Bend over and grab your ankles...

[Saba Slayer]

WOW...Thanks DFW...Changing the rules whenever it suits them and screwing the fisherman in the process!!!

CA regulators plan to do regional reviews of MPAs only once a decade
by Dan Bacher

State officials had originally planned to conduct a regional review of the so-called “marine protected areas” created under the controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative every five years, but they have now reversed course and have proposed doing the reviews only once every 10 years.

George Osborn of the California Sportfishing League spoke at the California Fish and Game Commission meeting in December to challenge this change in plans.

“As anglers know, the State of California designated over 800 square miles of the Pacific Ocean off limits to recreational fishing – in large part due to overfishing by the commercial fishing industry,” according to Osborn. “However, the State said these marine protected areas would be temporary and after five years, they would conduct a regional review to determine when they open to recreational angling once again.”

“Well.. that was then. Now, they want to extend this review process out another 5 years! Why? They don’t have the money,” he said.

In objecting to this move, Osborn asked, “When can recreational anglers again drop a line into an area now closed?”

“That’s not what the fishermen were told when the marine protected areas were adopted by the Commission,”added Osborn. “They are very disappointed in this change of plans.”

The Commission voted to notice the Master Plan for the February meeting, when it will be discussed. Then the Commission will act upon the plan in April.

“I’ve been told personally by commissioners who are no longer on the commission and commissioners still on the commission that so they couldn’t wait for the day to show the fishermen that the MPAs have worked and closed areas could be opened again to recreational fisherman,” he stated.

Osborn believes that this latest action confirms the suspicion of recreational anglers during the process that once the “marine protected areas” (MPAs) were put into place, the Commission and CDFW had no intention of opening them again.

The Initiative’s Master Plan was developed by the Department and adopted by the Commission, noted Osborn.

“The original plan provided for five year regional reviews of marine protected area. The new plan calls for only a statewide review every 10 years,” emphasized Osborn.

Commission’s executive director said five year reviews would be “huge workload” and “huge expense”

However, Sonke Mastrup, the Exective Director of the Commission, who recently resigned from his post after I interviewed him in December, claimed the Master Plan “is not really a new plan.”

“The Commission adopted a draft master plan around 2008 that was used to help build the network,” he explained. “Now that they’ve finished building the network, the plan has been redrafted to be an implementation plan for the existing network. We built them – now we have to refocus from the building to maintenance of the MPAs.”

“The question is what kind of maintenance will we do and how often do we have to check the status of how we are doing,” Mastrup noted. “The original draft plan was to review the MPAs every five years.”

“But we built the network not as one, but as four regions. If we reviewed each region every five years, we would be going through one of the four areas almost every year. It would be a huge workload and huge expense for the state,” he explained.

“When you talk to the scientists, you’ll find that recovery is a very slow process,” Mastrup said. “The reality is: How frequently are the reviews going to be so that we learn something that is actable by the commission?”

“There would have to be information to change it, based on cause or pursuant to need. I don’t foresee these MPAs changing quickly and there would have to be something sigificant for something to change an MPA, based on the goals and objectives of each region,” he noted.

For example, Mastrup said that if a marine protected area isn’t producing bigger fish, the scientists would have to ask: Why is it not producing?

“The MLPA contemplated that if particular MPAs are not doing what they’re supposed to do, then getting rid of them or modifying them would be options,” said Mastrup.

[HobieScot]

Hey Saba can you post the link to the article so I can share with ppl who need to know and can possibly help


Sent from my two thumbs using Tapatalk

[Pocoloco]

If there isnt enough money for a review then there isnt enough money to enforce the areas. I say f@ck em, Fish it.

[Denis_Ruso]

I personally don't see this as a bad thing. I don't mind set aside sanctuaries where marine life has an opportunity to regenerate and grow. Its a similar concept as national parks to preserve a natural habitat. For example no lobster cages are being dropped to destroy the reef or every legal lobster are being pulled by the commercial boats.

Fish do grow and swim out of these areas you know It's a big ocean

The only thing I have a problem with is how promises were made to enact the MPA and then they went back on their word due to short funds. Too typical for a government agency.

On a side note, if MPA areas were under constant review, and reopened it's a safe bet that new areas would also be closed. Maybe your favorite fishing spot?

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by Pocoloco

If there isnt enough money for a review then there isnt enough money to enforce the areas. I say f@ck em, Fish it.

X2!

Your FIRST MISTAKE Jim, was trusting Government.

Your SECOND MISTAKE, was expecting them to keep their word.

