Bend over and grab your ankles...

[chris138]

Originally Posted by GregAndrew

Chris, MPAs have nothing to do with YT and WSB fishing catches over the last several years (nor were they ever designed to). 3 years of good Squid spawns followed by a couple of warm water years (even in winter) have brought and kept more YT year round. Are your trying to claim that there has been 8 years of great fishing? I can tell you that in 2010, all of the participants of the WCW were unable to submit just a single fish per month. Whether you call it El Nino or the Blob, it is warm water that has enabled the great wintertime YT fishing the last 2 years.

I would agree that MPAs can be a great thing in the right area, at the right time and instituted correctly. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the MLPA process in Ca. They did not even follow the basic guidlines set forth by the MPA Handbook. The biggest irony of the process was that they were saying there would be "spillover" outside to the MPAs while the design of the size of the MPAs was to prevent the resident fish from roaming outside. Some might argue that the eggs are the spillover, but that holds little water. The tiny critters that hatch from the eggs (if they survive that long) will be greeted by millions of hungry predators with little to nowhere to hide (the MPAs encompass most kelp and structure around them).

Greg I want you to know that I respect you and your defense of this point. You have always been a positive influence in this community. But there are very few individuals on BWE who can legitimately claim to know the slightest thing about the life-cycle of pelagic fish. There are some genetic data to support the "homegaurd hypothesis". If it is true that YT are resident in the LJ area and spend a significant part of their lives in the waters surrounding the MPA, how can you claim that protecting that area has NO effect on YT population? Scientific evidence goes both ways, but you can't develop an effective policy based off a null hypothesis.

2010 was an epic squid bite year for many. Just not at any of the nests WCW participants were fishing I guess. My point is not that a specific MPA protects or doesn't protect a certain species or zone. Clearly that conversation should be dictated purely by science, of which there is little. The question is, do something or do nothing? Personally, after watching the kooks in la jolla my entire life, I would not trust the future of our fishery to their judgement. Certainly not to their scientific appraisal of the effectiveness of conservation measures.

My point is this: why are the people with the most to gain from conservation, so adamantly against it? We kayak fishers could have a very real contribution to make towards preserving our natural resource. Whether its tagging fish, taking samples, collecting data, submitting heads, volunteering at Hubbs etc. Some of us do this, yet many firmly place themselves "across the table" (as the OP put it) from scientists and policy makers; basically ensuring that our concerns are completely ignored?

[jorluivil]

[ful-rac]

[GregAndrew]

Chris, I will concede that there may be "Homeguard" YT, but to assert that an MPA is a benefit to them is a stretch. What is the intent of the MPAs? It is to grow more and bigger predators for the most part. What are these fish going to eat? More and bigger are going to tax the local bait population. How will that help the YT population that dine on the same bait? The YT, even if "Homeguard", are not going to be protected from fishermen in the MPAs because they are pelagic. Even the Homeguards are going to swim in and out of them all day long. Their bodies are not designed to sit still like many other fish.

Your claim was that there had been 8 years of great year round fishing that people had been gluttons for. I simply stated that there were some pretty good fishermen (like Jasmin) that went at least 1 month during the year 2010 where they could not catch 1 qualifying fish of 3 species. I agree that we need to do something, but doing something wrong or arguing that something done wrong is better than nothing is not right. I also would not trust the future of the environment to many of the people that believe "if it is legal I am taking it". Nor do I trust the people that say "since we don't know the health of the population, we have to have no season".

The reason most fishermen are against the "conservation" idea is the result of the bad taste left in their mouths from the actions of "Conservationists". I don't believe that most fishermen are against science, just the bought and paid for science. Now all the decisions seem to be made by research from groups that would not let you fish, or the lawsuits they threaten. The state cannot afford to do any meaningful science and will have no data for our MPAs probably in the rest of my lifetime.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone that would be against fishing in more productive waters. But we have become a "me first" society, and most people don't stop to ask the question "would it be ok if everyone took what I take?". Gaffing fish can be addicting, and it can be hard to break the habit. And there are tons of excuses like "all my friends/family are asking for some". The more you give them, the more they will want (remember "Me first"?). Great fishing, for great tasting fish, is a prize that should not be squandered or given away loosely.

[Tman]

Gee, who didn't see this coming?

We knew all along they'd pull this bullshit. For everyone that attended the so called 'discussions', we read through their bullshit. At the first MLPA meeting for San Diego, held in way north in Santa Barbara, it was obvious what their intentions were. Hold it where nobody would attend, too far of a drive. But show up we did, shocked the phook out of them.
Planned?
No way they would do that.

At that meeting, I was told by an insider that we were about to be RR'd.

And we were.

Nothing new. For those who attended the meetings, we saw through their bullshit tactics and got our voice time revoked at every chance.

Phook them and Ken Wusssman and his patronizing comments, sure he got paid well.

[2-Stix]

Originally Posted by Tman

Gee, who didn't see this coming?

We knew all along they'd pull this bullshit. For everyone that attended the so called 'discussions', we read through their bullshit. At the first MLPA meeting for San Diego, held in way north in Santa Barbara, it was obvious what their intentions were. Hold it where nobody would attend, too far of a drive. But show up we did, shocked the phook out of them.
Planned?
No way they would do that.

At that meeting, I was told by an insider that we were about to be RR'd.

And we were.

Nothing new. For those who attended the meetings, we saw through their bullshit tactics and got our voice time revoked at every chance.

Phook them and Ken Wusssman and his patronizing comments, sure he got paid well.

This has been my exact experience with off roading. Meetings held 300 miles away, times and dates subject to change, and they do, RR'd in the meetings. The process is crap. The outcome has been determined prior to public opinion in the open form meetings. Its just the steps that need to happen so they can get what they want. Its crap. If you want to be a tree hugger, you wont be a fish hugger eventually. Most sports are threatened by closing us out from recreation.

[Saba Slayer]

Chris138 said..."firmly place themselves "across the table" (as the OP put it) from scientists and policy makers."
I think you have a misunderstanding about who sits at the stakeholders table...I've sat AT the table and worked with scientists and policy makers and I've placed myself FIRMLY ACROSS the table from the extreme enviros that would like to shut down your consumptive fishing adventures, regardless of weather you're taking, 1 fish or 10 fish on each trip or releasing all your fish...they just don't want you fishing.
Please tell me you are speaking from past experience of dealing with the MPA's or some other significant fishing advocacy...if not then perhaps you should attend a few meeting and get a taste of what goes on beyond the keyboard.
There is nothing wrong with underwater "national parks" to preserve natural areas...the problem is how we establish them and what science is used. So far the establishment of the MPA's hasn't proved to be a very fair or science oriented affair...it would be better described as a political affair! The amount of back room dealing was mind blowing!
If the state could not afford to manage and observe the MPA's, then the state should never have made them, or limited them to areas they can afford to manage and enforce.
Lastly...you obviously have no idea what the OP does...perhaps you should get your facts in order before calling some folks out!!!

"...We kayak fishers could have a very real contribution to make towards preserving our natural resource. Whether its tagging fish, taking samples, collecting data, submitting heads, volunteering at Hubbs etc. Some of us do this, yet many firmly place themselves "across the table" (as the OP put it) from scientists and policy makers; basically ensuring that our concerns are completely ignored?"

[cabojohn]

Some of the comments here suck big green donkey dicks.
Fuck the MLPA's and the clowns who support them.
Whatever...I helped fight the good fight and did my part.

Here we go again. Pffftttt

(sorry to rant & rage in your thread Jim)