Arnie and his enviro cronies screwed us--AGAIN

[robmandel]

everything you need to know is that when sustos asked some questions based on science, and simply wanted more time to review the document, he was fired. we don't have any species in danger.

truth is the mpa's won't help fisheries at all. there is no science to back it up. the only evidence offered was mpa's in other countries which a) were never managed at all in the first place and b) suffered from the tragedy of the commons.

now, I teach economics in high school and college (well, did in college before the budget axe!!). any economist will tell you that when you make a resource off limits, you effectively make its value zero. in other words, it has no value, and is worthless. what this means is that there is no reason or incentive to protect or preserve or in any other way take care of the resource. so expect the polluting of those areas to increase. why? well, the water has no value, and polluting it cannot lessen the value in any way. period.

the other problem any economist will tell you is that in closing those areas, you create an economic drain. maintenance and protection require vast effort, and will always be a losing proposition. since you can't utilize the resource, it offers no benefit.

as for the mpa's working, well, they don't. there is no evidence of the "spillover effect". it won't benefit pelagics obviously as they migrate through. as for residents, like calico bass, there is something called carrying capacity. and when any area in particular reaches it, populations won't keep growing and expending. besides, what they closed off or wanted to close off) were particularly (well, except in PV) good habitat areas so there's simply not the habitat to support expansion on the periphery. and, do you think the sport boats won't have those gps coords plugged in? you think they're not going to sit on the edges and pick off any spillover bass? please. what fools those people are!!

see also the DFG artificial reef program.

the problems that the coast and the coastal fishery faces - over-development, runoff, pollution, erosion, et al. - are not and cannot be addressed by the mlpa. go ahead and read the bill. I did. there's nothing in there which addresses those problems as a whole, which (pollution for instance) will "spill over" from non-mpa's into mpa's. so the fundamental issue isn't addressed. but, there's a catch: the burden on the localities to maintain, and worse, the requirements:

"the area shall be maintained to the extent practicable in an undisturbed and unpolluted state."
also
"Marine life reserves shall be designed, to the extent practicable, to ensure that activities that upset the natural ecological functions of the area are avoided."

which means that it's going to hit local areas very hard. that's a huge economic impact which was NEVER considered. which by the way, was addressed somewhat at the F&G meeting in march. the local city gov'ts are scared.

which is another problem in economics, the infrastructure problem. pols love building bridges - jobs, fancy signs, even get to name them in west virginia!! - but afterwards, the upkeep gets to be enormously expensive. and it'll be a drain on california's, and the local's, economies for a looooong time. and the unforeseen consequences, the loss of fishing, etc., and the impact on jobs, hell, all of south SaMo bay cities lobbied hard to keep rocky point open. yo uthink it was all abotu fishing? please.

and this:
To ensure that California's MPAs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines.
none exist. DFG wardens already said they can't.

and this:
An identification of select species or groups of species likely to benefit from MPAs, and the extent of their marine habitat, with special attention to marine breeding and spawning grounds, and available information on oceanographic features, such as current patterns, upwelling zones, and other factors that significantly affect the distribution of those fish or shellfish and their larvae.

none of this was part of the process. it was about closures, but no mention of species was presented.


The department shall establish a process for external peer review of the scientific basis for the master plan prepared pursuant to Section 2855.
never happened.

the mlpa violated the law also as it the SAT didn't have the required members

(A)Staff from the department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board, to be designated by each of those departments.
(C) One member, appointed from a list prepared by Sea Grant marine advisers, who shall have direct expertise with ocean habitat and sea life in California marine waters.

A and C were not part of the South Coast but WERE part of the Central Coast. Their absence cannot be simply an oversight. It is a clear violation of the law. The entire outcome is therefore null and void. damn sure if it was reversed, the enviros would be screaming bloody f***ing hell on this one.

