Not good ...
 

Judge rules in favor of MLPA's


www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/17/judge-preserves-marine-protected-areas/

>>>> As a Chef/Angler It is very hard for me to be happy for what the MLPA has accomplished...

I want to be happy for them for protecting our future and our favorite pastime,
but i wish they could have done it with a bit more thought to what/who makes the worse impact on our sea life.


Kayakers ...... yea right...can it get any more primitive.....????

Best of luck.....:wsb: 2012

Commissioner Rodgers finally decided to become a BWE member lol. :hello: Waiting to see how this one is going to end up. :toetap05: I don't even think popcorn is going to satisfy, this one is full blown lobster status.

and the 1% speaketh

i still dont get it....



recreational fisherman are like the bums that go around and pick up cans from the trashcan and commercial fisherman are the trash trucks that take it all to the dump.



How can picking up a few cans from the trash hurt the fishing population, when the trash trucks come pick up everything....

:puke::puke:Someone please press the delete button....

:the_finger:spam spam spam spam, spam and eggs, spam spam and eggs, spam bacon and spam.....

I dont get it, you spend time lurking on this site, you spend time creating an account, why didn't you spend a little time crafting a well written post if you wanted to stir us up?

A single line? I know you must be busy with Occupy whatever, but come on.

Leave it up! Thanks, MPA Supporter, for reminding us that you and your zombie minions are listening to and watching our every move on these boards.

[QUOTE=
A single line? I know you must be busy with Occupy whatever, but come on.[/QUOTE]


thats classic:iagree:

too funny...good pull:cheers1:

Welcome back Stan!

pass the pop:cool:corn please, extra butter and salt....:boxing_smiley:

It's so bogus the way this was done!

Really...science? You mean the 'science' that was given, and expected to be well received, even though said 'science' was flawed and not even reviewed when data was given proving otherwise, because they did not have time to review it as they were in such a hurry to cram this through disregarding 'science' proving the opposite?

Whoa...we are talking about fishing, and you bring up bugs and snails...
Didn't you guys have a so-called diver speak at one of the meetings and say that he dives the LJ reserve and that he doesn't see any fish, that being his reasoning why we should increase the size of the LJ reserve...now, he was lying, that we know. But, based on his statement, wouldn't it make sense then that, going on his word which you anti-fishers hold in such high esteem, if that truly was the case, then LJ is the last place you would want to increase a reserve since the initial reserve didn't work...:doh:

If this was truly the case, why are you targeting the little guys?

Here's a thought...now follow me on this one.

A kayaker has what is known in nautical terms as a limited load capacity. Therefore, he absolutely cannot exceed the weight maximum of his kayak without endangering themselves. Ergo, keeping 10 Yellowtail would exceed his capacity. Most of the months, he can only keep one White Sea Bass. I do not know of many yakkers that keep Sand Bass, or Calico for that matter. Even Halibut are limited. Best yet, we are fine with that, so much so in fact, we even suggested lowering the daily take of species. Of course that fell on deaf ears...
A diver, he is not gonna go and spear 10 Calicos, 10 Yellowtail (he'd be so lucky), he is lucky to get a White Sea Bass or a legal Halibut.
A surf fisherman, good luck catching a Yellowtail from shore, maybe a legal Halibut, wishful thinking catching a legal White Sea Bass.

Now, a boater, multiply those numbers by the number of anglers on board the vessel. Let's not forget the party boats, with even more anglers, and an even heavier load capacity...and don't leave out the commercial boats and their by-catch, just to present the fish filleted, wrapped in plastic, that's ok, right? If you guys are so hell bent on preserving fishery stock, why not target the ones doing the most damage to the environment and fish stock?

Prosecute the minnows while the sharks roam free, ever heard of that?

