Let's reshape the debate - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

walrus · 10-08-2010, 07:00 AM

I have prepare my comments, see below:

I believe that all the members on this panel want to protect California’s natural resources and your final decision will reflect that desire. As a fisherman, I also want to protect California’s natural resources.
The uneducated knee jerk solution is to restrict all human interaction. It sounds great, but it’s an extreme action, because like it or not humans are part of natural evolution. From past history we know that when man has interfered with the predator/prey balance unexpected consequences have occurred. This includes the extinction of some species due to overpopulation and disease. The same species man thought he was protecting.
It’s time to pay attention to lessons nature gives us. Nature does best when balanced. Life exists in extreme heat or extreme cold and flourishes in between these extremes. California’s natural resources will survive if you make an extreme ruling like unrestricted fishing, or complete closure, but, it will not flourish in the extremes.
The balance is to manage each species individually using size limits, catch limits, and catch seasons. Require dynamic revaluation of this management. Help the environment, help nature thrive, balance your ruling between the extremes. Listen to nature it knows better than any man or woman.
Thank You.

PAL · 10-08-2010, 04:45 PM

Guys, this is about the MLPA, a state law that requires establishment of a network of marine reserves. It isn't about fisheries regulations. If you go down that road, you won't be effective except for adding to our overall numbers (itself important).

There are a few options to engage this thing, which I'm going to lay out very briefly and in no particular order.

1. The court ruling is clear. The Blue Ribbon Task Force and Science Advisory Team are state agencies. They didn't follow state rules. South Coast MLPA work must be suspended until these serious issues are resolved.

2. We support RSG Proposal 2, the true cross-interest plan created by anglers, harbor communities, yada, yada, yada.

3. Limit comments to the IPA (Integrated Preferred Alternative), which the Commission is considering. There are significant issues in play, including whether to expand the proposed South La Jolla reserve and reconfigure the second one that would cap us off at Scripps Pier. We have to watch these closely.

All of these speak to the issues. I don't want to go into too much more detail in the open, but I'm happy to explain how we got here and what's at stake.

This is complicated stuff. That's a deliberate strategy of the other side, to discourage public participation. Like our staunch allies the free divers, kayak anglers don't discourage easily. Please come on out to the meeting even if the issues aren't quite clear. You'll find a lot of help from fellow watermen.

cowboybill · 10-09-2010, 07:09 AM

I think numbers matter more than words at this point! I am trying to get friends to go ....

cowboybill

dmrides · 10-09-2010, 09:19 AM

Bob and PAL,

I am glad you guys have posted on this thread. It is very easy to get sidetracked and try to bring it back to regulations, since they seem to make sense, but again I am reminded that is not what this is about. This is about closures and this is about us showing up to support RSG Proposal 2. CowboyBill, you are right, we need numbers to show how many of us will be affected by this.

roadx · 10-09-2010, 05:21 PM

is this the scrsg proposal #2 ? for the san diego area

PAL · 10-12-2010, 08:56 AM

^Yes.

10-09-2010, 07:09 AM	#3
cowboybill Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Santee, CA Posts: 103	numbers matter I think numbers matter more than words at this point! I am trying to get friends to go .... cowboybill

10-09-2010, 05:21 PM	#5
roadx . Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,155	is this the scrsg proposal #2 ? for the san diego area __________________

10-08-2010, 07:00 AM	#1
walrus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Baja fish camp Posts: 478	I have prepare my comments, see below: I believe that all the members on this panel want to protect California’s natural resources and your final decision will reflect that desire. As a fisherman, I also want to protect California’s natural resources. The uneducated knee jerk solution is to restrict all human interaction. It sounds great, but it’s an extreme action, because like it or not humans are part of natural evolution. From past history we know that when man has interfered with the predator/prey balance unexpected consequences have occurred. This includes the extinction of some species due to overpopulation and disease. The same species man thought he was protecting. It’s time to pay attention to lessons nature gives us. Nature does best when balanced. Life exists in extreme heat or extreme cold and flourishes in between these extremes. California’s natural resources will survive if you make an extreme ruling like unrestricted fishing, or complete closure, but, it will not flourish in the extremes. The balance is to manage each species individually using size limits, catch limits, and catch seasons. Require dynamic revaluation of this management. Help the environment, help nature thrive, balance your ruling between the extremes. Listen to nature it knows better than any man or woman. Thank You.

10-08-2010, 04:45 PM	#2
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	Guys, this is about the MLPA, a state law that requires establishment of a network of marine reserves. It isn't about fisheries regulations. If you go down that road, you won't be effective except for adding to our overall numbers (itself important). There are a few options to engage this thing, which I'm going to lay out very briefly and in no particular order. 1. The court ruling is clear. The Blue Ribbon Task Force and Science Advisory Team are state agencies. They didn't follow state rules. South Coast MLPA work must be suspended until these serious issues are resolved. 2. We support RSG Proposal 2, the true cross-interest plan created by anglers, harbor communities, yada, yada, yada. 3. Limit comments to the IPA (Integrated Preferred Alternative), which the Commission is considering. There are significant issues in play, including whether to expand the proposed South La Jolla reserve and reconfigure the second one that would cap us off at Scripps Pier. We have to watch these closely. All of these speak to the issues. I don't want to go into too much more detail in the open, but I'm happy to explain how we got here and what's at stake. This is complicated stuff. That's a deliberate strategy of the other side, to discourage public participation. Like our staunch allies the free divers, kayak anglers don't discourage easily. Please come on out to the meeting even if the issues aren't quite clear. You'll find a lot of help from fellow watermen.

10-09-2010, 09:19 AM	#4
dmrides Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Point Loma Posts: 584	Bob and PAL, I am glad you guys have posted on this thread. It is very easy to get sidetracked and try to bring it back to regulations, since they seem to make sense, but again I am reminded that is not what this is about. This is about closures and this is about us showing up to support RSG Proposal 2. CowboyBill, you are right, we need numbers to show how many of us will be affected by this.

10-12-2010, 08:56 AM	#6
PAL Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 754	^Yes.