Originally Posted by Saba Slayer (Post 219069)

I just heard this and it seem to fit here...
"Teach your children to value the outdoor experience. Because what they don't value they won't protect and what they won't protect they will lose!

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...ker_CMYK-2.jpg

Originally Posted by jerryg (Post 219042)

One may argue that MPLAs represent only a small percent of the overall marine environment but there is a lot of truth to the old saying that 90% of the fish live in 10% of the water. It's a fact that 100% of MPLAs exist within that 10% of the water. MPLAs impact the distribution of fishing pressure that once existed. Anglers are left with fewer options the areas that remain open are receiving more angling pressure..As fishing declines in these areas due to increased pressure fishing will be blamed for over fishing the open areas which will fuel the argument that more closures are necessary.. Closures may have very well led to the decline in marine life but we will stand to lose more ground.



Thus far any significant benefit to the fisheries that exist outside of protected zones remains to be proven... Instead of enforcing a conservation initiative that restricts the rights of the people to fish public waters we should be focusing on conservation initiatives that been successfully proven. We need to protect fish when they are most vulnerable (when they are spawning). This has helped improve our WSB and rockfish fisheries. Reduce limits and impose special restrictions for fisheries that are at higher risk. No one wants to see our fish stocks rebound more than recreational anglers. The fishing community should have more say in how our fisheries are managed.

Originally Posted by bolocop (Post 219097)

Questions:
1. Which one is legal?
A. You catch a fish fair but the current takes you across the line by the time you reel up your fish.

B. You catch a fish in MLPA but peddle/paddle fish across line and reel up in fair territory.

Don't know the answer but I would think one is good ethically and one is good law-wise. Tough to explain to DFG on A if only watching at the end. Tough to explain to DFG on B if watching the entire time.

Originally Posted by Mahigeer (Post 220361)

Not so much so.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
You can actually thank Republican governor, Arnold who signed it to law.<O:p</O:p

Originally Posted by Ilikebigbutts (Post 218828)

I just wanted an educated responses on MLPA

Originally Posted by MattRabasco (Post 220377)

English.

Originally Posted by Mahigeer (Post 220361)

Not so much so.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
You can actually thank Republican governor, Arnold who signed it to law.<O:p</O:p

Originally Posted by Sir LJ (Post 220400)

The republican party would've probably not wanted Arnold to get elected because hes very liberal for a republican. Arnold got elected because he won a RECALL election and a recall election in California is basically a popularity contest.

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty (Post 220402)

I wasn't a California resident when that happened. Matter of a fact, I was in Okinawa when that happened.

Originally Posted by Sir LJ (Post 220494)

yea when California was founded they wanted to be super democratic, so when a governor is recalled anybody is allowed to run for office as long as they have enough signatures and pay the fee. There were all kinds of people running out that point such as porn stars and others that don't come to mind. Probably not one of California's brightest ideas