kayakfishermen are "tiny" wuss! Or so they say.

[zenspearo]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For PV: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!

Southern PV is loaded with DDT and PCB's, DDT is known to cause a 10% or more rise in infant deaths due to decreased lactation time in breastfeeding mothers. Low income families that have to fish to sustain themselves have no choice but to expose themselves to larger amounts of DDT than the rest of the population, and would be in a considerable health risk if map 1 or 3 closures pass which would force them into the more polluted southern PV.

The pipe, which is situated within the northern boundary of map 1 concentrates all of the pollution from Palos Verdes Estates into one outfall. The currents immediately carry this pollution directly into the closures proposed by map 3. Walk-throughs after rainfall have shown lifeless tidepools, and the polluted water that collects in a pool under the pipe after the rainfall kills 99% plants within 10 feet of it. As the Santa Monica Baykeepers have confirmed, outfall pipes contain heavy metals, specifically copper, and all marine biologists agree that copper is 100% fatal to the invertebrate microfauna that make up the base of the food chain. Every time that it rains here the base of the food chain has to start again from square one. Heavy metals and some pesticides have been shown to slow the growth rate of fish while adversely affecting their fertility rates, which with map 1 and 3 closures will lead to MPA's with smaller, more sterile fish. Map 2 contains the terranea resort, which already has wells and filtration in place for the cleanest rainwater outfall in the entire southern california area.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Point Dume: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!


Dume talking points have everything to do with access and safety. Support Prop 2 which leaves Dume Pt open and still meets SAT guidelines for habitat replication as well as the alternative. 1 and 3 strike hard at already rare public access - even consumptives deserve a sliver of opportunity. Putting the line at Little Dume will shut off locally precious access to free divers and surf casters at Westward. And finally, that last bathroom at Westward is an ideal boundary, obvious from the shore and the ocean.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Santa Barbara: need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!

Meets guidelines without imposing the immense socio-economic damage that adding Naples Reef causes


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Malibu need arguments posted here so all can use. Help!
Meets guidelines without taking additional, and necessary ocean habitat prized by all fishing groups
Mediates the economic damage to SPFVs based in the Santa Monica Bay
No need to take the ENTIRE canyon when our plan already meeds guidelines
Provides for a safe haven for divers and kayakers, behind the wind shadow of Pt. Dume

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[bellcon]

kayakfishermen are "tiny" wuss! Or so they say.

I say we arm wrestle to decide on the closures


come on guys send the emails!

[tylerdurden]

This is what was posted on spearboard. From the MLPA email list. Garth Murphy showing the other sides view of us as a pain the side that the BRTF should just swat away and close us down.

SCREW THAT.

Garth Murphy:

Scott, you are correct. And less than a handful for 1. If you look at the deletion analysis figures you will see why scientifically.

If you look at the paltry number of consumptive fishermen compared to the population of the state and the tiny percent of Coastal income they make and food they put on the tables of the state, 1/4 pound per person per year! you will see why the letters favor 3. You should write a little summary of numbers of letters for 3, or ask staff for theirs, because I am sure someone must be crunchiing these numbers for the BRTF who do not have time to read the letters.

We could present those for the BRTF.

I also noticed that the 2 favoring letters are brief, usually a paragraph or two, and the 3 favoring are often a couple of pages and have good reasons and understanding of the issues.

There is big political pull by the well organized and wealthy commercial and CPFV crews, and a vocifereous but tiny number of young divers and kayakers who carry the weight with BRTF that we have to convince them to shrug off and move forward.g


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, wrote:

I find it interesting that most of these comments, (with thousands of 'additional letters' submitted), far and away support Proposal 3. It has been this way for at least the past four or five public comment submissions from Amy. I hope the BRTF are reading these. Especially the critique on the Southwick study.

[kurt]

The tiny number of kayakers and divers have probably made up over 50% of the audience at the majority of the MLPA meetings. There's so many things wrong in Mr. Murphys e-mail, it can make your head spin.

You should write a little summary of numbers of letters for 3, or ask staff for theirs, because I am sure someone must be crunchiing these numbers for the BRTF who do not have time to read the letters.

I also noticed that the 2 favoring letters are brief, usually a paragraph or two, and the 3 favoring are often a couple of pages and have good reasons and understanding of the issues.

Maybe the BRTF doesn't have time to read the letters, because the non-consumptives are just rambling on for page after page! Actually, I know they read the letters, because I have received personal responses from BRTF members and staffmembers to some of my e-mails.

All right, you uninformed kayak fisherman. Let's write some letters. And I bet if you can make your points in a concise way, the BRTF would appreciate it!

[Matt]

As my dad always said "it isn't about the size of the dog in the fight, it's about the size of the fight in the DOG!"

NOW STAND UP AND SHOW 'EM WHAT WE ARE MADE OF!!!!!!!!