NEW Proposal, BAD A$$ !!

[Ocean-Angler]

guys, since we lost alot of good spots, we should start a fishing fund. start an organization, or use an existing one, to restore fishing habitat..
think about this

with the fund $ we raise, we could create a large artificial reef.
by bringing in large rock and dropping them at a specified point, kelp would grow, and rockfish would migrate and begin their life cycle there...

just think.. if 1,000,000 U.S fisherman paid $1.00 each out of the
that would be enough to create like a 1/4 or 1/8 mile kelp bed...?
good idea?

[fryguy]

would that work? or would all the rocks just end up sinking in the sand?

[troutboy]

There is a few groups world wide that sink old ships to create reefs. It would be great if we could make this happen. I will look in to it.

[steamroll]

I'd rather start a defense fund for those us of who will continue to fish our same fishing grounds

[Ocean-Angler]

Originally Posted by fryguy

would that work? or would all the rocks just end up sinking in the sand?

nah seriously, it really would

the kelp seedlings or moss or whatever its called, sticks to the rocks
and the lifecycle of the kelp beings
once the kelp is established ( 1-3 yrs) the rockfish start showing up
and so begins the cycle
its very effective
when i got $$ and am old, I will buy property on the coastline and spend years of my life to put rocks on my shore and start the process

and if any of u bastards are still alive ur all welcome
( except thsoe who bitch at me. high 5 LOL)

[tylerdurden]

Seriously, Ocean-Angler
Take a deep breath, don't post any crap for a few days. Let us digest wtf just happened. It was a disaster for fishermen as a whole. Some areas did come out OK. Some kayak zones are done. Period.

We don't need this crap right now.

[Ocean-Angler]

This isnt even bad.
Im a kayak fisherman and am immediately trying to figure out what to do next..
I can kinda understand, that maybe my thread of me talkin crap on the state might be too much to handle right now...
but this?
this is possibly a brilliant idea

you think this stuff doesnt bother me?
Im a kayak fisherman.
Ive never had so much fun on any type of fishing in my life
I cant afford offshore. I cant afford party boats.
I come down to SO CAL to hear about great spots, I never even got a chance to fish
AMAZING places.. LA Jolla..
and recently find out that the best fishing spots that have been closed, were literally, secretly closed by a board behind fellow fishermans backs..
and I finally got a chance to get in there and its too late
yea it bothers me too

so , sorry I put too much on the table for u guys to swallow after a big meal already, but damn, it bothers me as well, and Im tryin to move forward

thanks for the support

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tylerdurden

Seriously, Ocean-Angler
Take a deep breath, don't post any crap for a few days. Let us digest wtf just happened. It was a disaster for fishermen as a whole. Some areas did come out OK. Some kayak zones are done. Period.

We don't need this crap right now.

Well said Tyler, well said.....

[forefrazier]

Originally Posted by steamroll

I'd rather start a defense fund for those us of who will continue to fish our same fishing grounds

Now this is something I would support! The first day that the closures officially begin, I say we all go out and fish those same areas. Rally together across the entire length of the coast line from north to south and fish smack dab in the middle of the new MPA areas as a show of defiance toward an unjust process.

[teto116]

Originally Posted by forefrazier

Now this is something I would support! The first day that the closures officially begin, I say we all go out and fish those same areas. Rally together across the entire length of the coast line from north to south and fish smack dab in the middle of the new MPA areas as a show of defiance toward an unjust process.

sign me up! mlpa

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by Ocean-Angler

..... except those who bitch at me. high 5 LOL

Dude!!! you need to chill out a bit... put down the beer and pour me some jig heads

[so cal shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ocean-Angler

guys, since we lost alot of good spots, we should start a fishing fund. start an organization, or use an existing one, to restore fishing habitat..
think about this

with the fund $ we raise, we could create a large artificial reef.
by bringing in large rock and dropping them at a specified point, kelp would grow, and rockfish would migrate and begin their life cycle there...

just think.. if 1,000,000 U.S fisherman paid $1.00 each out of the
that would be enough to create like a 1/4 or 1/8 mile kelp bed...?
good idea?

Your idea is very valid and you are thinking outside of the box but unfortunately the feasibility is difficult. There is more involved in building an artificial reef than just "drop a rock and the kelp will grow on it." The ocean environment is complex there are many many variables that have to be taken into account before embarking on an artificial reef project. There has to be current studies, navigational hazard considerations and optimum water depth and quality to create the best conditions for kelp growth. I wish creating an artificial reef was as simple as "dropping some rocks" but it is not. Do a search on the web about Ca artificial reef projects there have been a number of tries but few have succeeded.