I've said enough. just please know this, when fishermen take the position that "it's not that bad", or "we need some closures", etc., a) there's alot of people here that gave everything they had and then some to keep it "not that bad" and b) you're aiding groups that want to shut fishing down completely. I know alot of the guys here, mostly from the meetings and what not, and you won't find a better group of people anywhere. to have happen to them what happened is a crime. period.

take it or leave it. I'll stake my camp with the guys I fought with.

[bellcon]

Damn Stan,
I wish you were here a year or so ago...
could have saved me a bunch of time, money and frustration...

I'm officially on Stans side now.
He went from being ignorant about the MLPA issue to an expert in less than 24 hours...

I have been mislead by Paul, Chris, Grego, Billy, Tyler, Zenspearo, etc. etc.
oh also Clay and his gaffing dad

I want a few hundred hours and few hundred dollars back...
Rob your the economics professor, figure it out, who do I send the bill to?

I hate being mislead...

[dorado50]

Stan reminds me of the internet fisherman,you know,the guy thats just starting out and catches a fish on a wide open bite,then the very next day has all the answers and experiences it takes to become a good fisherman.

[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

30 seconds in google search turned up this, study of florida MPAs

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/54423.pdf
.

Very weak study. And I'm not the only one who thought so:

Science 15 February 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1233 - 1235
DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5558.1233b

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Letters
Marine Reserves and Fisheries Management
In their report "Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries" (30 Nov., p. 1920), C. M. Roberts and co-authors present data indicating that fishery yields have increased in waters adjacent to marine reserves in St. Lucia and east Florida. In many developing island nations like St. Lucia in the Caribbean, fisheries are seriously overexploited, and little or no fisheries management exists. In such cases where marine reserves are the primary means of control of fishing effort and catch, they can result in increased yields compared with a no-management scenario. However, the St. Lucia example is specific to coral reef fisheries and does not prove the global utility of reserves to fisheries.

In contrast to St. Lucia, the recreational fisheries in east Florida are stringently regulated. Currently, the bag limit for red drum is one fish per person, with a slot limit of 18 to 27 inches (~46 to 69 centimeters) long (1). What effect have these regulations had on sizes of red and black drum along the entire east coast of Florida? According to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, the mean weight of red drum and black drum in east Florida has more than doubled since the 1980s (2). Although the reserves in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge examined by Roberts et al. reportedly have provided trophy-size fish to a limited area outside their boundaries, "traditional" fisheries management has resulted in size increases across the entire fishery. Furthermore, it is estimated that 80 to 90% of reserves have not succeeded in meeting their management objectives, even in coral reef systems (3).

Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery, and how might current reserves be better managed so that they attain their fishery goals.

Mark H. Tupper
University of Guam Marine Laboratory,
UOG Station,
Mangilao, GU 96923, USA.
E-mail: mtupper{at}guam.uog.edu

References and Notes

1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Red Drum Management Plan (Specific Authority Art. IV, Sec. 9, Florida Constitution, chaps. 83-134, Laws of Florida, amended 1991).
2. Data were queried from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey available at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreatio...ies/index.html
3. G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, S. Wells, A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1995); J. Alder, Coastal Manage. 24, 97 (1996); T. McClanahan, Coral Reefs 18, 321 (1999).

The study by C. M. Roberts and colleagues seems little more than a promotional tool for proposed no fishing zones styled as marine reserves. The authors conclude that marine reserves off the southwest coast of St. Lucia and the east coast of Florida have enhanced adjacent fisheries, but such a conclusion is overreaching, given the data they present.

In the latter case, for example, Roberts et al. examined data from the two reserve zones in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge at Cape Canaveral. They conducted seine samples and report that they found more and bigger fish inside the area than outside where fishing was allowed. The study is presented as if the research were current, but no true dates are given for the seining. In fact, the seine samples go back to 1987-89 (1), a period when the fished waters were subjected to wanton commercial gill netting at its peak. In 1995, a Florida constitutional amendment finally banned the gill nets. This reform accompanied numerous new limits on recreational fishing. As a consequence, fish stocks have skyrocketed in the same fished area, as demonstrated in young-fish research projects by the state. So, all that Roberts et al. have shown is that when commercial pressures are curtailed, fish stocks thrive.

