[PAL]

A scattershot of comments:

Don't think for a minute that the pro-closure forces won't be comming for La Jolla - and comming hard. Along with identifying our "holy sites", we also need to start thinking about areas we'd be willing to give up - as this appears to be a necessary part of the equation.

LJ and plenty of other key kayak fishing areas. As far as identifying closure areas, in a sense that's what the launch sites project is about. The areas we don't use - from our point of view, great places to put the mandated reserves - will be obvious.

Not sure whether they would consider it or even understand it, but it could be argued that the distance from the (relatively) “shielded” kayak beach launch is something they should be sensitive of... I’m not a lawyer, but I would think you could make a case that we’re being discriminated against?! I don’t know, but playing the discrimination card seems to work in arguing rights discussions.

At times the process has been quite rational. Even in CenCal where kayakers had no stakeholder representation, the network proposals were tweaked in recognition of our short range and limited sheltered access points. The argument still holds force - you bet we'll wield it.

Some things have changed since Brian (Useful Idiot) followed the Channel Islands reserve process. The MLPA is a separate beast, but what he said about the effectiveness of negative public comment remains mostly true. Stakeholders have influence and a vote in the outcome. Public speakers, not so much.

Unfortunately the effectiveness of personal lobbying via meetings with DFG staff has been reduced due to changes in the process. We'll still talk with everyone we can get to listen, including the Fish and Game Commissioners.

It can't be said too many times - we will not carry water for commercial or even other recreational fishing interests at our own expense - we're here to look out for our interests first.

Brian, thanks for the offer of help. Gratefully accepted.

We should organize some sort of kayak rally to draw attention to our special needs and increase our chances at getting a seat at the table. If we could get 100 or so of us out there, maybe line up at the reserve edge or paddle up and down the shores in formation with banners saying "Save LJ" or whatnot, and get some local press coverage it might go a long way to reinforcing our points.

Actually, we've been doing it for years via our tournaments, which I've documented in the sportfishing press since 2005. We can convincingly demonstrate kayak fishing's high participation levels and its relative importance. As far as mainstream press goes, we must carefully avoid negative impressions and focus on the positive.

True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts.

UASC continues to work on it. Other sportfishing interests are fighting reduced limits. It takes a long time to change old habits.

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.

Grego, consider yourself hired. Local municipalities will influence the shape of MPAs to come. We need your expertise. Thanks and welcome to the team.

FYI - other people with specialized knowledge are welcome to assist in our stakeholder efforts. We're all in this together, and because the MPAs will be spaced no more than 20 miles apart, no stretch of SoCal coastline will be immune.

And finally, please consider that our opponents are watching everything we do, and practice discretion in your postings. Image IS reality for the MLPA decision makers.