!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008 - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Holy Mackerel · 12-07-2007, 08:28 AM

Just curious, which group would anyone recommend to join... to help preserve our rights in this matter...

http://www.joinrfa.org/

or

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

or both?

I agree with Brad, but seems like a slim chance... my understanding is UASC is a united front between recreational anglers, sports fishing, and commercial interests?

Chris

PAL · 12-07-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Just curious, which group would anyone recommend to join... to help preserve our rights in this matter...

UASC is the major sportfishing voice here in SoCal. RFA is stronger up north. Their positions at times have differed significantly.

RFA's position has been that all fishing sectors should stick together, recreational and commercial. The RFA and commercial interests took the lead in the first MLPA process. Their representatives worked hard but their network proposal never had a chance.

UASC on the other hand puts recreational anglers first (bigger economic impact) and has supported banning "destructive gear" such as drag nets.

RFA reached out to kayakers up north, but I feel that NorCal's Coastside has done a better job. In fact they supported Sean White's candidacy for the stakeholder's board and work closely with him and NCKA. They are working towards a middle of the road solution that will have a better chance of adoption.

Tom Raftican of UASC and I have talked many times over the past few years. He "gets" kayak fishing. UASC gets knocked some times because they are strongly in favor of ocean parklands. We fit into this scheme.

Finally, UASC has a lot of political connections. Their support will help us get on the stakeholder's panel.

dgax65 · 12-07-2007, 10:35 AM

While I recognize that kayak anglers need to have our special requirements addressed in the MLPA process; I feel that it would be counterproductive to start the process by promoting positions that will exclude non-kayak anglers in certain areas. The kayak community is but a small portion of the overall fishing community. Alienating 95% of the fishing population with exclusionary proposals is not going to get our needs addressed. We need to go into this process with a united front; all anglers fighting for maximum access. I would only advocate a non-motorized reserve in La Jolla if it was the final alternative to a complete closure.

BTW: United Anglers has sent out some pamphlets to help identify the most frequently used/prime fishing grounds. This info will be used to create a listing of the "holy sites" that must be kept open. If you get one of these pamphlets in the mail, please fill it out and return it promptly. They might also be in local tackle stores and at the landings. I would strongly suggest that you join and support United Anglers and any other organization that is fighting for fishing access in State waters.

Holy Mackerel · 12-07-2007, 10:43 AM

It seems as a concerned angler about the implementation of MLPA in SOCAL, the least I can do is join UASC...

I have read BiggestT's posts on BD, he seems to be a voice of reason, as his wife is an attorney for UA...

I encourage anyone else concerned about the implementation of MLPA to sign up as well.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

Chris

Dupree · 12-08-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgax65

While I recognize that kayak anglers need to have our special requirements addressed in the MLPA process; I feel that it would be counterproductive to start the process by promoting positions that will exclude non-kayak anglers in certain areas. The kayak community is but a small portion of the overall fishing community. Alienating 95% of the fishing population with exclusionary proposals is not going to get our needs addressed. We need to go into this process with a united front; all anglers fighting for maximum access. I would only advocate a non-motorized reserve in La Jolla if it was the final alternative to a complete closure.

BTW: United Anglers has sent out some pamphlets to help identify the most frequently used/prime fishing grounds. This info will be used to create a listing of the "holy sites" that must be kept open. If you get one of these pamphlets in the mail, please fill it out and return it promptly. They might also be in local tackle stores and at the landings. I would strongly suggest that you join and support United Anglers and any other organization that is fighting for fishing access in State waters.

I think Doug raises some very good points here. And as Adam pointed out, in the end, politics will rule the day (see Central Coast). Don't think for a minute that the pro-closure forces won't be comming for La Jolla - and comming hard. Along with identifying our "holy sites", we also need to start thinking about areas we'd be willing to give up - as this appears to be a necessary part of the equation.

My own personal philosphy is "Management YES; Closures NO". But unfortunately, the State lacks the necessary expertise and the resources to properly manage fisheries - so outright closures are a perfectly acceptable outcome (for them).

