A Disappearing Ocean
 

I've taken lumps for fishing hard and earning my catch...in a kayak...on the ocean...often at night. I've recently lost some good friends over this. I am glad their stripes showed as hypocrites that they are.

This article hit home. Written by CCA's President, Patrick Murray. This guy nailed it. It's why I've recently renewed my membership for 3 years. I hope most will never keep the kayak fisherman down, ESPECIALLY OTHER KAYAKERS. We volunteer...we donate...we can't go very far, lol...we get abused by boaters (and sometimes shot at). Us kayakers are not the problem. Please give it a read and support this association if you can. Jim Kelley

CCA- Coastal Conservation Association California

Because most of the public still loves to eat fish/sushi but does not want to see how they are "harvested"... Commercial guys unlike anglers don't videotape and take pictures of dead fish... Thus the hypocrisy...

And halibut are more endangered than WSB based on my many years of scientific research while kayaking [emoji4]

Wow, that was eye opening .. Thanks for the lil education ..

They must be because I haven't caught shit!!

CCA CAL
 

If you were a CCA CAL member you would get a copy of our Tide magazine every quarter and the last one had this article written by our CCA president Pat Murray in it.
The LA Chapter has a fundraiser on May 21st.
Please come and support the CCA CAL...we need the memberships and the Cash...!
Here is a copy of the flyer for the event...

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...L_LA_Flyer.jpg

Limited Resources
 

This article hits the nail on the head. I am all for setting aside areas for conservation, just as we set aside wildlife refuges where no hunting is allowed. But we do have some wildlife refuges that DO allow hunting. Do you know why?? Because the people in charge of managing them have studies and research that back up the fact that recreational hunting for certain species has no measurable negative effect on the refuge ecosytem, and that increased use by hunters can raise awareness to save other places, and provide needed funds to manage the refuge.
As a scientist it boggles my mind that you would close a place to recreational fishing indefinitely. Sure i understand that certain areas that are particularly special should be protected, but there should be a management PLAN, NOT a management REACTION. If you don't fund the study to see what you are doing actually has merit, then the fact that you preserved the area in the first place becomes purely superficial and not scientific. If after 5 years being closed some one could say that there has been a 15% increase in WSB fingerlings, and a 25% increase in lobster etc. But just to say it's closed and we cant fund any research is a total cop out. Its the political equivalent to " Because I said so!"

Give me some solid research that says that recreational fisherman have had an overall negative impact on our fisheries and I will show a place that has massive commercial over fishing.

For example Drift nets targeting swordfish and thresher sharks throw away 66% of their catch (in pounds) as bycatch. That would be equal to you catching/ killing/ throwing back two 30lb halibut when you keep one 30lb white sea bass. No recreational fisherman in his/her right mind would do that, yet the commercial industry in the US wastes over 2 BILLION pounds of fish every year...

We as recreational fisherman are the best conservationist, and advocates. Make your voices heard, join CCA, call your congressional representatives and your senators.

Thanks Jim and Bernie, I finally made the time to join CCA Cal. Baja is nice BUT SoCal is home!!! Thanks for getting me motivated to join.

Jim...:cheers1:

$2.5 mil
 

"But just to say it's closed and we cant fund any research is a total cop out. Its the political equivalent to " Because I said so!"

At the last F & G Commission meeting, President Sklar announced that the Department had 2.5 million dollars to monitor the MPA's.
Even with the money to check the results after 10 years...I really doubt that any of the now closed MPA's will ever be reopened to fishing....when you hear President Sklar say "I consider them permanent conservation areas"...well, that seems to me, to be the last nail in the coffin for these closed areas...

"I am all for setting aside areas for conservation, just as we set aside wildlife refuges where no hunting is allowed."

Be Careful What You Wish For...!
It all sounds so good... but the devil is in how you pick the areas and how big they will be...oh yea...that sounds like the MLPA process we went through...!!!
The ENGO's have the money to affect the final outcome and we have squat...!
Not to mention the apathy that effects the So. Cal Fishermen...unless there is a fire under their butts they are mostly asleep...Sad but True! Or fighting among themselves over stupid issues...:boxing_smiley:

Taking more than you can consume is up to you. But don't be butt hurt if others don't agree with your point of view. Recreational fishermen take 2% ? That is incorrect. Sportboats fall under recreational fishing, as do PB and spear fishermen. It all adds up.

Thanks for keeping us in the loop Jim. To be honest, I firmly believe our remedy to the MPA is to exercise our constitutional rights, and start with our own complaints in the courts via the U.S. Code. You can operate legally, or LAWFULLY, there's a difference. Once enough of us sue the DFG, you won't hear crap like " I consider them permanently closed" anymore. Looks like I might have to be the first to test the system and put them in place. Next thought, has anyone filed a FOIA request for there books to see why they didn't conduct the research before? To close something off and reneg on doing the research due to lack of funds sounds like grounds for a class action to me. Any thoughts??