The authors bolster their conclusions about the Cape Canaveral marine reserves by listing a number of recreational fishing records supposedly set because of big fish migrating out of the reserves. However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat. In addition, there was a spurt of records along Florida's east coast, largely as the result of line-class categories created by the International Game Fish Association, as well as $1000 awards paid by a line manufacturer. Importantly, many records were set in areas far removed from the reserve areas, including Mosquito Lagoon waters that are separated by land from them.

The real cause of perceived problems in fisheries management is the commercial take-for-profit. There is no justification for banning family-level angling, which is allowed in Yellowstone and Everglades national parks and other fragile areas. Good management does not require draconian prohibitions.

Karl Wickstrom*
Florida Sportsman Magazine,
2700 South Kanner Highway,
Stuart, FL 34994, USA.
E-mail: karl{at}floridasportsman.com

*Founder and Editor-in-Chief

References and notes

1. D. R. Johnson, N. A. Funicelli, J. A. Bohnsack, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19, 436 (1999).

The conclusions by C. M. Roberts and colleagues that the effects of the Soufri`ere Marine Management Area (SMMA) extended beyond its boundaries and that commercial fish yields were increased because of the marine reserve are weak, for two reasons. First, there were no controls in the study and thus there can be no strong evidence for an effect of the experimental treatment. Second, the increase in abundance and catch outside the reserve was far too rapid to have been due to a buildup of a spawning population inside the reserve and export of eggs and larvae.

Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves. For this chain of events to happen and for the exported eggs and larvae to grow to sufficient size for fishing would require time. Yet Roberts et al. report that the abundance outside the SMMA increased immediately after its establishment, despite the fact that fishing effort and catch increased outside the reserve. The rapid increase in abundance outside the SMMA could not have been due to increases in spawning stock inside. Alternative explanations for the data include an environmental change, as Roberts et al. suggest, or the effect of the experiment, which involved not only the establishment of the protected area, but "daily patrols by wardens," heightened public awareness, and other factors that could have contributed to improved compliance with existing regulations.

Ray Hilborn
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
E-mail: rayh{at}u.washington.edu


You seem to be a master of the ad hominem attack (e.g. people who might disagree with you are racist, islamaphobic, too stupid too understand the MLPA because they are economists), so I'm awaiting your slander. Perhaps the font I used is sexist?

[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Most of these are weak or aren't specific to south CA MPAs



He says the US MPA isn't a general result that would be the same in the rest of the world....which isn't the issue here...we are talking about another US MPA so the study is relevant

No. What he says is "Before implementing new reserves, it would be wise to ask whether a reserve is the best strategy for managing a particular fishery..." He also points out that less extreme measures are also working.

He also admits that, yeah, it might have increased the size of catches near the area (which you decided not to bold, convenient)

You caught me! Cleverly trying to hide the truth by posting his entire response.

The Fishing magazine writer (no conflict of interest there!) decided to ignore the statistic of biomass inside the MPA surpassing outside biomass in the same time frame.

And what about the interests of the authors of the original article? Do you think they would have been published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world if their results would have found no effect?
In fact "the fishing magazine writer" addresses the point you accuse him of ignoring, directly: "However, before being closed to the public, the reserve waters (part of what was established as the Cape Kennedy security zone) were already known to harbor record specimens of certain species because of prime habitat." Which illustrates one of the biggest flaws of the study. No controls.

Also, yellowstone is heavly regulated, some rivers are closed to fishing year round, some are fly fishing only, there is no fishing for several months every year, and yellowstone isn't fished as heavly as our coastal waters simply due to population density, being a state park, and freshwater anglers these days being more likely to practice C&R.