D.out

Adam · 12-08-2007, 12:43 PM

I agree that arguing the "kayak only" position should be more of a last resort. However, I caution against a "no MPA" position. There will be more MPAs down here, the only question is where and how much. Even though the science will be poor, it will be important to understand what is being proposed and to counter (where necessary) from an objective / non-emotional perspective as much as possible. Regulators will be more receptive to well drawn arguments than "not in my back yard" or "I love that fishing spot" positions. Additionally, we should be aware that arguments may be made that the best fishing spots may also be the most "important" as these are productive spots not only for fishing but possibly also for reproduction. I will try to determine what research has been conducted regarding the fishery in La Jolla, I doubt there is much, but I think it is important for us to be on top of this. The previous points about separating rockfish from migratory pelagics are also very relevant. I think fisheries which were previously target by nearshore gill nets have probably improved since the ban on nearshore gill nets (white seabass, halibut, etc.). I am sure others disagree with me here, but I do think that rockfish populations are in less good shape. In my short life time I have noticed that I need to fish deeper for rockfish and what I catch is smaller. These are not good signs of fisheries health and the quality of our fishing has suffered.

Adam

lamb · 12-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Great discussion.

Looking at what happened up North, the only question is how big of a hit are we going to get. We ought to come together and do everything in our power to try to “minimize the damage”.

"United sport-fishing anglers front" approach has its values, but I don’t think it is bad to have kayak fishing community interests represented from sort of a separate body. Yes we are tiny compared to boaters, but we’re another interested party. We share concerns of other sport fishing folks, but we’re rather different. The impact on kayakers will be much greater if they put certain inshore areas off limits to fishing. Boaters will just motor away further out; the kayakers don’t have that option.

The Jewel, having existing preserve, is probably among the 1st things they’ll be looking at. Expanding preserve lines sure seems like an easy road for these committees to turn to. We, the kayak fishing community, have to make sure they understand that expending those preserve lines for even a few miles can effectively put the fishing grounds out of kayakers’ reach.

Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions.

We have The Battle For La Jolla coming up ladies and gents.

I don't have a great record - lost more than a few things in my life...

But I'm ready to fight for LJ like a lion. Let me know how can I help.

Useful Idiot · 12-12-2007, 09:04 AM

I was very involved in the process when I lived in Santa Barbara. I went to every meeting and public hearing from Sacramento to San Diego and the stakeholder meetings in SB and wrote up full reports of each meeting to post online.

Overall a very frustrating and pointless process. In the end whatever they want to do is what gets done. Public input had virtually zero impact. Every public hearing was overwhelmingly anti-reserve (besides one where a UCSB professor gave students extra credit to attend and lobby for reserves... pretty funny when I asked how many in the audience had ever visited the areas in question...) but none of that was reflected in any type of action regarding maps or reserves in general. On the day of the final vote 3 of the 5 original committee were "coincidentally" absent and replaced by pro-reserve fill ins. Of course the proposal passed. All said and done an enormous waste of time just to put on a show for the sake of legal process.

The only time we got anything close to being accomplished was through personal meetings with committee members and DFG reps at a sit down meeting. We had very little impact on size and locations of reserves, that was all pretty much hammered out by the stakeholders themselves.

The only thing we did get accomplished was the types of reserves. There are varying levels of reserves that they set up: no take, rec. only, shore based only, etc. We were able to define some reserves as shore based angling only, especially if we used the angle of low income families depending on the bounty of the sea, etc. I really believe we need to look out for our own best interest first and foremost and if anyone else's agenda lines up with ours on any certain situation then so be it. But locking into the motor boat agenda or commercial agenda or whatever could come back to bite us. None of the fishing org's really have enough power to combat the enviro org's anyway, so as far as jumping onboard for the clout factor, forget about it. Not to say it's not worth joining org's like UASC but don't count on your dues out-spending NRDC.

