Laguna Beach MLPA Workshop Report - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Mr GreenJeans · 07-01-2009, 07:44 PM

Just got back from the workshop, so I thought I would put up a report. There was a pretty good crowd there, with quite a few fishermen. I saw a few familiar faces, but can't say if the kayakers were well represented, or just a few.

I stayed for over an hour and chatted up the staff and stakeholders trying to share the kayaker's perspective. Learned a few things too. Most interesting was that many of the existing "pocket reserves" are being maintained primarily because people are used to having them be there. Case in point is that most of the proposals maintain the existing LJ SMCA, even though it is too small to meet the existing MLPA guidelines. And the Lapis SMR off the LJ point is too small to meet the MLPA guidelines too. So why are these pocket reserves being maintained or newly proposed? Couldn't find an answer. So I used the comment form to ask that these pocket reserves be removed. I also dropped off my prepared remarks with more general comments.

My thanks to the DP and OC guys (and any SD guys too) that could make it to Laguna Beach.

David

FISHIONADO · 07-01-2009, 08:55 PM

I understand the only purpose of the LJ SMCA is to allow Scripps Institute to take protected fish/invertebrates in the area for research. It doesn't impact recreational fishing at all.

LakersFan · 07-01-2009, 09:04 PM

I was there and there were quite a few fisherman. Many were speaking kayak.

I asked as many questions about the process and about the information that the process is based on and learned alot but I ended up driving home with the big question mark in my head as to how any of this can possibly be enforced. Many of the areas allow some recreational take of certain fish. What happens if...well you know what I mean.

There were some DFG guys there, I wish I would have asked them what they thought.

Billy V · 07-01-2009, 09:22 PM

At last nights meeting in SD a fellow fisherman ask specifically what could be taken from the Blue Colored Reserves.

The answer he received was Spiny Lobster, and Sea Urchin.
-----------------

I was trying to get the answer to the same question from RSG members there as well, their answer to me was.

"I don't know"
---------------------
Yes, there is a problem with the Lapis 1 SMR 2 LJ Reserve.
It goes like this:

The reserve only extends 2 miles from shore, this is because the Navy has electronic gear buried in the area 2-3 miles from shore to monitor LJ Canyon, and they don't want to relocate it.

The MPA guidelines state that the reserve needs to extend 3 miles from shore, and be a minimum of 9 square miles. So they were trying to move it south, but that would require a 4 1/2 mile stretch north to south to total 9 miles. Not easy to do.

In addition to that I suspect there is yet another obstacle in their way.
The water quality was a reoccurring issue during the last SAT meeting in L.A. Scientists strongly suggested that the RSG do not locate an MPA in an area that has poor water quality.
-The Children's Pool has Terrible Water Quality, and the bacteria levels have been well documented over the years.
The dirty little secret.

tylerdurden · 07-01-2009, 09:46 PM

Billy, everyone else...
the blue colored areas all vary in what is and isn't allowed. For example the current one at Scripps allows all finfish take, but no inverts (lobster) can be taken.

Other Blue areas might ban all fishing except for commercial squid. Others might allow pelagic take only. they vary greatly. Read the details that accompany the map you are looking at to determine what the specific SMCA (blue area) explicitly allows and does not allow.

Two different maps might have a blue area in the same spot, but be totally different in what they allow to be taken. Some blue areas completely ban recreational fishing. Some leave us almost untouched.

Tman · 07-01-2009, 10:14 PM

Touching on the subject of water clarity, which this whole process is based on, a reserve cannot be implemented where there is a sewage pipe.

However, as I was told, there are varying degrees as to what constitutes a legitimate outpipe...in essence, if it is considered major or minor.

For example, I brought up the Sol Beach/Cardiff area. The Sol Beach/Cardiff area does have an outpipe, and a couple of years ago, not only was it extended, but with the help of a boat with a crane and boats with boulders (not rocks, boulders) they were dropped to lodge the pipe in place. (Quite a sight actually)

With that being said, look for areas that have sewage pipes as being areas that should be exempt, or be considered as exempt, depending if they are major outflows or minor ones...

The Marine Planners need our input, they are not local to our areas...we need to inform them on what our coastline actually looks like from an on-the-water perspective, from people who've spent time plying their local waters...

Zed · 07-02-2009, 06:34 AM

The irony.^

The Laguna Workshop was held on Aliso Creek, adjacent to Aliso Beach, one of the most polluted beaches in OC. The water reclamation/sewage treatment there has annual problems sending raw sewage right out the creek. Plus there's a golf course. Nothing against golf, just the amount of nitrates in the run-off from lawn fertilizers.

These were points made I (and at least Hook1) tried to get across as more pressing issues for Laguna.

