racist, islamaphobic, too stupid too understand the MLPA because they are economists), so I'm awaiting your slander. Perhaps the font I used is sexist?

[robmandel]

a few things, and I will end this.

as for the economists and houses, mostly it was policy, not economists. some argued for creating a housing bubble, but policy did it. I'd explain, but you're better off reading Tom Woods or Bob Murphy.

As for the mpa's, of course if you don't fish an area it's fish populations will increase. that's freaking obvious. don't fish at all, yes, there'll be more fish. but will we get a spillover effect with bass, rock fish, etc.? we simply don't know. we have mpa's already and there's not been documented evidence, in california, on california species. truth is the science wasn't settled.

eco-tourism will not benefit at all from mpa's. there's nothing gonna suddenly appear in five years that isn't there now. that's a moot point. the LJ caves are there and visited. mpa's won't help that. people paddle off the coast on paddleboards and kayaks and what not already. eco-tourism in california is like the whale watching trips. they aren't going to be affected, either way. and yo apparently missed the "undisturbed and unpolluted state" part. eco-tourism would disturb. and it'd be such a small addition which would be far surpassed by all the loss and extra cost.

as for the mpa's addressing other issues, if it falls on local agencies, they're flat broke. if it falls on the state agencies, they're flat broke too. and it leaves too much wiggle room, cf. "to the extent possible". and the mlpa was specifically about closing areas to fishing. period.

it's more than buoys. you're going to create a nightmare of enforcement, unless you want civilian patrols, neighbor turning in neighbor, citizen turning into enviro-police. welcome to the soviet union. and no, that's not hyperbole.

all along, the obvious solution was management. look at what fishermen have done with the white sea bass (not that I'd know, but that's my poor fishing skills!) fishery. or how we've handled the black sea bass. put slot limits, take limits, do C&R, all that. we're fine with that, and will absolutely support that 110%. do you honestly think that the closure people really are concerned with your fishing? do you think they want healthy sustainable fishing? if you do, then you're fooling yourself. I'd use worse, but I'll leave that to your imagination.

the closures were never about any of that, and if you were there, if you went through what we went through, you'd know it. you'd know the malfeasance of the brtf and the hearings. you'd know what the "other side" tried to pull, and even still, was able to get away with. you'd know how the rules (i.e. persistent kelp) were changed, altered, rewritten, etc. you'd know of the behind door dealings on maps (illegal by the way). you'd know how science was specifically thrown out, ignored, or in other cases, modified. but you weren't, and you don't.

there's not a single guy here who doesn't want healthy fish populations, doesn't want to see well managed fisheries. not a single guy here isn't in touch, literally, with water quality and it's impact. not a single guy here doesn't want to work hand in hand with the dfg to manage game, nail poachers, and stop the vast over harvesting by some commercial fishing. oh, and the fact that we were lumped with the commercial fishing, that's another thing.

but the bottom line is still principle. it was an egregious act of abuse by government, taking away livelihoods from some, liberty from all. in any other venue, the newspapers woulda been all over this like stink on shit. it woulda been front page news. but it wasn't even mentioned. it was top to bottom a corrupt, dishonest, and disgusting process, an abuse of power by a government set against its citizens. but you don't know that, or don't care to know.

if our fisheries were in peril, that'd be one thing. but they're not. and what is affecting them is far removed from 3 miles of coastline in malibu or la jolla and can't be corrected by closing them off. and we know they'll be back. the mpa's slated won't solve the problem, and we know that more is coming. we know what they want, what the money is trying to buy, and what the goal is.

healthy fishing isn't their goal. no fishing at all is.

I will fight them as long as I have breath in my lungs.

[dorado50]

Stan reminds me of the internet fisherman,you know,the guy thats just starting out and catches a fish on a wide open bite,then the very next day has all the answers and experiences it takes to become a good fisherman.

[dsafety]

It's not in my nature to stay silent about things that I care about but that is exactly what I am going to do here. Rob's last post pretty much covers things. Well done.

