"PERMANENT CONSERVATION AREAS!”

[Saba Slayer]

At yesterdays Fish and Game Commission meeting Eric Sklar (president of the commission) made some very disturbing statements after the public comments on the MPA reviews. The Commission and Department Staff were discussing the plan to change the MPA’s to a 10 year state wide review rather than the originally promised 5 year regional reviews.

Commissioner Sklar said…(now I’m paraphrasing his comments as I best remember them)…”I’ve looked at the documents and I can’t find it anywhere that says that the MPA’s will be reopened to fishing based on the reviews. This was never promised as far as I can see…I consider them PERMANENT CONSERVATION AREAS!”

This is a thought also expressed by Dana Murray from Heal The Bay and others during public comments. Geroge Osborn from SC and Wayne Kotow from CCA CAL both made great comments supporting the recreational fishermen during the public speaking period and supporting the reopening of the closed areas if the reviews allowed.

The only commissioner that was around during the MLPA proceedings was Jackie Hostler. She was involved in the North Coast meetings and she said that she vaguely recalled discussions about the reopening of the areas to fishermen. Not much thought or time was given to her comments, although she is probably the best avenue to try and get some concrete evidence of the reopening possibilities from the previous meetings.


The proposed Lobster Regs on the agenda went a little better…There are still some questions about the marking of the recreational floats with your Go number and what constitutes “an operator”. Hopefully this will be worked out by the time the regs are adopted at the June Commission meeting.

The hole punch idea seems to “have a lot of holes” in the regulation wording so…Craig Shuman with the Department said…” they had decided not to implement the proposed regulation at this time.” This hole punch idea will be added to the FMP “tool box” for later use.

The new Commissioner, Williams and Dana Murray from “Heal The Bay” succeeded in getting the “near consensus” LAC items included in the appendix #9.

This is a low blow as there were many items over the to 2 1/2 years of LAC meetings that achieved “near consensus”.

They picked these two items to include in the appendix…the ban on conical nets and a seasonal limit for recreational.

IMHO the ban on conical nets is unfair as it targets hoopnetters only and not the entire recreational sector…as I’ve said before…if the commercial and Ecos’s thinks that conical nets are an unfair advantage when taking lobsters, then maybe we should look at scuba as an unfair advantage when diving for lobsters. If divers give up scuba then I’d gladly give up conical style nets.

Just for the record… I am NOT against a reasonable seasonal limit. The key word here is reasonable. The commercial reps were involved in a closed door meeting with the Department and a survey was taken with the permit holders to establish the proposed trap limits on them. They came out of the meeting with the number of 300 traps and the LAC approved the number with very little discussion about changing the total.

When it was time to discuss the seasonal limit for the recs. it became a horse trading session…a 70 season limit was proposed by the Department after the rec reps had set a number of 100 in our closed door meeting…in the open meeting the Eco’s said 40 and the commercials countered at 30…the Eco’s started multiplying the number of card holders and the proposed limit numbers and came up with some ridiculous total catch numbers and scared everyone. I was often the only rec rep at the meetings so this type of intimidation was really hard to defend.

My best response to defend our rights was to get the, per trip info and did not fish data from Travis Buck (he tallies up the report cards for the Department) and present it to the other reps at the table. My other response was to tell the other reps that we as Recreational divers and Hoopers already have a possession limit (7) and gear limits (5 each - 10 max nets)….the commercials have no lobster catch limit or gear limit restrictions…as you can see we are already regulated in possession and gear.


Supposedly the Department will hold some stakeholder meetings before the adoption at the June Commission meeting… please come and speak or you’ll get the regulations you deserve for your apathy.
I'll post up the dates and times as soon as I get them.

[jorluivil]

WOW

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Thanks for the update Jim, and thank you for your efforts. Unfortunately, the ban on Conical nets are Constitutional, however the ban on fishing within MPA's are NOT! Well, I have my remedy for that, but only if you have the stones to do so.

I remember about a year ago when the Darkhorse said he predicts a statewide ban on fishing. We're almost there!!