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

see above in bold

Joined at Fred Hall...:cheers1:

Submit a public records request for any and all meeting notes, agendas, ect. Its amazing what they will have to give up including all emails. Its all public information. You can even ask them to search emails with key words like OMG, MPA ect...

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/General-...cords-Requests

Yes the 2B number is for all US fisheries, and I agree that US fisheries are actually among the best at reducing bycatch, which is really scary. All my statistics we quoted from a report published by Oceana

The pure and simple fact is that people love seafood and the loss of US commercial fishing jobs, probably has less to do with the regulations and more to do with imported fish. How can an Alaskan salmon fisherman utilizing sustainable methods compete with a farmed salmon from Norway that go for $9/lb, he cant all he can do is charge a premium price for line caught, wild pacific salmon $25+/lb. Same with the shrimpers in the Atlantic, no way they can compete with farmed shrimp produced by slave labor in SE Asia.

You are absolutely right that we need to support our local fish mongers!!! But just because we buy something from a local supplier doesnt mean that it is local, another study from Oceana shows that here in Southern California over 52%!!!! of our fish is mislabled or misleading. So it pays to work with a trusted source and do your homework. Better yet catch it yourself, that way you know where it comes from !!!!

Oceana is laughed at by fisheries scientists and discredited all the time! Below is an Example of Oceana not listening to the facts and being completely ignorant:

http://cfooduw.org/california-sardin...aming-fishing/

California Sardine Numbers are Low – Why is Oceana Blaming Fishing?
Posted on March 7, 2016
Last week Dr. Geoff Shester, California campaign director for the nonprofit advocacy group Oceana criticized the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the persistence of low numbers of California Sardines. The lack of a population recovery may cause the commercial moratorium to last until 2017.

The author explained this sardine population decline as being 93 percent less than it was in 2007. Dr. Shester does not believe this is because of environmental causes like climate change, El Nino, or natural fluctuations in forage fish species however – instead he blames the management body. “They warned of a population collapse and the fishery management body basically turned a blind eye and continued moving forward with business as usual.”

Shester also cited recent sea lion deaths, specifically 3,000 that washed ashore in California in 2015.

“When fishing pressure occurs during a decline, which is exactly what happened here,” said Dr. Shester. “It puts the stock at such dramatically low levels it impedes any recovery potentially for decades.”

Comment by Ray Hilborn, University of Washington, @hilbornr

Dr. Shester’s comments are some of the most dishonest commentary I have seen in the fisheries world.

He knows that the NOAA Scientists and Prof Tim Essington, in work funded by the Pew Foundation, have stated clearly that the decline in sardine abundance is due to natural causes. He also knows that sea lions are not dependent upon sardines; the die off of sea lions is caused by the oceanographic conditions – not the result of fishing. In fact, reproductive failures of sea lions have occurred repeatedly in the past at times of high sardine abundance.

If he has read Dr. Essington’s paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences he would also know that there is no relationship between fishing and the duration of periods of low abundance of sardines and other forage fish.

The harvest rule for sardines is highly precautionary, even when sardines are at high abundance the harvest rate is low. Indeed the harvest control rule for sardines matches very well the recommended harvest rule for forage fish that emerged from the LENFEST report – that is a low target harvest rate at high abundance with the fishery closed when the stock reaches low abundance.

Members of the Science and Statistics Committee of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council have explained all this to Dr. Shester before – he simply continues to ignore science and pursue his own agenda.

Ray Hilborn is a Professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington.

Oceana is laughed at by fisheries scientists and discredited all the time! Below is an Example of Oceana not listening to the facts and being completely ignorant:

I realize that Oceana is an advocacy group much the same that Sierra Club is. As an ecologist I understand that they are pushing an agenda, and there are always going to be opposing view points to every issue, with very smart and respected people on both sides. The trick is to understand that sometimes its not quite as black and white as these view points make it seem... Are sardine stocks subject to natural fluctuations? Absolutely!! Are sardine stocks affected by overfishing? Absolutely !! The truth is that it is most likely a multi-factorial issue, more of a grey area... As a scientist I find my self in this grey area frequently and i also understand that everyone has an agenda, whether is to be to open all areas to recreational fishing, or to stop all fishing. There is a middle ground that can be reached and its only through pushing an agenda that you have any room for compromise and cooperation. Sadly it seems that more and more the agenda that gets pushed is the one with the $$$ dollar signs behind it.

There you go siting actual science again. Shoot, with the way people talk on this site about how they want to kill sea lions, you'd think they would be all for the gill nets...

http://www.marinephotobank.org/image...mpbell_000.jpg