I just have one question for Stan. For a guy who claims to be new to all of this, he seems pretty passionate about his point of view. That is unusual from a newbie. Could Stan actually be a seasoned agent from the other camp out trying to steal some souls? It's possible.

If that is your game Stan, I don't think you will find many in this community willing to take a bite of your poison. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Most of us just don't agree with yours.

Bob

[zenspearo]

Turns out that they gave the public another 15 days, but that's because that's the amount of time DFG calculates will be sufficient for them to finish cramming this Socal closure down our throat by their magic Dec. 15 deadline. Any longer and they will miss the "deadline" (guess those who have the gold makes the rules, and the pro-closure people know who pay their salary so they are scrambling to make that artificial deadline).

In contrast, the DEIR process for lesser CEQA projects (less complex and smaller sizes) have run 90, 120 days. But they are going to cram it down our throat on this one.

So in the end, the shenanigan landed them a FG&C Commissioner who's an enviro insider and they throw the public a 15-day bone. I predict they are going to try to push for more closures now with the new closurephile Commissioner on board.

How much you want to bet elements of Map 3 and External C is going to be pushed in these last two FG&C meetings in October and December? They are going to try to slide in as much as they can now that they have the FG&C voting rigged. We are now back to fighting for the survival of our sports.

To the troll: These guys are nice, trust me. You definitely got a pass here on this board. Try some of your troll on spearboard and see how long you'll last before you get a firm kick in the nuts and a permanent ban. I happen to know the mod over there and he can be an a$$hole

[MVC]

Arnold wants to push this through before he is out of office. I regret my vote for him more than any vote of my lifetime. Hopefully the courts will throw this back in his face.

[dsafety]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Yes, I'm a sekrit MLPA agent sent by arnold to steal all your fishing rods. Lock them up and hide the key!

hint; not everyone that thinks differently from you is a secret opposition agent

Stan, it is spelled Secret. As with many of your our other comments, your ignorance is showing here. I am done listening.

Bob

[steveooo]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

So what's the problem with the MLPA?

Disregarding your previous posts- I'll try to break it down to one of the basic, basic problems. There are deeper problems, but I'll just keep it simple and address your question from my perspective.

You appear to be a surf fisherman? Nice corbie and leo from your previous posts.





What beaches did you catch them on? Are they special beaches to you? Good memories there? Nice variety of fish? Have you seen whether those beaches are affected by the proposed MPA's? That would suck for you if they were closed, no?

You ever shore fish any other areas? Laguna Beach up in the OC? I fish there pretty frequently. Its awesome up there. A couple of reasons why I love it there
1- I've Never been dealt the Helmet, even if I only swing by for a quick 10 min lunch session.
2- Cool variety of fish- You never know what could be on the end of your line
3- Awesome coastline.
4- My wife caught her first surf fish there
5- Its got good family friendly beaches that I can bring my wife and daughter to, and spend a few minutes surf fishing.

Laguna is very special to me for many reasons.

Unfortunately, if you've never been up to fish @ Laguna, you better do it quickly. It's on the chopping block. Which part? The whole part. Based off of what scientific data? A few old ladies that go swimming and claim that they are seeing less fish there than they did in the 80's.

You asked for specific reasons- That is just one. There are plenty of guys that have their favorite fishing spot, especially kayak accessible spots, on the chopping block through this whole process. I think the frustration you are seeing is that the guys that were involved in the process from early on, saw how little the input from the public really mattered, and that there were other intentions that were driving the process.

If those beaches that you caught your Corbie and PB Leopard on were in danger of being put on the "No Fishing" list, would you speak up to fight for them Stan? If you actually spoke up to save them, and then found out what you care about doesn't really matter to those running this process, would that frustrate you?

I'm seriously asking those last two questions and would like your honest answer Stan, not just hypothetically throwing them out there to prove a point.

And for the record- Steveooo in IN on this thread before it gets locked

[robmandel]

non-mlpa economics interlude-------
politicians make policy. it was politicians that wanted to subsidize housing, fed chairmen that flooded the markets with money and artificially lowered interest rates, politicians that forced lenders (CRA) to make bad loans, etc. I'd go on, but read tom woods and bob murphy for starters. i'll admit that from mankiw to krugman, they got it all wrong. I'm a libertarian. student of austrian economics. also, I despise both parties equally.
-------

you remind me of aristophanes' play, the clouds. or perhaps Plato's Gorgias. are you playing Thrasymachus?

on a side note, this is an awesome site, filled up with a bunch of great guys who love to help out others with kayak fishing. it's an invaluable resource and you're gonna meet lots of guys here on the water. and you'll learn a ton from them. but I'm kinda thinking you might not find it so. I'd advise you to change your screen name and kinda leave the mlpa stuff alone. you don't know, and you don't know what you don't know.

i'm out. got better things to do than feed trolls.

to my brothers down south :c heers1:

[Tman]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

What?
All I got so far was
a) we're angry
b) we've been angry a long time now
c) one of us out-argued an elementary school teacher and her students

First of all Stan, or Ken, or Meg, whatever your 'moniker' is, I hope you are not referring to my Son (...c) one of us out-argued an elementary school teacher and her students...).

Had you been there, maybe you were, he did not argue with anyone, he made valid points on his own. You misinterpreted the post that was made and it did sound like you were implying that my Son argued with elders (a teacher, albeit a misguided one at that).

If anything, the only disrespect shown was by Ken Wiseman towards my Son, but I did have a talk with Ken after the 'extensive public input' session.

Or maybe you were at the smurfrider meeting in Encinitas who again insulted a youngster for speaking up for what he believes in.

Funny how a ton of people spoke up for what they believe in, only to get chided by you for their views.

Question for you though Stan...at one of the meetings, I asked the BRTF members directly why it was never considered creating an artificial reef to increase our 'declining' fish population, and was told that there was not a guarantee it would work. How do you know if you don't try? Sure seems the one off San O turned out nice.

So, based on your rants, are you saying that a reef should not be considered, and the only way to increase the population is to go to drastics measures before any other thought is taken into consideration?

Did like one of your comments though...you know, this one...

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Well thanks for wasting my time.

Thought you were a reasonable person, but looks like you're one of the zero-conservation extremists that don't give a crap about maintaining our fisheries beyond your own lifetime.

Take your ball and go home...

Maybe I'll run into ya at Torrey Pines some day...

[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Most of these are weak or aren't specific to south CA MPAs



He says the US MPA isn't a general result that would be the same in the rest of the world....which isn't the issue here...we are talking about another US MPA so the study is relevant

No. What he says is "Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery..." He also points out that less extreme measures are also working.

He also admits that, yeah, it might have increased the size of catches near the area (which you decided not to bold, convenient)

You caught me! Cleverly trying to hide the truth by posting his entire response.

The Fishing magazine writer (no conflict of interest there!) decided to ignore the statistic of biomass inside the MPA surpassing outside biomass in the same time frame.

And what about the interests of the authors of the original article? Do you think they would have been published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world if their results would have found no effect?
In fact "the fishing magazine writer" addresses the point you accuse him of ignoring, directly: "However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat." Which illustrates one of the biggest flaws of the study. No controls.

Also, yellowstone is heavly regulated, some rivers are closed to fishing year round, some are fly fishing only, there is no fishing for several months every year, and yellowstone isn't fished as heavly as our coastal waters simply due to population density, being a state park, and freshwater anglers these days being more likely to practice C&R.

All measures that are short of MLPA-style outright bans.

This guy doesn't seem to know that biomass isn't fish count....fish grow bigger every hour of every day...they don't need to spawn to grow bigger.

He seems to know it quite well, which is why he says: "Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves."
The whole point is more fish, right? Not an equal number of bigger fish (that will then be caught outside the MPA).

Aww, don't like it when the enviromentalists you guys like to talk smack about so much give it back a little?

Everyone was more than civil with you before (and even after) you starting implying that they were racist, islamaphobic, homophobic, extremists. One guy even gave you his phone number! It's pretty clear who's doing the smack talking.

[Gino]

Look what I got!
Hello Sir nice to meet ya. Nice to see someone fishing dressed in there sunday Best!


See thats the fundamental differances here. And those folks Rob, Dsafety and even Steveo summed it up best.

You know Stan, The constitution Doesnt say that i have a right to fish. But shutting down large secions of the California coast to fishing is just flat out wrong.

I took my first girlfriend up to the Dana point headlands, Now its going to be a Hotel. But I aint against Developement.
I grew up in Dana point, I fished up and down the coast of Laguna. I live only 20 minutes up the coast. And I still miss my home.

That Coastline that some of you Enviormental folks seem to know so much about. all those red areas on a map, Landmarks and Gps cordinates. They may just be that to you.

But those places, They are All that I am...

The MLPA process doesnt hurt the big sportboats, or the commercial fleets, the guys taking all the fish. Its hurting the local kayak fishign comunity, they peopel who take less than 1% of fish in comparrison to the rest... Were the ones getting a shaft.

Stan you dont know who your talking to here. The people in this community pick up trash when out on the water, they fish man powered crafts. They are not keeping mass Quanities of fish, not even the full limits. They enjoy the sport becuase it puts them in touch with the enviorment. Anyone could get a loan for some Fancy Lefty Marine Biologist Degree, where they teach you that Science is proving logic wrong And that just becuase fish have tales doesnt mean they wont swim out of the Reserves, And that if you take a sentence move the words around it could mean what they want it to mean and whatever. The people in This community are made up of Tax payers. Mothers and Fathers. Hard working Americans, and outdoor enthusist.

What you dont udnerstand is that those who take from the Enviorment could tell you alot about it. Fisherman have Infinately more knowlege about the Ocean than some professor in a classroom. When you love something, you put your whole heart it in, and try to learn everything about it.

In fact Im doing a study right now on California Halibut Diets. And what they eat during certain times of the year, and what they are feeding on in certain Enviorments, i personally think they eat more than the bait we use to catch them with.

Yeah I was college myself, most folks here know im a pretty young guy for this crowd. But i know what they teach you "marine Biologist" I took a good deal of classes myself. And a good lot of it is Horse shit.


What this MLPA has done. Is it has damaged the the relationships between the state and the fisherman. In other states, Fisherman and the DFG work hand in hand to help manage the enviorment. Fisherman take form the Enviorment so as a whole they know whats going on. And they have the most to lose from its mis management. Now the DFG survey folks cant get an honest anwser to questions about what they caught anymore., becuase folks think that info could be used in the MLPA proces to guide the state on where to close? The fisherman dont trust state anymore.

You came on here looking for a fight. and you got one. Pick apart any anyones posting all you want. You arent going to Sway any minds here.

So take a Hike. God forbid I ever see a sunday school dressed guy out there surf fishing. I might think its you.

[AquaticHunter]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Gino seems to think he shouldn't be told where and how to fish...fishing is a right apperently...missed that part of the constitution I guess.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof....

Clear enough for you genius?

I think I remember you. Are you the guy at the Long Beach MLPA meeting who said he was a kayak fishing guide and then insulted all kayak fishermen as being incompetent and stupid on the water?

I really like the game you played here. Starting with... "what's wrong with a little closure? Seriously, please explain it to me.." going from that to quoting obscure scientific studies and insulting some great guys.

Freedom and liberty are the bottom line here. The freedom to put the kids in the car and go down to our favorite spot to go fishing. The freedom to drive along the coastline with a kayak in the back looking for a new spot to launch from and fish. These freedoms are going to be gone if we don't do something. And when that freedom is gone, it's gone forever. Lost freedoms only return by the spilling of blood. That's why we talk about this fight in battle terms.

To the rest of the guys on this board...

[Gino]

Stan. What fisheries are in trouble right now? Specifically in the Southern Section of the MLPA (were the folks on this froum fish)

Im interested to hear what information you have.

[THE DARKHORSE]

This is the reason I don't answer questions about using the sonar and what types of knots to use .


To my MLPA fighting blood brothers, united we stand!
__________________