[Saba Slayer]

Easy Guys...
There is No BAN on CONICAL Nets planned...or...a Seasonal Limit in the near future. "The sky is not falling"!
These items are not included in the proposed reg package...they are only included in the Lobster FMP appendix. I'm sorry...I get so involved with the process that I forget most folks have no real idea about what is going on with the F & W Department and the F & G Commission and the proposed regs or the MPA's.
The two non-concensus items were added to the appendix so that They Could Be Revisited in Future LAC or Stakeholder Meetings.
This is a reason to stay vigilant on all that the Department and the Commission do, and please return your lobster report cards so that we can use that data to protect our fishing rights.

Sarge...did you buy a fishing license this year?
A simple yes or no please, before we talk about "stones" and the Constitution.

I predict Darkhorse is wrong...at least in my lifetime...although apathy and the uninformed may help us lose many battles along the way...!

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by Saba Slayer

Easy Guys...
There is No BAN on CONICAL Nets planned...or...a Seasonal Limit in the near future. "The sky is not falling"!
These items are not included in the proposed reg package...they are only included in the Lobster FMP appendix. I'm sorry...I get so involved with the process that I forget most folks have no real idea about what is going on with the F & W Department and the F & G Commission and the proposed regs or the MPA's.
The two non-concensus items were added to the appendix so that They Could Be Revisited in Future LAC or Stakeholder Meetings.
This is a reason to stay vigilant on all that the Department and the Commission do, and please return your lobster report cards so that we can use that data to protect our fishing rights.

Sarge...did you buy a fishing license this year?
A simple yes or no please, before we talk about "stones" and the Constitution.

I predict Darkhorse is wrong...at least in my lifetime...although apathy and the uninformed may help us lose many battles along the way...!

Good to go, thanks Jim.

Yes I did. In future years, well....we'll see about that.

I hope you're right, as I completely agree that we must remain vigilant.

Thanks again for your efforts and keeping us informed.

[rossman]

I actually can't remember any discussions during the MLPA process that would indicate that these closures were anything but permanent. Not sure if I was so disheartened by the whole process that I just assumed they were permanent or if I was just not in the room when the discussion took place. I did feel that there was a reasonable plan in place to measure their effectiveness using some science that seemed to be lacking in the original process, but now hat appears in jeopardy also. Was anyone here in the room when the lifting of the ban was discussed?

[cabojohn]

/\
I'm positive I recall hearing the MLPA was ONLY for five years...and they were going to take a look at MLPA's after that. A long five years.

Sadly I don't remember which top dawgs said it...and it was repeated often. Not that it matters now?

The entire MLPA scheme was all lies and shit sammiches.
*ALL the scandalous MLPA players past & present should be held accountable. ALL their personal information should be posted online.
Shit could get real quickly for these fools.... WE THE PEOPLE ARE PISSED!

[ful-rac]

Originally Posted by cabojohn

/\
I'm positive I recall hearing the MLPA was ONLY for five years...and they were going to take a look at MLPA's after that. A long five years.

Sadly I don't remember which top dawgs said it...and it was repeated often. Not that it matters now?

The entire MLPA scheme was all lies and shit sammiches.
*ALL the scandalous MLPA players past & present should be held accountable. ALL their personal information should be posted online.
Shit could get real quickly for these fools.... WE THE PEOPLE ARE PISSED!

Let's go get um!

[yemff]

Surprising lack of interest in this thread. But hey, some people probably think this is a good thing.

[Saba Slayer]

Originally Posted by yemff

Surprising lack of interest in this thread. But hey, some people probably think this is a good thing.

Apathy has a lot of good fisherman sleeping...while the ENGO's are wide awake and attending every DFG and DFW meeting as well as arranging MLPA Collaborative meetings.
I don't think the CCA CAL has cracked 2000 members yet...kinda unbelievable after the MPA closures and the huge fishing population we have here in Southern California.

The CCA CAL L.A. Chapter has it's big fundraiser in May on the 21st....I'll post up the flyer and some info when we get closer.
If anyone is a business owner and you're interested in getting a table for the event, please get in touch with me jim@sabaslayer.com or John Ballotti at ccacalla@yahoo.com