!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

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

http://www.kfaca.org/

I joinied UASC. Talked to Lenny. MLPA meetings for SoCAl are in the spring '08.

angry person.

BTW: for those that have big boats and plan on motoring outside the reserves to areas they can fish:

In addition, there is a particular need to measure changes in recreational and commercial fishing and non-consumptive uses, not only as part of the evaluation of social and economic impacts, but also to determine if displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs. Further, cost-benefit analysis can give managers a better understanding of the impact of the marine protected area on stakeholders.


you can run, but you can't hide.

[Useful Idiot]

Originally Posted by aguachico

displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs.

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

[Holy Mackerel]

Originally Posted by Useful Idiot

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

I couldnt agree more with you guys on this point. Unfortunately, it appears the process does not allow for setting up a sustainable fishery... bummer...

Paul, keep us informed.

Chris

[Jim Sammons LJKF]

Originally Posted by Useful Idiot

Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

My guess is that they will see that it has not worked and will then expand them to cover the entire coast line

[PAL]

The KFACA email addresses have apparently been down for a few days. If you mailed us and it bounced, our apologies. My thanks to Yakrider for letting us know.

Our email is back in business, so please come by the site and join the KFACA. We appreciate your support as we all work together to hang onto our key kayak fishing sites. www.kfaca.org

[Tman]

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...

[Useful Idiot]

Originally Posted by Tman

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...

In my experience with the process, arguments such as this were brought up quite often but nobody really wanted to hear it. The process is to determine where to place marine reserves, whether or not they're justified. Arguing for better enforcement or stricter reg's is not what this process is for. That's a whole different battle in itself, which had it been done years ago perhaps could have avoided this whole mess. To get the MLPA process stopped and turned in the direction of reg's and enforcement would be a monumental legal task that all of our fishing org's resources put together still couldn't accomplish.

I completely agree that reserves aren't as effective as traditional management techniques and that we'd be better served to focus on enforcement and research to better govern individual species, but it doesn't matter. We're here to deal with the MLPA no-take reserves and make sure it's done fairly and intelligently. Arguing against reserves in general will fall on deaf ears not only for the decision makers, but our own representatives as well. It will happen, it's up to us to have a say in what happens.

And La Jolla having an existing reserve is a very bad thing because they will almost definitely want to expand that. It's a lot easier to expand existing reserves, especially if there's some sort of record of success, such as the huge number of fish being caught right outside of it every day. Whether there's yellowtail and white seabass at La Jolla has anything to do with that reserve is highly debatable, but you can bet your bottom dollar the pro-reserve activists will argue that.

[psudocromis]

No love from Arnold....


Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns
regarding Marine Life Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from fellow
Californians about important issues facing our State.

California continues to thrive because of the involvement and
commitment of people like you. While we may disagree on certain policies, we
share the goals of improving the quality of life in our State and
expanding opportunities for all Californians.

Again, thank you for taking the time to email and share your comments.
Your participation will help us restore the greatness of our Golden
State.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Handymansd]

Originally Posted by psudocromis

No love from Arnold....

Wow, talk about a lame form letter!! I am nowhere near a politician, but even I could have come up with a better "P.C." dismissal than that!

[aguachico]

The capacity of the California Department of Fish and Game and other state agencies must be further enhanced to ensure successful implementation of the MLPA and other marine policies. Budget appropriations in 2006 provide an increased budget for DFG, but needed human resources must be developed, and additional budget increases will be required as subsequent study regions are completed. The MLPA Initiative report Estimated Long-Term Costs to Implement the Marine Life Protection Act (April 2006) provides a useful basis for discussion of needed budget increases. As the California Department of Parks and Recreation and State Water Resources Control Board also have roles in implementing the MLPA, attention should be given to ensuring that they also have resources needed to implement the MLPA.

[Handymansd]

A DFG officer stopped me at the launch when I came in today and asked me to complete a sort of survey about the fishing habits of kayakers out of La Jolla. She asked for target species, frequency of fishing trips, distance out, time actually fishing, how often I catch fish (ya right), etc. They seem to realize that we have very special needs that need to be addressed with the implementation of the MLPA process. She said that it is not very likely that they will close La Jolla to Kayak fisherman. She said that they will probably implement a type of situation where kayaks could not fish past the three mile point, allowing us to fish only within the three mile point... Interesting thought.

I wonder if they would allow the sport fishing boats or other PB within those limits as well...