Having been on Uncle Sam's payroll, I learned at a very young age not to believe crap until you see it happen when it comes to Government. Whenever higherups (SNCO's and CO's) say something is going to happen, we don't hold our breath expecting it to really happen.

[Hunters Pa]

Reviews at the 5-year mark were part of the plan. You need data points for course correction. The more frequent the data points the more accurate a picture you have of success/failure of a course of action.

"For example, Mastrup said that if a marine protected area isn’t producing bigger fish, the scientists would have to ask: Why is it not producing?"

Yeah - God forbid we actually bring science into this thing. Why not wait 20 years? 30 years? Most of the Malibu & Laguna money thrown at this thing would LOVE that, keeping those pesky, smelly fishermen off of THEIR beach and out of THEIR view.

Trying to maintain the natural state of the coast? Yeah, that's why they truck in loads and loads of sand to cover up the naturally rocky shoreline.

& lets think about WHY there is less $ for the study. What is the primary source of funding for DFW? LICENSES! Take away areas you can fish and you will have less licenses sold. Then they can demonstrate a decline in public interest in the activity, logically progressing into reduced impact of present and future closures.

[bolocop]

I would never expect the Gov to ever shrink the MPA. I see as a good thing, at least they won't be expanding the MPA within those the 10 years, right?

[taggermike]

The whole mlpa "process" was a political feel good thing rather than a scientific ecological endever. The process was rammed thru at a speed that didn't allow science or data collection to be done. If asecements are done evety 10 years, or 5 or 100, the process is fundamentally flawed because initial pre-protection data was not collected. How can you claim, or even know, is things have changed when you don't have at least 2 things to compair. the 10 to 20 year period will provide data but again, with out the beginning data this data will be much less valid. Mike

[CrazzyGar]

Stupid tree huggers!!!! They just wanted a cause to stand behind & screw us. It really hurt a lot of Sport Boat owners! This why my nephew stays down in SD to work on those Sport Boats...his main boat is the Vagabond. But would come work the OC or LA boats after their season was over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by taggermike

The whole mlpa "process" was a political feel good thing rather than a scientific ecological endever. The process was rammed thru at a speed that didn't allow science or data collection to be done. If asecements are done evety 10 years, or 5 or 100, the process is fundamentally flawed because initial pre-protection data was not collected. How can you claim, or even know, is things have changed when you don't have at least 2 things to compair. the 10 to 20 year period will provide data but again, with out the beginning data this data will be much less valid. Mike

Not only that, but it violates California's Constitution, but what politicians actually read the law these days? We know good old Barry doesn't.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. ]The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

So basically the DFG is only allowed to make rules regulating the seasons, and what equipment we can use to fish (# of lines, hoopnets, speargun, etc.).

No where does the law state that by statute they may they allow designated (NO FISHING ZONES). I'm not necessarily against having an MLPA within reason, (i.e. scientific data, research and proof they are working, and length of time imposed). We need to protect the nature we enjoy, but they aren't representing the people when they make executive decisions like this. They need the people to vote on it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

[2-Stix]

after fishing for 30+ years, its enough time to know better. that places only close, never open or reopen. its happened to me on so many fronts. offroading and dirt bike racing, hiking, climbing areas, flyfishing spots, rivers, lakes, trails, you name it, etc....the amount of wilderness areas are insane. for me it all boils down to this...if we can not recreate, and thats all people, mountains to ski on, rivers to fish, all out door types need a place to do their sports. ALL. i dont frisby golf, but those guys need their place...if not... then we all just sit on the couch doing drugs and watching football...well some do that anyway.

parts of both sides of my family are off the reservation and they poach salmon and steelhead often. been fined and jailed over it even. i dont like that, but i do a lot of that type of flyfishing, offroading on my dirt bike and hiking and snowboarding in the "out of bounds"....all the illegal fishing is catch and release. always.

this topic burns me up. i fished areas in the mid 80's with my dad that are 20 mins from my house, not illegal and my son that is 3 will never legally get too.

what every sport you do...stick around it for 10 years and then tell me about how much better it got. it takes time to watch the BS roll out. I could go on for days about this pertaining to riding dirtbikes in the mojave desert, fishing in the backcountry in ventura county, the eastern sierra etc...

[taggermike]

Well said Josh. Once areas are closed that's pretty much the end of them. Even if, some how, mlpas were proven to not benefit fish populations they would still remained closed.