All measures that are short of MLPA-style outright bans.

This guy doesn't seem to know that biomass isn't fish count....fish grow bigger every hour of every day...they don't need to spawn to grow bigger.

He seems to know it quite well, which is why he says: "Regarding the second point, proponents of marine protected areas argue that spawning stock will build up inside reserves and eggs, larvae, and juveniles will then be exported to areas outside the reserves."
The whole point is more fish, right? Not an equal number of bigger fish (that will then be caught outside the MPA).

Aww, don't like it when the enviromentalists you guys like to talk smack about so much give it back a little?

Everyone was more than civil with you before (and even after) you starting implying that they were racist, islamaphobic, homophobic, extremists. One guy even gave you his phone number! It's pretty clear who's doing the smack talking.

[Gino]

Stan. What fisheries are in trouble right now? Specifically in the Southern Section of the MLPA (were the folks on this froum fish)

Im interested to hear what information you have.

[Gino]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Southern California Steelhead (endangered)

Black Abalone (endangered)

Bocaccio

cowcod

green abalone

pink abalone

Yelloweye Rockfish

Canary rockfish

Giant (black) sea bass

I'm sure I missed some.

Cowcod If i remeber right are off limits to take... so thats ones solved. And if you were a kayak fisherman youd know damn well the Black Sea Bass arent endangered, those are also off limits to take so problem solved there.

Dont think anyone here has caught any Abalone from there kayak... thats right becuase they restrict the take on those too And they dont take fin bait...
The rockfish Fisheries are just fine. and the kayak take of those specieies mentiond is very small (less than a ton a year statewide)

Stealhead? those are endanrged due to damning the rivers and turning them into drainage systems for farming irrigation. Whats funny is there used to be Stealhead ay the rivermouth here in Dana point. they destroyed the san juan river. so no more stealhead. no MLPA is going to bring that back...

So there you ago, any other endangered species? many of thsoe rockfish species are caught well outide the MLPA map zones anyways so the MLPA doesnt help them either.

You still have no case!

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

Except you're wrong...can't even follow existing regs.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/bfregs2010.asp#south

COWCOD ARE PROTECTED,you cant keep them, says in the info you provided! we arent misinformed you are

[Billy V]

[bellcon]

Sitting here remembering that list I was taught in class...
"The list of fallacious arguments"... Stan the man reeks of them...

one of the most common:
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.
For example, "Stan's fews about MLPA's are worthless because he is an asshole" (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)

Only on the super friendly site of BWE could this guy go on for so long...



P.S.
Stan,
sorry for being unfriendly... But I really think you are an asshole

[Gino]

Maybe if we give this guy a Joint and a Guitar hell go away.

[deepdvr]

Stan, why so much flip-flopping?????

Remember this thread you started?

Stan K G
Member

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56


san diegito lagoon/river?

---

anyone take a yak to fish in there? any luck?

-----------------------------------------

deepdvr
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Carlsbad
Posts: 221




All this info is on the DFG website. There are maps as well:

Existing Marine Protected Areas in California: Regulations

San Diego County	SPECIES PROHIBITED For Recreational Take	SPECIES ALLOWED For Recreational Take
Buena Vista Lagoon State Marine Park (estuarine)	Kelp	Marine aquatic plants EXCEPT kelp; Invertebrates in designated times and in designated areas; Finfish by hook and line during designated times and in designated areas
Agua Hedionda Lagoon State Marine Reserve (estuarine)	All	None
Batiquitos Lagoon State Marine Park (estuarine)	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates	Finfish by hook and line from shore
Encinitas State Marine Conservation Area	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates	Finfish
Cardiff-San Elijo State Marine Conservation Area	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates EXCEPT chiones, clams, cockles, rock scallops, native oysters, crabs, lobster, ghost shrimp, sea urchins, mussels, and marine worms1	Chiones, clams, cockles, rock scallops, native oysters, crabs, lobster, ghost shrimp, sea urchins, mussels, and marine worms1; Finfish
San Elijo Lagoon State Marine Park (estuarine)	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates	Finfish by hook and line from shore
San Dieguito Lagoon State Marine Park (estuarine)	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates	Finfish by hook and line from shore and the Grand Avenue Bridge
San Diego-Scripps State Marine Conservation Area	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates	Finfish
La Jolla State Marine Conservation Area	All	None
Mia J. Tegner State Marine Conservation Area	All marine aquatic plants; All invertebrates	Finfish

