!!!MLPA reserve process coming to SoCal in 2008

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by Jim Sammons LJKF

The tree hugging PETA types have deep pockets and I think they would be more than happy to have you hang up your fishing licenses. I think they would be celebrating in the streets if this was our form of protest.
There must be a better way to fight it than that.

Jim;

I'm having trouble finding out how much and by whom the MPA's were privately funded. The fish lovers have deep pockets - yes, but we have deeper. Fisherman spend thousands if not more per year to fish. The problem is that we are segregated between inshore/offshore, yak/boat and fresh/salt.

We need to consolidate our buying power and put it use. The state of Californnia is in financial trouble. We need to make this happen for fy'09.

These are questions I could used answered to contine this project:

1. How are the sportfishing licensing fees distributed?
2. What private organization funded the reopening of the MPA's?
3. How much was used from private funding and public to reopn the MPA's?
4. How much additional monies are needed by the DFG to implement the MPA's.
5. Over the past 10 years, what is the break down on levied fines to fisherman? Commercial, recreational - poaching, licensing.

The 4th point is a big one. If we can prove that the DFG has acted in their own best interest by embracing the MPA's - then they will have lost any argument that they are here for the fishermen. I feel the DFG has embraced the MPA's to increase their patrolling duties. The increase in duties allows them to ask for more funding(job security).

We need to take it to these fuckers and hit them hard. As I start to gather more information I can then start small polling projects to see if this is actually feasible. I can't do this alone and will need help from all that are interested.

We are 1 million strong and need to be heard.

Fuck the DFG. Let's remove their power by removing their money

Yes Jim. the PETA would love the for us to not buy licenses. But the PETA types are not making the laws. I believe the State would not want us to stop buying licenses and would have to recognize our buying power. So even if you have to buy a license, like yourself and your customers - creating and funding the PAC would get this train moving.

Creating and funding a PAC is not enough. We just become another special interest group. By removing funding from the state, then we are recognized and powerful.

We have to remember someone has to pay for these MPA's to be implemented. What keeps the state from increasing you licenses fees to $200-$300 per year over the next couple of years?

[lamb]

Art,

I can see how cutting DFG funding through boycotting license could work in theory, I think it’s a big Utopia in the real world.

It would be impossible to organize and recruit enough people to actually make an impact.

Realistically - even if you’d hear or read from enough folks claiming they would support the idea and stick to it, I'll bet you it wouldn’t happen.

[Jim Sammons LJKF]

Art,
I bet PAL could help get you the information you want, I am sure United Anglers has much of this info also.

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by lamb

Art,

I can see how cutting DFG funding through boycotting license could work in theory, I think it’s a big Utopia in the real world.

It would be impossible to organize and recruit enough people to actually make an impact.

Realistically - even if you’d hear or read from enough folks claiming they would support the idea and stick to it, I'll bet you it wouldn’t happen.

Adi;

your probably right. I've spoken with enough people to understand that even though we (fisherman) will not give up our right to fish, even if there are no fish in the area we are allowed to fish.

What a glorious fantasy it was thinking that we, as a collective, could undo the unjust.

Without the support of the small congregation of yak fisherman, the ones most impacted by the MPA's, what chance would I have with the power boaters. The power boaters in SoCal are least affected by the MPA's with the access to Mexico.

The access to Mexico is shrinking. You will see limited or no access to the Nados in the near future. You will see the tuna and YT farming increase in size and efficiency limiting the schools in number. I've seen first hand dodo's and yt being netted, chopped and iced to feed the BFT in the cages. The eco-reserves are starting to be implemented in Mexico argeting recreational fisherman without commercial impact - stupido pendejos.

I hope with this mini series of lunatic ranting, I've been able to press a few buttons and turn on a few light bulbs about our future yak fishing.

Bueno suerte cabrones and cabronas

[FISHIONADO]

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

ditto

[Grego]

Paul, let me know how I can help. You know I'm familiar with the political process involved, and one route that should be entertained when dealing with the state is through our district representatives.

Unfortunately, I'm not working with any state lobbyist at this time for the City , otherwise I'd have someone to get a little insight. I'm not sure if we can find a nexus between the beach cities and negative effects of the closure to their constituents, but if so, they should be willing to have their state lobbyist investigating those issues and supporting our stance.

Anyhow, give me a call anytime to discuss.

Grego

[PAL]

Great discussion here. I respect the passionate opinions people have taken the time to post.

I call it like I see it. As I've said elsewhere, my goal and that of everyone at the KFACA is to work within the MLPA process to create the best possible outcome for kayak anglers. In earlier action at the Channel Islands and Central California, refusing to participate played right into our opponents' hands. They got almost everything they wanted, and we didn't get a say in the result.

Attacking the MLPA itself is beyond our limited scope and best left to other, better funded and more widely supported organizations.

The aim of the MLPA - a healthier aquatic ecosystem - is something we as recreational anglers should support. It's the implementation that is flawed. It is a rushed, haphazard politically driven system. The word "politically" is in bold italics because it's the key to understanding our situation. Anglers don't have the governor nor the legislature. Our political capital is severely limited; what we as anglers have will be spent carefully and cautiously.