I did get to talk to a Warden. Without getting into personal issues such as his pay, I did get a little testy on how the state can pay for the management of the MPA's. As it is now there isn't enough wardens just to enforce the current regs. And calling CalTip is nearly an exercise in futility, because there isn't enough manpower anyway. Another more pressing issue for Laguna and the State. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE BEFORE MAKING MORE! Recurring problem in history.

If there wasn't a huge contingent of kayakers there (I know there was some for sure) there was at least a lot of sportfishers there as the landings (Newport and Dana) had people there.

One of the irksome things is the damn buttons. Reserve Laguna Beach. It's trendy to alter lifestyles, ruin livelyhoods and take money directly out of the economy. Prop 8 sure had them (Laguna) in a frenzy.

Holy Mackerel · 07-02-2009, 06:33 AM

First, thanks to everyone who attended the Laguna meeting!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakersFan

I ended up driving home with the big question mark in my head as to how any of this can possibly be enforced.

I saw this quote on spearboard...

Quote:

I attended the MLPA road show in SD last night and asked the logical question of who was going to pay for the policing of the new closures. Clearly fishers were not going to fund a system that treats them like second class citizens. I was told to solve this problem there are plans in the works for private security officers employed by environmental groups to monitor/patrol/enforce the closures. These private security officers will be deputised and have full authority to enforce the MLPA rules. I don't have an offical word on this but this is what I was told.

This is a scary thought!! For everyone reading this, please see this post by Tyler.

CLICK HERE

Matt · 07-02-2009, 07:18 AM

Wasn't there just a huge stink in some far off sandy place about "contractors" and there interpretation of "law"? I also cannot imagine the zealotry that some of these "private security force personnel" may have towards there possible "offenders". Not sure what laws that may infringe upon and I am personally not finding the hiring of "guards" acceptable at all......we may want to pursue this issue or at least keep on top of it!

On the brightside I always somewhat enjoyed the idea of becoming a PIRATE!!!haha

AND I KNOW THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT.........HOW IN THE HELL IS PRIVATE FUNDING LEGITIMATELY TAKING PLACE IN A PUBLIC (meaning the state of CA.) PROCESS??????????? HOW IS IT LEGAL??? AND WHEN ARE WE AS A PRIVATE GROUP GOING TO STRIKE BACK VIA LEGAL MEANS??????? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE NOT ENTERED A LEGAL PROCESS TO GET AN INJUNCTION TO STOP WHAT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY SOME SORT OF VIOLATION UPON CITIZENS OF BOTH CA. AND THE U.S.A???? I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT COME ON THERE HAS GOT TO BE SOME LAW OR LAWS THAT THE MLPA PROCESS IS IN VIOLATION OF IN IT'S CURRENT FORM??? AND NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYING A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY??? THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAN BE LEGAL OR IS IT? IF THEY OWNED THAT SECTION OF OCEAN I COULD UNDERSTAND THEM BEING ABLE TO HIRE A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE BUT ON PUBLIC LAND/OCEAN????? WTF???

SORRY FOR THE BULLYING TACTIC ABOUT TO HAPPEN HERE......BUT WHEN, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STEP UP AND FIGHT THIS THE PROPER WAY? THIS HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED PEOPLE IT IS TIME TO STEP UP AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS LEGALLY OURS AND WITHIN OUR OWN RIGHTS TO PROTECT!!! AND NO I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANY VIOLENCE, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND LEGALLY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE REPRESENTED PROPERLY TO PROTECT WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS, TO ME THIS SEEMS VERY SIMILAR TO CHURCH AND STATE BEING SEPERATED, THE CONSERVATION GROUPS ARE CLEARLY, CLEARLY INFLUENCING THEIR OWN AGENDA UPON PUBLILC DOMAIN AND THE PEOPLE SETTING THE MPA'S NEED TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND COME UP WITH A FAIR AND HONEST PROCESS IN ORDER FOR THIS ALL TO BE VALID. BUT THIS IS VERY CLEARLY SOMEONE'S PRIVATE AGENDA THAT IS MEANT TO STOP FISHING BECAUSE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP CLEARLY BELIEVES IT IS IMMORAL OR WRONG, HENCE THE CHURCH AND STATE REFERENCE. IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SAME VALUES IS CLEARLY A STEP TOWARDS A VIOLATION IN CIVIL RIGHTS.

T-Rex · 07-02-2009, 07:37 AM

I was a little surprised but should have expected the underlying bias at last night's meeting. When checking in at the first information table, it was politely explained to me that "the first four proposals (Lapis 1, Lapis 2, Opal & Topaz) were developed by a coalition of concerned stakeholders including recreational & commercial fishermen, kayakers, divers and others concerned with protecting the environment. And the last two proposals (External A & External B) were developed by outside organizations based on their own vested interest."

It seemed like there was a good turnout by fishermen and spearos since Externals A & B were getting the most attention. Both reps did a great job in explaining their proposals.

