kayakfishermen are "tiny" wuss! Or so they say.

[zenspearo]

And the preservationist-enviro want the BRTF to shrug you off. Because you don't matter.

http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=95007

Here's is what you can do. Join your fellow kayakfishermen and send those emails.

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/s...ead.php?t=6213

Don't only send them by yourself. Have your wife send them. Have your kids send them.

In my house, that's 5 people. And I send them for all 6 regions. That's 30 emails from this house alone!!!!

If you need arguments, here they are.

Overall in support of Group 2:

Provides for almost as much protection as other WGs at 1/2 to 1/4 of the cost to the recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and fishing-dependent communities.
Has broad cross-interest support
Presents a fully-integrated array, which resulted from a year of more of intense negotiations among a wide variety of ocean users.

For San Diego (the area I know):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1. Support Prop 2 for San Diego, where it meets all science guidelines and lessens economic impact. Captures the rare deep water rock and pinnacles at Del Mar. Other proposals fall short of SAT guidelines because they do not.

2. Argue strenuously against the closure of South La Jolla. If the task force closes south La Jolla, enlarges the existing reserve and grows the SMCA proposed for the pier all the way up to Torrey Pines (BOOKENDS), there will be many negative impacts:

- Closing south la jolla will cause huge compaction in the postage-sized NW of La Jolla. Compaction will cause a huge threat to public safety. We'll have to share a tiny area with sportboats, private boats, commercial boats, free divers and kayakers. People will get hurt, most likely a free diver or kayaker.


- South La Jolla is critically important to local commercial lobster and urchin and to the sportboat landings in Mission Bay. Remember, in years the current runs predominately uphill, south La Jolla grows in importance to us too. Besides, north Pt Loma is more suitable as it offers the most persistent kelp forest in Southern California. When there's no kelp in LJ, its still hanging on at north Pt Loma. The economic and access hits are much lighter.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For Laguna: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!

WG2 shape takes into account ALL the guidelines set forth by the DFG as to size and shape, and as to special areas to avoid as well as to consider. There is NO shape for Laguna that can meet 100% of all habitat requirements. One of the goals of the MLPA master plan guidance was to NOT disenfranchise the consumptive public. While shapes like the alternative shape put forth by the BRTF would not completely stifle boat fishing, it WOULD effectively kill shore based fishing and diving practices. These beaches are some of the traditional dive spots, from before the time of Scuba. People have fished from the shore in Laguna since the town's inception, and as a consumptive user, we lost the opportunity to fish from Aliso Pier with it's destruction by large surf and subsequent removal. The shape brought forth by WG 2 would at the least allow 5 coastal access points out of 26. That is a MINIMAL amount of accessible beach to fish from. The state has deemed public access to be mandatory to beachfront areas, and much of those easements were designed and fought for by shore based fishermen.
Even the Surfrider foundation agreed with the shape and design of WG2's proposal, though they asked for the upper line to be moved to the north.

The alternate shape for Laguna NOT being actively discussed at this moment is the one in which the boundary lines are perpendicular to shore. Starting At Cress St. which has an unmistakable boundary on the beach, along with a clearly visible boiler rock 1/3 mile off shore is THE SIMPLEST shape of all to enforce, and for the public at large to follow. Whether fishing from a boat or kayak, the line of the rock to the outcropping on the beach, coupled with the road above make following the rules for this shape simple. The northern boundary would be at Emerald Cove, from the large boiler at the headland. Yet another unmistakable clear boundary. The shape is larger than WG2, and it does capture more nearshore habitat by design. Also, it will close off some more access points than WG2. But, it would STILL leave us 5 good access points, and would give anglers of all types a bit of safe, dependable access to the shoreline in Laguna, while protecting miles of great habitat.

Proposal 1 and the alternate being considered by the BRTF for their "preferred alternative" would close every easy access point (suitable for seniors and others with some physical limitations) except for 1 from Corona del Mar to Dana Point - - 14 miles of coastline. Proposal 2 leaves open 9 easy access points for spear and surf fishermen in this area.

Central Laguna - the area to be closed - is one of the few areas in the world where "modern" spearfishing began. A number of people, including my dad, began spearfishing in Laguna in the early 1930's. Home made equipment, no wet suits or dry suits, no spearguns, no snorkles. Home made masks and spearpolls with churchhill fins. They started spearfishing here because it is one of the best areas for divers. Exceptionally clear water and safe protected pocket coves. This is a traditional spearfishing area and we should retain some of fishing in the future.

Workgroup 2 does not take away as much access in Laguna Beach as workgroup 3 or 1. Access in Laguna Beach for disabled individuals is limited and workgroup 2 map is the only proposal that leaves some access for these individuals in Laguna Beach. There has also been a last minute alternative shape created for Laguna Beach as well that would also still allow decent access to shore based anglers and consumptive divers. Both workgroup 2 and the alternative shape have very definitive boundaries on both their northern (Abalone Point) and southern ends (Cress street) which would make enforcement for F&G officers more manageable and also allow the public to make a visual designation as to where the boundaries of the closure areas are located.