All of the following points can be argued:

The science the MLPA is based on is shaky. It is not tied into conventional marine fisheries management, which has been showing gains in the past years. It is based on population surveys that are arguably inaccurate to the point of insignificance but used none the less. It has a potential to damage marine resources by focusing commercial and angling effort into limited geographic areas. The system has at times been co-opted by various user groups for their personal economic gain. Image has trumped cold, dispassionate fact. It is funded via an MOU from the pro-closure Resources Legacy Trust Fund Foundation.

EVERY one of the preceding points is irrelevant to our effort to win participation in the Regional Stakeholder's Group for Southern California. Now that I've said it, I'm putting the negatives behind me and moving forward.

YES, we will lose fishing access. NO, it's not time to sell our gear and take up bowling or golf. When the MLPA process has run its course, we'll still be fishing.

So, let's roll up our sleeves, get to work, and make sure our voices are heard in the stakeholder's process. We have to take care of our own business. Allies are great, and we'll work with other user groups where our interests overlap. If we don't stand up for ourselves, I guarantee other stakeholder's will put their needs at the forefront.

[aguachico]

Originally Posted by FISHIONADO

I'm joining United Anglers of Southern California and PAL's Kayak Fishing Association of California. If you don't like their policies than you should join them and try to influence things your way using their member surveys and voting.

http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php

http://www.kfaca.org/

I joinied UASC. Talked to Lenny. MLPA meetings for SoCAl are in the spring '08.

angry person.

BTW: for those that have big boats and plan on motoring outside the reserves to areas they can fish:

In addition, there is a particular need to measure changes in recreational and commercial fishing and non-consumptive uses, not only as part of the evaluation of social and economic impacts, but also to determine if displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs. Further, cost-benefit analysis can give managers a better understanding of the impact of the marine protected area on stakeholders.


you can run, but you can't hide.

[Useful Idiot]

Originally Posted by aguachico

displacement of fishing activity is increasing biological impacts outside of MPAs.

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

[Holy Mackerel]

Originally Posted by Useful Idiot

Art, that's one of the fundamental flaws with reserves. It consolidates the fishing pressure elsewhere. Either you close everything or close nothing and manage the overall area with the regulatory system we already have in place. This poka dot of reserves would work great if nobody was fishing in between them, but that's not the case. I doubt fishing will ever be completely shut down, despite some activists wish lists, so this halfway in between system of reserves doesn't help anything. But, with that said, there's nothing we can do about it so we have to work within the system. Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

I couldnt agree more with you guys on this point. Unfortunately, it appears the process does not allow for setting up a sustainable fishery... bummer...

Paul, keep us informed.

Chris

[Jim Sammons LJKF]

Originally Posted by Useful Idiot

Hopefully 20 years from now it'll be seen that the reserves do more harm than good and this whole thing will be put to bed once and for all (or at least until the cycle repeats itself 20 years after that...)

My guess is that they will see that it has not worked and will then expand them to cover the entire coast line

[Tman]

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...

[Useful Idiot]

Originally Posted by Tman

Here's a thought...if the stakeholders (or shareholders, depending how you look at it) or entities have deep enough pockets to fund this project, why not try something that will be useful and beneficial to the local waters ~ hire on more DFG!

Give them more manpower and equipment to go after the poachers, the ability to keep the 'bigger boats' in check, the resources to keep foreign countries from entering our waters, and make a move to stop trawlers.

I personally do not mind the DFG, and we've all seen news accounts of poaching, or the killing of a protected species, just to have the guilty get a slap on the wrist. And inevitably, one comment that always stands out is how the DFG doesn't have enough manpower. Maybe they should first address that issue.

Then, for good measure, throw in what Hubbs has been doing. I remember when it was a very rare day to hear of a WSB catch. Now look at what's in the counts, esp out of LJ's waters.

And, is there some loophole we can use, since LJ already has an area that is protected?

Just some thoughts, welcome the replies, maybe I am missing something...

In my experience with the process, arguments such as this were brought up quite often but nobody really wanted to hear it. The process is to determine where to place marine reserves, whether or not they're justified. Arguing for better enforcement or stricter reg's is not what this process is for. That's a whole different battle in itself, which had it been done years ago perhaps could have avoided this whole mess. To get the MLPA process stopped and turned in the direction of reg's and enforcement would be a monumental legal task that all of our fishing org's resources put together still couldn't accomplish.

I completely agree that reserves aren't as effective as traditional management techniques and that we'd be better served to focus on enforcement and research to better govern individual species, but it doesn't matter. We're here to deal with the MLPA no-take reserves and make sure it's done fairly and intelligently. Arguing against reserves in general will fall on deaf ears not only for the decision makers, but our own representatives as well. It will happen, it's up to us to have a say in what happens.

And La Jolla having an existing reserve is a very bad thing because they will almost definitely want to expand that. It's a lot easier to expand existing reserves, especially if there's some sort of record of success, such as the huge number of fish being caught right outside of it every day. Whether there's yellowtail and white seabass at La Jolla has anything to do with that reserve is highly debatable, but you can bet your bottom dollar the pro-reserve activists will argue that.