-------------------------------------------

Stan K G
Member

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56




Booo!

-------------------------------------

Stan K G
Member

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56




bummer...is the san diego river outlet off limits too?

---------------------------------------

Stan K G
Member

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 56




I just want a winter sight fishing spot once the corbina take off.



It's all about you isn't it Stan. You're a freakin hypocrite.

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

So, I have to love the closures?

Sorry, guess I'm just more grown up than most of you guys; I can not like something, while still understanding its purpose, and not throw a tantrum calling the government tyranical...for protecting a lagoon.

but do you really think it serves a profitable purpose

[The Kid]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

I don't really care about profit, conservation on its own is good.

conservation in the end is encouraging a bountiful ocean which in turn profits those who seeks to harvest from it and that's what the MLPA and such acts like it are doing they are ensuring future profit. But the method, MLPA, used to accomplish it is rash when there are better methods to accomplish the same goal.

[jhook]

Originally Posted by Stan K G

We have the other measures, apperently they aren't enough. (and no anecdotes about how you think the fishery is fine)

Which fishery?

Yeah, the result you don't like has gotta be the only one the journal would accept...those evil scientists HATE when things don't work.

Honestly you highlight the exact problem with bringing up factual evidence to convince you people. Everything counter to your view must be some conspiracy, not anything you can proove, but, you know....It has to be!

The whole point of my response was to point out the flaws in the "factual evidence". One flawed study should not be enough to convince anyone. And, I can assure you that non-results do not get published in top-tier journals. Science also has a definite editorial bent (like all journals). You have far too much faith in experts. Scientists are human, and have personal conflicts and biases, just like everyone else. That doesn't make them evil. Scrutinize the data. Don't just trust the experts.

Where are your exhaustive, double-blind, US-based MPA studies anyhow?

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those that are trying to change the rules?

How are rivers being off limits to fishing different from MPAs that are off limits to fishing?

For one thing, the data are much better for relatively small, relatively closed systems like freshwater lakes and streams.

Another person with those awesome rose colored shades.

I'm not surprised that the discussion devolved into ranting and name calling. I just wanted to point out that you started it. Too bad really, as I'm trying to learn more about the MLPA process as well.

[Gino]

Acually Your Mexicans and Muslims comment I think was what really turned it sour. That was a Colorfull display of ignoramus.

not all lagoons a man made

Steelhead dont spawn in Lagoons. certainly not Lagoons in Southern California. We would have Stripers down here too if they had acess to brackish water to spawn. I caught one in Dana point.

What? Now you're just being dense.

juvie fish will live IN the MPAs, if you cannot fish in the MPAs, you can not catch the juvie fish IN the MPAs.

No one on this forum is fishing for Juvi Rockfish. If any are caught on a rare ocasion. they are released, and the death to release ratio is pretty small. Becuase the catch ratio of juvi rockfish is very small.

Kayakfishing has a very low impact on the Rockfish populations The MPA does not protect agaisnt even 90% of the rockfish take in Southern California. Kayakfishing has little effect on most of these fisheries. Protecting Juvenile Rockfish does not improve the Rockfish Fishery, Regulating a lower limit or size Requirments does. There is no Juvenile Rockfish if there is not Big rockfish spawning. We have a good amount on Rockfish Spawning Protection now. That Fishery is closed a good portion of the year. and Regulated even by Depth in certain areas. lowering the daily limit would be leaps and bounds, not an MPA. You want to increase rockfish populations point your fingers at the Commerical Fishing. Not at us.