The kayaker, the diver, the surf fisher, these are the ones affected by the closures, not the private boater or the party boat, they can all go further offshore safely. Basically, with your whole MPA analogy, we should either:

A: Paddle our kayaks further offshore to eat fish, or
B: Buy a boat or hop on a party boat

You do know this was all about the Clean Water Act initially, yes?
Don't know of any kayakers, divers, surf fishers that use oil or gasoline...

Spell check, it's free. And that would be Cabo Pulmo.
Or am I not being cordial enough?

Nice...wanting a cordial argument (an oxymoron) and you start it off this way...

Using your math,
you supported closing ONLY 20 to 25% of California's waters to fishing.
To the non-fisherman or even the ignorant fisherman (you?), that may sound fair.
BUT
The areas you have supported for closure are the areas we fish.
They are the "productive" areas, so please save the condescending "We left you 75 to 80% of the surrounding waters for you to fish" line of bull for those who don't know any better.

How about if we had a couple thousand acres of dry barren land, with one river running thru it. I take the land with the river on it, (approximately only 20 to 25% of said land) and you can have the rest... (roughly 75 to 80% to be exact) enjoy!

Or
lets say you live in a nice house with an ocean view, I come along and tell you about a new environmental law limiting the amount of windows you may have in a house. In your case we will only need to board up 20 to 25% of your windows, so you should be happy.
But here is the bad part, we choose which windows to board up. and in your case it is ALL of the windows that face your precious ocean view.
But not to worry we left 75 to 80% of your windows untouched...
(They just happen to have views of an alley and your neighbors side yards...) ENJOY!



Or I could tell you how I really feel, after attending hours and hours of meetings and spending way to much of my time listening to a bunch of fuggin kooks talk nonsense to a panel of complete shit holes who had already made up their minds. Then watching all those who opposed their agenda being disrespected and cut off from any and all rational discussion.

Part of me wishes we would have went medieval on those lying, fact distorting, pieces of....Ladies and Gentlemen (Ken W. being the biggest "lady" of them all)



Thanks for being a thorn
BWE... whats next?
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...lelys/ntnw.gif

You are obviously correct in the fact that recreational fishermen do more damage than commercial fishermen. More educated posters like you would be great to have on the boards. Isn't there an "L" you're missing somewhere?

:you_rock:

:rolleyes:

We're not pissed that it's being taken from those who do the real damage, just pissed that we are lumped in with them and do not get to enjoy the sport we love in the waters we have grown to appreciate.

Wow bellcon did a great job, he put what i was thinking earlier down with great examples.:cheers1:

Wow, what total ignorance. And we should be expected to trust anything about this process? Nothing but flawed, sir.

........ Thoughts .....

Right to Fish
Submitted by juliusbragg on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 23:50
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
0
votes
I am continuing my "right to travel by automobile fight" and have added the right to fish argument. Here is my recent letter to the department of Fish and Game of California.

Hello,
Im wondering why, and how, a sports fishing license is "required" to fish in the ocean, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/fish...shdescrip.html
according to the website, when clearly one is not needed according to The Fish and Game code and the California constitution?

Please clarify.
Cal. Fish and Game code Sec. 3 http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/3.html
The "Right" to fish has long been acquired, and well established in this state. Sec 3 of the Fish and Game code says:

"...This code shall not impair any

privilege granted or right acquired..."

Cal. Fish and Game Code Sec. 7153(a) http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/7153.html
7153(a) says: (emphasis mine)

"A sport fishing license is NOT required to take fish by

any legal means, for any purpose other than profit, from a public

pier, as defined by the commission, in the ocean waters of the state,

or..."

and finally and most importantly the California constitution in Article 1, sec 25 http://law.onecle.com/california/con...icle_1/25.html

states that Fishing is a "Right".

Art. I Sec. 25:

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.

Thank you




Fuck um:the_finger:.... Ill bless and respect the current boundaries ...
but i promise you this ..... i will pull.... post .... and go to court for the fish I catch for my family and friends.......
and no.... i will not pay for a fishing License next year.... I'll double it and give it to Hubbs.....

any one now a good lawyer ....?
may be of some help .....