07-01-2009, 07:44 PM	#1
Mr GreenJeans Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: The OC Posts: 58	Laguna Beach MLPA Workshop Report Just got back from the workshop, so I thought I would put up a report. There was a pretty good crowd there, with quite a few fishermen. I saw a few familiar faces, but can't say if the kayakers were well represented, or just a few. I stayed for over an hour and chatted up the staff and stakeholders trying to share the kayaker's perspective. Learned a few things too. Most interesting was that many of the existing "pocket reserves" are being maintained primarily because people are used to having them be there. Case in point is that most of the proposals maintain the existing LJ SMCA, even though it is too small to meet the existing MLPA guidelines. And the Lapis SMR off the LJ point is too small to meet the MLPA guidelines too. So why are these pocket reserves being maintained or newly proposed? Couldn't find an answer. So I used the comment form to ask that these pocket reserves be removed. I also dropped off my prepared remarks with more general comments. My thanks to the DP and OC guys (and any SD guys too) that could make it to Laguna Beach. David

07-01-2009, 09:22 PM	#4
Billy V Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bay Ho Posts: 1,382	At last nights meeting in SD a fellow fisherman ask specifically what could be taken from the Blue Colored Reserves. The answer he received was Spiny Lobster, and Sea Urchin. ----------------- I was trying to get the answer to the same question from RSG members there as well, their answer to me was. "I don't know" --------------------- Yes, there is a problem with the Lapis 1 SMR 2 LJ Reserve. It goes like this: The reserve only extends 2 miles from shore, this is because the Navy has electronic gear buried in the area 2-3 miles from shore to monitor LJ Canyon, and they don't want to relocate it. The MPA guidelines state that the reserve needs to extend 3 miles from shore, and be a minimum of 9 square miles. So they were trying to move it south, but that would require a 4 1/2 mile stretch north to south to total 9 miles. Not easy to do. In addition to that I suspect there is yet another obstacle in their way. The water quality was a reoccurring issue during the last SAT meeting in L.A. Scientists strongly suggested that the RSG do not locate an MPA in an area that has poor water quality. -The Children's Pool has Terrible Water Quality, and the bacteria levels have been well documented over the years. The dirty little secret. Last edited by Billy V; 07-01-2009 at 11:38 PM.

07-01-2009, 09:46 PM	#5
tylerdurden Bad Clone Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 874	Billy, everyone else... the blue colored areas all vary in what is and isn't allowed. For example the current one at Scripps allows all finfish take, but no inverts (lobster) can be taken. Other Blue areas might ban all fishing except for commercial squid. Others might allow pelagic take only. they vary greatly. Read the details that accompany the map you are looking at to determine what the specific SMCA (blue area) explicitly allows and does not allow. Two different maps might have a blue area in the same spot, but be totally different in what they allow to be taken. Some blue areas completely ban recreational fishing. Some leave us almost untouched. __________________ 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.

07-01-2009, 10:14 PM	#6
Tman BRTF...bought & paid... Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,247	Touching on the subject of water clarity, which this whole process is based on, a reserve cannot be implemented where there is a sewage pipe. However, as I was told, there are varying degrees as to what constitutes a legitimate outpipe...in essence, if it is considered major or minor. For example, I brought up the Sol Beach/Cardiff area. The Sol Beach/Cardiff area does have an outpipe, and a couple of years ago, not only was it extended, but with the help of a boat with a crane and boats with boulders (not rocks, boulders) they were dropped to lodge the pipe in place. (Quite a sight actually) With that being said, look for areas that have sewage pipes as being areas that should be exempt, or be considered as exempt, depending if they are major outflows or minor ones... The Marine Planners need our input, they are not local to our areas...we need to inform them on what our coastline actually looks like from an on-the-water perspective, from people who've spent time plying their local waters... __________________ Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher

07-02-2009, 06:34 AM	#7
Zed BANNED Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: W of 5 Posts: 1,265	The irony.^ The Laguna Workshop was held on Aliso Creek, adjacent to Aliso Beach, one of the most polluted beaches in OC. The water reclamation/sewage treatment there has annual problems sending raw sewage right out the creek. Plus there's a golf course. Nothing against golf, just the amount of nitrates in the run-off from lawn fertilizers. These were points made I (and at least Hook1) tried to get across as more pressing issues for Laguna. I did get to talk to a Warden. Without getting into personal issues such as his pay, I did get a little testy on how the state can pay for the management of the MPA's. As it is now there isn't enough wardens just to enforce the current regs. And calling CalTip is nearly an exercise in futility, because there isn't enough manpower anyway. Another more pressing issue for Laguna and the State. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE BEFORE MAKING MORE! Recurring problem in history. If there wasn't a huge contingent of kayakers there (I know there was some for sure) there was at least a lot of sportfishers there as the landings (Newport and Dana) had people there. One of the irksome things is the damn buttons. Reserve Laguna Beach. It's trendy to alter lifestyles, ruin livelyhoods and take money directly out of the economy. Prop 8 sure had them (Laguna) in a frenzy. __________________ Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man and he'll eat for a week.