We tried the united front angle with both rec and commercial, then eventually commercial kind of started looking out for themselves so it was all rec. anglers but for our interest we were really most aligned with freedivers by the end. My opinion is that we need to decide right now who we're aligning ourselves with and stick to it. I highly suggest advocating as specialized a need as possible so that we're not stuck trying to minimize the amount of reserves and can rather focus on allowing kayaks at la jolla for example. If we can hammer a few small points home repeatedly it has a much better chance of getting through than being anti-reserve in general.

Another thing we need to do is get some good people on that stakeholder board and setup meetings with them as well as any DFG officials and politicians that have any say in the matter. If we can work with somebody that has any amount of pull it will be much more effective than whining at public hearing meetings every month.

OEX will be happy to facilitate any meetings or offer any services we can. Paul, please continue to keep the boards posted on the process. I'll jump back in and see if we can get anything done this time.
-Brian

madscientist · 12-12-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgax65

While I recognize that kayak anglers need to have our special requirements addressed in the MLPA process; I feel that it would be counterproductive to start the process by promoting positions that will exclude non-kayak anglers in certain areas. The kayak community is but a small portion of the overall fishing community. Alienating 95% of the fishing population with exclusionary proposals is not going to get our needs addressed. We need to go into this process with a united front; all anglers fighting for maximum access. I would only advocate a non-motorized reserve in La Jolla if it was the final alternative to a complete closure.

I disagree. I doubt we would alienate any but a very small fraction, and so what if we did. For the most part, they don't care about kayakers (speedbumps, as they call us). Besides, many of the boaters I know focus exclusively on offshore species, so they couldn't care less about LJ. The main point I am trying to make is that adding our voices to the general angling crowd is to be the equivalent of Luxembourg in the EU. The needs and goals of the kayak community are very different than those of the sportboats, who want to continue their 1000 bass weekend fish counts. The kneejerk adversarial reaction to the "treehuggers" is not necessarily the best way to go, and the track record of the fishing associations is pretty dismal, from what I hear.

FISHIONADO · 12-14-2007, 05:40 AM

Who would have thought the NYT's would run this story. Too bad there is not a Yellowtail suburban overpopulation problem. This is not kayak related but is something to consider in arguments to MLPA. My main motivation for fishing La Jolla is "fresh local meat".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/op...th&oref=slogin

By STEVEN RINELLA
Published: December 14, 2007

EVERY year, 15 million licensed hunters head into America’s forests and fields in search of wild game. In New York State alone, roughly half a million hunters harvest around 190,000 deer in the fall deer hunting season — that’s close to eight million pounds of venison. In the traditional vernacular, we’d call that “game meat.” But, in keeping with the times, it might be better to relabel it as free-range, grass-fed, organic, locally produced, locally harvested, sustainable, native, low-stress, low-impact, humanely slaughtered meat.

That string of adjectives has been popularized in recent years by the various food-awareness movements, particularly “localism.” Like many popular social movements, localism’s rallying cry is one of well-founded disgust: the average American meal travels 1,500 miles from field to fork, consuming untold gallons of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels along the way.

As a remedy, so-called locavores encourage a diet coming from one’s own “foodshed” — usually within 100 or 300 miles of home. The rationale of localism is promoted in popular books and Web sites: it leads to a healthier lifestyle and diet; brings money to rural communities; promotes eating meat from animals that are able to “carry out their natural behaviors” and “eat a natural diet”; allows consumers to visit the places where their food is raised; supports the production of foods that have fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and it keeps us in touch with the seasons.

While those sound suspiciously similar to the reasons many Americans choose to hunt, the literature of localism neglects the management and harvest of wildlife. This is a shame, because hunters are the original locavores. When I was growing up in Michigan, my family ate three or four deer every year, along with rabbits, squirrel, ducks and grouse that were harvested mostly within eight miles of our house.

I carried that subsistence aesthetic into adulthood. During my first semester away at college, for instance, my brother and I killed four deer on land that was 11 miles from campus; we never purchased a pound of industrially raised meat. We’d gone local and organic before anyone thought to put those two words together in a sentence.

