Surfrider MLPA meetings starting Tue 9/23 7PM S.C. - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Holy Mackerel · 10-01-2009, 09:44 AM

That stinks Martin, there are always bad apples in every group. Sounds like Stefanie, and Joe, are trying to work in good faith for everyone's access.

Dan · 10-01-2009, 10:04 AM

No way that guy has ever surfed a day in his life. He had to sit there and stew in that comment for another hour before sneaking out.

A good example of how any personal attacks in this process are just straight up ass hat douche nozzle material. That guy lost all cred. And good job Martin for not stooping to his level after he questioned your parenting.

kurt · 10-01-2009, 12:25 PM

Way too hold your temper, Martin. You're definitely the better man.

dmrides · 10-01-2009, 06:49 PM

It was also encouraging to hear that there is not a great deal of support for WG1, since we all know how much that would suck.

Thanks again to all of you who continue to put in all your hard work to spread the word of what we want.

Holy Mackerel · 10-15-2009, 12:40 PM

Here ya go, Surfrider SD for MAP 3.

http://www.surfrider.org/files/Surfr...FMemoFINAL.pdf

tylerdurden · 10-15-2009, 01:17 PM

Actually, if you look at their specific recomendations by region, San Diego doesn't do too bad as far as kayakers are concerned. I wouldn't want to be a commercial lobster or Urchin guy though.

They really fuck over the guys in Malibu.

WG2 meets all the guidelines with the blue SMCA west of point Dume, at a HIGH level of protection. WG2 captures every habitat with this SMCA other than deep rock. None of the other plans captures deep rock either, but they go out of the way to screw over kayakers. Make sure you let them know this at the BRTF meeting.

FISHIONADO · 10-15-2009, 01:18 PM

I just read the paper and Surfrider did not support any of the maps, they only noted that many of their members supported Map 3. Their specific recommendation for La Jolla is below:

"La Jolla:
First, the existing La Jolla Cove SMR is a valuable area and “heritage site” that we recommend should be left intact. We see no compelling reason for “squaring off” the boundaries to meet the “feasibility” guidelines (as suggested in Map 3). This area has been protected for a long time and the boundaries are well‐known. In fact, changing the boundaries to meet strict adherence to the “feasibility” guidelines may only serve to undermine the intent of the guidelines – clarity, public awareness and ease of enforcement. Changing the well‐known boundaries may cause unnecessary violations. Although not included in Map 1, we want to highlight our opposition to inclusion of an SMCA between the existing La Jolla Cove SMR and the Scripps Pier. We are not convinced this area is high value habitat nor that it is necessary to meet the spacing guidelines.

Second, we recommend the current La Jolla South SMR and SMCA cluster be
modified into a single SMR with the northern border at Windansea and the southern border north of the Crystal pier (similar to Map 3).

Finally, assuming the final map would include the La Jolla South SMR
recommended above, we see no need for the Point Loma SMR. The La Jolla South SMR is sufficient to provide unique and valuable protection for this sub‐region. And, the Pt Loma SMR unnecessarily restricts fishing opportunities for boats leaving
Mission Bay."

Tman · 10-15-2009, 01:27 PM

Well, can I say it now without worry of offending them?

'A majority of our audience...support Map 3'

To the idiot who made that dumbarse comment to me at the Encinitas meeting, I kept my cool, no need to anymore.

Hey smurfriders, even though half of your members probably don't surf, and your loudmouth member who said maybe I 'shouldn't take a 50 lb 9 year old out if he can't handle it' looks like a kook, you do realize that if they take Swami's, you could potentially lose an epic surf spot?

You guys do realize that, don't you?

Maybe someone should make a run to Swami's today, tomorrow, and this weekend, hand out fliers telling them that smurfriders suggest a reserve at Swami's...hmmm...bet that'll go over good...

PAL · 10-15-2009, 03:55 PM

The opening portion of the Surfrider report reads like an executive summary, suggesting they support WG 1 and 3. In fact, only in OC do they care for anything from WG 2, and that one they find insufficient. 1 = 3, an outrageous, extreme position.

Most damning is Surfrider's position on Malibu, where they too sell out Malibu's kayak anglers to justify lesser but still devastating closures at Palos Verdes. This is precious turf to us, birthplace of modern kayak fishing. They strike right at our heart.

I will never again sympathize with a surfing access or preservation issue. I will remember this betrayal of fellow watermen and women forever. I hope you are with me, that you'll withdraw all support of this group.

I'm ready to take a bulldozer to Trestles and build that proposed highway they hate. And I'm looking forward to the day when either one of their fellow environmental NGOs or an aggrieved fishing group sues the state to compell closure of the wildlife and habitat damaged by surfers at Swamis and the like.

The meeting doesn't start until Tuesday, so there's still time for the Surfrider leadership to make this right. I urge them to do so or they may yet rue the consequences.

