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

Tman · 12-18-2007, 11:35 AM

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 · 12-18-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-19-2007, 12:18 PM

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 · 12-19-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

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 · 12-20-2007, 05:29 AM

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 · 12-20-2007, 02:48 PM

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...

madscientist · 12-20-2007, 03:01 PM

Yeah, I got "measured" by that chick as well.

Funny thing, DFG officer pulled up as we were talking to her. We both had licenses so all was cool, but it made me wonder if the DFG has it's priorities straight. Wasting an officer's time to check a half dozen kayakers for licenses seems kind of silly for an agency that is contantly crying about budget shortfalls.

12-18-2007, 11:35 AM	#1
Tman BRTF...bought & paid... Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,247	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... __________________ Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher

12-20-2007, 02:48 PM	#6
Handymansd Ancient Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: On The Water Posts: 935	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... __________________ All men are equal before fish. -Herbert Hoover

12-20-2007, 03:01 PM	#7
madscientist Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,906	Yeah, I got "measured" by that chick as well. Funny thing, DFG officer pulled up as we were talking to her. We both had licenses so all was cool, but it made me wonder if the DFG has it's priorities straight. Wasting an officer's time to check a half dozen kayakers for licenses seems kind of silly for an agency that is contantly crying about budget shortfalls. __________________

12-19-2007, 12:18 PM	#3
psudocromis Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 16	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

12-20-2007, 05:29 AM	#5
aguachico Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 719	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.