07-01-2009, 08:55 PM	#2
FISHIONADO Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 698	I understand the only purpose of the LJ SMCA is to allow Scripps Institute to take protected fish/invertebrates in the area for research. It doesn't impact recreational fishing at all.

07-01-2009, 09:04 PM	#3
LakersFan Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Socal Posts: 92	I was there and there were quite a few fisherman. Many were speaking kayak. I asked as many questions about the process and about the information that the process is based on and learned alot but I ended up driving home with the big question mark in my head as to how any of this can possibly be enforced. Many of the areas allow some recreational take of certain fish. What happens if...well you know what I mean. There were some DFG guys there, I wish I would have asked them what they thought.

07-02-2009, 07:18 AM	#9
Matt Support your local pangas Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lj Posts: 976	Wasn't there just a huge stink in some far off sandy place about "contractors" and there interpretation of "law"? I also cannot imagine the zealotry that some of these "private security force personnel" may have towards there possible "offenders". Not sure what laws that may infringe upon and I am personally not finding the hiring of "guards" acceptable at all......we may want to pursue this issue or at least keep on top of it! On the brightside I always somewhat enjoyed the idea of becoming a PIRATE!!!haha AND I KNOW THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT.........HOW IN THE HELL IS PRIVATE FUNDING LEGITIMATELY TAKING PLACE IN A PUBLIC (meaning the state of CA.) PROCESS??????????? HOW IS IT LEGAL??? AND WHEN ARE WE AS A PRIVATE GROUP GOING TO STRIKE BACK VIA LEGAL MEANS??????? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE NOT ENTERED A LEGAL PROCESS TO GET AN INJUNCTION TO STOP WHAT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY SOME SORT OF VIOLATION UPON CITIZENS OF BOTH CA. AND THE U.S.A???? I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT COME ON THERE HAS GOT TO BE SOME LAW OR LAWS THAT THE MLPA PROCESS IS IN VIOLATION OF IN IT'S CURRENT FORM??? AND NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYING A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY??? THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAN BE LEGAL OR IS IT? IF THEY OWNED THAT SECTION OF OCEAN I COULD UNDERSTAND THEM BEING ABLE TO HIRE A PRIVATE POLICE FORCE BUT ON PUBLIC LAND/OCEAN????? WTF??? SORRY FOR THE BULLYING TACTIC ABOUT TO HAPPEN HERE......BUT WHEN, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STEP UP AND FIGHT THIS THE PROPER WAY? THIS HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED PEOPLE IT IS TIME TO STEP UP AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS LEGALLY OURS AND WITHIN OUR OWN RIGHTS TO PROTECT!!! AND NO I AM NOT ENCOURAGING ANY VIOLENCE, BUT WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND LEGALLY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE REPRESENTED PROPERLY TO PROTECT WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS, TO ME THIS SEEMS VERY SIMILAR TO CHURCH AND STATE BEING SEPERATED, THE CONSERVATION GROUPS ARE CLEARLY, CLEARLY INFLUENCING THEIR OWN AGENDA UPON PUBLILC DOMAIN AND THE PEOPLE SETTING THE MPA'S NEED TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND COME UP WITH A FAIR AND HONEST PROCESS IN ORDER FOR THIS ALL TO BE VALID. BUT THIS IS VERY CLEARLY SOMEONE'S PRIVATE AGENDA THAT IS MEANT TO STOP FISHING BECAUSE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP CLEARLY BELIEVES IT IS IMMORAL OR WRONG, HENCE THE CHURCH AND STATE REFERENCE. IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SAME VALUES IS CLEARLY A STEP TOWARDS A VIOLATION IN CIVIL RIGHTS. __________________ Thanks Matt F. Last edited by Matt; 07-02-2009 at 07:38 AM.

07-02-2009, 07:37 AM	#10
T-Rex Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Rancho Santa Margarita Posts: 770	I was a little surprised but should have expected the underlying bias at last night's meeting. When checking in at the first information table, it was politely explained to me that "the first four proposals (Lapis 1, Lapis 2, Opal & Topaz) were developed by a coalition of concerned stakeholders including recreational & commercial fishermen, kayakers, divers and others concerned with protecting the environment. And the last two proposals (External A & External B) were developed by outside organizations based on their own vested interest." It seemed like there was a good turnout by fishermen and spearos since Externals A & B were getting the most attention. Both reps did a great job in explaining their proposals. Last edited by T-Rex; 07-02-2009 at 01:33 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode