they might be back some day.

[driftwood]

In case you missed it. The fight is not over yet Lets all be there on the next round! I hope the picture below motivates you!




Panel backs no-fishing zones off Southern California coast

At an emotional meeting, a state panel imposes the landmark restrictions to help restore species, catches of which have dropped up to 95%. The plan was forged out of contentious negotiations.

Darci Conner hugs Sarah Sikich of Heal the Bay after the state blue-ribbon panel approves fishing restrictions off the Southern California coast. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times / November 10, 2009)

• Related
• Points of view

A state blue-ribbon panel unanimously approved landmark fishing restrictions Tuesday for Southern California, creating a patchwork of havens for marine life designed to replenish the seas while leaving some waters open for anglers.

---

FOR THE RECORD:
Fishing ban: An article in Wednesday's Section A about a state blue-ribbon panel approving fishing restrictions off the Southern California coast incorrectly attributed this quote to Sarah Lester: "I've got mixed feelings. Some key areas like Point Dume were protected. But I'm concerned they overlooked scientific guidelines in places like Palos Verdes Peninsula." The quote should have been attributed to Sarah Sikich, coastal resources director for the environmental group Heal the Bay. Lester, project scientist with the Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara, is not affiliated with Heal the Bay. —

---

The plan, approved 5 to 0 during a meeting at which emotions boiled over briefly into shouting and shoving, was a compromise intended to sustain the 250-mile coastline's environmental as well as economic health -- forged during a year of contentious negotiations between conservationists and fishing interests.

In recent decades, the catches of many species, including rockfish and cod, have fallen by as much as 95%. Populations of lobster, sea urchin, squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp decline. Fisheries experts have argued that some of those species could disappear entirely if steps were not taken to create no-fishing zones where breeding stocks could be replenished.

But any move to close waters to fishermen has been strongly resisted by both the fishing industry and recreational boaters. On Tuesday, representatives of both groups, many of them wearing black T-shirts, turned out at the panel's meeting and predicted job losses and business closures.



Environmentalists countered that stiff curbs were necessary to preserve and replenish fading stocks of marine life. They said that some panel members were allowing economic concerns to outweigh scientific guidelines designed to ensure the long-term health of the ocean.

---

FOR THE RECORD: An article in Wednesday's Section A about a state blue-ribbon panel approving fishing restrictions off the Southern California coast incorrectly attributed this quote to Sarah Lester: "I've got mixed feelings. Some key areas like Point Dume were protected. But I'm concerned they overlooked scientific guidelines in places like Palos Verdes Peninsula." The quote should have been attributed to Sarah Sikich, coastal resources director for the environmental group Heal the Bay. Lester, project scientist with the Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara, is not affiliated with Heal the Bay.

---

After hearing from dozens of speakers, the panel members agreed on a plan that would close some areas, including waters off Laguna Beach and Point Dume, while allowing fishing off the Palos Verdes Peninsula and most of Catalina Island.

"We're not going to make everyone happy, but this has to be done," panel Chairwoman Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in an interview before the vote. "It's agony to weigh the environmental goals against people's livelihoods, especially here in Southern California, where the urban/ocean interface is greater than anywhere else in the nation."

The Fish and Game Commission, which has adopted recommendations by other Marine Life Protection Area panels, is expected to take up the Southern California plan in December.

Elected officials tried to intervene on behalf of their constituents. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wrote to the panel expressing his "strong support" for designated marine life protection areas. A week ago, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of protecting kelp and canyon habitats at Point Dume, but leaving the waters off Palos Verdes Peninsula open to fishing. State Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) supported that plan.

George L. Osborn, a lobbyist for the California Fish and Game Wardens Assn., told the panel late Tuesday afternoon: "We do not have the resources to enforce regulations currently on the books. This is a matter that jeopardizes officer safety."

A group led by Laguna Beach City Councilwoman Verna Rollinger supported a proposal to ban fishing along six miles of her city's coastline. "I want fish in the ocean, and on my dinner plate," she said. "To do that, we have to restore the ocean."

Rollinger got what she wanted. But the plan elsewhere yielded to fishing industry concerns that it could drive people out of work in already difficult economic times.

Commercial trawling for squid and sportfishing for species including yellowtail and swordfish would be allowed on the back side of Santa Catalina Island, but sea urchin and sea cucumber could not be taken there. The plan would create a no-fishing zone off La Jolla -- a spawning ground for black sea bass and leopard sharks -- and prohibit fishing in the kelp beds and submarine canyons on both sides of Point Dume.

In a major win for fishing interests, the plan would allow continued fishing in the kelp forest and rocky reef habitats off the Palos Verdes Peninsula. "We got a good deal there," said Bob Bertelli, a commercial fisherman for 25 years.

But overall, fishing enthusiasts were "upset about this plan," said Wendy Tochihara, a fishing advocate and national sales manager for Izorline International, a fishing line manufacturer.

"We are a dying breed; the average age of a commercial fisherman is 59, and it's tough work," she said. "The impacts will not stop at the docks. They will hit restaurants, markets and the gas stations where we fill up our boat fuel tanks, even the manufacturers of the nuts and bolts on the engines of our vessels."

Conservationists dismissed fishing industry predictions of economic catastrophe as overblown. They pointed out, for example, that a five-year review of marine protection areas established in the Channel Islands in 2003 found no discernible change in commercial landings for some of the region's largest fisheries: squid, lobster, urchin and crab.

Tempers flared. The panel was discussing proposed fishing closures Tuesday morning when kayak fishing enthusiast Charles Volkens, 44, stood up and angrily shouted at the panelists: "You have not listened to us throughout this whole process!"

When an audience member asked him to quiet down, Volkens screamed, "Come outside and tell me to shut up!"

At that point, the man charged at Volkens and pushed him. Both men were quickly ushered out of the Los Angeles International Airport-area hotel ballroom by security officers.

Later, Volkens said he was frustrated that the panelists were even considering the idea of banning fishing in a hot spot like Point Dume, which he described as "the last place left in the area where we can fish for white sea bass."

Similarly, Sarah Lester, coastal resources director for the environmental group Heal the Bay, said, "I've got mixed feelings.

"Some keys areas like Point Dume were protected," she said. "But I'm concerned they overlooked scientific guidelines in places like Palos Verdes Peninsula."

The panel's effort was conducted under the California Marine Life Protection Act, which was adopted in 1999 to set aside a comprehensive, science-based network of marine parks and wilderness areas.

In an interview after the vote, panelist Meg Caldwell, director of Stanford Law School's environmental and natural resources law and policy program, expressed a measure of disappointment in the outcome.

"There was a lot of give and take," she added. "But overall, it's better than what we have now."

[Gino]

In an interview after the vote, panelist Meg Caldwell, director of Stanford Law School's environmental and natural resources law and policy program, expressed a measure of disappointment in the outcome.

"There was a lot of give and take," she added. "But overall, it's better than what we have now."

yeah look at the maps bitch where was the give, all taking based on the facts aquired by common sense. How is she disapointed? what a bunch of pigs.

that bitch is out of touch... She should be the director of private interest, loyybing and politics, not Stanfords enviormental/ resources law.

[Matt]

@#$#@ you, you $%^&$#@ #$%* %#&*$!!!!! Fill in the blanks ya got my drift!!

[Tman]

I think I saw Meg at the supermarket the other day, complaining about the plastic wrap job on the fish she was gonna buy...

She was unhappy, thought the plastic wrap was too tight...

[The Kid]

They're not gonna stop me i don't care what they say we'll see what happens. I do not think they are going to have anyone enforce it. I mean who enforces the current MPA. Haha i hope they read this, can't wait to see them out there. I don't care if i set a bad example, I am to young to care. So f*** the law i will still be catching yellows and white seabass. If I get fined i hope it gets put in the paper so all those who have no idea what is going on can see that we are getting SCREWED. Peace

[esdees]

"Populations of lobster, sea urchin, squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp decline."

Really? Where did they come up with that?

[robmandel]

Originally Posted by esdees

"Populations of lobster, sea urchin, squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp decline."

Really? Where did they come up with that?

same place they came up with all the BS global warming data.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

it's about fear, it's about politics. it's about MONEY!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.


The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.



The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

folks, this isn't about a bunch of yahoos (please, no offense intended by me) on plastics rafts fishing for a few scaly creatures. this is way freaking bigger. the environmental movement is nothing about the "environment" but about destruction of freedom and capitalism.

[-scallywag-]

I was reading into the the fine print last night and realized that the citys in which these MPA are placed could be held financially responsible for run off pollution and sewer spills that affect the MPA's water quality. I'm afraid to see what will happen when the MPA's don't reach thier stated goals in five years...its gonna be like "see, told ya so! we need more closeures! get those wetsuit pee'in, body oil leachin, stingray killin surfers outta there, and all those people on the beach leave thier trash and pollute the water....get'um all outta here!!! (but please don't worry about my malibu estaite's septic system that leaches human waste directly into the maibu creekbed and closes the whole area everytime it rains...)"

[bluesquids]

But.. but...if all the fishermeanies could just become vegans...Ya Know?
Then all the fishies can swim and be happy, because ...Ya know you can't plant seeds inside poor little fishies Ovaries like you can just plant tomato seeds.
Seriously, any vegan should not of been let in thru the door. PETA types should not have a say in the outcome. People in the world eat meat! GET OVER IT!
Oh...and BTW regarding WSB ovaries...
Fecundity determined from artificial propagation attempts (CDFG 1994) ranges from 760,000 to 1.5 million eggs per female, per batch (CDF&G 2002),

and some females have been reported to spawn more than once per season (CDF&G 2002).

[driftwood]

Originally Posted by esdees

"Populations of lobster, sea urchin, squid, sea bass, yellowtail and swordfish have all been in sharp decline."

Really? Where did they come up with that?

"restrictions to help restore species, catches of which have dropped up to 95%."

were did they come up wth this?? 95% dropped?

[habanero]

I think they get all their "facts" from pier and dock fishing experts.

[Billy V]

Originally Posted by bluesquids

But.. but...if all the fishermeanies could just become vegans...Ya Know?

You mean like some of those BRTF Members ?
-A few of them still eat fish -if you know what I mean.

-They also know where to buy the cheapest diesel fuel.
http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/ind...imit=48&list=0





-----------------------
Disclaimer- Any statements made in this post are for entertainment purposes only, and not directed at any life forms. Even if it has a remarkable resemblance to the truth.

[Tman]

That "95%" number is a riot...make it more credible, say "94%"...

I call BS, let's see the data to support that.

As I said at one of the meetings, about 12 years ago, had a buddy catch a 42.5# WSB...he put it on the radio, and people were at the landing to see it. A very rare catch indeed, back then.

BACK THEN

With the success of the hatchery program, that WE help pay for, they have made a remarkable recovery...we all know that.

What's next, are they gonna say, oops, we didn't mean to include WSB as part of the decline?

Hey enviros...when you have a friend come in from out of town, and you go out to dinner, and supposing they order fish, tell us that you do give them the same kind of wrath that you give us...

[bentrod1]

this is just one step in a long line of political maneuvering that will impose restrictions on any outdoor activity that involves humans enjoying nature. These bleeding heart do-gooders would sooner let a f@$k'n terrorist out of prison due to some (justified) "human rights violation" than let you or I fish in an ocean or ride a motorcycle in the desert for fear of running over some godforsaken reptile (have you seen how big the F'ng desert is - how 'bout the ocean?)

If they want to impose restrictions, how about getting these cattle boat captains and crew to stop bagging every fricken fish that's caught. Catch and release isn't in their vocabulary because they want people on the docks to see their patrons exiting the boat with a 1/8 pound bag of filleted 12" calico's.

Hang on tight all - socialism is alive and well in the USSA and we are losing our rights, our right to feed ourselves with our catch. Before we know it we'll be standing in line for a ration of tuna and a loaf of bread.

[Pescavore1]

Originally Posted by driftwood

"restrictions to help restore species, catches of which have dropped up to 95%."

were did they come up wth this?? 95% dropped?

It's a blatant lie and a propaganda. I'm pretty sure they know this fact: if you tell a lie and keep repeating it, no matter how big the lie is, people will eventually come to believe it.

[Ohana]

Originally Posted by Pescavore1

It's a blatant lie and a propaganda. I'm pretty sure they know this fact: if you tell a lie and keep repeating it, no matter how big the lie is, people will eventually come to believe it.

This is so true. In political battle facts/statistics are part of the footnotes and influencing emotions wins the war. A lot of organizations supporting the MPA also funded the drive to stop using animals for drug testing; regardless of what you show in numbers such as millions of lives were saved but 50 lab rats were killed, all it takes is one picture of an animal in a lab cage with a tube in its body to sway peoples emotions (= voters) to support a ban on such testing. So they know what to do to get political support for their position.


Kevin

[ccoral]

in short I would like to stick in Megs bu;t

[tylerdurden]

Originally Posted by Tman

That "95%" number is a riot...make it more credible, say "94%"...

I call BS, let's see the data to support that.

As I said at one of the meetings, about 12 years ago, had a buddy catch a 42.5# WSB...he put it on the radio, and people were at the landing to see it. A very rare catch indeed, back then.

BACK THEN

With the success of the hatchery program, that WE help pay for, they have made a remarkable recovery...we all know that.

Actually, I don't think the hatchery program has much if anything todo with the wsb return. Based on the numbers they get so few heads back each year that they are having a minimal impact if any. I know not everyone turns in the heads, but still they get so few back, and it is costing them thousands of dollars per head returned if I did the math right. Someone else might have the cost per seabass returned number. Releasing all the hatchlings into the ocean can't be a bad thing, but I just don't think it is helping as much as we think, or hope it is.

I do agree that wsb are on the return, because of the gillnet ban within three miles. They changed the rules and regs and management of the species, and it worked. I wish they could use this example, instead of the crap they are trying to pull instead.

[Billy V]

I can only respect a process that was based on "sound scientific data".
Its was obvious the MLPA was Not, and it is obvious the process was bought, and so were the people running it.

-For a Reserve to work, you must first gain the respect of the people.
-They failed miserably in this area.

[T Bone]

Next will be the major licence fee increase.I dont see any way around that.I really liked the old salt water only licence for half the price.Now,we all pay for trout plants whether we want to or not.