Round 2 maps--these are the ones you need to work on (as of June 5, 2009) - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Dan · 06-08-2009, 11:39 AM

Joe, do you have a zip file for the internal maps in the same format? I really like this format captions and all. Thanks for posting the link up.

zenspearo · 06-08-2009, 12:29 PM

No, that's all I have.

Do you want a zip file of the maps in large JPEG format? I don't know how to do it but I can ask one of my computer whizzes (aka my 12 or 8 YO son

) to whip it up...

Joe.

Mr Mugu · 06-17-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

Joe, do you have a zip file for the internal maps in the same format? I really like this format captions and all. Thanks for posting the link up.

Maps can be viewed publicly using the exact software that we are using in the sessions.

http://marinemap.org/marinemap/

A quick tutorial:

http://marinemap.org/marinemap/movie...ng_the_Map.mov

Click on "Marine Protected Areas and Arrays" to get the popup that contains all the maps to date.

Left click anywhere in a proposed closure to get another popup that will allow you to view "Full Info" including regulations, coordinates, rationale, goals etc..
Also in the window you can download the KML files to view in Google Earth.

/MJ

comrad_zeelaagee · 07-15-2009, 03:29 PM

AM I the only one here that thinks that any of these maps is a completely raw deal for the fishing community? I pretty much get that RED is a no fly zone- but am not up to speed what the BLUE and YELLOW are to represent.

My REpresentative Government is definitely NOT representing me!

Toad Patrol · 08-01-2009, 02:09 PM

If any of you have been to any meetings so far it's a great representation of Government-In-Action. Get me an Advil, stat!
So, I live on Pt. Dume, been fishing here 40 yrs., sorta consider it my backyard. The MLPA really covets this area, it has all the scientific geography and would be a crown on the cap of every environonmentalist kelp-hugger to get it closed. Been writing letters in our local newspaper about the MLPA flawed and fuckedup process. I'll be there with a bunch of kayak fishermen. If you get a chance to speak here's some important points to consider:

THE COST IS UNSUSTAINABLE AT THE CURRENT ESTIMATE OF 30-40 MILLION: The State is essentially bankrupt. The Department of Fish and Game admits is currently does not have the resources to manage the huge array of closures. The Game Wardens Assiciation states it cannot enforce the closures and reccomends suspending entire program. The net effect is that honest fishermen will stay out of reserves, but poachers will not.

WE AS FISHERMEN SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO PAY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF WATERS WE HAVE NO ACCESS TO. WE WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS ALONE, WE EXPECT THAT THE FUNDING MUST COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. They are the people who voted for this, they wanted this, they can PAY for this!

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO HABITAT AND FISH DECLINES:
Water Pollution
Water Temperature Changes
Resurgence of marine mammals, sea lions and sea otters
Ocean Acidification
Pollution from coastal streams
Pollution from Electrical plants and Desalination plants

THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT IS HUGE: Many Californians make their living on the sea and many more rely on the ocean for fishing recreation and these endeavors support a very large financial pyramid—lodging, boating, supplies, fuel, etc.

THE TAKE- NO-TAKE PLAN IGNORES FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR PREVENTING OVERFISHING: The array of reserves should not be a surrogate for fisheries management. If there is over-fishing, then the Department of Fish and Game is not doing its job

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO DEPLEATED OR ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES IN THE AREA: When pressed, the Department of Fish and Game could not name one fish species that was depleted.

WHY DO ENVIROMENTAL PROPOSALS FOCUS ON THE MOST PRODUCTIVE HABITATS FOR CLOSURE? The environmentalists’’ proposals focus on the most productive areas ( “A+ habitats ) for their reserves because they want the best habitat reserved for themselves. What they fail to realize is that these areas are the most productive and resilient and closing them will offer little net gain. It would be better to close some of the “B” habitat to let it become more productive—the net effect will be much greater

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT: Such successful programs such as fish propagation ( white seabass ) and artificial reefs are ignored in the process and these programs can go a long way to enhance the ocean waters off our coast.

The MLPA should have been about it's stated purpose: to protect California's marine habitat. Instead its turned into fish or no fish up and down our coast. The Enviros vs the Fishkillers. A Great Reality TV concept, but basically BS.
They don't consider or acknowledge the numerous threats to coastal habitat: storm runoff, ocean acidification, beach pollution, fat guys in speedos. They just want to kick us off the water, and once were gone it'll be the boaters and their messy motors, the surfers (they're on drugs!), the beachcombers, dripping all that sunscreen and wearing socks!
You get the drift...Show Up or Eat Shit (should I write this on my T-shirt?)
Tight Lines,
-Scott

CurtyL · 08-01-2009, 08:45 PM

has anything changed? These look like the same maps.

tylerdurden · 08-02-2009, 06:48 AM

Only 3 maps are now left, Lapis 1, Topaz, and external A.

The RSG members will be split into 3 groups, one group to work on each map. They are instructed to expand each map so that it meets the SAT guidelines. None of the maps as drawn meet the SAT guidelines. Basically the 3 maps will get worse for us. How much worse is still up for debate. They have to add to them is the bottom line they got from the BRTF.

habanero · 08-02-2009, 09:46 AM

This post on "Round 2 maps--these are the ones you need to work on" (post#11) is really good ammunition. I think It might help if this was the "Next MLPA MEETING August 3rd Public Comment!"?

06-08-2009, 12:29 PM	#2
zenspearo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 167	No, that's all I have. Do you want a zip file of the maps in large JPEG format? I don't know how to do it but I can ask one of my computer whizzes (aka my 12 or 8 YO son ) to whip it up... Joe. __________________ A spearo, but we are in this MLPA mess together

07-15-2009, 03:29 PM	#4
comrad_zeelaagee Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 51	Total BS AM I the only one here that thinks that any of these maps is a completely raw deal for the fishing community? I pretty much get that RED is a no fly zone- but am not up to speed what the BLUE and YELLOW are to represent. My REpresentative Government is definitely NOT representing me!

08-02-2009, 06:48 AM	#7
tylerdurden Bad Clone Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 874	Only 3 maps are now left, Lapis 1, Topaz, and external A. The RSG members will be split into 3 groups, one group to work on each map. They are instructed to expand each map so that it meets the SAT guidelines. None of the maps as drawn meet the SAT guidelines. Basically the 3 maps will get worse for us. How much worse is still up for debate. They have to add to them is the bottom line they got from the BRTF. __________________ MLPA, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem Let the Fish and Game Commission know what you think about the proposed maps. Be ready for December 9th and 10th.

06-08-2009, 11:39 AM	#1
Dan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,053	Joe, do you have a zip file for the internal maps in the same format? I really like this format captions and all. Thanks for posting the link up.

08-01-2009, 08:45 PM	#6
CurtyL Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: wherever the college girlz r Posts: 127	has anything changed? These look like the same maps.

08-02-2009, 09:46 AM	#8
habanero Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: SD Posts: 133	This post on "Round 2 maps--these are the ones you need to work on" (post#11) is really good ammunition. I think It might help if this was the "Next MLPA MEETING August 3rd Public Comment!"?