The revised, perpendicular-from-shore shape, proposed by many RSG members, meets requests from DFG for boundaries, which meet their guidelines for enforceability

Opens 6 of the 26 possible public access points, 25 of which are closed in other proposals

[zenspearo]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For PV: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!

Southern PV is loaded with DDT and PCB's, DDT is known to cause a 10% or more rise in infant deaths due to decreased lactation time in breastfeeding mothers. Low income families that have to fish to sustain themselves have no choice but to expose themselves to larger amounts of DDT than the rest of the population, and would be in a considerable health risk if map 1 or 3 closures pass which would force them into the more polluted southern PV.

The pipe, which is situated within the northern boundary of map 1 concentrates all of the pollution from Palos Verdes Estates into one outfall. The currents immediately carry this pollution directly into the closures proposed by map 3. Walk-throughs after rainfall have shown lifeless tidepools, and the polluted water that collects in a pool under the pipe after the rainfall kills 99% plants within 10 feet of it. As the Santa Monica Baykeepers have confirmed, outfall pipes contain heavy metals, specifically copper, and all marine biologists agree that copper is 100% fatal to the invertebrate microfauna that make up the base of the food chain. Every time that it rains here the base of the food chain has to start again from square one. Heavy metals and some pesticides have been shown to slow the growth rate of fish while adversely affecting their fertility rates, which with map 1 and 3 closures will lead to MPA's with smaller, more sterile fish. Map 2 contains the terranea resort, which already has wells and filtration in place for the cleanest rainwater outfall in the entire southern california area.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Point Dume: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!


Dume talking points have everything to do with access and safety. Support Prop 2 which leaves Dume Pt open and still meets SAT guidelines for habitat replication as well as the alternative. 1 and 3 strike hard at already rare public access - even consumptives deserve a sliver of opportunity. Putting the line at Little Dume will shut off locally precious access to free divers and surf casters at Westward. And finally, that last bathroom at Westward is an ideal boundary, obvious from the shore and the ocean.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Santa Barbara: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!

Meets guidelines without imposing the immense socio-economic damage that adding Naples Reef causes


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Malibu need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
Meets guidelines without taking additional, and necessary ocean habitat prized by all fishing groups
Mediates the economic damage to SPFVs based in the Santa Monica Bay
No need to take the ENTIRE canyon when our plan already meeds guidelines
Provides for a safe haven for divers and kayakers, behind the wind shadow of Pt. Dume

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[bellcon]

kayakfishermen are "tiny" wuss! Or so they say.

I say we arm wrestle to decide on the closures


come on guys send the emails!

[tylerdurden]

This is what was posted on spearboard. From the MLPA email list. Garth Murphy showing the other sides view of us as a pain the side that the BRTF should just swat away and close us down.

SCREW THAT.

Garth Murphy:

Scott, you are correct. And less than a handful for 1. If you look at the deletion analysis figures you will see why scientifically.

If you look at the paltry number of consumptive fishermen compared to the population of the state and the tiny percent of Coastal income they make and food they put on the tables of the state, 1/4 pound per person per year! you will see why the letters favor 3. You should write a little summary of numbers of letters for 3, or ask staff for theirs, because I am sure someone must be crunchiing these numbers for the BRTF who do not have time to read the letters.

We could present those for the BRTF.

I also noticed that the 2 favoring letters are brief, usually a paragraph or two, and the 3 favoring are often a couple of pages and have good reasons and understanding of the issues.

There is big political pull by the well organized and wealthy commercial and CPFV crews, and a vocifereous but tiny number of young divers and kayakers who carry the weight with BRTF that we have to convince them to shrug off and move forward.g


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, wrote:

I find it interesting that most of these comments, (with thousands of 'additional letters' submitted), far and away support Proposal 3. It has been this way for at least the past four or five public comment submissions from Amy. I hope the BRTF are reading these. Especially the critique on the Southwick study.

[kurt]

The tiny number of kayakers and divers have probably made up over 50% of the audience at the majority of the MLPA meetings. There's so many things wrong in Mr. Murphys e-mail, it can make your head spin.

You should write a little summary of numbers of letters for 3, or ask staff for theirs, because I am sure someone must be crunchiing these numbers for the BRTF who do not have time to read the letters.

I also noticed that the 2 favoring letters are brief, usually a paragraph or two, and the 3 favoring are often a couple of pages and have good reasons and understanding of the issues.

Maybe the BRTF doesn't have time to read the letters, because the non-consumptives are just rambling on for page after page! Actually, I know they read the letters, because I have received personal responses from BRTF members and staffmembers to some of my e-mails.

All right, you uninformed kayak fisherman. Let's write some letters. And I bet if you can make your points in a concise way, the BRTF would appreciate it!

[Matt]

As my dad always said "it isn't about the size of the dog in the fight, it's about the size of the fight in the DOG!"

NOW STAND UP AND SHOW 'EM WHAT WE ARE MADE OF!!!!!!!!