10-01-2009, 10:04 AM	#2
Dan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,053	No way that guy has ever surfed a day in his life. He had to sit there and stew in that comment for another hour before sneaking out. A good example of how any personal attacks in this process are just straight up ass hat douche nozzle material. That guy lost all cred. And good job Martin for not stooping to his level after he questioned your parenting. Last edited by Dan; 10-01-2009 at 11:22 AM.

10-15-2009, 01:17 PM	#6
tylerdurden Bad Clone Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 874	Actually, if you look at their specific recomendations by region, San Diego doesn't do too bad as far as kayakers are concerned. I wouldn't want to be a commercial lobster or Urchin guy though. They really fuck over the guys in Malibu. WG2 meets all the guidelines with the blue SMCA west of point Dume, at a HIGH level of protection. WG2 captures every habitat with this SMCA other than deep rock. None of the other plans captures deep rock either, but they go out of the way to screw over kayakers. Make sure you let them know this at the BRTF meeting. __________________ MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th.

10-15-2009, 01:27 PM	#8
Tman BRTF...bought & paid... Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,247	Well, can I say it now without worry of offending them? 'A majority of our audience...support Map 3' To the idiot who made that dumbarse comment to me at the Encinitas meeting, I kept my cool, no need to anymore. Hey smurfriders, even though half of your members probably don't surf, and your loudmouth member who said maybe I 'shouldn't take a 50 lb 9 year old out if he can't handle it' looks like a kook, you do realize that if they take Swami's, you could potentially lose an epic surf spot? You guys do realize that, don't you? Maybe someone should make a run to Swami's today, tomorrow, and this weekend, hand out fliers telling them that smurfriders suggest a reserve at Swami's...hmmm...bet that'll go over good... __________________ Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher

10-01-2009, 09:44 AM	#1
Holy Mackerel Señor member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,627	That stinks Martin, there are always bad apples in every group. Sounds like Stefanie, and Joe, are trying to work in good faith for everyone's access.

10-01-2009, 12:25 PM	#3
kurt Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: 2 inches above sea level Posts: 503	Way too hold your temper, Martin. You're definitely the better man.

10-01-2009, 06:49 PM	#4
dmrides Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Point Loma Posts: 584	It was also encouraging to hear that there is not a great deal of support for WG1, since we all know how much that would suck. Thanks again to all of you who continue to put in all your hard work to spread the word of what we want.

10-15-2009, 12:40 PM	#5
Holy Mackerel Señor member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,627	Here ya go, Surfrider SD for MAP 3. http://www.surfrider.org/files/Surfr...FMemoFINAL.pdf

10-15-2009, 01:18 PM	#7
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	I just read the paper and Surfrider did not support any of the maps, they only noted that many of their members supported Map 3. Their specific recommendation for La Jolla is below: "La Jolla: First, the existing La Jolla Cove SMR is a valuable area and “heritage site” that we recommend should be left intact. We see no compelling reason for “squaring off” the boundaries to meet the “feasibility” guidelines (as suggested in Map 3). This area has been protected for a long time and the boundaries are well‐known. In fact, changing the boundaries to meet strict adherence to the “feasibility” guidelines may only serve to undermine the intent of the guidelines – clarity, public awareness and ease of enforcement. Changing the well‐known boundaries may cause unnecessary violations. Although not included in Map 1, we want to highlight our opposition to inclusion of an SMCA between the existing La Jolla Cove SMR and the Scripps Pier. We are not convinced this area is high value habitat nor that it is necessary to meet the spacing guidelines. Second, we recommend the current La Jolla South SMR and SMCA cluster be modified into a single SMR with the northern border at Windansea and the southern border north of the Crystal pier (similar to Map 3). Finally, assuming the final map would include the La Jolla South SMR recommended above, we see no need for the Point Loma SMR. The La Jolla South SMR is sufficient to provide unique and valuable protection for this sub‐region. And, the Pt Loma SMR unnecessarily restricts fishing opportunities for boats leaving Mission Bay."

10-15-2009, 03:55 PM	#9
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	The opening portion of the Surfrider report reads like an executive summary, suggesting they support WG 1 and 3. In fact, only in OC do they care for anything from WG 2, and that one they find insufficient. 1 = 3, an outrageous, extreme position. Most damning is Surfrider's position on Malibu, where they too sell out Malibu's kayak anglers to justify lesser but still devastating closures at Palos Verdes. This is precious turf to us, birthplace of modern kayak fishing. They strike right at our heart. I will never again sympathize with a surfing access or preservation issue. I will remember this betrayal of fellow watermen and women forever. I hope you are with me, that you'll withdraw all support of this group. I'm ready to take a bulldozer to Trestles and build that proposed highway they hate. And I'm looking forward to the day when either one of their fellow environmental NGOs or an aggrieved fishing group sues the state to compell closure of the wildlife and habitat damaged by surfers at Swamis and the like. The meeting doesn't start until Tuesday, so there's still time for the Surfrider leadership to make this right. I urge them to do so or they may yet rue the consequences.