Did you get that degree yet?

I dont need a Degree to know Big Squid, eat little fish. For an animal that grows from a Fry to 5 feet long in a little more than year, it has to eat alot of fish. Im willing to bet if there was a study, Im sure youd find a Substancial amount of Small Rockfish in there Diets. I never said i was expert. But Logic trumps reason.

There is very little enforcement in the already Existing MPAs... The MLPA does not have anything in that legislation that increases enforcement or enforcement personel. How do the police uphold the law without policemen patrolling the streets? a Law means nothing without enforcement. Theres not enough enforcement now... theres no tax dollars going around to increase enforcement tomorrow. Most of the newly expanded, or aquired MPA will have no enforcement when they become implemented. DFG is plenty understaffed. and Local Law enforcement wont pick up the Tab. They cant even Enforce protecting the Local Tidepools from the public stepping all over Sea Anemones.

And that Black Sea bass guy, He got his sure fare share of criticism on this forum and many others.. Acually it was alot of the Kayakfishing community who got the DFG and DA to investigate. The Fishing Community in general was what gave those videos the exposure, Which lead to him being charged.
Besides there was no kayak fisherman in the making of that film.
And since there was no MPA around that pier to save that fish, i guess it was just his unluckly day! he musta wandered away from his protected Kelp...


The MPA hurts fishing access for us. It limits us on where we can fish. We are the ones most effected by it. just becuase you see alot of empty coastline apart form the closures on a map. doesnt mean there is efficiant or safe public access to it. The people who endanger our natural Resources the least are the ones being restricted the most. And were somehow supposed to apreciate the MLPA? or accept it for all its specualted goodness? I wish i could say our Tax dollars were funding this but its not, its Packard and Moore, and Special intrest groups, While Big oil gets involved to make sure its future buisness adventures are well protected. Its all upside down.

You maybe could have looked at the MLPA on its face and say hey its a good thing. Funny Enough at First i sure did. Until i started going to the meetings... And when i started to see and learn about some of the crooked side of it.

As far as pole #s go. If you put a poll up for califronians asking who they feel about more Oil drilling of the coast. after that BP and the goverments mess back in the Gulf. Im sure youd find folks would be "strongly agaisnt" Well even they are using the process to there advantage. I know a good deal about that i happen to have connectons involved in Big Oil.


You can post up here all your NOAA and your missworded poll Data. We are just recreational Fisherman, No some billion dollar Enviormental Lobbyist or monster coporations coalition trying to get there peice of the pie. We just want to fish and not be botherd.

[dorado50]

please, no name calling. It will not be tolerated on this forum.

[bellcon]

Originally Posted by dorado50

please, no name calling. It will not be tolerated on this forum.

I seem to remember that rule Dave...

maybe this is a "special" case

Come on guys, by now
We all know there is no "reasoning" with stan
This whole post is like looking at porno for a guy like him...
he has his pants down around his ankles,
typing shit he would never say in person, face to face with anyone here.

Keep it simple
stans a douche bag leaf licker

As you get "older" you realize kicking someone ass for being an obnoxious, argumentative little piece of shit, who doesn't know when to shut up or leave... just isn't right...

then a guy like Stan comes along
and kind of makes you rethink the whole idea


I wonder how many other boards stan is sharing these little rants with...
"oh look at me... look how upset I got all those mean kayak fishermen"


He doesn't deserve to hear us re-hash our arguments
or our logic
if he wants to see what we have said on this subject he can go back in the DFG archives and watch us speak at the meetings...

[robmandel]

a few things, and I will end this.

as for the economists and houses, mostly it was policy, not economists. some argued for creating a housing bubble, but policy did it. I'd explain, but you're better off reading Tom Woods or Bob Murphy.