Nowadays, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney blasting a donor in the face while shooting pen-raised quail, and the former rock star Ted Nugent extolling his “whack ’em and stack ’em” hunting ethos, American hunters do not have a very lofty pedestal from which to defend their interests. We could gain a great deal by refocusing the debate onto our relationship with a sustainable, healthful food supply.

There’s an obvious place to start: Even most nonhunters are aware of the deer overabundance in suburban areas. Annually, whitetail deer cause $250 million in residential landscaping damage; deer-vehicle collisions injure 29,000 people and kill 1.5 million deer; and 13,000 Americans contract Lyme disease.

State and federal wildlife management agencies contend that public hunting is the only cost-effective long-term management strategy. Yet they are forced to experiment with costly deer-control measures like high-wire fencing (it can cost $10,000 to $15,000 per mile), infertility drugs ($550 per deer), police sharpshooters ($100 to $250 per deer)and trap-and-euthanize operations ($150 to $500 per deer).

Why? Invariably, the answer comes down to a handful of factors: landowner aesthetics, liability concerns, social attitudes about guns, firearm-discharge restrictions and states’ public-relations concerns. Or, in short, because of tensions between hunters and the public.

While many people will never give up their opposition to killing Bambi, others may change their minds when they realize that destroying a deer’s reproductive abilities or relying on the automobile for population control is really no less wasteful than tossing fresh produce into a landfill.

Maintaining the ability to cull semi-rural and suburban deer herds is just one of many struggles facing hunters today, along with battling land development on wintering grounds, limiting oil exploration in our last wilderness strongholds of Alaska and combating the introduction of livestock diseases into wild animal herds in the Midwest. But an emphasis on resort-based quail shooting and whack-’em lingo are not going to persuade the critics.

Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we know and love, collecting indigenous, environmentally sustainable food for ourselves and our families.

Steven Rinella is the author of “The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine” and the forthcoming “American Buffalo: In Search of a Lost Icon.”

aguachico · 12-14-2007, 07:09 AM

I'm not trying to "rain on everyone's parade" and I'm willing to join the cause to help keep LaJOlla open - but we are forgetting that the MPA's were bought and paid for by PRIVATE funding to schwarzenegger's fund.

The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing.

My suggestion is to "SHOW ME THE MONEY" I call every angler in CA to not buy a fishing license for as many years the MPLA's are in affect. At $30-40 million per year, this should send a strong message how serious we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back.

Money talks.

Are you willing to give up fising in CA for a few years? I am. I'll take my $40 and give it to the PAC. Fuck the DFG, how long will they stay in business without your $$$?

Let's do it!!!

Let's take 50-60% of this:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdff...sales_10yr.pdf

madscientist · 12-14-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aguachico

The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing.

I tend to agree, that's why I think our only hope is to try to convince the buyer that kayak fishing is what they want.

We should organize some sort of kayak rally to draw attention to our special needs and increase our chances at getting a seat at the table. If we could get 100 or so of us out there, maybe line up at the reserve edge or paddle up and down the shores in formation with banners saying "Save LJ" or whatnot, and get some local press coverage it might go a long way to reinforcing our points.

FISHIONADO · 12-14-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aguachico

we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back.

Be careful what you ask for. I just returned from Hong Kong where there were no junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist for many years and now they have zero sport fishing. They lost all their grouper, sharks, and rays. An "East Coast Whopper" there is less than an ounce. Now they are begging for the junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist to bail them out. I agree with you mostly Art, but I don't think the answer is at either of the extremes.

aguachico · 12-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

Be careful what you ask for. I just returned from Hong Kong where there were no junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist for many years and now they have zero sport fishing. They lost all their grouper, sharks, and rays. An "East Coast Whopper" there is less than an ounce. Now they are begging for the junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist to bail them out. I agree with you mostly Art, but I don't think the answer is at either of the extremes.

True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts. If you give the California liberal a fucking inch, they'll take your arm, pickup and incandescent bulb in one bite.

I'd love to set an resident inshore limit to two fish, but we(fisherman) need to set those parameters - not Peter PETA.