And Silbaugh, the mlpa planners did an end around the state constitution. The part about only controlling season and the conditions of take was used to have no season and no conditions of take in certain areas. The state constitution clearly protects the peoples' right to fish but our politicians and a group of lawyers found a way to f it up. Mike

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by taggermike

Well said Josh. Once areas are closed that's pretty much the end of them. Even if, some how, mlpas were proven to not benefit fish populations they would still remained closed.

And Silbaugh, the mlpa planners did an end around the state constitution. The part about only controlling season and the conditions of take was used to have no season and no conditions of take in certain areas. The state constitution clearly protects the peoples' right to fish but our politicians and a group of lawyers found a way to f it up. Mike

I believe they utilize Color of Law (ie. Statutes) and nail people with it via a License (contractual agreement if you will), to make it apply. I firmly believe you can beat this if you got a ticket if you know what you're doing. Of course, its human nature to take the path of least resistance and not try to get a ticket by getting a license and abide by the statutes, but I believe it can be done.

And if someone really has some balls, they can pull a Marc Stevens from the No State Project, and file for Discovery to Prove that the Statues and Laws apply because you're physically with the state of (wherever). Crazy, but apparently it works according to all the video testimonies.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

I believe they utilize Color of Law (ie. Statutes) and nail people with it via a License (contractual agreement if you will), to make it apply. I firmly believe you can beat this if you got a ticket if you know what you're doing. Of course, its human nature to take the path of least resistance and not try to get a ticket by getting a license and abide by the statutes, but I believe it can be done.

And if someone really has some balls, they can pull a Marc Stevens from the No State Project, and file for Discovery to Prove that the Statues and Laws apply because you're physically with the state of (wherever). Crazy, but apparently it works according to all the video testimonies.

To further my argument, here's some Case Law for you:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616

"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."
Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018;
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81



(YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!!)

[2-Stix]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

I believe they utilize Color of Law (ie. Statutes) and nail people with it via a License (contractual agreement if you will), to make it apply. I firmly believe you can beat this if you got a ticket if you know what you're doing. Of course, its human nature to take the path of least resistance and not try to get a ticket by getting a license and abide by the statutes, but I believe it can be done.

And if someone really has some balls, they can pull a Marc Stevens from the No State Project, and file for Discovery to Prove that the Statues and Laws apply because you're physically with the state of (wherever). Crazy, but apparently it works according to all the video testimonies.

I hiked and fished Tar Creek for 20+ years, some assholes from LA posted youtube videos cliff diving, then place got trashed, 100+ people a weekend day. The environmentalist come in and claimed that there is an endangered Arroyo Toad, trash, what ever they need. The place is closed now. Along with 15 others I once played in as a kid swimming and fishing. This is how 50% of the place I ride and fish have closed. Over and over and over this happens. I spend all my free time out. I have lost countless spots.

So how do you fight that? You can't. Its over.

Theres even a yelp page for crying out loud.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/tar-creek-fillmore

Here is a good account of what happens to us time and time again.
Play by play.
This link is a friend that I get out doors with.
http://davidstillman.blogspot.com/20...sing-soon.html

[alanw]

Standard operating procedure for the government. Ask the guys fighting the BLM what to do.

[maquinapescado]

I commend you for the updates and time spent keeping tabs on the topics/issues. The sad thing is, there are a lot of anglers with the wrong idea/attitudes that immensely hurt the cause far more than the time you all spend and keep up with. Keep up the good fight.

[Mahigeer]

Originally Posted by Pocoloco

If there isnt enough money for a review then there isnt enough money to enforce the areas. I say f@ck em, Fish it.

I would not recommend it.

I just got back from fishing the Mole in Catalina. There I heard about others, and actually talk to two anglers that had to come to Catalina to pay fines.

All due to fishing in MLPA area around Catalina.

[chris138]

Good. Keep them closed. MPAs are working. Anyone who disagrees probably hasn't fished next to one lately. I see 50 boats and yaks in the cove just crushing the YT, fishing frozen squid in the middle of the winter, taking more fish than they can eat, not even thinking about releasing a fish, and yet complaining about how their rights are being violated? Please. You don't even realize how good we have it. I say lower the YT limit to 3 per angler and keep the MPAs permanently.

I do agree there should be more of an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness of the MPAs, since it's tax dollars and license revenue which pay to enforce the laws.

[ctfphoto]

I am a tree hugger and I kill a lot of really Big fish.

I absolutely Love having MLPA's in La Jolla, PROTECTING that awesome biodiverse undersea world and fishery.

Sometimes really Big Fish venture out from these protected areas