Bend over and grab your ankles...
 

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.

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

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

2 cents
 

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

:reel:

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...

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.

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


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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :D

WOW, some responses amaze me.

But to respond to the original post. As I have said before WELCOME to the Club. We have been dealing with this BS for 10 years and the first review is just starting up so we shall see what happens.

RH

p.s. Chris138 not sure if your aware but the MLPA and the fish being caught have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Its CALLED EL NINO
Water temps are still at a all time High for January even after all these storms. The Bonita I caught in Monterey County on New Years must have been caused by the MLPA as well. Those post are just what they love to see.

I guess you have been missing out the last 8 years then. By the way our warm water is not due to El Niño per say...

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/featu...nino/index.cfm

Double Wow...
 

rhyak said..."WOW, some responses amaze me."
Me too...really makes me wonder what side of the table some of these kayakers would have been on during the stakeholder negotiations.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Chris, MPAs have nothing to do with YT and WSB fishing catches over the last several years (nor were they ever designed to). 3 years of good Squid spawns followed by a couple of warm water years (even in winter) have brought and kept more YT year round. Are your trying to claim that there has been 8 years of great fishing? I can tell you that in 2010, all of the participants of the WCW were unable to submit just a single fish per month. Whether you call it El Nino or the Blob, it is warm water that has enabled the great wintertime YT fishing the last 2 years.

I would agree that MPAs can be a great thing in the right area, at the right time and instituted correctly. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the MLPA process in Ca. They did not even follow the basic guidlines set forth by the MPA Handbook. The biggest irony of the process was that they were saying there would be "spillover" outside to the MPAs while the design of the size of the MPAs was to prevent the resident fish from roaming outside. Some might argue that the eggs are the spillover, but that holds little water. The tiny critters that hatch from the eggs (if they survive that long) will be greeted by millions of hungry predators with little to nowhere to hide (the MPAs encompass most kelp and structure around them).

Give the MLPA an inch and they will take a mile. The only reason we can fish in La Jolla now is due to the collective defense efforts of the fishing enthusiasts. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
The MLPA is mostly empowered by deep pocket special interest groups. The MLPA are an extreme imbalanced Nazi group. If it was up to them, they would love to close off all of La Jolla and confiscate all our fishing gear.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
The MLPA is NOT closing fishing grounds just so you can catch more and bigger fish in the future. Their ultimate agenda is to completely commit genocide to the fishing industry. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Yup! Anyone ever catch fish about 8k' in elevation or higher in the easter serria? the plan is to euthanize all the planted fish as it is not natural. it was all planted after the turn of the century for the sheep farmers and the mountaineers. The sport of fishing in very threatened. Read up on whats going on with Crowley Lake. That is the primo spot, the LJ of the 395.

I read they are going to kill all the rainbows in the alpine lakes and restock them with the golden trout that occurred naturally up there, now that they have pure stock.

Too bad most people won't believe it until they see it. If everyone just acted as if they had zero authority, then they wouldn't have any. Everyone's an anarchist deep down inside, they just won't admit it! :sifone:

The golden were planted also by the 20 mule teams. The lakes are isolated mountain lakes with no way to feed them.

The fish they have planted in crowley the last few years are sterile. They plan to stop stocking the lake as Tim Alper is done. Follow the Sierra Drifters new feed. Its weekly.

what about the sac perch and the squaw fish in crowley

Not sure...I fish for trout and get those big perch as by catch. So I do not follow what is going on with them.

Greg I want you to know that I respect you and your defense of this point. You have always been a positive influence in this community. But there are very few individuals on BWE who can legitimately claim to know the slightest thing about the life-cycle of pelagic fish. There are some genetic data to support the "homegaurd hypothesis". If it is true that YT are resident in the LJ area and spend a significant part of their lives in the waters surrounding the MPA, how can you claim that protecting that area has NO effect on YT population? Scientific evidence goes both ways, but you can't develop an effective policy based off a null hypothesis.

2010 was an epic squid bite year for many. Just not at any of the nests WCW participants were fishing I guess. My point is not that a specific MPA protects or doesn't protect a certain species or zone. Clearly that conversation should be dictated purely by science, of which there is little. The question is, do something or do nothing? Personally, after watching the kooks in la jolla my entire life, I would not trust the future of our fishery to their judgement. Certainly not to their scientific appraisal of the effectiveness of conservation measures.

My point is this: why are the people with the most to gain from conservation, so adamantly against it? We kayak fishers could have a very real contribution to make towards preserving our natural resource. Whether its tagging fish, taking samples, collecting data, submitting heads, volunteering at Hubbs etc. Some of us do this, yet many firmly place themselves "across the table" (as the OP put it) from scientists and policy makers; basically ensuring that our concerns are completely ignored?