So if we create a PAC to funnel the DFG's $66million into. We'd only have to give up fishing for a few years. Take up golf. We can cripple their budget and department. Then we need to put someone into office that will look after our interests. Then instead of buyging $20 worth of useless tackle every month, we get the one million anglers to donate that money to the PAC and keep on fishing. Look at the unions - they know what side the bread is buttered.

Imagine the impact we could have on CA if we gave it up for two years. The sportfishing industry, tackle shops and related businesses would suffer, but if they want long term growth, they need a short time sacrifice.

Let's get it together and get a booth at the Fred Hall. We can start the campaign for no licenses for '09, '10.

12-07-2007, 10:35 AM	#3
dgax65 Guerro Grande Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 629	While I recognize that kayak anglers need to have our special requirements addressed in the MLPA process; I feel that it would be counterproductive to start the process by promoting positions that will exclude non-kayak anglers in certain areas. The kayak community is but a small portion of the overall fishing community. Alienating 95% of the fishing population with exclusionary proposals is not going to get our needs addressed. We need to go into this process with a united front; all anglers fighting for maximum access. I would only advocate a non-motorized reserve in La Jolla if it was the final alternative to a complete closure. BTW: United Anglers has sent out some pamphlets to help identify the most frequently used/prime fishing grounds. This info will be used to create a listing of the "holy sites" that must be kept open. If you get one of these pamphlets in the mail, please fill it out and return it promptly. They might also be in local tackle stores and at the landings. I would strongly suggest that you join and support United Anglers and any other organization that is fighting for fishing access in State waters. __________________ Douglas Gaxiola Team No Fish- Amateur Staff

12-08-2007, 03:11 PM	#7
lamb Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,568	Great discussion. Looking at what happened up North, the only question is how big of a hit are we going to get. We ought to come together and do everything in our power to try to “minimize the damage”. "United sport-fishing anglers front" approach has its values, but I don’t think it is bad to have kayak fishing community interests represented from sort of a separate body. Yes we are tiny compared to boaters, but we’re another interested party. We share concerns of other sport fishing folks, but we’re rather different. The impact on kayakers will be much greater if they put certain inshore areas off limits to fishing. Boaters will just motor away further out; the kayakers don’t have that option. The Jewel, having existing preserve, is probably among the 1st things they’ll be looking at. Expanding preserve lines sure seems like an easy road for these committees to turn to. We, the kayak fishing community, have to make sure they understand that expending those preserve lines for even a few miles can effectively put the fishing grounds out of kayakers’ reach. Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions. We have The Battle For La Jolla coming up ladies and gents. I don't have a great record - lost more than a few things in my life... But I'm ready to fight for LJ like a lion. Let me know how can I help. __________________ [------------------------ <)))< ....b-a-a-a-a

12-12-2007, 09:04 AM	#8
Useful Idiot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 286	I was very involved in the process when I lived in Santa Barbara. I went to every meeting and public hearing from Sacramento to San Diego and the stakeholder meetings in SB and wrote up full reports of each meeting to post online. Overall a very frustrating and pointless process. In the end whatever they want to do is what gets done. Public input had virtually zero impact. Every public hearing was overwhelmingly anti-reserve (besides one where a UCSB professor gave students extra credit to attend and lobby for reserves... pretty funny when I asked how many in the audience had ever visited the areas in question...) but none of that was reflected in any type of action regarding maps or reserves in general. On the day of the final vote 3 of the 5 original committee were "coincidentally" absent and replaced by pro-reserve fill ins. Of course the proposal passed. All said and done an enormous waste of time just to put on a show for the sake of legal process. The only time we got anything close to being accomplished was through personal meetings with committee members and DFG reps at a sit down meeting. We had very little impact on size and locations of reserves, that was all pretty much hammered out by the stakeholders themselves. The only thing we did get accomplished was the types of reserves. There are varying levels of reserves that they set up: no take, rec. only, shore based only, etc. We were able to define some reserves as shore based angling only, especially if we used the angle of low income families depending on the bounty of the sea, etc. I really believe we need to look out for our own best interest first and foremost and if anyone else's agenda lines up with ours on any certain situation then so be it. But locking into the motor boat agenda or commercial agenda or whatever could come back to bite us. None of the fishing org's really have enough power to combat the enviro org's anyway, so as far as jumping onboard for the clout factor, forget about it. Not to say it's not worth joining org's like UASC but don't count on your dues out-spending NRDC. We tried the united front angle with both rec and commercial, then eventually commercial kind of started looking out for themselves so it was all rec. anglers but for our interest we were really most aligned with freedivers by the end. My opinion is that we need to decide right now who we're aligning ourselves with and stick to it. I highly suggest advocating as specialized a need as possible so that we're not stuck trying to minimize the amount of reserves and can rather focus on allowing kayaks at la jolla for example. If we can hammer a few small points home repeatedly it has a much better chance of getting through than being anti-reserve in general. Another thing we need to do is get some good people on that stakeholder board and setup meetings with them as well as any DFG officials and politicians that have any say in the matter. If we can work with somebody that has any amount of pull it will be much more effective than whining at public hearing meetings every month. OEX will be happy to facilitate any meetings or offer any services we can. Paul, please continue to keep the boards posted on the process. I'll jump back in and see if we can get anything done this time. -Brian __________________