As for the mpa's, of course if you don't fish an area it's fish populations will increase. that's freaking obvious. don't fish at all, yes, there'll be more fish. but will we get a spillover effect with bass, rock fish, etc.? we simply don't know. we have mpa's already and there's not been documented evidence, in california, on california species. truth is the science wasn't settled.

eco-tourism will not benefit at all from mpa's. there's nothing gonna suddenly appear in five years that isn't there now. that's a moot point. the LJ caves are there and visited. mpa's won't help that. people paddle off the coast on paddleboards and kayaks and what not already. eco-tourism in california is like the whale watching trips. they aren't going to be affected, either way. and yo apparently missed the "undisturbed and unpolluted state" part. eco-tourism would disturb. and it'd be such a small addition which would be far surpassed by all the loss and extra cost.

as for the mpa's addressing other issues, if it falls on local agencies, they're flat broke. if it falls on the state agencies, they're flat broke too. and it leaves too much wiggle room, cf. "to the extent possible". and the mlpa was specifically about closing areas to fishing. period.

it's more than buoys. you're going to create a nightmare of enforcement, unless you want civilian patrols, neighbor turning in neighbor, citizen turning into enviro-police. welcome to the soviet union. and no, that's not hyperbole.

all along, the obvious solution was management. look at what fishermen have done with the white sea bass (not that I'd know, but that's my poor fishing skills!) fishery. or how we've handled the black sea bass. put slot limits, take limits, do C&R, all that. we're fine with that, and will absolutely support that 110%. do you honestly think that the closure people really are concerned with your fishing? do you think they want healthy sustainable fishing? if you do, then you're fooling yourself. I'd use worse, but I'll leave that to your imagination.

the closures were never about any of that, and if you were there, if you went through what we went through, you'd know it. you'd know the malfeasance of the brtf and the hearings. you'd know what the "other side" tried to pull, and even still, was able to get away with. you'd know how the rules (i.e. persistent kelp) were changed, altered, rewritten, etc. you'd know of the behind door dealings on maps (illegal by the way). you'd know how science was specifically thrown out, ignored, or in other cases, modified. but you weren't, and you don't.

there's not a single guy here who doesn't want healthy fish populations, doesn't want to see well managed fisheries. not a single guy here isn't in touch, literally, with water quality and it's impact. not a single guy here doesn't want to work hand in hand with the dfg to manage game, nail poachers, and stop the vast over harvesting by some commercial fishing. oh, and the fact that we were lumped with the commercial fishing, that's another thing.

but the bottom line is still principle. it was an egregious act of abuse by government, taking away livelihoods from some, liberty from all. in any other venue, the newspapers woulda been all over this like stink on shit. it woulda been front page news. but it wasn't even mentioned. it was top to bottom a corrupt, dishonest, and disgusting process, an abuse of power by a government set against its citizens. but you don't know that, or don't care to know.

if our fisheries were in peril, that'd be one thing. but they're not. and what is affecting them is far removed from 3 miles of coastline in malibu or la jolla and can't be corrected by closing them off. and we know they'll be back. the mpa's slated won't solve the problem, and we know that more is coming. we know what they want, what the money is trying to buy, and what the goal is.

healthy fishing isn't their goal. no fishing at all is.

I will fight them as long as I have breath in my lungs.

[dsafety]

It's not in my nature to stay silent about things that I care about but that is exactly what I am going to do here. Rob's last post pretty much covers things. Well done.

I just have one question for Stan. For a guy who claims to be new to all of this, he seems pretty passionate about his point of view. That is unusual from a newbie. Could Stan actually be a seasoned agent from the other camp out trying to steal some souls? It's possible.

If that is your game Stan, I don't think you will find many in this community willing to take a bite of your poison. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Most of us just don't agree with yours.

Bob