[reefmaker]

Originally Posted by fryguy

would that work? or would all the rocks just end up sinking in the sand?

If you guys are interested in building artificial reef, I can hook you up with the ulitmate reef that won't sink into the sand and it produces fish. www.reefmaker-ecosystems.com

[Ocean-Angler]

Originally Posted by so cal shaggy

Your idea is very valid and you are thinking outside of the box but unfortunately the feasibility is difficult. There is more involved in building an artificial reef than just "drop a rock and the kelp will grow on it." The ocean environment is complex there are many many variables that have to be taken into account before embarking on an artificial reef project. There has to be current studies, navigational hazard considerations and optimum water depth and quality to create the best conditions for kelp growth. I wish creating an artificial reef was as simple as "dropping some rocks" but it is not. Do a search on the web about Ca artificial reef projects there have been a number of tries but few have succeeded.

thanks for the positive input, atleast taking the time to actually think of what I mentioned
As with any big venture, or idea with a big impact that defys normal ideas, I know thered be alot to consider. But its something to consider nonetheless.
I will definitely check it out.
wasnt there a power plant down south they tried that at?

[Sunburn]

There are artificial reefs all over the place. They don't support kelp for the most part. They cost a ton and get covered up by sand and silt real easy.

Some may call it polluting the ocean floor.


There is nothing like the real thing.....

[so cal shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ocean-Angler

wasnt there a power plant down south they tried that at?

Actually there have been at least 4 attempts that I know of to build artificial reefs in the Huntington and Newport Beach areas. Some became artificial reefs that semi succeeded but they were not planned and others that had countless hours of data put into their creation failed. Two that were most known to the public are the artificial reef just outside of Newport harbor that actually was doing very well for a couple of years until we had a big el nino storm come through and tear everything up and the experiment was abandoned and the second reef is in Huntington Beach and it is the remnants of the old HB pier. They dumped it after demolition but did not make the location public. After a number of years the location was discovered but it is still only a rock rubble reef that holds certain species of fish at different times of the year but it has never been like a natural reef in other areas and at some times of the year has one species in decent numbers but at other times of the year is barren. The major thing to understand about building an art reef in So Cal is that kelp is a fickle plant the conditions have to be just right for it to become established and flourish. The water clarity has to be good for light penetration, the temp has to be stable, the area needs to have low disturbance from both nature and humans (the horseshoe kelp used to reach the surface and was a kelp bed but with heavy boat traffic it has been reduced to a a bottom covering of kelp) and it needs time to establish a balanced ecosystem in the area.

[Ocean-Angler]

"During the early days of the program, DFG marine biologists investigated the
effectiveness of various reef materials for increasing sportfishing success. The first two
reefs in California were constructed of donated materials, since the DFG's artificial reef
project had not yet been funded. The operators of Paradise Cove Landing in northern
Santa Monica Bay contributed 20 old automobile bodies to DFG. These old cars were
placed in 50 feet of water at Paradise Cove in May 1958. In September 1958, six old
wooden streetcars were placed in 60 feet of water near Redondo Beach. The donated
streetcars were sunk at the site by the U.S. Navy, which towed them from Los Angeles
Harbor.
These early artificial reefs were designed to test the effectiveness of such structures in
attracting fish. They proved very successful. DFG marine biologist, using scuba, carry
out extensive observations of the reefs for several years. Fishes began to aggregate
around the Paradise Cove car body reef within hours of construction. Surfperches, sargos,
kelp bass, and small California halibut were among the first fishes attracted to the reef,
followed closely by sheephead and opaleye. Later, rockfish and sand bass appeared. The
fish population on the reef increased, until a high of 24,000 semi-resident fishes was
counted in September 1960. During a 30 month survey period, 49 species of fish were
noted on Paradise Cove Reef.
Similar results were observed at Redondo Beach Reef. The streetcars attracted 3,000
fishes, of 47 species, within 25 months. The success of the reefs was attributed to three
main factors: the schooling behavior of fish, the availability of food and shelter, and a
phenomenon known as thigmotropism (the tendency of fish to orient close to a solid
object).
The success of artificial reefs in attracting and concentrating fishes caused the DFG to
initiate a program to investigate the cost-effectiveness and practicality of various reef
building materials. An experiment was designed to determine the enhancement
characteristics
3
resulting from the construction of reefs of similar materials in four separate locations in
Santa Monica Bay. Funded by the Wildlife Conservation Board, these replication reefs
were placed in 60 feet of water off Malibu, Santa Monica, and Hermosa Beach. Each reef
had one streetcar, several old car bodies, quarry rock, and concrete boxes placed in equal
volumes and similar configuration. These reefs were built on relatively barren sand areas
remote from productive, natural rocky substrate. Observations over several years indicated
that concrete boxes were the most effective in attracting fishes, with quarry rock a very
close second. Quarry rock, at half the cost of the fabricated concrete boxes proved to be
the most cost-effective material. While subsequent studies have further substantiated the
value of quarry rock, due to its potential for colonization by, and production of, food
organisms, the availability of surplus concrete from port side demolition projects has
proven to provide both a cost effective and productive material as well.
Since the early days of DFG's artificial reef construction program, several other materials
have been tried with varied success. In the 1970's and 80's used automobile tires were
constantly being offered for use, but have not proven workable in California, as in other
coastal states, because of problems in keeping tire reefs in place and because they seem
to offer a poor surface area for attachment of marine organisms. There is also a potential
for release of harmful chemicals from the tires over time. Several ships have been sunk as
reefs. The first, retired Liberty ship, the PALAWAN, was placed off Redondo Beach in
about 120 feet of water. In 1987 a retired kelp harvesting vessel, the EL REY, formed the
nucleus of a three ship submerged "fleet" off Mission Beach in San Diego. Observations of
the Mission Beach vessels through the early 1990's showed that vessels did not provide
enough small hiding places as do quarry rock of broken concrete rubble, and so further use
of ships as reefs was abandoned.
After the early investigative work from 1958 to 1964, the Department continued to augment
existing reef sites with quarry rock, and donated concrete piping and rubble. Fishing reefs
were also constructed around seven of southern California's fishing piers.
The reefs were occasionally observed by DFG biologists during the course of other work.
However, in 1980 DFG began a major program of artificial reef construction and research.