12-14-2007, 07:09 AM	#11
aguachico Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 719	I'm not trying to "rain on everyone's parade" and I'm willing to join the cause to help keep LaJOlla open - but we are forgetting that the MPA's were bought and paid for by PRIVATE funding to schwarzenegger's fund. The MPA's died when CA's budgets died. Private funding means whatever the buyer wants, the buyer gets. The kelp beds of SoCAl are history to fishing. My suggestion is to "SHOW ME THE MONEY" I call every angler in CA to not buy a fishing license for as many years the MPLA's are in affect. At $30-40 million per year, this should send a strong message how serious we are to these junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist. Collect as much of these revenues yearly and create a PAC to buy the fishing grounds back. Money talks. Are you willing to give up fising in CA for a few years? I am. I'll take my $40 and give it to the PAC. Fuck the DFG, how long will they stay in business without your $$$? Let's do it!!! Let's take 50-60% of this: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdff...sales_10yr.pdf Last edited by aguachico; 12-14-2007 at 07:28 AM.

12-07-2007, 08:28 AM	#1
Holy Mackerel Señor member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,627	Just curious, which group would anyone recommend to join... to help preserve our rights in this matter... http://www.joinrfa.org/ or http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php or both? I agree with Brad, but seems like a slim chance... my understanding is UASC is a united front between recreational anglers, sports fishing, and commercial interests? Chris

12-07-2007, 10:43 AM	#4
Holy Mackerel Señor member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,627	It seems as a concerned angler about the implementation of MLPA in SOCAL, the least I can do is join UASC... I have read BiggestT's posts on BD, he seems to be a voice of reason, as his wife is an attorney for UA... I encourage anyone else concerned about the implementation of MLPA to sign up as well. http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php Chris

12-08-2007, 12:43 PM	#6
Adam Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 27	I agree that arguing the "kayak only" position should be more of a last resort. However, I caution against a "no MPA" position. There will be more MPAs down here, the only question is where and how much. Even though the science will be poor, it will be important to understand what is being proposed and to counter (where necessary) from an objective / non-emotional perspective as much as possible. Regulators will be more receptive to well drawn arguments than "not in my back yard" or "I love that fishing spot" positions. Additionally, we should be aware that arguments may be made that the best fishing spots may also be the most "important" as these are productive spots not only for fishing but possibly also for reproduction. I will try to determine what research has been conducted regarding the fishery in La Jolla, I doubt there is much, but I think it is important for us to be on top of this. The previous points about separating rockfish from migratory pelagics are also very relevant. I think fisheries which were previously target by nearshore gill nets have probably improved since the ban on nearshore gill nets (white seabass, halibut, etc.). I am sure others disagree with me here, but I do think that rockfish populations are in less good shape. In my short life time I have noticed that I need to fish deeper for rockfish and what I catch is smaller. These are not good signs of fisheries health and the quality of our fishing has suffered. Adam

12-14-2007, 05:40 AM	#10
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	Who would have thought the NYT's would run this story. Too bad there is not a Yellowtail suburban overpopulation problem. This is not kayak related but is something to consider in arguments to MLPA. My main motivation for fishing La Jolla is "fresh local meat". http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/op...th&oref=slogin By STEVEN RINELLA Published: December 14, 2007 EVERY year, 15 million licensed hunters head into America’s forests and fields in search of wild game. In New York State alone, roughly half a million hunters harvest around 190,000 deer in the fall deer hunting season — that’s close to eight million pounds of venison. In the traditional vernacular, we’d call that “game meat.” But, in keeping with the times, it might be better to relabel it as free-range, grass-fed, organic, locally produced, locally harvested, sustainable, native, low-stress, low-impact, humanely slaughtered meat. That string of adjectives has been popularized in recent years by the various food-awareness movements, particularly “localism.” Like many popular social movements, localism’s rallying cry is one of well-founded disgust: the average American meal travels 1,500 miles from field to fork, consuming untold gallons of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels along the way. As a remedy, so-called locavores encourage a diet coming from one’s own “foodshed” — usually within 100 or 300 miles of home. The rationale of localism is promoted in popular books and Web sites: it leads to a healthier lifestyle and diet; brings money to rural communities; promotes eating meat from animals that are able to “carry out their natural behaviors” and “eat a natural diet”; allows consumers to visit the places where their food is raised; supports the production of foods that have fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and it keeps us in touch with the seasons. While those sound suspiciously similar to the reasons many Americans choose to hunt, the literature of localism neglects the management and harvest of wildlife. This is a shame, because hunters are the original locavores. When I was growing up in Michigan, my family ate three or four deer every year, along with rabbits, squirrel, ducks and grouse that were harvested mostly within eight miles of our house. I carried that subsistence aesthetic into adulthood. During my first semester away at college, for instance, my brother and I killed four deer on land that was 11 miles from campus; we never purchased a pound of industrially raised meat. We’d gone local and organic before anyone thought to put those two words together in a sentence. Nowadays, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney blasting a donor in the face while shooting pen-raised quail, and the former rock star Ted Nugent extolling his “whack ’em and stack ’em” hunting ethos, American hunters do not have a very lofty pedestal from which to defend their interests. We could gain a great deal by refocusing the debate onto our relationship with a sustainable, healthful food supply. There’s an obvious place to start: Even most nonhunters are aware of the deer overabundance in suburban areas. Annually, whitetail deer cause $250 million in residential landscaping damage; deer-vehicle collisions injure 29,000 people and kill 1.5 million deer; and 13,000 Americans contract Lyme disease. State and federal wildlife management agencies contend that public hunting is the only cost-effective long-term management strategy. Yet they are forced to experiment with costly deer-control measures like high-wire fencing (it can cost $10,000 to $15,000 per mile), infertility drugs ($550 per deer), police sharpshooters ($100 to $250 per deer)and trap-and-euthanize operations ($150 to $500 per deer). Why? Invariably, the answer comes down to a handful of factors: landowner aesthetics, liability concerns, social attitudes about guns, firearm-discharge restrictions and states’ public-relations concerns. Or, in short, because of tensions between hunters and the public. While many people will never give up their opposition to killing Bambi, others may change their minds when they realize that destroying a deer’s reproductive abilities or relying on the automobile for population control is really no less wasteful than tossing fresh produce into a landfill. Maintaining the ability to cull semi-rural and suburban deer herds is just one of many struggles facing hunters today, along with battling land development on wintering grounds, limiting oil exploration in our last wilderness strongholds of Alaska and combating the introduction of livestock diseases into wild animal herds in the Midwest. But an emphasis on resort-based quail shooting and whack-’em lingo are not going to persuade the critics. Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we know and love, collecting indigenous, environmentally sustainable food for ourselves and our families. Steven Rinella is the author of “The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine” and the forthcoming “American Buffalo: In Search of a Lost Icon.”