This guys a scientist too....
 

Chris, I will concede that there may be "Homeguard" YT, but to assert that an MPA is a benefit to them is a stretch. What is the intent of the MPAs? It is to grow more and bigger predators for the most part. What are these fish going to eat? More and bigger are going to tax the local bait population. How will that help the YT population that dine on the same bait? The YT, even if "Homeguard", are not going to be protected from fishermen in the MPAs because they are pelagic. Even the Homeguards are going to swim in and out of them all day long. Their bodies are not designed to sit still like many other fish.

Your claim was that there had been 8 years of great year round fishing that people had been gluttons for. I simply stated that there were some pretty good fishermen (like Jasmin) that went at least 1 month during the year 2010 where they could not catch 1 qualifying fish of 3 species. I agree that we need to do something, but doing something wrong or arguing that something done wrong is better than nothing is not right. I also would not trust the future of the environment to many of the people that believe "if it is legal I am taking it". Nor do I trust the people that say "since we don't know the health of the population, we have to have no season".

The reason most fishermen are against the "conservation" idea is the result of the bad taste left in their mouths from the actions of "Conservationists". I don't believe that most fishermen are against science, just the bought and paid for science. Now all the decisions seem to be made by research from groups that would not let you fish, or the lawsuits they threaten. The state cannot afford to do any meaningful science and will have no data for our MPAs probably in the rest of my lifetime.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone that would be against fishing in more productive waters. But we have become a "me first" society, and most people don't stop to ask the question "would it be ok if everyone took what I take?". Gaffing fish can be addicting, and it can be hard to break the habit. And there are tons of excuses like "all my friends/family are asking for some". The more you give them, the more they will want (remember "Me first"?). Great fishing, for great tasting fish, is a prize that should not be squandered or given away loosely.

Gee, who didn't see this coming?

We knew all along they'd pull this bullshit. For everyone that attended the so called 'discussions', we read through their bullshit. At the first MLPA meeting for San Diego, held in way north in Santa Barbara, it was obvious what their intentions were. Hold it where nobody would attend, too far of a drive. But show up we did, shocked the phook out of them.
Planned?
No way they would do that.

At that meeting, I was told by an insider that we were about to be RR'd.

And we were.

Nothing new. For those who attended the meetings, we saw through their bullshit tactics and got our voice time revoked at every chance.

Phook them and Ken Wusssman and his patronizing comments, sure he got paid well.

Across the table
 

Chris138 said..."firmly place themselves "across the table" (as the OP put it) from scientists and policy makers."
I think you have a misunderstanding about who sits at the stakeholders table...I've sat AT the table and worked with scientists and policy makers and I've placed myself FIRMLY ACROSS the table from the extreme enviros that would like to shut down your consumptive fishing adventures, regardless of weather you're taking, 1 fish or 10 fish on each trip or releasing all your fish...they just don't want you fishing.
Please tell me you are speaking from past experience of dealing with the MPA's or some other significant fishing advocacy...if not then perhaps you should attend a few meeting and get a taste of what goes on beyond the keyboard.
There is nothing wrong with underwater "national parks" to preserve natural areas...the problem is how we establish them and what science is used. So far the establishment of the MPA's hasn't proved to be a very fair or science oriented affair...it would be better described as a political affair! The amount of back room dealing was mind blowing!
If the state could not afford to manage and observe the MPA's, then the state should never have made them, or limited them to areas they can afford to manage and enforce.
Lastly...you obviously have no idea what the OP does...perhaps you should get your facts in order before calling some folks out!!!

"...We kayak fishers could have a very real contribution to make towards preserving our natural resource. Whether its tagging fish, taking samples, collecting data, submitting heads, volunteering at Hubbs etc. Some of us do this, yet many firmly place themselves "across the table" (as the OP put it) from scientists and policy makers; basically ensuring that our concerns are completely ignored?"

Some of the comments here suck big green donkey dicks.
Fuck the MLPA's and the clowns who support them.:the_finger:
Whatever...I helped fight the good fight and did my part.

Here we go again. Pffftttt

(sorry to rant & rage in your thread Jim)

This has been my exact experience with off roading. Meetings held 300 miles away, times and dates subject to change, and they do, RR'd in the meetings. The process is crap. The outcome has been determined prior to public opinion in the open form meetings. Its just the steps that need to happen so they can get what they want. Its crap. If you want to be a tree hugger, you wont be a fish hugger eventually. Most sports are threatened by closing us out from recreation.

/\
blah blah blah...STFU
shame on you for posting this chit donkey show.
Your MPA loving ass should be banned.