Recent Reef Development

Southern California Edison (SCE), a major utility company, operates a number of coastal
power plants. SCE biologists were aware of the potential that such power plants could
negatively impact nearby kelp forests, through distribution of nearshore sediments by
cooling waters. To address this concern and to develop more effective
4
reefs for enhancing sport fish populations, DFG and SCE began a cooperative project
leading to construction of Pendleton Artificial Reef (PAR). Studies were conducted by
DFG biologists to evaluate the PAR's potential for enhancing marine resources. In fall
1980, PAR, a "state-of-the-art" quarry rock reef, was constructed in northern San Diego
County. Intensive studies were conducted at PAR from 1980-1986, by DFG biologists and
others, to learn how to more effectively enhance stocks of marine fishes, shell fishes, and
plants using artificial reefs. The information developed during these studies has been used
to design new and more effective artificial reefs built since 1984. Studies on this new
generation of reefs are being used to further improve designs of future reefs in the
continuing search for the most effective reefs for enhancing marine resources.
Since the publication of the original booklet in 1989 two new reefs have been built, and
existing reefs have been extensively augmented. In 1990 Carlsbad Artificial Reef was
constructed from quarry rock, in anticipation of the re-opening of the mouth of Batiquitos
Lagoon. In 1991 International Artificial Reef was constructed from quarry rock in deep
water (165 ft. depth) near the international border.
Bolsa Chica Artificial Reef off Orange Co. has increased from 10,000 tons to 120,000
tons of material. During the summer of 2001 it will grow to 160,000 tons.
During 1992, 9000 tons of broken concrete rubble was scattered over 11 acres at the
Mission Beach Artificial Reef. In less than one year this reef supported a large kelp bed.
The kelp remains ten years later. This represents the first time a kelp bed has been
sustained on a long term basis on an artificial reef in southern California.
During the fall of 1999 Southern California Edison built an experimental mitigation reef off
San Clemente, covering 22 acres of bottom. Similar in construction to the Mission Beach
Kelp Artificial Reef, the SCE reef is designed to support a kelp bed and associated
community. While it is too soon to render a judgement on the long term success of this
experiment, as of the spring of 2001 it appears to be well on its way to succeeding, as it
supports kelp canopy over most of its 22 acres.

How Reefs Work (Aggregation and Production)

Artificial reefs have been used for over 200 years to enhance fishing catches. Early
Japanese fishermen used mounds of stone, laboriously carried to selected locations in
boats, to attract fish. Construction of rock reefs continues in Japan. Currently, Japan
spends approximately $60 million per year for fisheries enhancement projects, including
artificial reef construction. Japanese reef designers have concentrated on creating reefs
which attract fishes, primarily to increase harvest rather than increase production.
5
Early in California's reef development efforts, DFG marine biologists noted the immediate
attraction of large numbers of fishes to artificial reefs, and thus considered reefs
successful. Later, we began to look at the overall impact of such reefs on fish populations.
If the reefs simply attracted fishes and made them easier to catch, we were doing little to
maintain or increase fish populations. Although increased sport fishing success initially
makes anglers happy, the long-term effects of increased local fishing pressure could result
in decreased fish stocks and lower catches.
[ Well thats exactly what all the closures WILL do, reefs in open area increase fishing pressure on what? sand that surrounds reefs? ]
Consequently, reef design and studies were
directed toward developing reefs that increase fish production by augmenting shelter and
forage for target species.
Japanese scientists found that fish attraction was generally greatest in those reefs with the
highest profile to water depth ratio. They built tall, open, prefabricated reef structures that
provided little surface area, but considerable high relief. By altering these designs
and-choosing specific sites, they found they could attract certain species in predictable
fashion. But these structures, by nature of their openness and relative lack of surface area,
provide little space for colonization by encrusting plants and animals that provide food and
shelter. Furthermore, many of the fishes attracted to the Japanese high relief, low surface
area-to-volume reefs are pelagic, offshore species that migrate through and aggregate
around these reefs but generally feed elsewhere in the open ocean. The Japanese reefs
designs are generally fish attracting devices (FADS) which allow Japanese commercial
fisheries to better exploit these fishes.
The sport fishes inhabiting California's reefs are primarily rock and kelp habitat dwellers,
such as kelp bass, sand bass, sheephead, surfperches, and rockfishes. Like the
Japanese fishes, California species are also attracted to high volume, low surface area
reefs. To overcome this potential problem, DFG biologists design reefs which will not only
attract fishes, but will provide them with adequate habitat for shelter, forage, growth, and
reproduction, thereby, increasing fish production. Cattlemen and ecologists use the term
"carrying capacity". It is used to describe the numbers and condition of individuals of a
species that can live on a specific quantity of habitat. For example, ranches with irrigated
pastures have a larger carrying capacity per acre for cattle than do dry land pastures.
Generally, shallow ocean areas with rock reefs have higher carrying capacities for most
sport fishes than nearby sandy areas.
Our goal is to increase the fish carrying capacity of selected areas. To increase carrying
capacity, we attempt to mimic those areas that naturally produce and maintain greater
numbers of fish and good fishing success. DFG reefs generally consist of numerous low
relief rock piles placed at various water depths. Growth of giant kelp on shallow,
man-made rock reefs, like Mission Beach Artificial Reef, San Diego County, increases the
abundance of food and the availability of shelter. Deeper reefs, beyond depths in which
kelp will grow, also provide critical and important substrate for fish production. Various
rock and crevice sizes allow fishes of diverse size to find shelter and reproduce.
6
Since 1980, beginning with Pendleton Artificial Reef, ten large quarry rock reefs have been
built from San Luis Obispo County to San Diego at an average of cost of $275,000. [ a good properly guided fishing organization could easily raise that kind of money for a local reef.. or more ]An
additional five reefs have been constructed or augmented with concrete rubble.

.................

The artificial reef research, development, and building process is ongoing. However, new
reefs can only continue to be constructed subject to the availability of funds and also can
only be sited in appropriate areas. The California Department of Fish and Game is
committed to supporting sport fish populations by habitat restoration and enhancement.
We hope you enjoy your visit to the reefs and that you find this publication useful in
increasing your fishing success. We solicit your comments about any aspects of the reef
program. The address is:


Department of Fish and Game
Nearshore Sport Fish Habitat Enhancement Program
4665 Lampson Ave., Suite C

Los Alamitos, CA 90720


Im sure, this is going to somehow supset someone here, but its worth it, to open others eyes, that there are some solutions, and also, some reefs we might not know about that are already there.

the other point, that if the goal of the artificial reefs is for fisherman to have more fishing, as stated, then IF the BRTF is trying to implement a closure protects an artificial reef intended for fishing, DFG should circumvent the the proposal

thats my 2 cents.

[DESTROYER]

Took me awhile to post a reply on this one. I'm filled with all kinds of crap in my head about this one. I watched the decision on Cal-Span and was utterly speechless. They made their decisions like they were late for dinner.

We don't need to raise money for artificial reefs, the enviros already do that. We need to raise money for a F-ing Lawyer to stick some polyethylene straight up their asses. What they have done to us is so un-american it makes me sick. People, if your wondering why California is broke, all you had to do is watch this process.

I agree with Tyler and Matt. Let's relax, open a beer, get the popcorn ready because this is far from over! For now, go

TL-Matt